Changes in Transportation Methodologies Associated with the Contemporary Movement of Goods - Essay Example

 Freight Transport Management CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………… 4 A NEW MODAL SHIFT…………………………………………………………….. 4 OUTSOURCING POTENTIAL DELIVERIES TO 3PL…………………………..... 9 CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY AND PRACTICE……… 14 TOWARD A CARBON NEUTRAL COMPANY…………………………………… 16 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 18 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….. 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Different modes of transportation have provided Company X with an opportunity to reassess their current methodology of moving materials within the EU, the United Kingdom and Malaysia. As a focus toward sustainability, the firm has requested a report which evaluates the practicality and potential pros and cons of modal shift and the outsourcing of operations. Utilising a wide variety of professional viewpoints which identify contemporary trends in transportation, a series of recommendations regarding these Company X objectives are identified in order to provide the firm with new considerations in the event that radical changes to its current transportation framework are required. In addition, trends in the current transportation industry are highlighted so as to illustrate several advantages to Company X in relation to the consideration of third-party contract negotiations and customer support. Fast Moving Consumer Goods Manufacturer Report: Client Shifts in Transportation Initiatives Introduction Due to increasing concerns over sustainability in relation to current transportation policies and initiatives, this business report will identify several advantages and disadvantages associated with modal shift, outsourcing various transportation operations and will identify various changes in transportation methodologies associated with the contemporary movement of goods. Company X is further looking toward becoming carbon neutral in the next 10 years; hence this report will identify opportunities to achieve this goal whilst determining how to best incorporate all strategic objectives into a new transportation framework. The current method of moving manufactured goods via land-based freight is mostly kept in-house with only a minimum usage of external transportation agencies. However, it would appear that the current trend in cost reduction and the elimination of excess overhead illustrates that many companies are considering third-party logistic services to meet these financial objectives. This report will additionally highlight why these outsourcing initiatives have been proven to be beneficial to various companies looking to move materials and control the transportation budget. A new modal shift Because the majority of Company X products are produced within regions of the EU in which land-based transport eliminates the necessity for moving products via water or airway freight, there would be significant disadvantages to changing the current method of moving goods via land transport. Further, as the majority of land-based transport is performed by an in-house fleet of trucks, changing the current system of delivery to distribution centres would remove a considerable portion of flexibility in relation to maintaining absolute control over the tangible movement of product currently experienced by Company X. Leach (2007) identifies that maintaining an in-house fleet of trucking operations allows the firm to coordinate its in-house production activities with its own dedicated fleet so as to draw on personal expertise regarding the tangible characteristics of in-house manufactured products1. This, in turn, denies the opportunity for inefficient or unstable third-party transport agencies (from a management perspective) from causing delays in the anticipated timeline for delivery due to an internal inability to meet customer demands or delivery expectations. Chain Store Age (1996) offers that in the pursuit of identifying new methods of transportation2, when shifting away from in-house dedicated fleets, time of delivery is of critical importance. It is a likely assessment that when seeking alternative transport, from any transportation variety, being able to maintain a certain level of autonomy in relation to managing and coordinating the physical movement is a paramount necessity. For instance, railway services, as a proposed modal shift, can provide efficient services at a reasonably low cost (Morris, 2001)3. Utilising the in-house fleet to move materials from the EU locations to a railway loading centre would most assuredly reduce the costs of elongated land-based transport, perhaps even under a contractual agreement with the railway company which demands the offloading of materials by railway staff members; another considerable labour-intensive activity. However, when the materials are loaded onto the railway, without maintaining additional labour-intensive communication practices with the railway entity (i.e. follow-up telephone calls or satellite tracking) Company X could feasibly lose the majority of their ability to coordinate delivery timeline in the event of shifts in customer offloading capabilities