1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature review

2.1.1. Low-carbon emission

As a key component of greenhouse gases, carbon-based fumes are the main cause of environmental problems. Therefore, reduction of carbon emissions has been concerned in order to address the problems.

So far, low-carbon emission has been studied in different specific facets, namely: emission drivers [2,12,22,23], influencing policies [1,3,4,5,6,7], affecting factors [8,9,10,11], low-carbon emission barriers [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], simulating models [24,25], technological innovation promoting low-carbon emission [26], how low-carbon initiatives affect business performance [27], low-carbon household emission [28]. The current literature mainly focusses on assessing links between certain factors such as policies, technologies, and so on with the operations of low-carbon emission practises. Comparisons among participants in the process of applying these initiatives have been relatively limited.

2.1.2. Low-carbon emission in logistics

Logistics activities, particularly logistics services offered by professional logistics providers, have played a huge significance in various businesses, especially global supply chain. In the current context where sustainable development has been increasingly emphasised, sustainable logistics management is critically in need. Consequently, green logistics activities have been adopted by different stakeholders in the supply chain. This study evaluates the adoption of a specific green logistics action, which is low-carbon emission by professional logistics service providers.

According to Lin and Ho (2011) and Evangelista (2014) [12,15], the green logistics application can be promoted through the advantage and compatibility of the practise, organizational assistance, human capability, customer requirements, regulations, and governmental factors, in the case of logistics providers in China and Italy, respectively. Also examining factors driving green practises applications, but more specifically in low-carbon emission and from a wide scope of the entire supply chain, Jabbour et al. (2020) and Ibrahim. Putri and Utama (2020) added other factors, such as green images of participants and profit [12,23]. As a component of green logistics and supply chain management, it can be inherited that low-carbon practises can be driven by competitor pressure, customer requirements, governmental policies, human competence, relative advantage, and related support.

Regarding low-carbon emission initiatives, similarly some studies on green initiatives have been reviewed as references for low-carbon emission measures. According to Lieb and Lieb in their study about sustainability in 3PL companies, there are four main groups of green initiatives applied including administrative, analytical, transportation-related, and a broadly defined “other” category [13]. Administrative initiatives include “setting specific sustainability goals for individual operating units”, “establishing committees to oversee company sustainability efforts”, “developing a formal sustainability statement for a company”, “establishing pilot programs directed at reducing emission levels”. Analytical measures include “investing in evaluation software”, “benchmarking a company’s carbon footprint against other 3PL”, “developing environmental key performance indicators to be monitored on a regular basis”, “measuring the carbon impact of various network designs and transportation strategies”, etc. Some examples of transportation-related initiatives are alternative fuels, “purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles”, “reducing vehicle mileage operated”, “promoting freight consolidation initiatives within the companies”, “shifting freight to more fuel-efficient modes”, and “limiting the speeds at which company equipment is operated”. Finally, in their research, some initiatives such as “reduce company-printed materials”, “recycle office supplies and packaging materials”, “install solar panels in warehouses” are categorized as “other”. In another research of Perotti et al., green supply chain practices of 3PLs were grouped into eight categories: green supply, distribution strategies and transportation execution, warehousing and green building, reverse logistics, cooperation with customers, investment recovery, eco-design and packaging, and internal management [29]. Some specific initiatives that are related to low-carbon emission in these eight categories include “use of alternative fuels”, “environmentally friendly facility location”, “routing system to minimize travel distances”, “energy-efficient lighting system”, “energy-efficient material handling equipment”, “use of alternative energy sources”, “packaging recycle or reuse”, etc. Another research worth mentioned is the one of Evangelista [12]. In his research, Evangelista has summarized all the environmental sustainability measures applied by his case study companies ranging from vehicle use, transports modes and intramodality, energy efficiency to collaborative planning and environmental control. Almost all of the above-mentioned initiatives in one way or another can directly or indirectly reduce carbon emission application of a 3PL. For the purpose of this paper, we summarized carbon emission related measures into four categories as in the following table.

Table 1. Green initiatives which have effects on carbon emission.

Table 1. Green initiatives which have effects on carbon emission.

