ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Third-party logistics: A literature review

Alessandra Marasco
Institute for Service Industry Research, National Research Council, Via M. Schipa 91, 80122 Naples, Italy
Received 31 March 2006; accepted 3 May 2007
Available online 24 July 2007

Abstract

Third-party logistics (TPL) has attracted considerable research attention in the recent past. Despite the growing body of
literature on this topic, precious little effort has been devoted to synthesizing the overall state of art of research on TPL. In
this paper, an attempt is made to review the status of literature on TPL. A literature review scheme is presented. A total of
152 articles published between 1989 and 2006 in 33 reputable international journals are reviewed and classified into
content- and methodology-related issues. Based on the review, suggestions for future research are likewise provided.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Third-party logistics; Interorganizational relationships; Literature review

1. Introduction sive review of the logistics outsourcing literature,

In the recent past, third-party logistics (TPL),
also referred to as logistics outsourcing (e.g.
Knemeyer et al., 2003; Maltz and Ellram, 1997;
Razzaque and Sheng, 1998), has received consider-
able attention from logistics scholars, resulting in a
plethora of research and writing in this field. The
interest of researchers in TPL should continue
as several recent studies suggest that a steadily
increasing number of companies across industry
sectors use third-party providers for the manage-
ment of all or part of their logistics operations (e.g.
Lieb and Bentz, 2004, 2005a; Lieb and Miller, 2002;
Lieb and Randall, 1999a).
Despite the growing body of literature on this
topic, efforts to synthesize the overall state of art of
research on TPL have so far been rather limited.
Razzaque and Sheng (1998) provided a comprehen-
Tel.: +39 081 2470961; fax: +39 081 2470956.
E-mail address: a.marasco@irat.cnr.it
highlighting key research findings from journals and
other publications. An overview of TPL research is
also offered by Skjoett-Larsen et al. (2003); being
aimed at identifying the distinctive characteristics of
the ‘‘Nordic School of TPL’’ in terms of research
methodology, theoretical approaches or empirical
findings, their study reviewed only the contribution
of Nordic TPL researchers to the international
research agenda. More recently, Maloni and Carter
(2006) provided a review of the survey-based portion
of the TPL academic literature to assess its progress.
Their work is only based on 45 publications, i.e. it
does not cover all extant articles concerning TPL.
As an attempt to fill this gap, this paper presents a
review of the major literature and key findings on
TPL. An extensive literature search of academic
journals from 1989 to 2006 was conducted, yielding
a total of 152 articles. A framework is developed for
identifying the key content of the literature on TPL
and used to classify the articles. The existing
literature is also examined from a methodological

