Obstacles and Drivers of Sustainable Horizontal Logistics Collaboration: Analysis of Logistics Providers’ Behaviour in Slovenia

Abstract

The logistics industry faces challenges from evolving consumer expectations, technological advances, sustainability demands, and market disruptions. Logistics collaboration is in theory perceived as one of the most promising solutions to solve these issues, but here are still a lot of challenges that needs to be better understood and addressed. While vertical collaboration among supply chain actors is well advanced, horizontal collaboration among competing service providers remains under-explored. This study developed a novel methodology based on the COM-B behaviour-change framework to better understand the main challenges, opportunities, capabilities and drivers that would motivate competing companies to exploit the potential of horizontal logistics collaboration. A survey was designed and conducted among 71 logistics service providers in Slovenia, chosen for its fragmented market and low willingness to collaborate. Statistical analysis reveals cost reduction (M = 4.21/5) and improved vehicle utilization (M = 4.29/5) as the primary motivators. On the other hand, maintaining company reputation (M = 4.64/5), fair resource sharing (M = 4.20/5), and transparency of logistics processes (M = 4.17/5) all persist as key enabling conditions. These findings underscore the pivotal role of behavioural drivers and suggest strategies that combine economic incentives with targeted trust-building measures. Future research should employ experimental designs in diverse national contexts and integrate vertical–horizontal approaches to validate causal pathways and advance theory.

1. Introduction

The logistics industry is undergoing a period of intense transformation, driven by increasingly complex and unpredictable global supply chains. Logistics operators are confronted with challenges that require rapid adaptation and resilience in their operations. Recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Suez Canal blockage, and extreme weather conditions, have exposed vulnerabilities in existing systems and demonstrated the need for more robust and flexible logistics solutions [1].

A critical aspect of building resilience lies in the logistics infrastructure itself, which serves as the backbone of supply chain operations. Current infrastructure predominantly relies on high-capacity transport corridors prioritizing economic efficiency. Although this model is effective under normal circumstances, it proves highly vulnerable during disruptions due to a lack of alternative routes or sufficient contingency measures [2]. Long-term upgrades to physical infrastructure remain essential to address these vulnerabilities, but these upgrades often require big investment and take a lot of time. In the short to medium term, it is therefore essential for companies to explore alternative and complementary improvements. One promising approach is to adopt its capacities and optimize existing logistics resources [3,4]. Studies consistently reveal that freight vehicles are frequently under-utilized [5], exhibiting high rates of empty runs and low-load factors, especially in last-mile transport [6]. These inefficiencies not only exacerbate traffic congestion but also significantly contribute to environmental pollution, placing freight transport among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases [7]. Addressing these challenges requires innovative business models promoting resource sharing, collaboration, and sustainability [8,9].

Optimization strategies can be implemented into various logistics aspects related to existing challenges of logistics operators. One of the most pressing issues is how to alleviate human resource-related constraints. R. M. da Silva et al. argue that persistent labour shortages and high staff turnover rates disrupt operations, reduce service reliability, and increase recruitment and training costs [10,11]. Furthermore, economic and market-related challenges such as unfair competition, high energy costs, and payment indiscipline [12,13,14] significantly strain logistics companies, leading to financial instability and reduced competitiveness. Another critical area requiring attention is the integration and coordination challenges within the logistics sector. Fragmented customer demands and limited integration among logistics providers contribute to inefficiencies, redundant capacities, and compromised service quality [6]. Urban logistics operations further face substantial infrastructural and regulatory constraints, including inadequate urban infrastructure [15], restricted access regulations (e.g., Urban Vehicle Access Regulations—UVARs) [16], and stringent compliance demands related to environmental standards like Euro norms and ESG reporting [17]. In additions, logistics companies face significant challenges in shifting toward environmentally sustainable logistics solutions, particularly due to high upfront investment requirements, technological limitations, and complex regulatory frameworks [18]. Lastly, technological and knowledge gaps pose notable challenges. Badraoui et al. and others argue that insufficient data availability, limited digitalization, and inadequate knowledge of advanced optimization techniques and IT system integration prevent logistics companies from fully leveraging technological advancements [19,20].

In addressing these various challenges, horizontal logistics collaboration (HLC) emerges as a particularly promising solution. Numerous empirical and conceptual studies emphasize that HLC can enhance vehicle utilization, reduce operational costs, decrease delivery mileage, and improve service flexibility [14,21,22]. It also contributes to lower fuel consumption and fewer empty runs, resulting in more efficient use of transport capacity and reduced congestion. These benefits are particularly relevant for small and medium-sized logistics enterprises (SMEs), which often face limitations in resources, capacity, and market reach. For these firms, collaboration represents not just an opportunity but a necessity. As highlighted by Simmer et al., cooperation will become increasingly important for SMEs in a competitive and technologically advancing logistics environment [23]. Jesica de Arma and others [24] similarly argue that SMEs must pool resources and expertise to remain viable and competitive. In this way, HLC enables them to expand their service offer, access new markets, and improve operational resilience. Basso et al. and Wang and Kopfer also emphasize that SMEs benefit most from HLC, as they are less able to achieve economies of scale on their own [25,26]. Beyond operational gains, HLC also offers strategic benefits, including improved competitive positioning, increased adaptability to regulatory changes, and reduced environmental impacts [20,27]. These advantages are particularly relevant in the context of rising customer expectations and growing pressure to decarbonize logistics operations. Shared resources such as warehouses, vehicles, and IT systems facilitate economies of scale and help companies meet growing customer demands for reliability, speed, and transparency [27]. Moreover, collaboration enables even smaller firms to access infrastructure and service capabilities that would otherwise be financially out of reach, fostering greater inclusivity and resilience within the logistics sector.

However, despite its recognized potential, implementing horizontal logistics collaboration (HLC) presents significant challenges. A major barrier frequently highlighted in the literature is the lack of clear rules concerning the responsibilities, rights, and fair distribution of resources, costs, and revenues among partners [19,20,28]. Additionally, transparency issues and distrust, particularly among competitors, complicate effective cooperation [19,20,29]. Studies also find that identified suitable partners with aligned strategic objectives and logistics processes also poses substantial difficulties, as misalignment can hold back collaborative efficiency [19,20,29]. In addition, challenges such as maintaining long-term commitment, managing power imbalances between partners, concerns over preserving autonomy, cybersecurity risks, and IT system integration further complicate implementation [19,20,27]. Furthermore, reluctance to share necessary data and difficulties with the acquisition, exchange, and management of essential information due to inadequate communication technologies intensify these issues [19,22,28,30]. Finding a trustworthy independent third-party facilitator capable of coordinating collaboration is another critical yet challenging aspect [20,29]. Barraoui, Andersson and others also found that ineffective organizational structures, complexities involved in optimizing joint logistics processes, legislative restrictions, resistance to necessary organizational changes, and limited awareness of collaboration benefits further hinder successful implementation [19,28,30]. Addressing these complex challenges is essential for realizing the full potential of HLC.