or sudden, spontaneous changes to the delivery timeline. In essence, in the event that a potential facility is facing a labour shortage or is otherwise unable to accept transport, the railway cannot simply be turned around. This could potentially provide the company with considerable costs associated with fees for storage by the railway agency or promote Company X to be forced to send its in-house (or third party) fleet to pick up the material and move it from the railway agency due to changes in offloading capabilities at the distribution centres. DuPont company, a large multi-national chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturer, has experienced considerable scenarios much like the aforementioned where customer delivery timelines had shifted during railway transport, costing the company thousands of dollars above and beyond what a fully-in-house coordinated effort could provide4 (Davis & Blackstone, 1999). Depending on the nature of how Company X elicits salary payments to the land-based fleet driver, calling the operator with a short delay would be a much more value-added experience on the company’s budget in relation to having to coordinate a complicated effort with multiple entities in the pursuit of delaying a railway transport initiative. Having identified the aforementioned hypothetical scenarios regarding coordination and management of in-house product movement, it is important to concretely solidify that a modal shift away from trucking transportation can encounter any variety of delivery delays or service abilities with the end location and considerably increase total costs of delivery. This could also be applied to changing transport for EU products to a water transport system, which generally consists of multiple customers’ materials in a singular shipment, which will not be returned in the event of delivery5 timeframe changes at the point of drop-off (Vagra, 2000). Depending on the port of delivery and its capabilities for maintaining long-term storage of delayed materials, costs of storage and delay may far exceed the intended cost savings of using these modes of transportation over the in-house fleet. However, at the same time, performing a modal shift could also provide Company X with lowered budget issues in terms of cost-reduction in relation to maintaining a wide variety of trucks from a maintenance, fuel consumption, and human resources perspective. Leach (2007) again identifies that part of the operational control process in ensuring a quality delivery would allow Company X to regulate the skills and capabilities of the drivers who will handle the land-based freight option6, ensuring autonomy in virtually every respect of transportation. Of course, this is a significant advantage in the process of moving materials. However, absorbing the costs of frequent maintenance and the high-price of fuel can be largely eliminated by seeking more efficient transportation options that incorporate these costs (on a broader whole) to all of the customers who are involved in a singular water or railway delivery system. In essence, rather than absorbing these operational costs as part of the daily movement of materials, a small surcharge to cover these costs would be theoretically worked into the service delivery agreement by other transport entities to avoid disruption to increased Company X profitability. In addition, the current system of moving materials in the EU via land-based in-house service fleets forces the company to remain compliant with all regulatory mandates regarding the efficient and safe transportation of chemicals across the EU, such as legalities involving maximum tonnage and the handling of potentially hazardous materials. Shifting a larger portion of goods via water transport would completely eliminate these requirements for Company X allowing the waterway deliverer to maintain accountability in the event of an onboard catastrophe or simply to meet international waters regulations. Because of the potentially hazardous nature of a wide variety of Company X’s cleaning and pharmaceutical products, the reality of compliance to various international regulations may drive Company X to seek third-party transport services simply to redeploy management efforts at coordinating a wider variety of in-house transport activities without labour-intensive communications which can be eliminated using waterway freight options. Leach, Bamford & Savage (2004) further offer that a potential shift via railway services has been known to provide unreliable service7 and should only be considered when delivery time is not of the essence. Company X would need to actively consider the historical demands of its EU distribution centres prior to adopting railway services as an efficient option for transport. If historical in-house documentation witnesses a trend in expedited deliveries or immediate deadlines, a shift to railway services as the appropriate modal shift would likely be incongruent with Company X needs. However, the low-cost and virtually labour-less movement of goods to a railway centre, coupled with railway’s regularly scheduled (predictable) services, a shift from in-house trucking to railway could provide the company with additional financial