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
128 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
point of view, providing an overview of research
approaches taken in the collected articles. Hope-
fully, this study will serve as a roadmap of TPL
literature for both academicians and practitioners
and help stimulate further interest.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2,
background is given on the concept of TPL by
examining the various approaches taken in the
literature for defining TPL. The applied methodol-
ogy for this study is illustrated in Section 3, while
Section 4 presents the results of the literature
review. In Section 5, an overview of research
approaches used in the examined articles is pro-
vided. Section 6 closes the paper by offering
conclusions and an attempt to provide some
perspectives on future research.
2. Defining TPL
One of the challenges in trying to evaluate the
growing body of literature on TPL is the lack of a
single consistent definition of the concept. Indeed,
many definitions and interpretations of TPL can be
found in the literature (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000;
Halldórsson and Skjoett-Larsen, 2004). Van Laar-
hoven et al. (2000) highlight that the terminology in
this field is not always consistent; in some cases TPL
is used as a label for traditional ‘‘arm’s length’’
sourcing of transportation and/or warehousing,
whereas in other instances the term is used to
describe an outsourcing of a more complex char-
acter that can encompass the entire logistics process.
Likewise, Ojala (2003) as well as Knemeyer and
Murphy (2005a, b) point out that a number of
broad and narrow approaches to defining/interpret-
ing TPL have been used by researchers. Some
examples may help illustrate the varying scope of
existing interpretations of the term TPL.
According to Lieb (1992, p. 29), TPL involves ‘‘the
use of external companies to perform logistics
functions that have traditionally been performed
within an organization. The functions performed by
the third party can encompass the entire logistics
process or selected activities within that process’’. In a
similar vein, Coyle et al. (2003, p. 425) suggest that
TPL involves an external organisation ‘‘that performs
all or part of a company’s logistics functions’’. These
‘‘broad’’ definitions appear to suggest that TPL
includes any form of outsourcing of logistics activities
previously performed ‘‘in-house’’. Alternative, ‘‘nar-
rower’’ definitions link the TPL concept to some
distinctive functional and/or interorganizational fea-
tures of the logistics outsourcing relationship. Among
them, Berglund et al. (1999, p. 59) emphasise the
supply of management support in addition to
operational activities by providers and the duration
of the relationship as follows: ‘‘Third-party logistics
are activities carried out by a logistics service provider
on behalf of a shipper and consisting of at least
management and execution of transportation and
warehousing. In addition, other activities can be
included, for example inventory management, infor-
mation related activities, such as tracking and tracing,
value added activities, such as secondary assembly
and installation of products, or even supply chain
management. Also, the contract is required to contain
some management, analytical or design activities, and
the length of the co-operation between shipper and
provider to be at least one year, to distinguish third-
party logistics from traditional ‘‘arm’s length’’ sour-
cing of transportation and/or warehousing’’. Murphy
and Poist (1998, p. 26) stress the duration and
win–win nature of the relationship along with the
customization and broader range of logistics services
in the arrangement. According to their definition,
TPL involves ‘‘a relationship between a shipper and
third party, which, compared with basic services, has
more customized offerings, encompasses a broader
number of service functions and is characterized by a
longer term, more mutually beneficial relationship’’.
By these narrower definitions, TPL appears to be
distinguished from the ‘‘traditional’’ outsourcing of
logistics functions on a transaction-by-transaction
basis presupposing that several features are fulfilled
before the relationship between buyer and provider of
logistics services can be characterized as TPL. These
features include the provision of a broad range of
services, a long-term duration, joint efforts to develop
cooperation, the customization of the logistics solu-
tion, and a fair sharing of benefits and risks, and
suggest that TPL incorporates strategic and not just
tactical dimensions (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000).
A sort of conciliation between the alternative
broader and narrower views of TPL can be found in
the definition offered by Bask (2001, p. 474), which
describes TPL as ‘‘relationships between interfaces
in the supply chains and third-party logistics
providers, where logistics services are offered, from
basic to customized ones, in a shorter or longer-
term relationship, with the aim of effectiveness and
efficiency’’. This definition is applied in the present
article, because it clearly points out the essence of
the TPL concept as involving business-to-business
relationships where third parties fulfil the logistics
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
needs of their clients in the supply chain they are
operating in (Berglund, 2000), while recognizing the
potentially wide range of these relationships in
terms of scope, content and duration. It is to be
noted that Bask (2001) conceives TPL as a set of
three dyadic relationships linking seller, buyer and
logistics service provider in a supply chain. How-
ever, as the author himself and Berglund (2000)
observe, this triadic form of relationship cannot be
considered as the normal case in that most TPL
relationships are limited either to the dyadic
relationship between seller (of the goods) and
logistics service provider or buyer (of the goods)
and logistics service provider and, accordingly, most
research addresses the two-way linkage between the
logistics service provider and either the buyer or
supplier (of the goods). In this study, this con-
ceptualization of TPL as a dyadic relationship
between shippers (buyers or sellers of the goods)
and logistics service providers in a supply chain is
adopted.
3. Methodology
When conducting an investigation of the state of
knowledge in a field or subject, three basic
approaches have been used (Li and Cavusgil,
1995). One approach is the Delphi method through
which experts who are familiar with the area are
surveyed. The second approach is meta-analysis in
which empirical studies on the specific subject are
gathered and statistically analysed. This approach
has been applied by Ashenbaum et al. (2005) for
estimating the TPL growth rate in the US. The third
approach, the one adopted in this study, is content
analysis—a research method for systematic, quali-
tative and quantitative description of the manifest
content of literature in an area. At a general level,
the procedure for conducting content analysis is
centred on two major steps (Li and Cavusgil, 1995;
Seuring et al., 2005): (1) definition of sources and
procedures for the search of articles to be analysed
and (2) definition of categories instrumental to the
classification of the collected articles. These have
been applied in the present review of TPL literature
and are described in detail in the following sections.
3.1. Literature search procedures
The first step of the analysis consisted of
searching for articles relevant to the purpose of this
129
study. The search was limited to academic journals
and utilized several methods.
Initially, 23 journals in the areas of logistics and
transportation, operations management, business/
marketing and general management covering the
time period 1989–2006 were searched for articles
dealing with any aspect of TPL. The choice of these
outlets was based on previous studies that identified
and ranked the journals making the highest
contribution to the transportation/logistics disci-
pline (e.g. Fawcett et al., 1995; Ferguson, 1983). For
the literature search ‘‘third party logistics’’, ‘‘logis-
tics outsourcing’’, ‘‘logistics alliances’’ and several
other relevant descriptors were used. The full text of
each article was reviewed in order to eliminate those
articles that were not really related to TPL. As a
result of this search, 97 articles were identified. An
additional search was conducted using the same
descriptors in ProQuest, ScienceDirect and EBSCO
databases. Thereby, 48 other papers were found.
Finally, the reference sections of key articles were
scanned for additional citations; this yielded 7 other
articles. By these procedures, a total of 33 journals
and 152 articles were identified. The reference list to
this paper contains all the collected articles.
Although this search may not be exhaustive, it is
believed that the journals selected and the articles
reviewed comprise a reasonably representative and
comprehensive body of the research work being
accomplished in this area.
Table 1 shows the distribution of articles in the
various journals from 1989 to 2006. The indicated
time frame has been divided into three periods in
order to identify trends in the chronological
progression of research on TPL. The figures in the
table indicate that research on TPL did not begin to
appear significantly in scholarly journals until the
mid-to-late 1990s and has increased since. Indeed,
only 11 articles have been published between 1989
and 1994, while contributions published in the last
period (2001–2006) amount to 86, representing
about 56% of the total number of collected articles.
It is to be noted that of the 11 articles published
between 1989 and 1994, there is not any contribu-
tion published in 1989 and only three articles have
been published in 1990. This suggests that the
starting year of the time frame (1989) has been well
chosen. Table 1 also shows that the primary
publication outlets for TPL research are Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Journal of Business Logistics, The
International Journal of Logistics Management,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
130 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147