Categories	Initiative
Transportation	Use of alternative fuels Purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles Reducing vehicle mileage operated Promoting freight consolidation initiatives within the companies Limiting the speeds at which company equipment is operated Shifting freight to more fuel-efficient modes Using lower energy transport modes Changing vehicle specifications Reduce empty running Improving vehicle loading phase Greater use of intramodality
Packaging	Recycle office supplies and packaging materials Packaging recycle or reuse Reducing packaging
Warehouse	Install solar panels in warehouses Environmentally friendly facility location Energy-efficient material handling equipment Use of alternative energy sources
Information system	Investing in evaluation software Benchmarking a company’s carbon footprint against other 3PL Developing environmental key performance indicators to be monitored on a regular basis Measuring the carbon impact of various network designs and transportation strategies Information on carbon footprint Setting lower GHG targets Transport planning

(Source: summarized by authors).

3. Results

3.2. Current application of low-carbon measures of LSPs in Vietnam

As mentioned in the methodology, we classify the low carbon emission operation in Vietnam into four groups: freight transportation, warehousing, packaging, and information system. By measuring the application of each group in both Vietnam companies and foreign companies, this section focuses on comparing and pointing out the different levels of action to reduce carbon emissions applied in that two types of companies. Some causes will be discussed accordingly. Data from the applied measurement are displayed in four figures, according to four groups of low carbon emission. Besides, Appendix A will be used as an additional source to show the gap between means of adopted level of each activity in foreign and nonforeign invested companies: gap indexes highlighted in red belong to the highest gap group, data in orange is the second group, and pink is the lowest one. Green data dedicate that the gap is negative, meaning Vietnamese LSPs are more active than foreign in applying that initiative.

In general, Figure 1 shows that foreign-invested companies are more likely to adopt operations in freight transportation to reduce carbon emissions than non-foreign-invested companies, with positive mean gaps that are almost ranked from 0.3 to 1 and 50% of those data are marked in red—highest gap’s group (Appendix B). On the one hand, optimising transportation load and minimizing the ‘zero’ truckload are the most common activities used in both types of companies, 100% foreign LSPs and 88.8% Vietnam LSPs applied respectively. Although the act of replacing roads with waterways and rail transport is rarely used. On the other hand, regardless having foreign investment or not, almost standard deviations are higher than one and there is very insignificant difference between those two groups of companies. Hence, there is a strong view that the applied levels are spread among different companies. It can be explained by the variety of company sizes and total income, as mentioned before.

Respondents from companies which invested by foreigners point out that they have higher adoption of reducing carbon emission operation in warehouse, in comparison with those which received capital from Vietnamese only. The average means of Vietnam LSPs is 3.22 while the average means of foreign invested companies is 3.67 with 8 out of 9 indexes higher. In addition, warehouse is the sectors which have the most remarkable differ of adopted levels between two types of companies: 4 out of 9 indexes belong to highest gap group (0.65-1) and highlighted in red (Appendix 2). Furthermore, based on the survey results, almost foreign invested LSPs are likely to apply low-carbon warehouse activities with 6 out of 9 standard deviations lower than one. However, the adopted levels in non-foreign invested companies are more diverse with all standard deviations being higher than 1, in specific, most of the indexes being higher than 1.2. In general, it is clear that low carbon emission operations are both limited and uneven applied in the warehousing sector of domestic LSPs.

Table 3. The level of low carbon operation in warehousing applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Table 3. The level of low carbon operation in warehousing applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Code	Description	Foreign invested company		Non-foreign invested companies
		Mean	Std.Dev	Mean	Std.Dev
WH1	Using solar energy system at warehouse	2.91	1.59	2.26	1.35
WH2	Using energy-saving lighting equipment	3.55	1.09	3.62	1.22
WH3	Using environmentally friendly fuel in loading and unloading vehicles	3.09	0.91	2.93	1.32
WH4	Controlling energy consumption in the warehouse	4.00	1.22	3.57	1.30
WH5	Using automatic equipment at the warehouse	3.45	0.79	3.21	1.32
WH6	Using a combination of multiple energy sources in the operation of the warehouse	3.64	0.99	2.95	1.26
WH6	Using recycled/environmentally friendly materials in building the warehouse	3.64	0.90	2.95	1.03
WH8	Warehouses are located at convenient traffic areas	4.45	0.79	3.90	1.16
WH9	Warehouses are located far from residential areas	4.27	0.76	3.60	1.20