resources to deploy to other business activities. As a major manufacturing facility, Company X is likely concerned with the impact of logistics costs as they can be related to the firm’s broader budget. Maintaining flexibility in transportation cost by considering a modal shift from ground to rail appears to maintain signficant advantages in terms of lowering costs, but assumes a higher amount of risk on behalf of Company X in the event of delayed shipments or inaccurate service delivery. Hence, from a strategic viewpoint, with the majority of its delivery points located within the EU, maintaining an in-house fleet of trucks is the most viable method of moving Company X materials if the firm expects to maintain high levels of personal coordination and control over its deliveries in the event of changes to delivery timelines and customer expectations. Outsourcing potential deliveries to 3PL This report previously touched on third-party services, in relation to reducing or eliminating the costly initiatives associated with maintaining the in-house trucking fleet. Leach again identifies two advantages of outsourcing to 3PL carriers including increased IT support and superior efficiency in terms of managing operations. In order to maintain an efficient in-house fleet of land-based transportation, in the contemporary environment and so as to respond to distribution centre requests for shipment updates (who are essentially the business customer), costly tracking devices such as GPS tracking8 capabilities must be adopted as part of the fixed cost of manufacturers who must rely on these devices to coordinate and manage the movement of materials (Johnston & Yeh, 2003). Hence, the third-party carrier, after selecting the appropriate service provider best-suited to the needs of Company X, would absorb these costs, likely making the labour-related elements of communicating and researching current location a variable cost in terms of any over-time pay required or related staff expenditures. As with the aforementioned advantages of modal shift identified in this report, allowing a third-party carrier to maintain the costs of IT expertise could theoretically redeploy corporate resources to other business activities. From a managerial perspective, maintaining an in-house fleet of trucks assumes the necessity of risk management in terms of maintaining concern over potential shipment catastrophes or any other negative outcome which may occur during the tangible movement of materials. Leach (2007)9 further identifies that 3PL outsourcing options offer flexibility of cost in relation to managing intensive inventory quantities in relation to the physical auditing and overall management of goods. Using a 3PL carrier which maintains a shared warehousing facility with multiple manufacturers allows a company to avoid issues of taxation related to high volume of in-house storage materials and puts the administrative function (and costs) on the third-party entity. Bienstock & Mentzer (1999)10 indicate that the allocation of the average corporate resources to all elements of in-house physical distribution can be upwards of 30 percent of each Pound (£) of sales revenue. This represents a substantial cost for maintenance and management of in-house services and distribution centre storage, which many of these costs can be absorbed by the 3PL carrier who provides the storage capability to avoid Company X having to rely on their own distribution centre capabilities to sustain short- and long-term storage of finished products. In addition, outsourcing, according to Malick (1994), can save on administrative efforts in terms of researching11 and the arduous process of negotiating various agreements with transportation agencies. Further, because such 3PL services are focused on creating relationships with a wide variety of customers, they generally maintain qualified information about the transportation industry which is accessible as part of the outsourcing agreement, thus avoiding a scenario in which the wrong type of contractual agreement is implemented with the wrong carrier for Company X’s needs. The administrative aspects of research is a highly under-researched phenomenon in transportation, however it is a likely assessment that it is a reality of the manufacturing environment in order to balance costs with the labour required to negotiate the appropriate forms of intermodal services. Thus, changes in various regulations or even reliability reports highlighting historical per-company efficiency are likely maintained by 3PL service providers which would theoretically remove the risk away from Company X in the event of selecting a carrier who appears efficient but is unable to adapt to the unique needs of the company in relation to any aspect of service delivery. From another rather under-researched viewpoint, however one which is likely a reality in the contemporary transportation environment in light of modern viewpoints regarding networking, 3PL services can serve to enhance relationship-building to ensure that various carrier partnerships can be established to create an inter-linked dependency and mutual reliability. Knemeyer & Murphy (2005) suggest that a potential new paradigm12 in successful transportation involves building these partnerships through relationship marketing. The authors suggest that the outcome of relationship marketing to outsourced professionals builds a sense of trust and commitment by sharing the responsibilities of third-party materials movement. Boone & Kurtz (2006) further support the importance of relationship marketing13, which can be applied to Company X, as it provides a foundation of mutual company reward to ensure the existence of an external ally for any given business function. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: Company X suddenly receives a change in delivery timeline on a land-based shipment to its EU distribution centre in order to meet the end customers’ spontaneous shift from original forecasted delivery. In the theoretical event that Company X is unable to allocate any of its in-house fleet to the project; a likely alternative would be contracting an outsourced expedited carrier. Zuckerman (2006) indicates that due to any variety of reasons, companies are relying on expedited freight services14 more than ever. However, in the event that expedited service carriers are unable to meet the needs of Company X, having a strategic partner aligned through relationship marketing could theoretically make a particular carrier willing to adjust its internal scheduling to fit the needs of the Company X as a committed or dedicated delivery service. The importance of relationship marketing, in this hypothetical situation, could likely spell the difference between total service failure on behalf of Company X or meeting the needs of the external customer; despite their forecasting incompetency. In the aforementioned scenario requiring outsourced expedited services, creating a mutual agreement could allow Company X to create an informal partnership arrangement where the firm agrees to seek the services of their relationship-marketed partner above any other rush delivery service. Landy & Conte (2006) suggests that building networked partnerships15 grants a firm the ability to remain flexible in the event of requiring any third-party intervention in order to delight the end customer. All of the aforementioned professional viewpoints would tend to support that outsourcing transportation through building a contingency option through relationship marketing is a significant advantage to this outsourcing transportation approach. Leach (2007)16 again identifies a large disadvantage to 3PL services for Company X in relation to the risk premiums attached to many third-party carriers. As the in-house land services at Company X have been implemented simply to satisfy the tangible transfer of goods from one point to another, 3PL companies are in the game for the sake of making a profit, which likely services to higher fees associated for the service to avoid the 3PL carrier from merely breaking even on the transport run. Such a scenario would likely suggest that outsourcing, from merely a cost perspective, could potentially serve to run higher than the in-house operations when Company X is experiencing a period where truck maintenance costs are down and the fleet is operating with smooth efficiency based on customer forecasting or any other business aspect related to product delivery. Though it is another likely assessment that negotiating the appropriate contract with a third-party carrier that suits the budgetary needs of Company X will provide different charges and cost absorption for the firm based on individual carrier, it is important to identify that 3PL service objectives for profitability may, at times, be substantially higher than an in-house operation. This appears to be a reality in the modern transportation and production industries regarding the existence of high-profit third-party carrier organisations. However, it is a likely assessment that firms will maintain periods where operating costs are low due to an efficiently-operating system of in-house trucking or when the firm has taken a proactive approach to identifying areas of cost reduction and are meeting with budgetary successes. During these periods, in the event that a third-party carrier requires to be outsourced in order to move a particular load of merchandise, paying higher costs to profit-hungry transportation entities is not a viable business strategy when the materials can be moved in-house meeting operating budget. Interestingly, in relation to 3PL profit objectives, one notable transportation professional suggests that third-party carriers often create contractual agreements with various traps embedded in the contract language. Issues such as limiting liability on behalf of the 3PL agent can be written in such a method where, in the event of a major service failure or catastrophe, the third-party service is freed from the liability17 costs of damaged or destroyed materials (Knemeyer & Murphy, 2005). In essence, Company X who might be exposed to such vague contractual fine print may find themselves the victim of intentional contract-related fraud which will not allow the firm to recover losses in the event of service provider inefficiency or careless neglect. The costs of legal services to scrutinize potential contractual outsourced agreements would likely be substantial