Table 1
Distribution of articles by journal in the period 1989–2006

Journal 1989–1994 1995–2000 2001–2006 Total

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 4 13 23 40

Journal of Business Logistics 4 12 3 19
The International Journal of Logistics Management 1 7 4 12
Transportation Journal – 3 9 12
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications – 1 9 10
Journal of Enterprise Information Managementa – 3 3 6
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal – – 6 6
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management – – 5 5
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1 – 3 4
Transportation Research – 1 3 4
Transport Logistics – 4 – 4
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics – 1 2 3
Journal of Supply Chain Managementb – 2 1 3
European Journal of Operational Research – 1 1 2
Industrial Marketing Management – 1 1 2
International Journal of Production Economics – – 2 2
Omega – – 2 2
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management – – 1 1
Harvard Business Review 1 – – 1
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing – – 1 1
Production and Operations Management 1 – 1
Transport Reviews – 1 – 1
Transportation Quarterly – 1 – 1
Transportation Science – – 1 1
Othersc – 3 6 9
Total 11 55 86 152
a
Formerly Logistics Information Management.
b
Formerly International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management.
c
These include articles from Benchmarking: An International Journal, California Management Review, Communications of the ACM,
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Expert Systems, Expert Systems with Applications, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, and Technovation.

Transportation Journal and International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications, collectively
publishing about 61% of the total articles. The large
number of articles in the International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management is
partially the result of the publication of two special
issues on TPL in 2006, an event in itself indicative of
the growing relevance of the topic in logistics
research. Overall, the other primary operations
management, business/marketing and general man-
agement journals have not served as a significant
outlet for research in this area.
3.2. Definition of the content classification scheme
According to the working definition adopted in
this study, TPL is conceived as an interorganiza-
tional (dyadic) relationship between shippers and
providers of logistics services in a supply chain.
Given this view of TPL, the approach to literature
content analysis has been centred on the key
dimensions defining such a relationship. In detail,
it was assumed that the basic dimensions of the TPL
relationship delineating why, how and with what
results it develops and functions provide anchor
points to organize and analyse most of TPL issues
addressed in the literature. The key dimensions of
the TPL relationship are encapsulated in the
framework shown in Fig. 1, the construction of
which was guided by a review of existing frame-
works of interorganizational relationships. In the
last decades, several models and frameworks of
business relationships have been developed from
different literature areas and theoretical perspectives
(for a summary, see Cousins, 2002). Among them
the work by Van de Ven (1976) and the IMP
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
CONTEXT STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
Relationship’s structural characteristics
Features of the:
(scope, formalization, continuity, trust, commitment, etc.)
• external context
macro environment
and supply chain
network Build up stage Execution stage
• Operations
• Partner search planning/
• internal context & selection organization
single organization:
shipper/ provider • Communication/
of logistics services • Negotiation
information
processing
• Contract design
• Coordination
• Control/
Monitoring
Fig. 1. The content analysis framework.
Group1 (e.g. Ford, 1980; Håkansson, 1982, 1987;
Håkansson and Snehota, 1995) have been particu-
larly helpful in the move towards identifying the
crucial dimensions of TPL relationships and orga-
nizing concepts and variables to describe them.
Fig. 1 depicts the major components of each dimen-
sion and the relationships among them.
1 types of business links among actors in the chain).
The International/Industrial Marketing and Purchasing
(IMP) Group was formed in the mid-1970s by European
researchers with interests in industrial markets and has now
evolved into a research community concerned with industrial
marketing and purchasing. Although the IMP Group has its
origins in the marketing discipline, it also has several other
antecedents of scientific inspiration, including organization
theory, the new institutional economic theory and certain strands
of sociology. Challenging existing models within the industrial
marketing literature that assumed competitive and adversarial
relationships as being the norm, the group developed a model of
buyer–seller relationships in industrial markets—the interaction
model—and illustrated its applicability through comparative
studies of buyer–supplier relationships within and across a
number of European countries. The model identifies groups of
variables that describe and influence the interaction between
buying and selling companies, thereby greatly advancing the
understanding of buyer–supplier relationships and the factors
influencing them. Emphasizing the embeddedness of single dyadic
relationships in the network of connected interfirm relationships,
subsequent work of the group extended the focus from individual
buyer–supplier relationships to industrial networks.
131
OUTCOME
Outcomes at the:
• internal level
single organization:
shipper / provider
Institutionalization of logistics services
stage
• Bonding
processes
• external level
relating to
technical, social, supply chain
administrative, network
legal issues
The first dimension describes the context within
which the TPL relationship takes place. This refers
to both external and internal contextual factors.
Major components of the external context include
characteristics of the general macro environment
(e.g. economic trends, regulatory framework, tech-
nological developments) as well as of the supply
chain representing the network2 in which the TPL
relationship is embedded (e.g. structure, processes,
This conceptualization of the external context is
consistent with the prevailing view of dyads’
environment within the industrial marketing and
purchasing literature according to which dyadic
relationships are embedded in a network of relation-
ships that is itself enveloped by a macro environ-
ment (Anderson et al., 1994). Some of the major
features of the internal context of the relation-
ship include organizational size, structure and
strategies of the parties involved (i.e. shipper and
provider of logistics services). The two sets of
contextual factors combine to influence the ways
in which shippers and providers structure and
2
Several authors suggested the idea of the supply chain as a
confederation of partners linked together as a network (e.g.
Christopher, 1992, 2000; Hertz, 2001; Lambert and Cooper,
2000).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
132 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
manage their relationship, affecting, among others,
those factors that determine the shipper’s logistics
needs and motivation to outsource, the number of
alternative relationships available for the parties,
the interaction processes between the parties, and
the parties’ ability to predict and forecast changes in
the market that in turn may affect the relationship.
The second dimension relates to the structure of
the relationship. TPL arrangements can vary widely
depending on several attributes, such as scope of the
activities involved, continuity, complexity, symme-
try and degree of formalization. These are some of
the often recurrent structural characteristics of
business relationships (Håkansson and Snehota,
1995). Along with them, other behavioural attri-
butes are comprised in this dimension that con-
tribute to shaping the climate or working
atmosphere of the TPL relationship, such as
dependence, trust, equity, commitment and conflict.
The developmental process of the relationship
constitutes the third dimension of the framework.
Consistently with the approach taken in many
studies of developmental processes of interorganiza-
tional relationships (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford,
1980; Frazier, 1983; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994),
TPL development process has been conceived as
consisting of a sequence of stages, each of which
goes through a number of interactions/activities.
The different stages of relationship development are
summarised as follows:
(a) The early build-up stage, in which potential
providers are selected by shippers to negotiate
and develop a (formal or informal) contract
specification for the provision of logistics
services.
(b) The execution stage, in which the commitments
and rules of action agreed upon by the parties in
the previous stage are carried into effect; in this
phase, operations are organized, executed, co-
ordinated and monitored entailing adaptations
and increased experience between the companies
of the respective activities.
(c) A potential long-term stage, in which routine
ways of dealing tend to become institutionalized
and several kind of bonds between the parties
arise/strengthen as a consequence of extensive
formal and informal adaptations that have
occurred. These bonds have an important
function in favouring the creation of long-term
relations and can relate to the technologies used
and shared by the parties, personal knowledge
and trust, administrative routines, procedures
and legal contracts (Håkansson and Johanson,
1990).
It is to be noted that the possibilities of re-
negotiation and/or dissolution of the relationship
are implicit throughout this process conceptualiza-
tion.
The final dimension of the framework reflects the
outcomes that result from the TPL relationship. As
interorganizational relationships are connected,
what is produced in a dyad has effects not only
for the parties directly involved but also for other
relationships and organizations of the overall net-
work in which the relationship is embedded
(Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). Accordingly,
TPL outcomes have been divided into internal
outcomes perceived by the parties directly involved
(shipper and logistics service provider) and external
outcomes experienced at the supply chain level.
Over time, feedback on perceived outcomes of the
relationship is expected to influence the other
dimensions in the framework.
The four dimensions of the framework have been
used as ‘‘macro categories’’ to review and classify
articles according to the primary topic addressed.
More in detail, the decision rule for placing articles
into a particular category was based on the
dominant or most prevalent theme addressed in
the article as derived from the indicated objective(s)/
purpose(s). During the classification process, the
need arose to partially revise this original four-
category scheme. Indeed, some of the collected
articles were found to be multifaceted in that they
simultaneously address aspects of the context, the
structure, the process and the outcomes of TPL
arrangements. Therefore, a fifth category was
inserted to gather these ‘‘comprehensive’’ articles.
4. Classification and review of TPL literature
In this section, the results of the content analysis
of TPL literature are presented. First, the distribu-
tion of the reviewed articles that come under each of
the five content categories is provided. This is
followed by a discussion highlighting some key
findings from contributions within each category.
Table 2 offers a frequency distribution of the
reviewed articles by content. It can be observed that
particular emphasis has been placed by researchers
on context-related issues of TPL, with about 40% of
the total articles addressing these issues. Another
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147 133

