Towards a Smart Evaluation Model for Assessing Transport Providers’ Maturity in Support of Logistic Sustainability ^†

Abstract

The development of the supply chain’s outsourcing and globalization has intensified the requirement for sustainable transport. The evaluation of the transport providers’ maturity, which is crucial to all and any achievements in this context, is hampered by a myriad of factors ranging from the transport ecosystem complexity, self-contradictory and unverifiable data and the ceaseless march of modern technology. This study argues for an agile and smart approach to evaluate the maturity level of transport providers, particularly for high-risk areas like hazardous materials transport. Such models should include holistic analysis frameworks of all performance indicator measurement systems with their data collection methods and technology tools to be employed. The need to involve all stakeholders within the supply chain is said to require diverse collaboration. With regard to the solution, collaborative participation between transport providers and relevant institutions is vital to reduce the environmental impacts and improve the efficiency of the entire sector.

1. Introduction

As sustainability and safety are increasingly becoming a strategic priority of the present era, the transportation of hazardous chemicals is a key challenge for industrial operators. Storage and transportation of such chemicals are associated with high hazards that can have disastrous consequences for human safety and sustainable environment [1]. Management of these risks entails an adequate evaluation of carriers to ensure that they are in line with extremely high regulatory, operational, and environmental standards [2,3]. But assessing their maturity towards sustainability is a challenging and less researched issue.

Industrial companies are facing increasing pressure from regulators, clients, and society to embrace more sustainable logistics strategies. They must ensure their transport partners adopt sustainable strategies, minimize environmental footprints, and enhance safety in operations. However, the lack of framework and consistent methods for measuring transport providers’ maturity limits industries’ ability to choose reliable partners in accordance with sustainability objectives [4]. This shortage raises serious questions about the effective adoption of safe and environmentally friendly transport strategies.

In addition, the hazardous materials transport (HMT) setting is very complex with many interlinked stakeholders, including transport suppliers, regulators, shippers, and logistics suppliers. This interconnectivity requires an integrated assessment approach that can reflect the multi-aspect nature of sustainable transport. Such an environment measures and controls logistics flows by means of regulation and the transport suppliers’ engagement towards more eco-friendly practices. Evaluating the level of sustainability of transport providers poses a set of significant obstacles. Determining the most relevant criteria within the scope of provided safety, legal and ecological services is still quite a challenge. In addition, the absence of uniform frameworks undermines focus and makes the case ever more difficult in identifying truly sustainable transport partners.

This poses significant questions around the suitability of current programs to meet the growing needs of the industry and changing regulatory landscape. What approach to an assessment can be established to recognize transport providers able to guarantee safe and sustainable operations? Has an intelligent assessment model been developed that might help to overcome these gaps and steer the shift to more sustainable logistics practices?

The objective of this work is to address these issues through the first literature review that clarifies the theoretical foundations of maturity and sustainability in transport, identifies existing evaluation methodologies and highlights current gaps that may hinder the shift toward more sustainable transportation practices. The evaluation frameworks will be elaborated further in the study’s suggestions for further research.

The article begins with an analysis of transport maturity and sustainability. Next, it studies the existent methodologies regarding the assessment of transport providers and after that, it analyzes the existing gaps in the literature and suggests areas of new research. The purpose of the study is to contribute meaningfully to the debate on HMT sustainability and promote better environmental and safety concerns.

2. Towards Sustainable HMT: Challenges and Key Assessments

2.1. Sustainable HMT: Challenges and Assessment

The HMT system consists of a complex array of activities and stakeholders engaged in the safe movement of materials that represent major threats to human health and environmental systems [5]. They range from flammable, toxic, explosive, and radioactive materials [6], which need to be managed through strictly controlled systems so that they may be handled and transported safely. Worldwide treaties, including the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), have very strict controls regarding the transport, packaging, and marking of hazardous substances [7].

Nonetheless, the ecosystem of HMT is confronted with multiple problems that require thorough evaluation. Safety issues are critical since accidents involving dangerous materials present severe risks to public health and safety along with catastrophic damage to the environment. The environmental impact of HMT comes to the nearest survey considering the world’s bias with climate change [8]. Moreover, organizations will also have to manage the financial imbalances caused by dealing with over-regulated farming, specialized furnished mental and safety protocols, and early profit opportunities connected with effective HMT management. In this light, the effectiveness of a strong evaluation framework stands out. The existence of the right assessment tools is crucial for identifying and mitigating the risks associated with safety and sustainability best practice perpetuation within the HMT ecosystem.

2.2. Organizational Maturity: A Key to Continuous Improvement

Organizational maturity is the degree to which an organization has developed its practices and processes, according to a variety of assessment frameworks. Perhaps the most familiar example of this is the capability maturity model integration (CMMI), which defines a formal approach to process improvement in organizations through five linear stages: initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimized [9,10].

Maturity levels provide a framework for measuring an organization’s position on the path towards continuous improvement. For instance, in the logistics industry, more advanced firms are capable of realizing high maturity levels through the adoption of data-driven supply chain management routines, while less advanced organizations might still be relying on manual systems [11]. This concept of maturity is important to the stakeholders of HMT since it allows them to schedule their activity around compliance and sustainability.

2.3. Sustainability in HMT: A Path Forward

The sustainability model is based on three basic pillars: environmental, social, and economic. The environmental pillar, in particular, seeks to minimize pollutant emissions, encourage the utilization of green technology, and lower the ecological footprint of various activities [12]. Meanwhile, the social pillar gives importance to risk management, ongoing training, and employee safety, which is of utmost importance in HMT given the nature of risks [13]. Finally, the economic dimension relates to enhancing functional efficiencies and the evolution of an organization’s overall performance [14].

Within HMT, sustainability is absolutely vital. Carriers within transport are driven by increasing demands to improve their methodology in a bid to reduce environmental and societal risk while ensuring profitability. Sustainable management of HMT involves adherence to legislation and a long-term commitment to innovation and continual improvement [15]. This framework of sustainability is essential not only to satisfy current needs but also to look to the future and to the challenges associated with safety and environmental concerns.

3. Methodology of the Literature Review

3.1. Research Question

The review seeks to answer: How can the maturity and sustainability of hazardous materials transport providers be assessed in an integrated manner?

3.2. Search Strategy

A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to a pragmatic PRISMA approach shown in Figure 1. Searches were performed in Scopus and Web of Science using combinations of keywords such as “hazardous materials transport”, “hazmat transportation”, “maturity models”, “sustainability assessment”, and “transport providers evaluation”.

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

• Inclusion: Peer-reviewed articles (2014–2024), English language, focus on transport or logistics evaluation.
• Exclusion: Conference abstracts, non-peer-reviewed materials.

3.4. Selection Process

From an initial pool of 123 articles, 57 met the inclusion criteria after title, abstract, full-text screening, and 31 are cited in this work.

3.5. Analytical Overview of the Bibliography

A quantitative analysis of the selected bibliography revealed that a significant majority of references are relatively recent: 89% of the selected works were published between 2014 and 2024 as shown in Figure 2. This trend reflects the growing academic and industrial interest in integrating sustainability and maturity assessments within hazardous materials transportation during the last decade.

Nevertheless, to strengthen the historical context and theoretical foundation of our study, four early, but highly pertinent, works published before 2014 were included:

• Paulk et al. (1993): A foundational work on Capability Maturity Models, introducing core maturity concepts [10].
• McKinnon and Ge (2004): Early insights into logistics efficiency assessments and synchronized vehicle audits [16].
• Oggero et al. (2006): An important survey detailing accidents during hazardous materials transportation by road and rail [8].
• Georgopoulou et al. (2014): Significant contributions on green technologies and smart ICT applications in sustainable freight transport [15].

These earlier references provide essential conceptual grounding that supports the development of an integrated model for evaluating transport providers in terms of maturity and sustainability.

4. Review of Transport Providers Assessment Approaches

4.1. Criteria Used for Assessing Transport Providers

The assessment of transport providers for HMT depends on several criteria extending to regulatory, environmental, and organizational domains. These criteria are important to ensure that transport providers meet safety, compliance, and sustainability standards as described in

Table 1. Overview of Transport Provider Assessment Criteria.

Criteria	Description	Examples	References
Regulatory Compliance	Adherence to safety and legal standards for hazardous materials transport	ADR, UN recommendations on transport	[7,17]
Operational Safety	Measures taken to ensure safety in the transport process	Driver training, vehicle inspections	[18,19,20,21,22,23,24]
Environmental Impact	Evaluation of the environmental footprint, including emissions and energy use	CO2 emissions, green technologies	[16,19,23,25,26,27]
Organizational Maturity	Internal risk management and environmental certifications	ISO 14001, environmental audits	[28]

.

• Regulatory Compliance: These are traditional and basic criteria for the evaluation of transport suppliers. Regulatory structures such as ADR determine marking standards for safe handling, packaging, and dangerous materials [7,17].
• Operational Safety: Involves factors like driver training, vehicle maintenance, and risk management procedures to prevent accidents [18,19,20,21,22,23,24].
• Environmental Criteria: Includes indicators such as CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, and waste management [16,19,23,25,26,27]. Research highlights the necessity for emission reduction targets within the transport sector to align with international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement.
• Organizational Criteria: These focus on a transport provider’s internal structures, such as their risk management processes and environmental certifications (e.g., ISO 14001 for environmental management systems [28]).

4.2. Existing Maturity Models

Various maturity models provide frameworks for assessing the maturity of transport providers and their practices. These models have been developed across different sectors, with some specifically addressing logistics and transport operations as described in

Table 2. Examples of maturity models and their application to HMT.

Model	Area of Application	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations
CMMI Model	Process maturity assessment	Framework for continuous process improvement	Identifies gaps, supports optimization	High cost, theoretical in nature
SCOR Model	Supply chain modeling	Focus on logistics and supply chain performance	Standardized, benchmarking possible	Complex, requires precise data
Lean Logistics Model	Operational efficiency in transport	Optimizing the logistics process by reducing waste, improving efficiency and delivering value to the customer	Focuses on efficiency and improves profitability	Requires a committed organizational culture, not applicable to complex environments
ISO 9001 Model	Quality management systems of process	International standard for quality management	Global recognition, improved satisfaction	Lengthy certification, costly

.

• Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI): This widely recognized model applies to a range of organizational processes, including transport, and is structured into five levels: initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimized [10]. It identifies gaps and promotes continuous improvement but can be difficult and costly to apply in practice.
• SCOR Model: The supply chain operations reference model (SCOR) is designed for supply chain management and can be adapted to transport provider assessment. It offers standardized approaches to evaluating and improving logistics processes, though its complexity may be a challenge for small businesses [29].
• Lean Logistics Model: The lean logistics model focuses on optimizing the logistics process by reducing waste, improving efficiency, and delivering value to the customer [30].
• ISO 9001 Model [31]: A globally recognized standard for quality management systems (QMS). It provides a framework for organizations to ensure they consistently meet customer and regulatory requirements while improving overall performance

Although these models offer useful templates, their use of the HMT sector is restricted. The special risks and environmental impacts of HMT demand models tailored to these challenges.

4.3. Identified Gaps in the Literature

On the other hand, while different maturity models are widely used, there are obvious deficiencies in the literature at present when considering the transport providers with the HMT context as can be seen in

Table 3. Identified gaps in HMT provider evaluation.

Gap	Description	Consequences	Suggested Solutions
Integrated assessment models	Current evaluation models do not simultaneously assess both organizational maturity and sustainability.	Leads to fragmented assessments that overlook the interconnection between maturity and sustainability.	Develop comprehensive models that integrate both dimensions in a holistic framework.
Environmental and social dimensions	Environmental and social aspects—such as carbon emissions, social responsibility, and worker welfare—are often underrepresented.	Limits the evaluation of long-term sustainability in hazardous materials transport.	Incorporate environmental and social criteria explicitly into assessment models.
Sector-specific criteria	Many models use generic criteria that fail to address the specific risks of hazardous materials transport.	Results in inaccurate or incomplete assessments of sector-specific challenges like leaks or spills.	Design and implement evaluation criteria tailored to the unique risks of hazardous materials transport.

.

• Integrated assessment models: Today there is no model that we are aware of, that is able to jointly assess maturity and sustainability of transport providers in an integrated way. Current assessment methods are generally disjointed, focusing on specific dimensions (e.g., law requirements, operational safety) but failing to consider thoroughly the relationships that occur between an entity’s sustainability and its performance in the long term [29].
• Environmental and social dimensions: Traditional models are primarily focused on regulation and the safe operation of reactors, whilst they highlight environmental and social factors, they do not include the appropriate drivers or cover the aspects as robustly. Critical areas such as carbon emissions, corporate social responsibility, and safeguarding worker welfare are under researched, while also being critically important to long-term HMT sustainability [4].
• Sector-specific criteria: The lack of specialized criteria tailored to the unique risks of HMT is a significant gap. Generic criteria fail to account for the complex safety and environmental challenges posed by hazardous substances, such as the risk of leaks, spills, or accidents during transit [3]. Developing specific evaluative criteria for HMT is therefore essential to enhance assessment accuracy and relevance.