if Company X was concerned about potential liabilities and the potential inaccuracies of the agreement’s terms. In a similar fine print scenario, the aforementioned authors indicate that one company experienced a load of laptop computers which was stolen in the midst of land transport, valued at over £1 million. The 3PL service, after the computer manufacturer filed their claim against the third-party entity, discovered that the contract only held the carrier responsible for up to £100,000. Though this particular scenario occurred outside of the EU, it is important to identify that outsourcing deliveries can potentially lead to non-recovery in the event that the third-party carrier used the legal system to create a loophole for escaping liability related to service issues. From a risk management perspective, outsourcing deliveries appears to maintain a high volume of potential issues which must be considered prior to implementing a long-term modal shift or relying on 3PL carriers routinely. The aforementioned scenario may appear to be somewhat outlandish, however the reality of loss of merchandise due to unforeseeable events is likely a risk-assumption activity in this industry and one which must be considered from an administrative and senior-executive level. It is further a likely assessment that many manufacturers lack the legal expertise necessary to identify hidden elements of the contractual agreement which could lead to excess liability on behalf of Company X. Hence, a significant disadvantage to outsourcing, as described by this study, involves the likely necessity of having some form of costly legal respresentation who can scrutinise potential 3PL agreements to ensure that the majority of risk is shifted to the third-party carrier; and prevent Company X from meeting with scenarios in which they are not fully compensated for loss of product or damage en-route to its intended destination. Changes in transportation methodology and practice Many business professionals identify that changing consumer behaviours and highly competitive business18 environments make the process of planning production extremely difficult to align to the needs of the customer (Boone & Kurtz, 2007; Longenecker, Moore, Petty & Palich, 2006; Boyes & Melvin, 2006). Because of changing consumer demographics, forecasting manufacturing and coordinating delivery is likely a significant challenge for entities like Company X. Though the firm maintains its own distribution centres to house any desired volume of finished goods, it is a reality that product will be required periodically to be shipped outside of any forecasts, affecting both production and the internal coordination of transportation efforts. Referring back to expedited services, such necessities will likely require Company X to utilise rush delivery 3PL services on a periodic basis. Johnston & Yeh again identify that despite the sizeable per-delivery costs of periodic expedited service usage, the rising levels of emerging competitors are keeping costs from being inflated so as to ensure continued business in this outsourced service delivery. Hence, it would be a practical recommendation that Company X consider the services and costs of a wide variety of expedited services before aligning a committed partnership in order to ensure both reputational efficiency and the ability to manage such deliveries as a method of sustaining budgetary expectations. In addition, another contemporary trend in the transportation industry involves 3PL carriers allocating a particular company representative to coordinate routine discussions and agreements with manufacturers to provide superior19 customer service as a long-term focus for increased 3PL business (Davis & Blackstone). Such representatives, as part of the service contract for outsourcing transportation, are designed to eliminate the requirement of businesses like Company X to actively pursue receiving reports on the industry, researching regulatory changes or any other element of providing service. One researcher flatly indicates that due to the rising competition in outsourced 3PL service providers “you do not have to accept carriers'20 terms, unconditionally, any longer” (Tower, 1999: 19). This bold statement would tend to illustrate that increasing competition maintains a significant trend toward negotiating a contract for 3PL services which is uniquely tailoured to the demands or requirements of firms like Company X. With the notion that such 3PL services might well be concerned with securing business in light of competition, this suggests that the negotiating company could elicit demands for a dedicated team of professionals or singular 3PL representative be their on-call point of contact. Hence, all of the aforementioned would suggest that increasing levels of third-party competitors maintains a strategic advantage for firms like Company X which is looking toward cost-effective efforts and sustainable transportation. Rather than having to track down a responsible party to update the efforts of any particular land-based (or other method) delivery, a dedicated representative would avoid the labour-intensive administrative angle and provide a negotiated contract that secures the long-term needs