heavily investigated area is represented by issues of 18% of the total articles falling into this cate-
the TPL developmental process, which gathers 25% gory. Less published areas are on structure and
of total articles. Table 2 further shows that a outcomes of TPL, accounting for 6.6% and 9.9%,
considerable portion of the examined literature is respectively.
constituted by ‘‘comprehensive’’ articles, with about Table 3 shows the details of the classification by
content, providing a summary of all the reviewed
articles that come under each category. This may be
Table 2 a helpful resource for anyone in search of references
Distribution of articles by content
on specific topics.
Content category Number of articles Percentage of articles
4.1. Key findings from previous research on TPL
Context 61 40.1
Structure 10 6.6
Process 38 25.0
In the sections that follow, a review of research
Outcome 15 9.9 and key findings in each of the five categories is
Comprehensive 28 18.4 presented. Although this review is not exhaustive, it
provides some reasonable insights into the work
Total 152 100.0
being accomplished in the field.

Table 3
Summary of references under the content classification scheme of the literature

Classification References
category

Context Bask (2001), Berglund et al. (1999), Brah and Lim (2006), Carbone and Stone (2005), Chapman et al. (2003),
Daugherty and Dröge (1997), Delfmann et al. (2002), Evangelista and Sweeney (2006), Evans (2000), Fabbe-Costes
(1997), Flint et al. (2005), Foggin et al. (2004), Foulds and Luo (2006), Fung and Wong (1998), Gibson and Cook
(2001), Gunasekaran and Ngai (2003, 2004), Hertz and Alfredsson (2003), Hum (2000), Ko et al. (2006), Koh and Tan
(2005), Krumwiede and Sheu (2002), Lai (2004), Lai et al. (2005), Larson and Gammelgaard (2001a), Lemoigne and
Dagnaes (2003), Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000), Lieb and Bentz (2005b), Lieb and Kendrick (2003), Lieb and Randall
(1996b, 1999b), Lynagh et al. (2001), Makukha and Gray (2004), Maltz (1994), Maltz and Ellram (2000), Maltz et al.
(1993), Min and Joo (2006), Murphy and Poist (1998), Neo et al. (2004), Panayides (2004), Persson and Virum (2001),
Peters et al. (1998a), Piplani et al. (2004), Pokharel (2005), Rao and Young (1994), Sauvage (2003), Sheffi (1990), Sink
et al. (1996), Sinkovics and Roath (2004), Spencer et al. (1994), Stank and Daugherty (1997), Stefansson (2006), Stone
(2001), Sum and Teo (1999), Tan and Kritchanchai (2006), Tyan et al. (2003), van Hoek (2000), Wu (2006), Yeung
et al. (2006), Ying and Dayong (2005), Zäpfel and Wasner (2002)
Structure Gardner et al. (1994), Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a, b), Knemeyer et al. (2003), Moore (1998), Moore and
Cunningham (1999), Pachè (1998), Pappu and Mundy (2002), Rabinovich et al. (1999), Zinn and Parasuraman (1997)
Process Abrahamsson and Wandel (1998), Ackerman (1996), Alp et al. (2003), Andersson and Norrman (2002), Bagchi and
Virum (1996, 1998), Bienstock (2002), Bottani and Rizzi (2006), Chen et al. (2001), de Boer et al. (2006), Ding and
Stoner (2004), Gibson et al. (1996, 2002), Gutiérrez and Duran (1997), Halldórsson and Skjoett-Larsen (2006), House
and Stank (2001), Huiskonen and Pirttilä (2002), Kumar et al. (2006), Lambert et al. (1999), Leahy et al. (1995), Lim
(2000), Logan (2000), Maltz and Ellram (1997), McGinnis et al. (1995), Meade and Sarkis (2002), Menon et al. (1998),
Ratten (2004), Sankaran et al. (2002), Seth et al. (2006), Sink and Langley (1997), Skjoett-Larsen (2000), Stank and
Maltz (1996), Tate (1996), Vaidyanathan (2005), van Damme and van Amstel (1996), van Hoek (2001), Wong et al.
(2000), Yan et al. (2003)