In packaging sectors, the general adoption level of the company that received capital from oversea sources is still higher than that of domestic firms, a common trend. However, the low-carbon operation in packaging is recorded as the group that has the most consistent adopted measurement in comparison between foreign invested and domestics firms. The gap between means of those two types of company is nearly all marked in pink—the lowest group, with almost figures lower than 0.2. Moreover, the standard deviations of both foreign and non-foreign invested firms are all lower than one for PA1, PA4, and PA5 while higher than one for PA2, PA3, and PA4. Hence, nearly all low-carbon activities in packaging sector are applied under a similar diversity in both types of companies. On the other hand, according to the survey, there are only 3% of 159 companies, which never applied any operation to reduce carbon emission in packaging. There are nearly 60% of the respondents, who use environmentally friendly operations more often in packaging. Therefore, packaging is considered an easy group to adopt low carbon emission operations.

Table 4. The level of low carbon operation in packaging applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Table 4. The level of low carbon operation in packaging applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Code	Description	Foreign invested company		Non-foreign invested companies
		Mean	Std. Dev	Mean	Std. Dev
PA1	Using reusable packaging	4.00	0.75	3.60	0.88
PA2	Using recyclable packaging	3.55	1.09	3.50	1.01
PA3	Using biodegradable and biodegradable packaging	3.27	1.07	3.12	1.08
PA4	Asking partners to use eco-friendly packaging	3.09	1.10	2.88	1.08
PA5	Optimizing the amount of goods contained in each package	4.00	0.75	3.88	0.88
PA6	Managing used packaging	3.82	0.85	3.76	1.16

Compared with the other three groups of low carbon emission, technology has the highest average mean of adoption level in both types of firm: 4.62 for oversea invested companies and 4.33 for domestic companies. On the scale of 5, nearly all foreign invested LSPs have the application level at 4 or 5, there is only 9.1% of respondents who are often (score 3) applied low carbon emission operation, use electronic invoices and vouchers in specific. For companies, which are invested by Vietnamese only, the mean data are lower, but mostly still higher than 4.3. When comparing the means of applied level of each activity in the technology group, there are no data marked in yellow. It means that the applied level in companies which have capital from foreigners domestic only is similar as in every kind of technology operation. It is reasonable because technology serves as a means to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the logistics system, not only simplifying tasks but also saving time, costs, and reducing the labour required for operations. (Bhandari, 2014). Furthermore, the applied level of reducing carbon emission reduction applied in technology is remarkable consistent among companies. Based on the survey, the standard deviations of Vietnamese companies are all less than 0.84 while the similar indexes of foreign invested companies are even lower than 0.67. Hence, technology is the only one out of four mentioned groups has 100% standard deviation lower than one. All data strongly show that technology is applied widely in reducing carbon emissions, regardless types of business, company size, or history of development.

Table 5. The level of low carbon operation in technology applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Table 5. The level of low carbon operation in technology applied at non-foreign invested and foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam.

Code	Description	Foreign invested company		Non-foreign invested companies
		Mean	Std. Dev	Mean	Std. Dev
TE1	Replacing paper invoices and vouchers by electronic invoices and vouchers	4.55	0.67	4.48	0.80
TE2	Digitizing documents & internal data systems	4.55	0.51	4.36	0.75
TE3	Using information technology to manage orders	4.73	0.45	4.38	0.69
TE4	Using information technology to plan order fulfillment	4.73	0.45	4.29	0.63
TE5	Using information technology to design logistics networks	4.55	0.51	4.14	0.84

By calculating the gap of 26 indexes of collected adoption levels in foreign and non-foreign invested companies, it can be seen that there are only two negative gaps while the 24 other figures are higher than zero. In general, nearly all companies that received capital from foreigner are applied low carbon emission operation more widely than those that only got domestic investment. In this case, the largest gaps belong to activities, which require significant budget for investment in properties, such as means of transportation, control system, friendly environmental systems, or other kind of long term changing like fuels. In addition, the smallest gaps are about optimising usage of companies owned subjects or low-value things such as lighting equipment.