While these potentials and challenges are widely discussed in the literature, some very important gaps remain inadequately addressed. Many existing studies rely on case studies, expert interviews, or macro-level analyses, yet relatively few directly engage logistics service providers (LSPs) to examine the specific barriers, incentives, and conditions influencing their willingness to collaborate. For instance, Schachenhofer and others identified opportunities and obstacles for urban logistics collaboration, to better use the underutilized urban logistics infrastructure, but they notably excluded logistics companies from the participant pool [14]. Zhang and others investigated collaboration among LSPs in China but gave limited weight to LSPs in their participant sample (only 39.1%) and did not address the dynamics in micro-enterprise-dominated markets [31]. Another study compared expectations of non-collaborative and collaborative professionals, yet without considering how company size shapes willingness to collaborate [19]. Simmer et al. examined beliefs and motivations for collaboration around the Physical Internet using a small sample of Austrian transport providers but did not differentiate based on collaboration experience and company size [23]. Sternberg and others analysed failure cases of systematic collaboration but included only companies with prior collaboration experience, omitting non-collaborative sample [32]. Similarly, Albers and Klaas-Wissing explored less-than-truckload (LTL) alliances through two contrasting cases, yet the narrow scope of research limited broader generalization [33].

In summary, these studies offer valuable insights but fail to fully address the challenges and opportunities of HLC within highly competitive logistics environments where SMEs predominate, particularly when comparing collaborative versus non-collaborative firms. There is also a lack of studies that systematically compare motivations, barriers and especially the readiness for collaboration based on company size and previous collaboration experience. This gap is especially relevant in regions where cooperation is not the norm and where resource limitations, trust issues, and operational pressures intensify resistance to change.

This article directly addresses these gaps. Firstly, it synthesizes recent findings on the benefits, obstacles, and behavioural drivers of HLC, with a specific focus on underrepresented micro and small enterprises. Secondly, it employs a tailored COM-B-informed survey [34] to collect empirical data from 71 logistics companies in Slovenia [35], where the logistics market is defined by strong competition, high fragmentation, and low collaboration maturity. The survey design captures both collaborative and non-collaborative firms, and links operational challenges, motivational drivers, and collaboration readiness with company-specific characteristics, including size, service profile, client types, transport intensity, fleet structure, and storage capacity. This enables a multidimensional comparison across firm types and collaboration experience levels. Finaly, the article proposes managerial and policy measures, including neutral data-trust platforms, transparent cost- and carbon-sharing rules, and targeted behavioural incentives [19,33] to facilitate the transition from short-term pilot projects to sustainable, multi-partner networks. By integrating comprehensive evidence with new empirical insights, this study enhances the understanding of HLC, particularly within environments where collaboration is both critically challenging and necessary and provides concrete recommendations for practitioners and policymakers.

2. Materials and Methods

This section outlines the methodological approach taken to investigate the dynamics of horizontal logistics collaboration. Building on the challenges and gaps identified in the introduction, the methodology is designed to explore key factors influencing collaborative readiness, motivations, and barriers among logistics companies. This study examines horizontal collaboration among logistics providers, including smaller firms offering only specific transport and/or warehousing services. It excludes companies that are ordering logistics services, since those interactions fall under vertical collaboration.

The research focuses on Slovenia, selected for its unique logistics, economic, and cultural characteristics, which make it particularly suitable for studying the challenges and opportunities of HLC. Over 75% of logistics service providers and companies in Slovenia are micro and small enterprises, constituting a significant portion of the sector and making collaboration essential for maintaining competitiveness in a fragmented market [35]. The country’s strategic location at the crossroads of major European transport corridors, including the Baltic–Adriatic, Mediterranean and Western Balkan–Eastern Mediterranean core corridor, presents unique logistics challenges and opportunities for regional and international trade. Slovenia’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI) score of 3.3 in 2023—above the global average of 2.87—further underscores its relevance as a case study, reflecting its solid infrastructure and logistical capabilities [36].

Additionally, Slovenia’s cultural and organizational factors present distinctive dynamics for collaboration. A high score of 81 on the Individualism index suggests a preference for independent decision-making and informal and weakly structured social framework, which can hinder collaboration without strong incentives and structured agreements [37]. This individualistic tendency, coupled with the dominance of small enterprises, necessitates targeted strategies to foster trust and alignment among stakeholders. Furthermore, Slovenia’s established regulatory framework, combined with its relatively small but accessible logistics market, allows for comprehensive data collection and in-depth analysis of collaboration readiness and barriers. Together, these attributes highlight Slovenia as an exemplary context for exploring HLC.

To gather data, we designed a structured online survey (available in Supplementary Materials) using a web-based tool. Our approach is based on the COM-B behaviour framework, which considers the complex interaction of capability, opportunity and motivation. It serves as our theoretical foundation for understanding behavioural aspects of HLC.

Conceptually, capability is a company’s physical and psychological capacity to collaborate. It includes skills, knowledge and access to necessary resources. Opportunity refers to external influences that enable or hinder collaboration. These influences include infrastructural conditions, organizational norms and market structures. Motivation represents the internal processes that drive firms to pursue and sustain collaborative partnerships. These processes include reflective intentions and drivers. They are shaped by expected benefits, social expectations and strategic priorities.

To capture both capability and opportunity, we first addressed operational challenges. These included, for example, labour shortages, high energy costs and underutilization of freight capacity. Respondents rated how these issues affect their work and logistics processes. We then explored past collaboration experiences and barriers.

Building on these foundations, we examined a full spectrum of collaborative forms, from informal agreements to strategic long-term partnerships. Companies were asked about potential areas of collaboration such as sharing transport vehicles, warehouse infrastructure, joint procurement and coordinating delivery schedules. This helps us to evaluate opportunities and willingness of companies to integrate and manage pooled resources. Questions on potential benefits in terms of cost reduction, improved vehicle utilization and enhanced service offerings further clarified companies’ motivation.

Further analysis delved into conditions necessary for successful collaboration such as transparency in operations, secure data management and unified rules for resource sharing and conflict resolution. This highlighted opportunities that enable lasting partnerships. Finally, questions on innovative practices such as shared autonomous systems or digital platforms for joint decision making captured both opportunity and motivation. This structure ensures our methodology reflects the basic nature of COM-B in the HLC context.

Questions were structured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not important/inappropriate) to 5 (very important/very appropriate), to ensure detailed insights into perceptions and priorities. By including these comprehensive content areas, the survey provided a robust framework for evaluating the challenges and opportunities within the Slovenian logistics sector and identifying means for fostering horizontal collaboration.

The target population included logistics companies classified under standard activity codes such as universal postal service activities, road freight transport, warehousing, cargo handling, and other transportation support activities. A total of 7217 companies were registered in Slovenia in this segment, as identified through the GVIN database [35]. However, public databases typically do not provide accessible contact information for these companies. To address this, the questionnaire was disseminated through the mailing lists of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia and the Chamber of Craft and Small Business of Slovenia. We chose this approach because the publicly available company database only lists generic information email addresses, to which firms typically do not respond. Consequently, not all companies were included in the survey, which represents a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, we believe that the sample includes representative stakeholders. Structured interviews with selected industry stakeholders were conducted to refine the questionnaire, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpretation. Feedback led to iterative improvements before the survey’s distribution.