Outcome Bhatnagar and Viswanathan (2000), Bolumole (2001, 2003), Bowersox (1990), Daugherty et al. (1996), Ellram and
Cooper (1990), Gentry (1996), Halldórsson and Skjoett-Larsen (2004), Knemeyer and Murphy (2004), Kopczak
(1997), Lai and Cheng (2003), Larson and Gammelgaard (2001b), Panayides and So (2005), Rabinovich and
Knemeyer (2006), Stank et al. (1996)
Comprehensive Aktas and Ulengin (2005), Arroyo et al. (2006), Bardi and Tracey (1991), Bhatnagar et al. (1999), Boyson et al. (1999),
Dapiran et al. (1996), Fernie (1999), Hong et al. (2004), Jaafar and Rafiq (2005), Lieb (1992), Lieb and Bentz (2004,
2005a), Lieb and Miller (2002), Lieb and Randall (1996a, 1999a), Lieb et al. (1993), Millen et al. (1997), Min (2002),
Murphy and Poist (2000), Peters et al. (1998b), Sahay and Mohan (2006), Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005), Sohail and
Sohal (2003), Sohail et al. (2004, 2006), Sohal et al. (2002), van Laarhoven et al. (2000), Wilding and Juriado (2004)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
134 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
4.1.1. Research on TPL context
As the distribution of articles by content has
shown (Table 2), context-related issues of TPL have
drawn considerable attention among researchers,
resulting in a plethora of contributions devoted to
the analysis of factors of the external and internal
context influencing structure and development of
TPL arrangements.
With regard to the external environmental factors
impacting TPL, a comprehensive descriptive analy-
sis of the several economic, regulatory and techno-
logical drivers behind the rise of TPL has been
provided by Sheffi (1990). Increased global compe-
tition, deregulation of the transportation industry,
rising customer expectations on superior logistical
service, growing focus of companies on core
competencies, increasing popularity of just-in-time
(JIT), and revolution in computers and commu-
nication technology are indicated as the main forces
causing TPL services to experience explosive
growth. Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000) further
addressed the implications of advancements in
information technology (IT) for TPL development.
They observed that the rapid progress in informa-
tion processing and communication technology
supports the outsourcing of logistics activities to
third-party firms as IT allows buyers and sellers of
logistics services to communicate directly over data-
rich, easy-to-use information channels, thereby
reducing coordination costs and fostering strategic
partnerships based on mutually agreed goals.
Beside the forces of the general external environ-
ment, TPL is affected by changes in the structure,
processes and strategies of the supply chain in which
it is embedded, as highlighted in the works by Bask
(2001) and Delfmann et al. (2002). Stressing the
need for a strategic view focusing on the relation-
ship between supply chain strategies and TPL, Bask
(2001) proposed a normative framework for orga-
nizing relationships between alternative supply
chain strategies and different types of TPL services.
Delfmann et al. (2002) analysed implications of
changes in supply chain configurations induced by
e-commerce for TPL. Their work illustrated how
e-commerce—through the emergence of electronic
marketplaces in the upstream part of the chain
and the disintermediation of the downstream
chain—affects the structure of supply chains, there-
by causing challenges for TPL operations and
strategies.
Studies focusing on the external context of TPL
may be found rather scanty when compared with
the large amount of contributions addressing issues
of the internal context of TPL. Indeed, of the 61
works within the context category, over 90% are
devoted to the investigation of the various char-
acteristics of TPL parties (buyers and sellers of
logistics services) and their influence on the forma-
tion of TPL arrangements.
Some of these studies examined how organiza-
tional characteristics and strategies of users of
logistics services are related to the decision to enter
in TPL arrangements. Rao and Young (1994)
identified three main characteristics of shippers’
business profile that drive their logistics outsourcing
behaviour and influence the formation of a favour-
able or unfavourable climate for outsourcing:
(a) network complexity, referring to both the
geographic dispersion of the firm’s trading partners
as well as the intensiveness of transactions with
selected trading partners; (b) process complexity,
referring to time and task compression (or lack
thereof) in the logistics process; and (c) product
complexity, relating to the special circumstances
required by products and materials due to the
complexity of the environment (temperature, hu-
midity, etc.) governing their transportation, storage
and handling. In a survey-based study of US
manufacturing firms, Daugherty and Dröge (1997)
explored how organizational structure in divisiona-
lized companies is related to logistics outsourcing
decisions and found differences in the anticipated
usage levels of external logistics service providers
between divisionalized manufacturers with a ‘‘line/
staff’’ structure (line and staff logistics responsibil-
ities centrally consolidated at the corporate manage-
ment level) and those with a ‘‘staff-only’’
configuration (staff logistics responsibilities cen-
trally consolidated and line activities decentralized
within business units). Murphy and Poist (1998)
investigated demographic differences (in terms of
firm type, firm size and number of activities
managed by the logistics department) between users
and non-users of TPL services, discovering that firm
size might help to differentiate between users and
non-users of TPL services.
While early studies have focused on users of
logistics services, more recent research efforts have
turned their attention to third-party logistics service
providers (TPLPs). Indeed, the rapid expansion and
transformation of the TPL industry during the last
years has been the subject of an increasing interest
to logistics scholars who have increasingly attemp-
ted to provide insights into issues on the provider
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
side of the industry. These include the industry’s
service offerings, current status and future prospects
(e.g. Larson and Gammelgaard, 2001a; Lieb and
Bentz, 2005b; Lieb and Kendrick, 2003; Lieb and
Randall, 1996b, 1999b; Peters et al., 1998a),
operational issues of TPLPs, such as network
design/optimization (Ko et al., 2006; Zäpfel and
Wasner, 2002), benchmarking (Min and Joo, 2006),
quality (Brah and Lim, 2006; Fung and Wong,
1998; Neo et al., 2004) and the role of these
operators in logistics set-ups (Stefansson, 2006). In
particular, by a review of the literature addressing
TPLPs, it appears that much of the research in this
area has focused on the strategic behaviour of these
operators. Berglund et al. (1999) proposed a
strategic segmentation of TPL providers based on
two dimensions: standard services versus logistics
solutions; traditional, basic logistics activities (e.g.
transportation and warehousing) versus value-
added logistics. Sum and Teo (1999) examined the
different strategic postures of logistics services
providers in Singapore using Porter’s typology of
competitive strategies and analysed the business
performance, technologies, operations objectives
and future plans of each strategic type. Such an
approach to the analysis of TPLPs’ strategies has
also been used in the study by Yeung et al. (2006),
which investigated the relationship of strategic
choices of pure cost, pure differentiation or a