Briefly, the present model of transport provider evaluation in HMT is not adequately oriented to meet the complexity and specific issues of the sector. More inclusive and specific models of evaluation that take into consideration the synergy among regulatory compliance, operational safety, environmental impact, and social responsibility are needed.

5. Discussion: Opportunities and Future Directions

The review identifies a number of important opportunities to improve the hazard assessment of dangerous goods transportation through more integrated and sophisticated methods. One of the core recommendations is that both sustainability and organizational maturity need to be included in a single evaluation framework. This will allow for more holistic performance assessment of transport providers, beyond basic regulatory compliance, and for ongoing improvement and stronger environmental responsibility.

It is also important that evaluation models be reconsidered with social and environmental aspects more explicitly incorporated. These essential features are under-represented in current frameworks so that they cannot fully capture the broad sustainability performance. Further research should be directed towards developing explicit and reliable measures of environmental sustainability to gauge waste production and emissions, as well as social responsibility measures like community involvement and worker safety. New developments are also needed to adequately fulfill the advancing public demands for ethical and sustainable operations.

There is a large lag in creating specific appraisal sets aimed at the different perils of HMT hauling. Present frameworks frequently do not deal well with possible spillages, leakages and mishaps. Upcoming undertakings should focus on making specialized sets and maturity frameworks which include safekeeping, rule abidance and sustainment which directly address issues in the field.

Future research to pursue this line of inquiry must be built upon such literature by conducting a thorough systematic review and focusing on the following key areas. One such challenge is the necessity to advance integrated assessment models that combine organizational maturity frameworks with sustainability concepts. Secondly, empirical investigations are necessary in order to confirm the actual effectiveness of the proposed models in practice (and to understand to what extent maturity frameworks oriented towards sustainability can affect the performance of real transport providers).

Also, sector-specific adaptations are considered important to combat the specific vulnerabilities of HMT. As part of these adaptations, measures aimed at both prevention and reduction in risk, as well as environmental criteria, should be taken into account. Crucial is the participation of stakeholders in order for any developed assessment frameworks to be broadly applicable and operationally useful.

In short, taking the HMT assessment forward requires a shift toward integrated, sector-specific, stakeholder-informed models which holistically represent the interrelated aspects of sustainability, maturity and those specific risks characterizing this high-risk sector.

To contribute to this objective, we propose an initial framework designed to evaluate HMT providers based on sustainability criteria. This framework could be structured around four core pillars: compliance and safety, environmental performance, risk management, and social engagement.

An integrated evaluation scheme must include all these qualitative and quantitative measurements. These quantitative measures might be quantifiable achievements like decreased greenhouse gas emissions or improved safety. Alongside these, qualitative indicators can measure features of the organization such as its commitment to social sustainability, community engagement and employee benefits.

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

The initial literature review identifies key findings on the assessment of hazardous materials transport (HMT) suppliers. Despite the application of diverse criteria, regulatory compliance and operational safety are given much weight in most of the current assessment models. Although environmental and organizational dimensions are considered, they undergo poor assessment and fail to receive the necessary attention to meet the increasing expectations of sustainability and social responsibility [3].

This study also identifies major gaps in the existing literature. A key weakness is that there is no integrated assessment framework that addresses organizational maturity and sustainability together at once. In addition, the existing evaluation models have poor emphasis on environmental and social aspects [4]. The other critical gap is the absence of precise, customized evaluation criteria for the unique challenges of HMT, with existing models being less efficacious and relevant to the industry. These findings point to the necessity for existing frameworks to be customized to give more consideration to the intricacies of hazardous materials transportation.

To further these findings, future work will use a taxonomic literature review driven by the structured approach outlined in paper [32]. This will provide a systematic evaluation of evaluation models and criteria by classifying them according to the underlying dimensions of regulatory compliance, operational safety, environmental stewardship, organizational maturity, and societal impact. The proposed taxonomy will facilitate a more coherent mapping of the current knowledge base, identify existing gaps, and inform the construction of a more complete and sector-specific evaluative framework for HMT providers.