Data collection took place between April and September 2024. Companies were first invited to participate via email, followed by reminder phone calls to improve response rates. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, and their consent was obtained before participation. This approach yielded 71 valid responses, representing a diverse cross-section of the Slovenian logistics industry. Respondents included 13.7% large enterprises, 19.2% medium-sized enterprises, 43.8% small enterprises, and 23.3% micro-enterprises. Most surveyed companies primarily offered transport services (97.2%), with additional services such as warehousing (45.8%) and value-added services like packaging and labelling (22.2%). Among transport providers, 74.6% offered international transport, 64.8% offered local/urban transport, and 62.0% provided national/regional transport.

The sample presented in Figure 1 is statistically significant as it represents a broad spectrum of company sizes and services, capturing the diversity and complexity of the Slovenian logistics industry. It includes a balanced mix of micro, small, medium, and large enterprises. Furthermore, the 71 valid responses account for approximately 1% of all logistics companies registered in Slovenia, ensuring a meaningful representation of the industry. By covering diverse service offerings, including transport, warehousing, and value-added services, the sample reflects both common practices and niche operations. This structured approach not only minimizes sampling bias but also ensures that the insights derived are robust and applicable to the sector’s broader trends and challenges.

Survey responses were analysed to identify patterns in readiness, motivations, and barriers to collaboration. Comparative analysis was conducted between companies of different sizes, service types, and operational focuses. Insights from structured interviews were integrated to contextualize the survey findings.

For each of the possible answers on current issues, forms, areas of collaboration, benefits, and necessary conditions for successful collaboration, we analysed the averages and standard deviation of responses, which are presented in graphs of the following chapter. Subsequently, we also calculated the percentage deviation of the average of the responses of each group of companies from the overall average. These data are presented in the tables in Appendix A. Blue-coloured cells represent a negative deviation (e.g., a specific form of cooperation is less suitable for this group of enterprises), red-coloured cells represent a positive deviation (e.g., a specific form of cooperation is more suitable for this group of enterprises). White-coloured cells represent a minimum deviation from the average.

Additionally, a statistical analysis was performed using SPSS programme (IBM Corp. Released 2023. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0.2.0 Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp). Several statistical tests were made to identify statistically relevant correlations between different company types and questions related to current issues, forms, areas of collaboration, benefits, and necessary conditions for successful collaboration. Further, statistical tests were conducted to identify statistically relevant correlations between the possible answers to a specific question related to current issues and collaboration. Several statistical tests were conducted to examine correlations between different types of companies and relationships within responses to questions on current issues and collaboration. These included the Spearman correlation, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis H test, and Friedman test. Statistically significant correlations were identified at p < 0.05. Additionally, graphical representations such as boxplots, bar charts, scatter plots, relationship maps, and crosstabs were created to illustrate key findings. While the statistical tests were performed using SPSS, they are not included in this article but are available upon request from the author. Comments below the graphs in the following section highlight only those relationships that were found to be statistically significant.

While the study focuses on Slovenia, which may limit the generalizability of findings, it provides valuable insights into the factors influencing horizontal logistics collaboration in highly fragmented and competitive markets. The methodology offers a robust framework that can be adapted to similar environments.

3. Results

The survey responses were analysed to provide a detailed understanding of the challenges, experiences, and motivational factors influencing the readiness of Slovenian logistics companies to engage in horizontal collaboration. The analysis explicitly compares the responses of companies depending on their size, provided type of services, and prior collaboration experiences, offering a detailed perspective on how these groups perceive challenges and opportunities differently. The findings are presented in the following sections, which align with the study’s objectives, while their interpretation and broader implications are discussed in the subsequent section. For a more detailed view, Appendix A includes detailed tables showing percentage deviations in responses across different company types compared to the overall average.

3.1. Collaboration Perspectives Across Different Company Types

All surveyed companies regardless of their company type answered the questions regarding the current issues when performing logistics processes, most appropriate forms and areas of collaboration, and what benefits and conditions of collaboration are most important for them. Averages of answers are presented in the following graphs. For each of the questions, a table is provided in Appendix A showcasing which of the provided answers are, in relative terms, more (red colour) or less important (blue colour) based on the company type. The number in the table indicates the percentage deviation of responses from the weighted average.

When examining the issues faced by logistics companies, we presented the respondents with 16 of the most common challenges identified from the literature review (Figure 2). The identified challenges were ranked based on how significantly they affect logistics processes. A rating of 1 indicates that the challenge does not significantly impact companies’ logistics processes, while a rating of 5 indicates that the issue has a very significant impact.

The analysis identified five key challenges for logistics service providers, each rated with average importance above 4.0: labour shortages (4.18), traffic congestion (4.17), unfair competition (4.08), low utilization (4.07), and high energy costs (4.06). The least important issues are a lack of investment funds (3.14) and urban delivery restrictions (3.33). The standard deviation values (ranging from 1.0 to 1.2) and a coefficient of variation (0.2–0.4) indicate a moderate dispersion of responses, suggesting a relatively consistent perception of logistics challenges among respondents. A more detailed interpretation of these results is provided in the Discussion section.

Companies providing only transport services report significantly greater challenges than those offering diversified logistics services. Additionally, firms with prior collaboration experience report more challenges. In terms of company size, the labour shortage is a more pressing issue for large companies, while a lack of investment funds, payment indiscipline, a lack of knowledge on optimization, and time loss due to traffic congestion are more pressing for SMEs. Companies unwilling to collaborate face greater challenges, including labour shortages, lack of investment funds, loss of time due to traffic congestion and high energy costs. They also report payment indiscipline, demanding customer requirements, lack of trust, and unfair competition, reinforcing barriers to cooperation. Companies serving in the B2C sector experience the listed issues as slightly more pressing than those in the B2B sector. Similarly, firms operating zero-emission vehicles report these challenges as somewhat more demanding. Logistics operators owning larger storage capacities experience more pressing issues of low utilization of space and labour shortage than those with less storage space owned.

The statistical analysis also identified that traffic congestion and loss of time are very important issues for companies operating in the B2C sector rather than in other sectors; additionally, payment indiscipline is a much more pressing issue for companies providing only transport services (boxplot graph in Supplementary Material, Figure S1); further, labour shortage is a more significant issue for companies owning zero-emission vehicles rather than those that do not. A key insight is the strong correlation between lack of trust and lack of collaboration (details in Supplementary Material, Figure S2). The higher the lack of trust, the more significant the collaboration issue.

No significant differences were observed between companies based on the spatial scope of their transport services, whether international (long distance), national or regional (medium distance), or local/urban (short distance). This can be attributed to the fact that many challenges such as labour shortages, high energy costs, or payment indiscipline affect logistics providers across all levels of transport activity and are not strictly tied to distance or delivery range. There are also no mayor differences in terms of perceived issues and the company’s vehicle fleet size.