combination strategy on a composite measure of
financial performance for TPLPs in Hong Kong.
Hertz and Alfredsson (2003) addressed the strategic
development of TPL providers with a focus on the
balance between general problem-solving capability
and degree of customer adaptation. Carbone and
Stone (2005) examined the strategic behaviour
adopted by 20 leading European TPLPs, paying
particular attention to their approach to mergers
and acquisitions and logistics alliances.
Recent research in this area has also focused on
the adoption of IT in these firms. Indeed, the ability
to utilize IT has been increasingly considered one of
the key determinants of success for these operators
(e.g. Langley et al., 2002, 2005), and several studies
have examined the current status of IT usage in the
industry along with the perceived benefits and
barriers to IT adoption by these companies. Piplani
et al. (2004) investigated the status of IT imple-
mentation in the Singapore TPL industry and found
that, while providers increasingly are incorporating
IT in their operations or are planning to do so,
concerns about the speed of obsolescence of
135
advantages derived from IT and the shortage of
trained personnel still hinder full-scale IT imple-
mentation. Lai et al. (2005) and Evangelista and
Sweeney (2006) assessed IT usage in the TPL
industry in Hong Kong and in Italy, respectively.
Findings from these two studies converge in
indicating that, although the importance of IT for
improving performance is well-recognized by
TPLPs, lack of IT expertise and insufficient
financial support prevent these operators, especially
small and medium companies, from moving to-
wards its full adoption. Koh and Tan (2005) and
Ying and Dayong (2005) focused on the potential of
e-commerce in TPL providers, showing that the use
of e-commerce applications can impact performance
and competitive advantage of these companies in
terms of reduction of operations’ time and costs,
increase of customer service level and enhanced
integration with business processes of other supply
chain members.
4.1.2. Research on TPL structure
As the use of TPL services increased, research
efforts have been made to gain a deeper under-
standing of the manner in which shippers and
providers structure their arrangements, paying
particular attention to those exhibiting cooperative
behaviours between the parties. Characterization of
TPL arrangements has been based on conceptual
typologies (e.g. Pappu and Mundy, 2002; Zinn and
Parasuraman, 1997), but has primarily relied upon
empirical investigation. Empirical research aimed at
providing insights into the nature and structure of
these arrangements has focused on a number of
attributes, such as the scope in terms of number and
typology of activities outsourced, duration and
frequency (e.g. Paché, 1998; Rabinovich et al.,
1999). Some of the studies in this area have also
focused on the analysis of behavioural or relational
attributes of TPL relationships, such as trust,
commitment, dependence, conflict and equity (e.g.
Gardner et al., 1994; Knemeyer et al., 2003;
Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a, b; Moore, 1998;
Moore and Cunningham, 1999). Most of these
studies use a relationship marketing perspective as
the basis for examining differences in key beha-
vioural elements across different types of relation-
ships. Moore and Cunningham (1999) focused
on five attributes—trust, equity, commitment, conflict
and opportunism—to explore differences in beha-
vioural elements that exist between logistics alliances
and transactional (or non-alliance) relationships.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
136 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Their findings suggest that trust and commitment are
major distinguishing behavioural characteristics of
logistics alliances. Knemeyer et al. (2003) found
statistically significant differences for the elements
of trust, commitment, investment, dependence,
communication and shared benefits across distinct
types of partnerships previously suggested in the
logistics literature. More recently, Knemeyer and
Murphy (2005b) compared the perspectives of
TPL users and providers with respect to the
relationship marketing elements of attachment,
communication, dependence, investment, opportu-
nistic behaviour, reciprocity, reputation, satisfac-
tory prior outcomes and trust as well as relationship
marketing outcomes, including customer referrals,
customer retention, service recovery and perfor-
mance improvements.
4.1.3. Research on TPL developmental process
There has been extensive writing and model
building in the area of TPL processes. Such an
interest by researchers may be attributed to the
problems experienced by companies in the establish-
ment of TPL arrangements. Indeed, while TPL
relationships can yield positive outcomes for the
parties, the path to achieving these results is not
without its difficulties (House and Stank, 2001).
Impediments are likely to be encountered in all the
different phases of relationship development and
often lead to dissolution as witnessed by the failures
reported in both academic and trade press (e.g.
Ackerman, 1996; Foster, 1999). In an attempt to
help companies to understand what resources and
practices are needed in order to successfully estab-
lish and manage TPL relationships, various pre-
scriptive models and decision frameworks of TPL
development and implementation have been sug-
gested in the literature. Bagchi and Virum (1996)
offered a process model for logistics alliance
formation, management and control, which com-
prises three phases: identification of the need for the
alliance; planning and management; and measure-
ment and control of operations. Sink and Langley
(1997) provided a conceptual model of the TPL
buying process with five stages: identify the need to
outsource logistics; develop feasible alternatives;
evaluate and select supplier; implement service; and
ongoing service assessment. Maltz and Ellram
(1997) proposed a major modification of the total
cost of ownership framework, which they call total
cost of relationship (TCR), to deal with logistics
outsourcing decisions. Lambert et al. (1999) pre-
sented a model of partnership development and
implementation based on three major elements:
drivers (e.g. asset/cost efficiencies, enhanced custo-
mer service and profit growth/stability), facilitators
(e.g. corporate compatibility, similar managerial
philosophy, mutuality and symmetry) and manage-
ment components (e.g. planning, joint operating
controls, communications and risk/reward sharing).
Andersson and Norrman (2002) modelled and
compared the purchasing process for advanced
versus basic logistics services. They focused on three
phases identified as particularly critical in the
purchase of advanced logistics services: service
definition, request for proposal and contracting.
More recently, de Boer et al. (2006) presented a
prescriptive model for guiding outsourcing decision
processes that incorporates some basic principles of
behavioural decision-making theory, in particular
the satisficing concept. The model builds on the
observation of some discrepancies between the
assumptions of existing prescriptive models and
the processes observed in practice through two cases
of logistics outsourcing.
Researchers’ efforts to support managers in the
establishment and management of TPL arrange-
ments have also resulted in a variety of contribu-
tions addressing issues of specific activities of the
TPL developmental process, such as partner selec-
tion, contract design, coordination, communica-