of Company X. Toward a carbon neutral company Company X is currently considering becoming a carbon neutral facility within the next 10 years. Being carbon neutral represents an environmentally-sound initiative21 to reduce the impact of carbon emissions on the natural environment (Martin, 2006). This is a commendable objective, however the current rate of development of biofuels and the technologies to lessen carbon dioxide release is cited as “hopelessly uneconomic” (Martin), which suggests that immediate efforts to reduce carbon emissions will require the cost of biofuels to be reduced at the international level and would require expensive conversion technologies to be added to the in-house fleet of land-based vessels at Company X. The specific costs of conversion were not readily available through research, however all methods of transport release significant carbon dioxide volumes, thus no one type of transport could be deemed more carbon neutral than another. However, as a short-term objective and for the fulfillment of corporate social responsibility, Company X can take a rather publicised attempt at offsetting carbon emissions by extending corporate support to plant trees as a measure to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Smith (2007) argues that this contemporary22 business shift toward offsetting carbon emissions through this type of initiative is growing common; it is not a true step toward becoming carbon neutral. Martin suggests that until government provides incentives for the mass-production and research of biofuels, becoming completely carbon neutral is a somewhat impractical objective and should be reconsidered when research on reduction has reached beyond the initial evolutionary stage. The aforementioned certainly does not illustrate that Company X must completely abandon its carbon neutral objectives, however due to the high-cost of fuel conversion technologies and the unrealistic availability of biofuels, a corporate social approach to offsetting carbon emissions is suggested. To improve the visibility of Company X as well as improving relations with EU communities, the company may wish to conduct further research into areas within Europe which could be provided with Company X support for environmentally-friendly initiatives and Liveability focus. The modern trend toward Liveability describes making communities more inviting regions in which to thrive and find connection with, hence becoming involved in beautification efforts will contribute to the community as a temporary measure for satisfying carbon neutral expectations. Conclusion This report identified several contemporary trends in the transportation industry whilst highlighting the various advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing transportation and the corporate consideration of performing a modal shift. Cost, in most elements of transportation, appear to be one of the highest concerns in relation to continuing to maintain an in-house transportation system as well as identifying a potential 3PL service provider which can meet the unique needs of Company X. Railway services, also from a cost perspective, will provide Company X with a lower-cost alternative to the current in-house trucking fleet, however the rail methodology does maintain a track record of unreliability. It is the recommendation that Company X continue to utilise its in-house fleet for ground shipments within the EU production environment and utilise third-party carriers only when deliveries conflict with distribution centre or customer forecasting. However, should Company X decide to remove a portion (or all) of its in-house land-based fleet, water transport appears to be the most viable course of action for modal shift as it tends to place a majority of the risk on the carrier itself, thus reducing the costs of coordinating materials once they have left the manufacturing facility. It would appear that increased competition in the 3PL industry has provided considerable advantages for Company X in terms of maintaining leverage to negotiate a quality contract for service provision. As high levels of profiteering would likely not sustain a 3PL agent long-term, choosing a carrier with both the reputation and low-cost service capabilities should ease budgetary constraints for Company X. This would be applicable to the modern trend in utilising expedited services for difficult or fluctuating forecasting demands, offering Company X increased flexibility in the event of rapid delivery scenarios. Further, in the event that the firm is currently facing cost issues regarding the management of inventory at its distribution centres, it is suggested that Company X consider developing an outsourcing initiative in which the third-party provider can absorb the majority of costs associated with inventory, thus removing materials-related liability from the firm’s budget. Balancing costs with in-house capabilities is likely not a simplified task for Company X which must determine the most appropriate and realistic methods to move materials both domestically and across the broader European landscape. The existence of distribution centres has provided Company X with an historically low-cost infrastructure for ground