Figure 2. Gap between low-carbon initiatives adoption of surveyed LSPs.

Figure 2. Gap between low-carbon initiatives adoption of surveyed LSPs.

The first reason could be explained the difference between two types of companies in adoption of low carbon emission operation is capital background. According to the Vietnam Logistics Report 2019, the financial potential of Vietnamese logistics companies is limited with 80% of established enterprises have a registered capital less than two billion VND. Within the limitation of financial resources, Vietnam LSPs are extremely difficult to be affordable for updating new technology, transferring transportation means, and investing in facilities to enhance effectiveness and reduce greenhouse accordingly.

Figure 3. Means of adoption level of low-carbon emissions of surveyed LSPs.

Figure 3. Means of adoption level of low-carbon emissions of surveyed LSPs.

Some strong opinions believe that the gap of acknowledgement and effort to cut down carbon emission between developed and developing countries. According to Delgado (2021): “The Paris Agreement acknowledges that efforts toward reducing carbon emissions will be common but not equal among developed and developing countries. The fairness of these contributions will be determined by national circumstances so that there will be equity in the responses and responsibilities to address climate change.’ It means that developing countries will continue to emit more carbon until they are developed enough and independent from the carbon-intensive industry. In addition, Younis (2015) states that developing countries still lack of knowledge about the consequences of emissions and their pursuit of profit and economic growth prevents leaders from making ethical decision to protect the environment. While most of the foreign invested LSPs in Vietnam come from developed countries like Denmark (Maersk), Japan (Yusen), Germany (DHL, DB Schenker), and so on. It is obvious that their awareness of environmental protection is more comprehensive than that of companies originating from developing countries like Vietnam. Consequently, to reduce carbon emissions for each operation group, foreign-invested companies always have higher adoption levels than Vietnam’s government owned ones.

Finally, the dominance of LSPs invested by oversea resources is also considered as one of the most important factors to explain why foreigner invested firms applied a more low carbon emission operation. Logistics experts commented that the number of foreign-invested LSP in Vietnam is quite small compared with total logistics services provider in Vietnam, 25 firms for specific, but they accounted 75%-80% market share (Pham, 2019). Moreover, almost foreigner-invested firms in Vietnam are operating globally. Therefore, foreign companies invested in Vietnam have extraordinary backgrounds, experience, significant financial and a human resources, and comprehensive understanding of the environment. At the same time, worldwide operation also requires that those firms comply with the environmental regulation of each country and area, especially in the cases of countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, those countries set goals to reduce C02 by commitment periods: parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020. In order to achieve that goal, nearly all participating countries set up related regulation to low carbon emission accordingly, such as the US released National GHG emission standards for light trucks, The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles (SAFE) for Model Years 2021-2026. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). Consequently, these regulations force all international LSPs to apply low carbon emission and, obviously, foreigner invested LSPs in Vietnam cannot resist while they are operating as a part of global logistics systems.