3.2. The Most Appropriate Forms of Collaboration

Further, we asked logistics companies about the most appropriate forms of collaboration. The responses to this question are presented in Figure 3, where 1 indicates “inappropriate” and 5 indicates “very appropriate” form of collaboration.

An analysis shows that the most suitable forms of collaboration are joint planning of operational logistics processes (3.96) and collaboration and networking with several partners (3.75); these are further interpreted in the following section. The standard deviation values (1.0–1.2) and the coefficient of variation (0.3) suggest a moderate spread in responses, indicating relative agreement among participants.

Companies with larger storage capacities (over 5000 m²), prior collaboration experience, and a higher willingness to collaborate are generally more open to all forms of cooperation. Micro-sized companies prefer collaboration with a single partner, whereas medium and large companies favour collaboration and networking with several partners (Spearman test and bar chart available in Supplementary Material, Table S1 and Figure S3). B2B operators prefer collaboration with a single partner, whereas B2C companies find this approach significantly less suitable. For companies with a large vehicle fleet, collaboration and networking with several partners is significantly more suitable than for those with a smaller fleet. Similarly, logistics providers that own zero-emission vehicles find multi-partner collaboration and networking particularly beneficial, whereas companies without such vehicles view this form of cooperation as considerably less desirable. Among logistics companies providing only transport, the most suitable forms of collaboration are limited to working with a single partner or engaging in the joint planning of operational logistics processes. In contrast, companies offering a broader range of logistics services tend to prefer strategic, long-term partnerships and multi-partner collaboration models.

3.3. Opportunities for Collaboration

In a similar way, we asked logistics companies in which areas do they see possibilities and/or opportunities for collaboration. Results are presented in Figure 4, where 1 indicates “inappropriate” and 5 indicates “very appropriate” areas of collaboration.

Analysis shows that sharing knowledge/experiences (3.49), merging shipments in delivery (3.37), sharing transport vehicles (3.21) and warehouse infrastructure (3.17) emerged as the most suitable areas for collaboration, while sharing workforce and data (2.64) were rated the lowest. Sharing knowledge/experiences was also statistically a more suitable area of collaboration than sharing data and workforce. It is important to note that knowledge and experience refer to general managerial insights, best practices, and lessons learned, whereas data refer to operational information such as shipment details, vehicle locations, and available capacities, information directly tied to the optimization of logistics processes. A more in-depth interpretation is provided in the Discussion section. The standard deviation values (1.2–1.4) indicate moderate variability in responses, suggesting differing views on collaboration opportunities. The coefficient of variation (0.4–0.5) reveals slightly higher relative variability compared to previous sections, implying a less uniform perception. Workforce and data sharing, along with joint procurement, show the highest variability, suggesting more diverse opinions.

Micro and medium-sized companies favour the majority of listed areas of collaboration, while the same does not apply to large companies. Micro-sized companies particularly favour sharing data and autonomous systems. This result reflects their perceived opportunities rather than their current capabilities. Specifically, micro-enterprises express a strong interest in larger logistics providers sharing access to data and advanced technologies such as autonomous systems, which they cannot afford to develop or implement independently. This is important, as micro-sized companies in Slovenia account for approximately one-quarter of all logistics companies in the market. Further interpretation of the results is presented in the Section 4. B2C operators also show a much lower willingness to collaborate across all areas than companies in other customer segments, except for merging shipments in delivery. Companies with large vehicle fleets are open to collaboration but are less inclined to share shipments, data, or autonomous systems. Companies owning zero-emission vehicles are more likely to share vehicles, workforce, experiences, and knowledge than companies without zero-emission vehicles. Furthermore, companies with large storage capacities (more than 5000 m²) are more willing to collaborate on almost all listed areas. Companies already engaged in collaboration are generally more open to all areas of resource-sharing. Those highly willing to collaborate also find all listed areas to be suitable (Spearman correlation test available in Supplementary Material, Table S2 and

Table A3. In which areas do you see possibilities/opportunities for collaboration?

A3(a)	Q3 How Big Is Your Company According to the EU Classification?				Q4 Which Segment Do You Operate in?			Q5 What Logistics Services Do You Offer?
Q14 In Which Areas Do You See Possibilities/Opportunities for Collaboration?	Micro	Small	Medium	Large	Companies (B2B)	End Consumers (B2C)	ALL	Transport	Transport and Other
Sharing warehouse infrastructure	0%	−3%	8%	−21%	−3%	−5%	3%	3%	−1%
Sharing transport vehicles	−3%	−6%	11%	4%	5%	−44%	−3%	−5%	3%
Sharing handling equipment	9%	−10%	14%	−17%	−2%	−40%	14%	−2%	2%
Sharing workforce	7%	−6%	8%	−11%	−1%	−43%	10%	−5%	4%
Sharing or merging shipments in delivery	1%	8%	−2%	−41%	−2%	19%	−1%	6%	−3%
Sharing of data	20%	−1%	−8%	−37%	1%	−53%	8%	1%	−1%
Sharing experiences and knowledge	7%	−8%	4%	−5%	−3%	−8%	6%	−7%	6%
Joint procurement of fuel, spare parts, materials, packaging, IT services	5%	−7%	16%	−24%	3%	−51%	1%	4%	−1%
Sharing of autonomous systems (transport and/or storage)	12%	−8%	11%	−33%	0%	−39%	6%	6%	−5%
A3(b)	Q6 Vehicle Fleet Size?		Q7 Share of Zero-emission Vehicles?		Q8 Existing Storage Capacity [m2]?			Q11 Have You Ever Collaborated with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q14 In Which Areas Do You See Possibilities/Opportunities for Collaboration?	0–50	>50	Yes	No	0–1000	1001–5000	>5000	Yes	No
Sharing warehouse infrastructure	0%	7%	4%	2%	4%	−5%	21%	2%	−25%
Sharing transport vehicles	−3%	13%	15%	−2%	1%	7%	9%	1%	−14%
Sharing handling equipment	−3%	9%	−10%	3%	8%	−8%	6%	2%	−21%
Sharing workforce	−5%	14%	8%	−1%	−15%	14%	1%	3%	−19%
Sharing or merging shipments in delivery	7%	−17%	−16%	7%	14%	−18%	14%	3%	−26%
Sharing of data	6%	−17%	−4%	2%	−4%	−8%	7%	3%	−24%
Sharing experiences and knowledge	−2%	7%	6%	0%	−3%	17%	0%	2%	−25%
Joint procurement of fuel, spare parts, materials, packaging, IT services	2%	3%	−5%	5%	−8%	3%	24%	2%	−19%
Sharing of autonomous systems (transport and/or storage)	1%	−1%	−10%	5%	−9%	−8%	18%	2%	−20%
A3(c)	Q12 How Would You Rate Your Willingness to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q14 In Which Areas Do You See Possibilities/Opportunities for Collaboration?	I’m Not Willing to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers		I’m Only Willing to Collaborate if Absolutely Necessary		I’m Willing if the Collaboration Is Easy to Organize		I’m Very Willing to Collaborate and Share My Resources	I’m Fully Willing to Collaborate and to Establish a Lasting Collaboration
Sharing warehouse infrastructure	11%		−33%		2%		14%	−5%
Sharing transport vehicles	9%		−45%		−1%		18%	7%
Sharing handling equipment	0%		−37%		−3%		13%	17%
Sharing workforce	33%		−48%		−2%		11%	17%
Sharing or merging shipments in delivery	34%		−41%		6%		19%	−13%
Sharing of data	−5%		−48%		2%		25%	0%
Sharing experiences and knowledge	−28%		−30%		−3%		21%	6%
Joint procurement of fuel, spare parts, materials, packaging, IT services	14%		−19%		−14%		30%	9%
Sharing of autonomous systems (transport and/or storage)	18%		−29%		−3%		32%	−6%

c in Appendix A.3), while companies that would collaborate only if necessary do not see any area as appropriate.

There is no significant deviation from average responses in terms of what services the company offers.

3.4. Collaboration Benefits

Furthermore, we analysed which benefits of collaboration in logistics would most motivate logistics companies to engage in collaboration with other logistics service providers. The responses of the surveyed companies are presented in Figure 5, where 1 indicates “not important” and 5 indicates “very important” benefits of collaboration.

The results highlight that better vehicle utilization (4.29), cost reduction (4.21), and increased service diversification (4.10) are the most important benefits of collaboration, while increased flexibility to new rules for deliveries to city centres (3.46), increased flexibility to comply with ESG standards (3.48), and lower negative impact on the environment (3.61) are the least influential. The Discussion section offers a more comprehensive analysis of these results. The standard deviation values (0.7–1.1) and the coefficient of variation (0.2–0.3) indicate relatively low dispersion, suggesting a strong consensus on the benefits of collaboration. Only environmental and regulatory flexibility exhibits slightly higher dispersion, implying more diverse perspectives on their importance compared to efficiency and cost-related benefits.

Micro and small enterprises tend to be less aware of collaboration benefits than medium-sized companies, as shown in the

Table A4. How important would certain benefits of collaboration influence you to be more willing to collaborate?

A4(a)	Q3 How Big Is Your Company According to the EU Classification?				Q4 Which Segment Do You Operate in?			Q5 What Logistics Services Do You Offer?
Q15 How Important Would Certain Benefits of Collaboration Influence You to Be More Willing to Collaborate?	Micro	Small	Medium	Large	Companies (B2B)	End Consumers (B2C)	ALL	Transport	Transport and Other
Improved optimization and efficiency of logistics processes	−5%	−2%	3%	7%	1%	−7%	−3%	−3%	2%
Reduced costs, increased demand	−1%	−2%	4%	−1%	0%	−5%	−1%	1%	0%
Less negative impact on the environment	−11%	2%	5%	1%	1%	4%	−6%	4%	−2%
Better vehicle utilization, fewer empty runs	−4%	2%	0%	−7%	1%	5%	−7%	−1%	0%
Increased competitiveness and bargaining power	−5%	−4%	10%	0%	0%	−7%	0%	−7%	6%
Faster, more frequent and punctual deliveries	−6%	2%	1%	−3%	−1%	−5%	0%	2%	−3%
Increased customer flexibility, diversification of logistics service offer	−9%	−2%	5%	14%	−1%	−11%	0%	−2%	2%
Increased flexibility to comply with ESG standards (measurement and reporting of environmental and social impacts)	−9%	1%	7%	−4%	1%	−14%	−4%	2%	0%
Increased flexibility to new rules for deliveries to city centres	0%	−2%	0%	1%	−4%	16%	3%	5%	−1%
A4(b)	Q6 Vehicle Fleet Size?		Q7 Share of Zero-Emission Vehicles?		Q8 Existing Storage Capacity [m2]?			Q11 Have You Ever Collaborated with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q15 How Important Would Benefits of Collaboration Influence You to Be More Willing to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers?	0–50	>50	Yes	No	0–1000	1001–5000	>5000	Yes	No
Improved optimization and efficiency of logistics processes	1%	−1%	−3%	2%	6%	−1%	3%	1%	−16%
Reduced costs, increased demand	1%	−2%	1%	0%	4%	−9%	15%	1%	−12%
Less negative impact on the environment	2%	−1%	−3%	4%	6%	−8%	−3%	0%	−7%
Better vehicle utilization, fewer empty runs	2%	−1%	3%	1%	6%	1%	−3%	0%	−13%
Increased competitiveness and bargaining power	−2%	9%	12%	−1%	9%	4%	8%	0%	−7%
Faster, more frequent and punctual deliveries	4%	−10%	−3%	3%	−1%	−8%	9%	0%	−9%
Increased customer flexibility, diversification of logistics service offer	0%	2%	6%	1%	2%	0%	14%	1%	−12%
Increased flexibility to comply with ESG standards (measurement and reporting of environmental and social impacts)	3%	−3%	−4%	3%	2%	−2%	5%	−1%	1%
Increased flexibility to new rules for deliveries to city centres	3%	−5%	8%	0%	4%	−13%	6%	1%	−8%
A4(c)	Q12 How Would You Rate Your Willingness to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q15 How Important Would Certain Benefits of Collaboration Influence You to Be More Willing to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers?	I’m Not Willing to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers		I’m Only Willing to Collaborate if Absolutely Necessary		I’m Willing if the Collaboration Is Easy to Organize		I’m Very Willing to Collaborate and Share my Resources		I’m Fully Willing to Collaborate and to Establish a Lasting Collaboration
Improved optimization and efficiency of logistics processes	−26%		−10%		−2%		1%		9%
Reduced costs, increased demand	−5%		−12%		−3%		4%		6%
Less negative impact on the environment	11%		−7%		−8%		9%		6%
Better vehicle utilization, fewer empty runs	−7%		−7%		−1%		4%		−3%
Increased competitiveness and bargaining power	12%		−25%		−1%		9%		3%
Faster, more frequent and punctual deliveries	13%		−5%		−6%		9%		1%
Increased customer flexibility, diversification of logistics service offer	10%		−12%		−3%		3%		5%
Increased flexibility to comply with ESG standards (measurement and reporting of environmental and social impacts)	15%		1%		−9%		4%		8%
Increased flexibility to new rules for deliveries to city centres			−21%		3%		5%		5%

a in Appendix A.4. Large companies place high value on collaboration outcomes such as increased customer flexibility and diversification of logistics services. B2C companies are also generally less aware of benefits, but on the other hand highly value the increased flexibility to new rules for deliveries to city centres, where typically a lot of end customers are located, along with better vehicle utilization, fewer empty runs, and less negative environmental impact, which are particularly relevant in closed city centres or zero-emission zones.

Companies providing only transport services place greater emphasis on delivery-related benefits, such as reduced environmental impact, faster and more reliable deliveries, and greater flexibility in meeting ESG standards and urban delivery regulations. This suggests an active interest of transport companies in developing more sustainable transport business models. In contrast, companies offering both transport and additional logistics services assign less importance to these benefits.

Large fleet operators do not particularly prioritize any benefit, except for increased competitiveness and service flexibility. On the other hand, small fleet operators appear slightly more aware of the collaboration benefits, likely due to the greater challenges they face in remaining competitive. Zero-emission vehicle operators particularly emphasize benefits such as improved competitiveness, stronger bargaining power, greater adaptability to urban delivery regulations, and increased customer flexibility, reflecting growing demand for zero-emission delivery options. These findings suggest that zero-emission fleet operators recognize collaboration as an enabler of environmental sustainability.

When comparing companies based on storage capacity, those with larger facilities tend to value cost reduction, increased demand, customer flexibility, and service diversification. In contrast, companies with more limited storage space most strongly value increased competitiveness and bargaining power. Companies with prior collaboration experience perceive nearly all listed benefits more strongly than those with no such experience (Mann–Whitney U test in Supplementary Material, Table S3; bar chart in Figure S4). Companies willing to collaborate see the benefits of collaboration as very important; in particular, efficiency improvements are very crucial, while those reluctant to collaborate consider improved efficiency, utilization, and customer demand less important.

3.5. Collaboration Conditions

Lastly, we analysed what are the most important conditions for successful and long-term logistics collaboration. Interviewed companies had to mark each condition (Figure 6) from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “not important” and 5 indicates “very important” conditions for successful collaboration.

Successful collaboration in logistics depends on several key conditions, with the most important being maintaining company autonomy and reputation (4.36), clear collaboration rules (4.20), transparency of logistics processes (4.17), and secure data sharing (4.16). The standard deviation values (0.7–1.1) and the coefficient of variation (0.2–0.3) indicate low-to-moderate variability, suggesting strong agreement on key collaboration conditions. There is only slightly higher variability for independent management, implying more diverse opinions on the necessity of external coordination.

Regarding company size, large and medium-sized logistics companies tend to consider most of the listed collaboration conditions as important, whereas micro and small enterprises show lower awareness of their significance. For large companies, maintaining autonomy and company reputation, having unified rules of collaboration, involving an independent platform or partner for collaboration management, and ensuring a high level of partner commitment are particularly important. A more in-depth interpretation is provided in Section 4.

Companies operating in the B2B segment perceive secure data-sharing protocols, transparency in logistics processes, protection of intellectual property, strong partner commitment, and third-party collaboration management as more important compared to B2C-oriented companies. Other differences between B2B and B2C companies are less pronounced.

Companies operating zero-emission vehicles generally attribute greater importance to most of the listed collaboration conditions than those without such vehicles. In particular, they highly value unified rules of collaboration, equal resource sharing among partners, and transparency of logistics processes.

Similarly to large companies, companies with large storage capacities also rate these collaboration conditions as significantly more important than companies with limited storage space (see Appendix A.5,

Table A5. What do you think are the necessary conditions for successful collaboration?

A5(a)	Q3 How Big Is Your Company According to the EU Classification?				Q4 Which Segment Do You Operate in?			Q5 What Logistics Services Do You Offer?
Q16 What Do You Think Are the Necessary Conditions for Successful Collaboration?	Micro	Small	Medium	Large	Companies (B2B)	End Consumers (B2C)	ALL	Transport	Transport and Other
The collaboration is managed by an independent partner/platform	0%	−3%	−2%	12%	5%	−12%	−9%	11%	−6%
High level of commitment of the partners involved	1%	−4%	−2%	12%	3%	−16%	−5%	0%	1%
Transparency of logistics processes	−3%	−2%	1%	8%	0%	−9%	0%	−1%	1%
Secure data sharing and management	−5%	−4%	8%	4%	−1%	−13%	2%	−5%	3%
Protection of intellectual property rights (knowledge, innovation, patents)	−1%	−4%	6%	1%	0%	−12%	1%	1%	0%
Maintaining the autonomy and reputation of your company	−1%	−5%	3%	7%	0%	3%	−3%	−3%	2%
Unified rules of collaboration (responsibilities, rights, sanctions, fair sharing of cost and profit)	1%	−5%	−1%	15%	0%	−5%	−1%	−2%	2%
Equal contribution of partners to share their resources (infrastructure, vehicles, labour)	−5%	−2%	4%	9%	−1%	−5%	2%	1%	1%
Easy integration of the company’s IT system	1%	−4%	3%	3%	−1%	3%	0%	−2%	1%
Participation in strategic decision-making	0%	−5%	5%	5%	−2%	8%	1%	1%	−1%
Training and possible retraining of employees is ensured	−6%	−4%	8%	4%	−3%	4%	3%	−2%	1%
A5(b)	Q6 Vehicle Fleet Size?		Q7 Share of Zero-emission Vehicles?		Q8 Existing Storage Capacity [m2]?			Q11 Have You Ever Collaborated with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q16 What Do You Think Are the Necessary Conditions for Successful Collaboration?	0–50	>50	Yes	No	0–1000	1001–5000	>5000	Yes	No
The collaboration is managed by an independent partner/platform	3%	−1%	−3%	3%	−18%	7%	2%	2%	−16%
High level of commitment of the partners involved	2%	−4%	−2%	1%	1%	−4%	0%	2%	−16%
Transparency of logistics processes	0%	0%	8%	−1%	3%	−8%	8%	2%	−22%
Secure data sharing and management	−1%	2%	2%	0%	5%	−4%	8%	1%	−13%
Protection of intellectual property rights (knowledge, innovation, patents)	2%	−4%	3%	0%	−1%	−7%	14%	1%	−8%
Maintaining the autonomy and reputation of your company	−1%	2%	5%	0%	2%	−2%	15%	2%	−20%
Unified rules of collaboration (responsibilities, rights, sanctions, fair sharing of cost and profit)	0%	1%	9%	−1%	2%	−1%	3%	1%	−11%
Equal contribution of partners to share their resources (infrastructure, vehicles, labour)	1%	2%	9%	−1%	−4%	−4%	9%	1%	−12%
Easy integration of the company’s IT system	2%	−5%	3%	1%	3%	−6%	7%	2%	−16%
Participation in strategic decision-making	0%	1%	1%	0%	−1%	−11%	18%	1%	−15%
Training and possible retraining of employees is ensured	−1%	3%	6%	−1%	2%	−5%	9%	0%	−6%
A5(c)	Q12 How Would You Rate Your Willingness to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers?
Q16 What Do You Think Are the Necessary Conditions for Successful Collaboration?	I’m Not Willing to Collaborate with Other Logistics Service Providers		I’m Only Willing to Collaborate if Absolutely Necessary		I’m Willing if the Collaboration Is Easy to Organize		I’m Very Willing to Collaborate and Share My Resources	I’m Fully Willing to Collaborate and to Establish a Lasting Collaboration
The collaboration is managed by an independent partner/platform	2%		−1%		−5%		8%	2%
High level of commitment of the partners involved	−4%		−10%		−4%		6%	6%
Transparency of logistics processes	−28%		−13%		1%		9%	−2%
Secure data sharing and management	−16%		−13%		0%		2%	4%
Protection of intellectual property rights (knowledge, innovation, patents)	1%		−10%		−2%		7%	1%
Maintaining the autonomy and reputation of your company	−20%		−21%		−1%		8%	3%
Unified rules of collaboration (responsibilities, rights, sanctions, fair sharing of cost and profit)	−5%		−14%		−2%		8%	1%
Equal contribution of partners to share their resources (infrastructure, vehicles, labour)	−12%		−9%		−4%		6%	7%
Easy integration of the company’s IT system	3%		−19%		−2%		7%	8%
Participation in strategic decision-making	−11%		−10%		−6%		5%	12%
Training and possible retraining of employees is ensured	4%		−11%		−6%		2%	13%

b). Companies with small storage capacities, for instance, do not strongly favour having an independent entity manage the collaboration.

Prior collaboration experience also plays a critical role. Companies without prior collaboration are generally less aware of the importance of these conditions, reflecting lower awareness of what successful collaboration requires. In contrast, companies more willing to collaborate consider nearly all conditions as important, particularly partner commitment, maintaining autonomy and reputation, unified collaboration rules, equal contribution of resources, easy IT integration, and participation in strategic decision-making (see Spearman test in Supplementary Material, Table S4).

There are no significant differences based on the type of services offered by companies, with one exception: companies providing only transport services assign high importance to collaboration being managed by an independent third party, a view not shared by companies offering a wider range of logistics services. Lastly, no notable differences were found when comparing companies based on the size of their vehicle fleets.

4. Discussion and Implications

The empirical findings present a comprehensive picture of the current operational and strategic landscape in which logistics companies operate. While the results confirm a generally positive perception of collaboration and its benefits, they also reveal significant behavioural and systemic limitations that prevent more ambitious or long-term forms of cooperation. In this discussion, we reflect on the main findings, interpret their underlying causes, and propose implications for practice and policy. Not all empirical results are covered in detail here; a full overview of the data and analyses is provided in Appendix A.

From the COM-B perspective, the capability and opportunity components, captured in the survey through operational challenges, help explain why environmental and regulatory considerations currently hold a lower priority among logistics companies. Issues such as compliance with ESG standards or urban delivery restrictions are rated as less important by logistics companies. This indicates that environmental considerations are currently secondary to more immediate economic concerns. Similarly, Evangelista et al. also note that considerable uncertainty remains regarding how logistics companies implement environmental strategies and translate green initiatives into practice [38]. As long as environmentally friendly logistics practices are not actively demanded or rewarded [39] by clients and perceived as a competitive advantage, they are unlikely to become a strategic priority. Instead, companies focus on reducing costs, improving vehicle utilization, and maintaining operational stability. This confirms why labour shortages, congestion, unfair competition, and especially cost-related concerns emerge as key issues. These conditions likely contribute to a short-term, reactive mindset, where companies focus on immediate survival rather than long-term optimization. In such conditions, the perceived capability and opportunity to collaborate, particularly with competitors, becomes limited. When organizations are under stress, behavioural theory suggests that they are less willing to engage in exploratory or trust-based initiatives, favouring instead control, independence, and minimal exposure [40]. This helps to explain why collaboration-related challenges, while present, are not perceived as top priorities.

This way of thinking also helps to explain why the most preferred forms of collaboration are those that require limited commitment. Operational-level collaboration, such as joint planning or informal networking, is easier to implement and perceived as less risky. In line with other studies [41], more strategic, long-term forms of collaboration receive lower support, as they often require structural adjustments, stable governance mechanisms, and a long-term view that is difficult to adopt in a volatile environment. Behavioural inertia and institutional path dependence reinforce this. Companies are used to optimizing within their own boundaries and are hesitant to engage in forms of collaboration that might compromise their autonomy or competitive edge.

The pattern is even more evident in the selection of preferred areas of collaboration. A unique finding of this study is that logistics companies are more willing to share soft elements such as knowledge rather than hard resources such as vehicles, data, or personnel. This reluctance reflects a fundamental lack of trust and the fear of misaligned expectations or opportunistic behaviour. In game-theoretic terms, many companies face a prisoner’s dilemma [42]. Although cooperation would lead to collectively better outcomes, the fear that the partner might exploit shared resources leads to a preference for isolation. The low rating of data [19,22,28] and workforce sharing [10,11] is particularly telling, as it indicates how deep the behavioural barriers run, even in domains where shared usage could objectively create value.

Notably, differences emerge between companies depending on their size and past collaboration experience. Larger companies appear less inclined to engage in horizontal collaboration compared to smaller ones. This may be because they tend to be more self-sufficient, with enough internal resources and a stronger focus on vertical integration. In contrast, smaller companies are often subcontractors to larger logistics firms and therefore more open to collaboration, as it may offer them access to new opportunities, capabilities, or market reach that they cannot achieve alone. Similarly, companies with previous collaboration experience are more likely to report positive expectations and demonstrate higher levels of trust, while those without such experience tend to be more sceptical and risk averse.

Despite this hesitancy, companies do see clear benefits in collaboration. In terms of the COM-B framework, the “Motivation” component, reflected in the survey through questions on perceived benefits of collaboration, reveals that logistics companies are primarily driven by economic and operational incentives. The strongest motivators are economic and operational in nature, like better vehicle utilization, cost reduction, and improved service flexibility. These benefits are well understood and align with the dominant performance indicators in the logistics sector. However, the lower perceived importance of environmental or regulatory benefits suggests that sustainability and compliance, while acknowledged, are not yet strong enough to trigger behavioural change. This highlights a gap between external policy objectives and internal decision-making rationales within logistics firms. While collaboration could support broader societal goals, it is still primarily pursued for self-interested, efficiency-driven reasons.

A particularly important finding concerns the conditions that companies see as necessary for successful collaboration. The dominant concern is the preservation of autonomy and reputation. This confirms that many companies still approach collaboration with suspicion, fearing that cooperation might compromise their market position or expose them to reputational harm. The strong demand for clear rules, transparent processes, secure data environments, and equal partner contribution reflects a need for structural safeguards that mitigate behavioural risks [20,28]. These conditions are generally more important for medium and large companies, especially transparency and participation in strategic decision-making. In contrast, companies with no prior collaboration consistently rate these elements as less important, as similarly identified in Badraoui et al. [19]. Notably, maintaining autonomy and reputation is also statistically less important to this group, suggesting a different perception of risk.

Taken together, the results suggest that the logistics sector remains in a transitional phase. There is growing recognition of the benefits of collaboration, but behavioural and systemic constraints continue to limit its scope and depth. These constraints are not irrational; they are consistent with the incentives, experiences, and perceived risks that shape decision-making in logistics firms. Therefore, any attempt to promote collaboration must begin by acknowledging and addressing these deeper structures.

From a practical and strategic perspective, several concrete implications and recommendations emerge from the findings, particularly for advancing sustainable logistics collaboration and facilitating the shift from short-term pilots to long-term, multi-partner networks.

First, logistics companies, particularly micro and small enterprises should adopt a stepwise, low-risk approach to collaboration. Pilot projects, joint planning exercises, and informal networking initiatives can act as learning laboratories and reduce the perceived risks of collaboration. These gradual steps help build trust, operational compatibility, and collaborative capabilities. Over time, positive experiences in such small-scale partnerships can reframe collaboration from a threat into a strategic opportunity, which is particularly important for SMEs seeking to remain competitive while lacking the internal capacity to act alone [19,20,27].

Second, trust must be intentionally and systematically built not assumed. While trust naturally develops over time, it must be supported by clear governance structures and long-term strategic intent. We recommend the creation and promotion of neutral data-trust platforms acting as an independent orchestrator, ideally facilitated by public authorities or independent institutions [29], where companies can engage in pre-competitive information sharing and joint experimentation without the fear of opportunism. These platforms should ensure secure data exchange protocols, the protection of intellectual property, and standardized procedures that lower entry barriers, especially for companies with little prior experience. In doing so, they serve as transitional mechanisms that help companies build mutual confidence and enter longer-term partnerships.

Third, transparent rules for cost- and carbon-sharing are essential [29]. To ensure fairness and long-term commitment, collaboration frameworks must include clear and pre-agreed mechanisms for distributing both the benefits and burdens of cooperation, including financial investments, operational effort, and emission reductions. For example, if shared use of electric vehicles or consolidation centres is part of the agreement, the costs and carbon savings should be proportionally distributed among the partners. This increases trust, reduces conflicts, and strengthens commitment, particularly in environmentally sensitive urban logistics contexts such as zero-emission zones. Equally important is the alignment of key performance indicators (KPIs) with both collaborative and sustainability goals. Partners should define and monitor KPIs that reflect not only operational efficiency (e.g., on-time delivery or resource utilization), but also environmental performance (e.g., CO₂ reductions, energy efficiency, or share of zero-emission deliveries). This ensures that sustainability is not treated as a secondary objective, but as a shared, measurable outcome of collaboration.

Fourth, behavioural incentives should complement technical and infrastructural measures. Current policy instruments often focus narrowly on infrastructure, digitalization, or environmental targets. However, behavioural change requires behavioural tools. We recommend introducing collaboration-readiness criteria in public procurement and funding programmes, especially in logistics services for public institutions. Pre-competitive pilot projects should be supported by public funding, accompanied by behavioural diagnostics that help identify potential blockers within organizations. Furthermore, financial incentives (e.g., tax reductions, grants) for companies engaging in collaborative zero-emission delivery models would directly support both environmental and structural sustainability goals [43].

Finally, the transition from temporary pilot projects to stable, long-term collaboration networks require policy support that explicitly links logistics innovation with sustainability goals. Sustainable development must move from being a peripheral concern to a core strategic driver of logistics collaboration. This includes not only promoting zero-emission vehicles and low-carbon operations but also rewarding collaborative models that demonstrably reduce environmental externalities [44], improve urban quality of life, and support SMEs’ long-term viability. Policymakers should recognize that fostering logistics collaboration is not just an economic or operational issue, but a strategic tool for achieving climate goals, economic resilience, and sustainable supply chain and logistics management. The potential of logistics collaboration is real, but its activation depends not on new technologies or regulations alone, but on shifting the behavioural foundations on which logistics decision-making rests. Trust, transparency, and fairness are not optional soft factors [19,20,29]; they are structural prerequisites for unlocking a more efficient, sustainable, and resilient logistics system, one that can work for both large and small actors, and one that welcomes both experienced and new collaborators.

5. Conclusions

Rapid changes in the logistics sector are forcing companies to adapt to workforce shortages, rising costs, and growing competition. Horizontal logistics collaboration (HLC) offers a promising solution, enabling firms to share resources, optimize operations, and improve efficiency. This study explores HLC in Slovenia, where collaboration remains limited, by combining a literature review with a survey of 71 logistics operators. It offers a unique contribution by addressing several key gaps in the literature. First, it focuses explicitly on micro and small enterprises, which are often overlooked despite representing the majority of logistics providers and facing the most significant operational constraints. Second, it captures the perspectives of both collaborative and non-collaborative firms, enabling a comparative analysis of their motivations, barriers, and readiness levels. Third, by applying the COM-B model to structure and interpret survey results, the study links behavioural dimensions to operational and strategic decision-making, offering a more nuanced understanding of collaboration dynamics. Fourth, the study undertakes an integrated and detailed analysis by examining collaboration patterns in relation to a wide typology of logistics firm characteristics, including company size, types of services offered, customer segments served, transport activity intensity, fleet composition, and storage capacities. This approach provides a robust evidence base for understanding how structural and strategic features influence collaboration readiness and behaviour. Finally, it provides context-specific insights from a highly competitive logistics environment where collaboration is both difficult and urgently needed.

Survey results show that key challenges include labour shortages, congestion, unfair competition, low asset utilization, and energy costs. Trust emerged as a critical enabler. Companies with prior collaboration experience reported fewer operational issues and a higher willingness to engage again. This suggests that positive collaboration experiences can reduce perceived risks and unlock long-term benefits. The most preferred collaboration models involve joint operational planning, networking with multiple partners, shared infrastructure, and knowledge exchange. Successful collaboration depends on clear rules, secure data sharing, partner commitment, process transparency, and preserving autonomy. Importantly, company size and past experience shape attitudes. Micro firms are more open to collaboration, while larger firms, typically more self-sufficient, are selective but more likely to commit long term.

While our findings indicate that economic and operational incentives currently outweigh sustainability concerns, this observation should not be interpreted as dismissing the strategic relevance of sustainability. On the contrary, the behavioural barriers identified, such as lack of trust, reputational concerns, and operational stress, highlight the need for integrative approaches that align efficiency goals with environmental and social responsibility. As such, sustainability should be reframed not merely as an external compliance issue but as a lever for trust building, long-term competitiveness, and systemic resilience in fragmented logistics markets. Future collaboration models that embed carbon sharing rules, green procurement, and performance indicators tied to ESG goals may help reposition sustainability as a primary behavioural driver rather than a peripheral outcome. To increase adoption, policies should align economic incentives with environmental goals and build trust through neutral platforms and transparent rules. All of the aforementioned results are based on surveys performed in Slovenia, but may apply to other countries with fragmented logistics markets and low collaboration levels.

Despite the well-documented benefits of horizontal collaboration, its widespread adoption remains a challenge. Future research should focus on identifying effective behaviour change strategies that encourage logistics companies to engage in cooperative efforts, taking into account key motivational factors and the conditions necessary for successful collaboration. Trust-building measures, incentive structures tailored to company size, prior experience, and willingness to collaborate, as well as clearly defined collaboration frameworks, will be essential in overcoming existing barriers. Expanding the scope of research to include logistics firms from other countries would provide a broader perspective on the most desirable areas of collaboration, key motivational drivers, and the conditions that facilitate successful partnerships, ultimately contributing to the development of more targeted and effective collaboration models.