transportation which, from the perspective of sustainability, appears to be a viable strategic focus. Transferrring materials to additional 3PL carriers will certainly pose significant risks for Company X, however if the strategic intention of the firm is to minimise areas of payroll or the reduction of in-house staff, the use of the management expertise at 3PL carrier locations could be offset by in-house organisational changes to its transportation management division. Though becoming carbon netural over the next 10 years is a commendable effort, the current stage of developing biofuels and low existence of other methods to offset carbon emissions creates significant difficulty for Company X from a short-term perspective. Clearly, further research is required to determine whether advances in bio-diesel technologies are projected to be cost-effective and efficient systems in the months or years to come. It would appear, as an additional recommendation for Company X, that the firm should actively consider all of the risks associated with both in-house transportation and third-party carriers and then determine whether shifting risk management to outsourced carriers is a more appropriate strategic objective. This will likely require examination of historical financial documents in the logistics division of Company X and identify the frequency of such occurrences in which high volumes of liabilities were incurred by the firm due to transport errors or other loss of merchandise. If it is discovered that in-house freight provides less risk in terms of financial costs, it is fully recommended that the firm maintain its in-house system of ground deliveries. All of the aforementioned recommendations would indicate that Company X maintains a potentially large volume of unique market situations which require further examination of total firm capacity for managing sustainable transportation initiatives. The firm must select its strategic focus and subsequently identify internal areas of operation which require improvement. If capacity assessments indicate that in-house carriers can no longer sustain its objectives for profitability or administration, seeking the advice and expertise of outsourced professionals could create higher flexibility in terms of meeting long-term objectives for efficient and cost-conscious logistics at Company X. Bibliography 1. Bienstock, C.C. & Mentzer, J.R. (1999). ‘An experimental investigation of the outsourcing decision for motor carrier transportation’. Transportation Journal. 39(1): 42-52. 2. Boone, L. & Kurtz, D. (2006). Contemporary Marketing. 12th ed. United Kingdom, Thomson South-Western. 3. Boone, L. & Kurtz, D. (2007). Contemporary Marketing. 13th ed. United Kingdom, Thomson South-Western. 4. Boyes, W. & Melvin, M. (2006). Economics. 6th ed. Houghton-Mifflin Company. 5. Chain Store Age. (1996). ‘Buying time: Varying delivery options’. 72(8): 4T – 6T. 6. Davis, R.C. & Blackstone, V. (1999). Removing Barriers: Supply Chain Management and Efficiency. London, Hamish Hamilton Publishers. 7. Johnston, A. & Yeh, H. (2003). Streamlining Internal and External Capacity in Logistic Management. United Kingdom, Hamish Hamilton Publishers. 8. Knemeyer, A.M. & Murphy, P.R. (2005). ‘Exploring the Potential Impact of RelationshipCharacteristics and Customer Attributes on the Outcomes of Third-Party Logistics Arrangements’. Transportation Journal. 44(1): 5-18. 9. Landy, F. & Conte, J. (2006). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organisational Psychology. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing. 10. Leach, David. (2007). ‘Outsourcing Benefits, Process and Commericals: Lecture 8’. University of Huddersfield, Freight Transport Management. 11. Leach, David. (2007). ‘Third Party Market and Outsourcing: Lecture 7’. University of Huddersfield, Freight Transport Management. 12. Leach, D., Bamford, C. & Savage, C. (2004). ‘Basics of Transport in Logistic Management’. Lecture. University of Huddersfield, Department of Transport and Logistics 13. Longenecker, J., Moore, C., Petty, J. & Palich, L. (2006). Small Business Management: An Entrepreneurial Emphasis. United Kingdom, Thomson South-Western. 14. Malick, Mary S. (1994). ‘Carrier information: Your competitive edge’. Managing Office Technology. Cleveland. 39(9): 31-33. Retrieved 10 Jan 2008 from ProQuest database. 15. Martin, L.J. (2006). ‘Carbon Neutral: What does it mean?’ Eejits.com. Retrieved 8 Jan 2008 from http://www.eejitsguides.com/environment/carbon-neutral.html 16. Morris, David C. (2001). Toward a more efficient best practice framework in logistics. Blackwell Publishing: 101-104. 17. Smith, Kevin. (2007). ‘The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins’. Carbon Trade Watch, Transnational Institute. Retrieved 8 Jan 2008 from http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf 18. Tower, Courtney. (1999). ‘Shippers’ vulnerability increases with deregulation, attorney says’. Journal of Commerce: 19. Retrieved 9 Jan 2008 from ProQuest database. 19. Vagra, Antony R. (2000). Viable Alternatives to Ground Transportation. London, Free Press: 83-96. 20. Zuckerman, Amy. (2006). ‘What Business Leaders Need to Know About: Trucking trends’. World Trade. 19(5): 60-63. Read More