4. Discussion

References

1. Cheng, B.; Dai, H.; Wang, P.; Xie, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhao, D.; Masui, T. Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong Province, China. Energy Policy 2015, 88, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Lou, Y.; Zeng, D.; Shuai, C.; Song, X. What drives the carbon emission in the Chinese cities?—A case of pilot low carbon city of Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Wang, R., Liu, W., Xiao, L., Liu, J. and Kao, W. Path towards achieving of China's 2020 carbon emission reduction target - A discussion of low-carbon energy policies at province level. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2740–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Cao, K.; Xu, X.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, Q. Optimal production and carbon emission reduction level under cap-and-trade and low carbon subsidy policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Wang, X.; Zhu, Y.; Sun, H.; Jia, F. Production decisions of new and remanufactured products: Implications for low carbon emission economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1225–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Lyu, X.; Shi, A.; Wang, X. Research on the impact of carbon emission trading system on low-carbon technology innovation. Carbon Manag. 2020, 11, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Mo, J.-L.; Agnolucci, P.; Jiang, M.-R.; Fan, Y. The impact of Chinese carbon emission trading scheme (ETS) on low carbon energy (LCE) investment. Energy Policy 2016, 89, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Lee, C.T. , Hashim H. , Ho C., Fan, V. and Klemeš, J. Sustaining the low-carbon emission development in Asia and beyond: Sustainable energy, water, transportation and low-carbon emission technology, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 146, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Wang, Q.; Zhao, D.; He, L. Contracting emission reduction for supply chains considering market low-carbon preference. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 120, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Xia, L.; Hao, W.; Qin, J.; Ji, F.; Yue, X. Carbon emission reduction and promotion policies considering social preferences and consumers' low-carbon awareness in the cap-and-trade system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1105–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Sun, L.; Cao, X.; Alharthi, M.; Zhang, J.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F.; Mohsin, M. Carbon emission transfer strategies in supply chain with lag time of emission reduction technologies and low-carbon preference of consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Evangelista, P. Environmental sustainability practices in the transport and logistics service industry: An exploratory case study investigation. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 12, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Lieb, K.J. and Lieb R. C. Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL) industry”, International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 2010, 40, (7), 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Govindan, S. , Kalyiyan, M. , Kannan, D., and Haq, A.N. Barriers analysis of green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries usisng analytic hierarchy process, International journal of production economics, 2014, 147, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Lin, C.-Y.; Ho, Y.-H. Determinants of Green Practice Adoption for Logistics Companies in China. J. Bus. Ethic- 2010, 98, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Zhu, Q.; Geng, Y. Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Cantor, D.E.; Morrow, P.C.; McElroy, J.C.; Montabon, F. The role of individual and organizational factors in promoting firm environmental practices. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Goh, S.H. Barriers to low-carbon warehousing and the link to carbon abatement: A case from emerging Asia, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2019, 49, (6), 679-704. [CrossRef]
19. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Environmental sustainability in the service industry of transportation and logistics service providers: Systematic literature review and research directions. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2017, 53, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Foerstl, K.; Azadegan, A.; Leppelt, T.; Hartmann, E. Drivers of Supplier Sustainability: Moving Beyond Compliance to Commitment. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 51, 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Abbasi, M. , and Nilsson, F. Developing environmentally sustainable logistics: exploring themes and challenges from a logistics service providers’ perspective, Transportation research part D: Transport and Environment, 2016, 26, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Sarkis, J.; Latan, H.; Roubaud, D.; Filho, M.G.; Queiroz, M. Fostering low-carbon production and logistics systems: framework and empirical evidence. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 59, 7106–7125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Ibrahim, M.F.; Putri, M.M.; Utama, D.M. A literature review on reducing carbon emission from supply chain system: drivers, barriers, performance indicators, and practices. IOP Conf. Series: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 722, 012034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Sun, Z. , Liu, Y. and Yu, Y. China's carbon emission peak pre-2030: Exploring multi-scenario optimal low-carbon behaviors for China's regions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 231, 963–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Chuai, X.; Huang, X.; Wang, W.; Zhao, R.; Zhang, M.; Wu, C. Land use, total carbon emissions change and low carbon land management in Coastal Jiangsu, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Naqi, A.; Jang, J.G. Recent Progress in Green Cement Technology Utilizing Low-Carbon Emission Fuels and Raw Materials: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Trivellas, P.; Malindretos, G.; Reklitis, P. Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Bo Qin, S. S. H. Planning parameters and household carbon emission: Evidence from high- and low-carbon neighborhoods in Beijing, Habitat International, 2013, 37, pp. 52-60.
29. Perotti, S.; Zorzini, M.; Cagno, E.; Micheli, G.J. Green supply chain practices and company performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012, 42, 640–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Nguyen, M.N. Annual CO2 emissions of Vietnam from 2010 to 2019, Statista, 2021, available online at: https://www.statista. 1195. [Google Scholar]