Development of Road Freight Transport Indicators Focused on Sustainability to Assist Shippers: An Analysis Conducted in France through the FRET 21 Programme

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is highly relevant to the current scenario and a standardization of using such indicators can really be helpful for the freight industry. The document is well structured.

Suggestions regarding few gaps:

1. The dimensions in table 1 (technical and managerial) does not consider time dimension. Shippers (e.g. large firms named on page 2) mostly look for long term contracts (tendering) with carriers, possibly sometimes other carriers for short term (spot) demand. This has a significant imapact on the transport choices that shippers make. 

The indicators may be applicable on basis of this research on large sized shippers. On what basis can these be considered concrete guidelines for small and medium sized shippers as well? This needs to be highlighted. 

2.2.3: Price, reliable + timely transport services often become a reason not to choose alternative modes like rail. Hence it may be helpful to add reasons for not choosing alternative modes even if they create less pollution. This can be helpful for future analysis.   

2.2.4 There is also a corelation between the route travelled (congested?), time of the year and weather conditions that affect a driver's performance. Is this taken into consideration

4.1 Can figure 3 be sorted in descending order on either of the average scores?

Conclusion:  Whether these indicators can be equally applied to small and medium sized shippers is debatable. But definitely such a dashboard could be agreed and helpful for large sized firms.

Kindly cross check the references (Journal names in italics?)

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest changing the title of the paper.

Current:

“Development of Sustainable Transport Indicators to assist shippers: An analysis conducted in France through the FRET 21 programme”

Reviewer's suggestion:

“Development of Sustainable Transport Indicators in cargo road transport to assist shippers: An analysis conducted in France through the FRET 21 programme”

Justification for the suggestion – the paper was analyses the indicators related to road freight transport, hence the title should indicate it.

Minor grammatical errors, therefore the article should be re-analyzed in terms of language.

3.

The analysis of the indicators and the conclusion are highly applicable. Nevertheless, the research area should be extended to a much more representative group in the future shippers. It is right that the authors indicated the need for further empirical research in the analyzed area.

Author Response

Responses directed to reviewer 2 :

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments, which are very helpful for us to improve the manuscript. We have clearly addressed your comments and made proper changes to the manuscript. Please see below our point-by-point responses. We hope our revisions are satisfactory. We, of course, would be happy to follow your further comments/suggestions if necessary.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is focusing on a very relevant topic with direct applicability to the practice.

Up-to-date references are used, which demonstrates the importance of the subject for today’s business environment.

There are only a couple of minor issues that I will highlight here:

I advise authors to check their text for some small mistakes, especially in regards to the in-text referencing and tables.

Another suggestion is to move section 1.1. to methodological section, instead of being right after the introduction. That might create a better flow of the text. I suggest a literature review to follow the introduction.

One potentially beneficial addition would be to clarify that you conducted a mixed-method study (in the methodological section), as you use both a survey and interviews.

Overall, well written paper on the relevant topic.

Author Response

Responses directed to reviewer 3 :

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments, which are very helpful for us to improve the manuscript. We have clearly addressed your comments and made proper changes to the manuscript. Please see below our point-by-point responses. We hope our revisions are satisfactory. We, of course, would be happy to follow your further comments/suggestions if necessary.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf