The SuLo Framework: A Systematic Literature Review of Drivers and Barriers to Sustainable Logistics Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the research on sustainable logistics, with a focus on warehousing. It clearly defines sustainable logistics and supply chain, especially highlighting the differences from green logistics. It points out the current situation where sustainable logistics receives less attention at the social dimension. Through literature analysis, this paper identifies the key driving factors and barriers of sustainable warehousing (or supply chain), and provides sustainable development practices in combination with economic, social, and environmental aspects. I have the following suggestions: 

1）In the current analysis, the driving factors and barriers are mostly described from the perspective of the supply chain. If viewed from the perspective of warehousing, some factors need to be examined more specifically.For example, how do public attention and social expectations manifest in warehousing? What is the impact of suppliers and customers on the sustainability of warehouses? In-depth analysis around specific elements may better highlight the characteristics of sustainable warehousing management and the contribution of this paper.

2）Regarding management decisions, after implementing the sustainable development strategy,what changes need to be made regarding relevant decision-making issues?How to make changes? Strengthening this aspect can also enhance the significance of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking your time to read our contribution and for your helpful feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly and kindly addressed the concerns and suggestions you brought:

• Reviewer Comment: In the current analysis, the driving factors and barriers are mostly described from the perspective of the supply chain. If viewed from the perspective of warehousing, some factors need to be examined more specifically. For example, how do public attention and social expectations manifest in warehousing? What is the impact of suppliers and customers on the sustainability of warehouses? In-depth analysis around specific elements may better highlight the characteristics of sustainable warehousing management and the contribution of this paper.
• Author Response: In response, we have enhanced Sections 4.2 (Barriers) and 4.3 (Drivers) to include a more in-depth, warehousing-specific analysis of how key external factors affect sustainability. Specifically:
  • In Section 4.2, we now detail how supplier-related barriers (e.g., packaging formats and coordination issues) directly increase warehouse labor time, waste, and energy use.
  • We also expanded the customer-related barrier discussion to show how expectations for speed and low-cost lead to urgent order picking, inefficient batch processing, and underutilized outbound transport—operational issues that conflict with sustainability goals.
  • To address the reviewer's request on public attention and social expectations, we added a detailed analysis in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. This highlights how warehouses, due to their physical visibility and community proximity, are directly impacted by concerns over noise, emissions, labor conditions, and community well-being—distinguishing them from less visible elements of the supply chain.
  • These revisions clarify how sustainability challenges and pressures manifest uniquely in warehouse operations, reinforcing the paper’s core contribution: a focused, warehousing-specific framework for sustainable logistics.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Regarding management decisions, after implementing the sustainable development strategy, what changes need to be made regarding relevant decision-making issues? How to make changes? Strengthening this aspect can also enhance the significance of this paper.
• Author Response: In response, we revised the Discussion section (Section 5) to include a dedicated paragraph on how sustainability implementation leads to changes in managerial decision-making. This new content describes:
• The adoption of sustainability KPIs (e.g., energy per order, employee well-being),
• A strategic shift from short-term cost efficiency to long-term value creation,
• Revised procurement criteria favoring suppliers providing sustainability credentials
• A broader commitment to organizational culture change.
• These additions help demonstrate the managerial implications of our framework and provide practical value for logistics professionals aiming to transition their warehouses toward sustainability.

Thank you for your time again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors of the article "The SuLo Framework: A systematic literature review of drivers and barriers to sustainable logistics practices:

The article has a very good structure of ideas and contributions that are summarized in the literature review conducted in a context of focused research and limited to what the authors report:

I share with you my comments and suggestions to contribute some ideas that can tidy up and give more clarity of scope.

The title Su Lo comes from Sustainability Logistics? I consider that it should be placed in full so as not to confuse readers.

Differentiate it from its summary because it does not include the review of barriers to supply chain practices and does include sustainability and logistics.

Lines 81-92: I recommend numbering the stages; when I read them, I only understood that there were 5. This can be confusing for the readers.

It is recommended to have figures in higher definition according to the parameters determined by the journal and improve their quality in DPI.

Line 176: You can use  [28, 29]; please change

Line 216: If you have the data on gas emissions, I recommend placing it as well, as it is correctly reflected in the logistics costs of 24%.

Line 224: Economic goals...in the short, medium, or long term?

Line 232: Please define the number of revisions that were made to encourage the reader to continue reading the article.

Table 1: Why were 2024 and 2025 (the most current) not considered to highlight, for example, how IA contributes to the topic under study? Circular economy issues, for example, would be interesting in the warehouse management and logistics approach.

Line 243: I recommend also considering undergraduate and graduate students who need to complete certain knowledge and access to this type of contribution.

Figure 2: Same comment for the quality of the figures according to the journal's own criteria.

Lines 382 to 395: Too much indentation separating the words group from the text; reduce the number of lines.

Table 10: Check if they are really all internal barriers in an organization, e.g., the costs of friendly packaging (line 615) are imposed by the market and suppliers.

It seems that a meaningless and unnumbered table was placed on page 22.

Line 853: Please Change iso 14001 for ISO 14001 (iso in capital letters)

Thanks for the opportunity to support you

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for taking your time to read our contribution and for your helpful feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly and kindly addressed the concerns and suggestions you brought up:

• Reviewer Comment: The title SuLo comes from Sustainability Logistics? I consider that it should be placed in full so as not to confuse readers.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the potential confusion with the acronym “SuLo.” We have clarified this by writing out the full form (Sustainable Logistics) the first time it is used in the abstract on this contribution.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Differentiate it from its summary because it does not include the review of barriers to supply chain practices and does include sustainability and logistics
• Author Response: We sincerely apologize, but we were not able to turn this suggestion into action item as we did not comprehend what the reviewer was referring to

 

• Reviewer Comment: Lines 81–92: I recommend numbering the stages; when I read them, I only understood that there were 5. This can be confusing for the readers.
• Author Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback. To improve clarity, we revised the paragraph that describes the structure of the paper by explicitly stating the number and order of the six sections. This makes the organization of the manuscript more apparent to readers while maintaining a smooth narrative style.

 

• Reviewer Comment: It is recommended to have figures in higher definition according to the parameters determined by the journal and improve their quality in DPI.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have replaced Figures 2 and 5 with higher-resolution versions (300 DPI), in accordance with MDPI’s figure quality requirements. These revisions ensure that all text and visual elements are clearly legible and ready for publication.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Line 176: You can use [28, 29]; please change
• Author Response: Thank you for your attention to detail. We have corrected the citation formatting on Line 176 and reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all citation brackets follow the journal’s preferred style.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Line 216: If you have the data on gas emissions, I recommend placing it as well, as it is correctly reflected in the logistics costs of 24%.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The paragraph on Line 216 already includes emissions-related data, stating that logistics buildings, including warehouses and sortation facilities are responsible for approximately 13% of supply chain emissions. We also emphasize that warehouses are significant contributors due to their energy-intensive nature. While this figure is not exclusive to warehouses alone, it reflects their role within the broader logistics emissions landscape. We believe this offers sufficient context to support the link between logistics costs and environmental impact.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Line 224: Economic goals... in the short, medium, or long term?
• Author Response: Thank you for the helpful comment. We have revised the sentence to clarify that sustainable warehousing contributes to both short-term and long-term economic goals. For example, cost savings can be achieved quickly through energy efficiency and waste reduction, while long-term benefits may result from investments in automation, renewable energy systems, and improved brand reputation. This better illustrates the strategic value of sustainable warehousing.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Line 232: Please define the number of revisions that were made to encourage the reader to continue reading the article.
• Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s effort to improve the clarity of the manuscript. However, we believe there may be a line reference error, as Line 232 is located in the theoretical background section (Section 2.2) and does not relate to the article selection or review process. If the reviewer is referring to the number of articles included in the final literature review, we have provided this information in the methodology section and summarized it in Table 4. We would be happy to further clarify this point if needed, pending additional guidance.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Table 1: Why were 2024 and 2025 (the most current) not considered to highlight, for example, how AI contributes to the topic under study? Circular economy issues, for example, would be interesting in the warehouse management and logistics approach.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The systematic literature search for this study was finalized in July 2024, and therefore publications from late 2024 and 2025 were not included due to the project’s timeline and the need to ensure data stability for analysis.
• Regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and circular economy, we fully agree that these are emerging and increasingly influential areas in sustainable warehousing and logistics. As noted in Section 3.2, AI-related studies were excluded due to limited direct integration with sustainability themes within the literature available at the time. However, we recognize the rapid development of this field. For this reason, we have explicitly acknowledged the growing relevance of both AI and circular economy approaches in the “Limitations and Future Research” section of the paper (Section 5.2).

 

• Reviewer Comment: Line 243: I recommend also considering undergraduate and graduate students who need to complete certain knowledge and access to this type of contribution.
• Author Response: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. We have added a sentence at the end of section 2.3 to acknowledge that the review and framework may also benefit undergraduate and graduate students who are developing foundational knowledge in sustainable warehousing and logistics.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Lines 382 to 395: Too much indentation separating the words group from the text; reduce the number of lines.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for noticing this formatting issue. We have reviewed and corrected the spacing and indentation between Lines 382 and 395 to ensure consistent formatting and improve the overall readability of the section.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Check if they are really all internal barriers in an organization, e.g., the costs of friendly packaging (line 615) are imposed by the market and suppliers.”
• Author Response:
  We appreciate this thoughtful observation. While we acknowledge that the cost of environmentally friendly packaging may originate from external sources such as supplier pricing structures, market expectations, or regulatory trends, we have classified it as an internal barrier because the financial responsibility and decision-making rest within the organization. That is, regardless of external pressures, it is the internal stakeholders (e.g., procurement, finance, operations) who must assess, absorb, and justify these costs within their budgets and sustainability strategies.

This classification aligns with prior literature in sustainable supply chains, where cost-related factors are commonly treated as internal barriers due to their influence on internal resource allocation and investment priorities (e.g., Goh et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2008).

That said, we agree the issue sits at the intersection of internal and external dynamics, and we have clarified this nuance in the text to avoid oversimplification. Thank you again for this important point.

 

• Reviewer Comment: It seems that a meaningless and unnumbered table was placed on page 22.
• Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to this formatting issue. The table on page 22 is actually the continuation of Table 12, titled “Internal drivers to implement sustainability in warehousing.” Due to a page break during formatting, the continuation appeared without a header or label, which understandably created confusion. We have corrected this by adjusting the layout, repeating the column headers on the second page, and adding a “continued” label to maintain clarity and consistency.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Please Change iso 14001 for ISO 14001 (iso in capital letters).
• Author Response: Thank you for the correction. We have changed “iso 14001” to “ISO 14001” to ensure proper formatting and consistency with the official standard’s name.

Thank you again for your time.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This literature review on sustainable warehousing offers a synthesis of key drivers, barriers, and practices, alongside a structured framework for integrating sustainability. The use of Kitchenham's methodology and the focus on environmental, economic, and social dimensions are strong points. However, several revisions are necessary.

 

The current exclusion criteria, particularly the reliance on a minimum of 10 citations and the use of Beall’s list for predatory publishers, risk introducing a bias towards established topics and Western-centric perspectives. This approach could inadvertently sideline emerging innovations or valuable insights from non-Western regions. Providing a clearer justification for these thresholds and adopting a more current method for assessing publisher credibility are crucial for methodological transparency. While the proposed framework is conceptually sound, its utility in real-world scenarios is limited by a lack of empirical validation. Integrating case studies that demonstrate its application across various warehouse types—such as cold storage or e-commerce fulfillment centers—would significantly strengthen its practical applicability and illustrate sector-specific adaptations.

 

The analysis appears to prioritize corporate and regulatory viewpoints, which tends to overshadow critical perspectives from groups like warehouse workers, local communities, and non-governmental organizations. To align more closely with its stated holistic goals, the framework needs to address social sustainability more thoroughly, perhaps by including metrics related to labor conditions, equitable adoption of automation, or the impact on community health. Additionally, while the identified best practices are comprehensive, they remain somewhat generalized. A deeper exploration of implementation challenges—like retrofitting existing infrastructure, balancing automation with job security, or navigating conflicting stakeholder priorities—would offer more actionable advice for practitioners. The absence of concrete cost-benefit analyses and return on investment timelines for initiatives such as renewable energy adoption also detracts from the economic dimension's practical value.

The discussion of future research directions could benefit from greater specificity. Pinpointing understudied areas, such as the use of AI for energy-optimized demand forecasting, blockchain for circular supply chains, or regional disparities in regulations, would provide clearer guidance for future scholarly endeavors. The study's theoretical contribution also needs to be more explicitly articulated; linking findings to established theories, like Institutional Theory for understanding regulatory drivers or the Resource-Based View for competitive advantages, would clarify its academic significance. Furthermore, the visual elements, especially the framework diagram, require more detailed annotations to illustrate component interactions and feedback loops effectively.

 

Finally, the study’s reliance on literature from 2008 to 2024 presents an opportunity for a deeper longitudinal analysis. Examining temporal trends could reveal shifts in priorities, such as the increasing focus on Scope 3 emissions or the emergence of pandemic-driven resilience strategies, thereby enriching the historical context. The geographical bias towards European and North American studies also limits the generalizability of the findings. Including case studies from the Global South, where informal logistics networks are often prevalent, would be valuable for testing the framework's universality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and critical comments. We appreciate the time taken to assess our manuscript and offer constructive suggestions. Below, we address the major points raised, while also ensuring that the integrity of our original method and focus is preserved.

 

• Reviewer Comment: The reliance on a minimum of 10 citations and the use of Beall’s list for predatory publishers risk introducing a bias towards established topics and Western-centric perspectives.
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. The application of a minimum citation threshold and the use of Beall’s List were intended to ensure that the included publications reflect a high standard of academic rigor, particularly given the increasing volume of unverified or low-impact publications in the sustainability domain. These criteria were not applied in isolation but were part of a broader quality assurance strategy that included indexing in Scopus, peer review verification, and citation-based relevance.

We recognize the concerns associated with Beall’s List; however, it continues to be referenced in several high-quality and peer-reviewed systematic literature reviews. For example:

• Schmidt et al. (2022) in International Journal of Production Research and Khando et al. (2021) in Computers & Security both applied Beall’s List to screen for predatory journals, emphasizing that this remains a valid and accepted method in academic publishing: Schmidt et al. (2022). Industry 4.0 implementation in the supply chain: a review on the evolution of buyer-supplier relationships, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2120923
• Khando et al. (2021). Enhancing employees’ information security awareness in private and public organisations: A systematic literature review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102267

Additionally, the minimum citation count was used as a proxy for scholarly impact and relevance. Given the sheer volume of available literature, this served as a practical measure to manage scope while maintaining quality. Nevertheless, we agree that these criteria may limit the inclusion of emerging voices or research from underrepresented regions. We have now explicitly acknowledged this in the "Limitations and Future Research" section, where we suggest that future reviews may adopt broader inclusion strategies to capture novel and geographically diverse contributions. At no time did we intend to offer a solely “western-centric perspective.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Its utility... is limited by a lack of empirical validation... case studies would strengthen applicability.
• Author Response: Thank you for this important observation. This paper is designed as a theory-building contribution grounded in a systematic literature review. Its primary objective is to synthesize and structure the fragmented knowledge on sustainable warehousing by identifying key drivers, barriers, and practices, and integrating these into a conceptual framework. This approach aligns with well-established practices in academic research, where literature-based frameworks serve as essential precursors to empirical testing and application.

We fully agree that the empirical validation of the framework, for example, through real-world case studies in contexts such as cold storage, reverse logistics, or e-commerce fulfillment centers, would greatly enhance its practical value and adaptability. However, given the theoretical and exploratory nature of this study, such validation is intentionally positioned as a future research direction rather than part of the current scope.

To reflect the reviewer's helpful suggestion, we have made this positioning more explicit in the “Limitations and Future Research” section, where we now encourage subsequent research to apply and test the framework in various industrial and regional contexts.

 

• Reviewer Comment: The framework needs to address social sustainability more thoroughly... labor conditions, automation, community health.
• Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on the social dimension of sustainability, which is indeed a crucial area of study. While social aspects—such as employee engagement, training, and safety—are integrated into the framework, our primary focus was on identifying drivers, barriers, and best practices for sustainable warehousing from a holistic perspective. A deeper investigation into labor conditions, community health, and automation equity would be both valuable and necessary. However, these topics are expansive and, in our view, warrant dedicated studies of their own to do them justice.

We have therefore acknowledged in the “Limitations and Future Research” section that while social sustainability is embedded in the current framework, its more nuanced exploration, especially from the perspective of marginalized stakeholders, remains an important direction for future research. We believe this study provides a structured foundation that others can build on to address such themes in the necessary depth to do them justice.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Best practices remain generalized... absence of cost-benefit analyses.
• Author Response: Thank you for this observation. The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of sustainable practices in warehousing as reflected in the literature, across diverse operational contexts. Given the review-based scope, our aim was not to delve into the economic evaluation of individual practices, but rather to aggregate recurring and recommended approaches.

We fully agree that the economic pillar of sustainability, particularly in terms of cost-benefit analyses, return on investment (ROI), and financial feasibility, represents a significant and complex area that deserves more detailed treatment. As such, we have recommended this as a future research direction in the manuscript. Studies focused on the economic implications of specific sustainability initiatives—such as renewable energy adoption or infrastructure retrofitting—will be instrumental in bridging theory with operational decision-making.

• Reviewer Comment: Theoretical contribution needs to be articulated... Institutional Theory, RBV...
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment. As a theory-building study, our aim was to integrate findings from literature into a coherent framework that captures the multifaceted nature of sustainable warehousing. While the current study was not explicitly framed through a particular theoretical lens, we agree that aligning future work with established theories, such as Institutional Theory for regulatory and normative influences, or the Resource-Based View for understanding sustainability as a competitive advantage, can further enhance academic value and theoretical clarity. We have highlighted this recommendation in the updated “Future Research” section.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Framework diagram requires more detailed annotations and feedback loops.
• Author Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestions. The framework was intentionally designed with a clear and simple structure to make it easily understandable at a glance, especially given the broad range of concepts it brings together. We felt that including too many visual elements might make the figure appear crowded and reduce its effectiveness as a conceptual overview.

To support this visual simplicity, we have provided a comprehensive explanation immediately following the figure, which discusses the relationships and dynamics among components in detail. This section includes practical examples to clarify the roles and interactions described in the framework, aiming to ensure that the content remains accessible and informative for the reader.

 

• Reviewer Comment: Literature from 2008–2024 could be used for a trend analysis... include Global South cases.”
• Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. The systematic literature search for this study was finalized in July 2024, in accordance with the project timeline. As such, publications from late 2024 and 2025 were not included to maintain data consistency and stability for the analysis. This cutoff was necessary to ensure methodological integrity during the synthesis phase and has now been clarified in the manuscript.

We agree that a longitudinal trend analysis, particularly tracing shifts in sustainability focus over time (e.g., the rise of Scope 3 emissions, digitalization, or pandemic-driven resilience), could yield additional insights. However, such an analysis was outside the scope of this theory-building review, which was specifically designed to structure and integrate drivers, barriers, and practices for sustainable warehousing based on the existing body of literature. We have added this as a future research direction in the updated “Limitations and Future Research” section.

We also acknowledge the possibility that the final selection of studies may have unintentionally underrepresented contributions from the Global South, despite our efforts to apply inclusion criteria objectively. Factors such as language, indexing, and citation visibility may have contributed to this effect. While it was not the intention to exclude regional perspectives, we recognize the value of incorporating more geographically diverse case studies in future empirical validations, and we have noted this in the “Limitations and Future Research” section.

Thank you again for your time.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.