tion/information integration. By a review of these
studies, it appears that a particular emphasis has
been placed by researchers on the problems of
partner selection and contract design.
Empirically based insights into the problem of
selecting the right logistics service provider have
been provided in the studies by McGinnis et al.
(1995) and Menon et al. (1998), which investigated
criteria for TPL selection and how the firm’s
competitive responsiveness strategy and external
environment affect them. Studies in this area have
also relied on conceptual-type research to provide
decision-making models and frameworks for the
selection process of TPL service providers. Meade
and Sarkis (2002) offered a decision-making model
based on the analytical network process (ANP) to
assist the management in the selection of providers
for the reverse logistics process. More recently,
Vaidyanathan (2005) proposed a conceptual frame-
work for the selection of TPL providers built
around IT and Bottani and Rizzi (2006) presented
a multi-attribute approach based on the TOPSIS
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
to Ideal Solution) technique and the fuzzy set
theory.
As to the problem contract design, Logan (2000)
illustrated how the logic of agency theory can help
to design the types of contracts and relationships
necessary to provide and support an environment of
trust and mutual satisfaction. Lim (2000) developed
a game-theoretic model of how a contract may be
established in order that TPL providers are encour-
aged to reveal their true capabilities. Chen et al.
(2001) provided a framework for analysing three
forms of third-party warehousing contracts with
space commitments and adjustment options. Alp
et al. (2003) devised an approach for designing
contract parameters based on the interactions of
three defined sub-problems: vehicle dispatching
problem, inventory control and contract value
problem.
4.1.4. Research on TPL outcomes
When successful, TPL relationships can give both
parties a competitive advantage in the marketplace
(Tate, 1996). In particular, extant literature has
shown that involvement in TPL arrangements,
especially cooperative, partnership-like relation-
ships, can result in multiple economic, organiza-
tional and financial benefits for shippers such as
reduced logistics cost, improved service levels and
end-customer satisfaction, improved access to and
application of technology, reduced capital invest-
ment in facilities, equipment and manpower, in-
creased flexibility and productivity, improved
employee morale, increased access to wider markets
and new competencies (e.g. Bowersox, 1990;
Daugherty et al., 1996; Ellram and Cooper, 1990;
Larson and Gammelgaard, 2001b). Research in this
area has shown that higher levels of commitment
and integration typical of long-term TPL arrange-
ments also improve third-party providers’ perfor-
mance. While risks exist due to capital investment in
the alliance and high customization of supplied
services (Bowersox, 1990), TPL providers can
benefit from a long-term source of business volume,
which results in a closer match between available
capacity and demand, as well as from service
innovation and growth opportunities stemming
from synergic work and knowledge sharing with
the customer (Bowersox, 1990; Halldórsson and
Skjoett-Larsen, 2004).
Research in this area has also been conducted
regarding the outcomes and benefits of TPL
arrangements within the overall context of supply
137
chain management. Gentry (1996) illustrated that
closer relationships between suppliers, buyers and
carriers in the supply chain, i.e. logistics triads, lead
to operating improvements that can increase the
likelihood of maximizing supply chain efficiency
and improve the competitive position of the entire
supply chain in the marketplace. Kopczak (1997)
investigated the linkages between formation of
logistics partnerships and supply chain restructuring
in the computer industry. Study findings indicated
that the logistics outsourcing via a partnership
facilitates supply chain restructuring by allowing
greater changes to be made more quickly and with
less investment. Moreover, evidence was provided
of the beneficial effects on supply chain perfor-
mance deriving from the restructuring of the supply
chain as an inherent aspect of TPL alliances.
Stressing the need to view the advantages of logistics
alliances within the overall context of supply chain
management, Bhatnagar and Viswanathan (2000)
illustrated the benefits of a strategic alliance
between a manufacturer and a global logistics
service provider within the context of contemporary
supply chain imperatives of cost efficiency and
customer responsiveness. Panayides and So (2005)
found that logistics service provider–client relation-
ships, through the adoption of relational exchange,
can improve supply chain effectiveness and perfor-
mance by promoting a positive climate for learning
and innovation.
4.1.5. Comprehensive studies
The distribution of the reviewed works by topic
(Table 2) indicates that a considerable portion of the
examined literature on TPL is constituted by
‘‘comprehensive’’ articles. These are empirical,
survey-based works that provide a descriptive
picture of prevalent TPL practices in specific
countries/regions. While the range of the issues
under investigation may vary across these studies,
these contributions typically focus on the following
issues: the extent of usage of TPL services and the
specific services most commonly used; the reasons
for entering TPL; the length of contracts; the
obstacles/problems encountered in implementing
and managing TPL relationships; the benefits of
using TPL services and the overall satisfaction with
TPL service providers; and the future plans of
current users of TPL services. These issues are
generally explored from users’ perspective through
multi-sector surveys of the manufacturing industry.
Some of the studies falling into this area have also
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
138 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Table 4
Breakdown of comprehensive studies by specific countries/
regions
Geographical References
focus
US Bardi and Tracey (1991), Boyson et al.
(1999), Lieb (1992), Lieb and Bentz (2004,
2005a), Lieb and Randall (1996b, 1999b),
Lieb and Miller (2002), Min (2002), Murphy
and Poist (2000)
Europe Peters et al. (1998b), Van Laarhoven et al.
(2000), Wilding and Juriado (2004)
Other regions Aktas and Ulengin (2005) (Turkey),
Bhatnagar et al. (1999) (Singapore), Dapiran
et al. (1996) (Australia), Fernie (1999) (UK),
Hong et al. (2004) (China), Jaafar and Rafiq
(2005) (UK), Sahay and Mohan (2006)
(India), Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005) (Saudi
Arabia), Sohail and Sohal (2003) (Malaysia),
Sohail et al. (2002, 2004) (Australia, Ghana)
Transnational Arroyo et al. (2006) (Mexico–Europe–US),
comparisons Lieb et al. (1993) (US–Europe), Millen et al.
(1997) (Australia–US–Western Europe),
Sohail et al. (2006) (Singapore–Malaysia)
attempted to regularly assess the evolution of TPL
practices through longitudinal surveys (e.g. Lieb
and Bentz, 2004, 2005a; Lieb and Randall, 1996a,
1999a; Lieb and Miller, 2002; van Laarhoven et al.,
2000). By a review of these works, it is observed that
earlier studies have focused on developed regions
such as the US, Europe and Australia, whereas
recent research in this area shows more efforts to
provide insights into TPL practices in developing
regions, especially Asian countries, which have been
shifting to an industrialized economy in recent
decades. Some comparative analyses have also been
undertaken to offer a cross-country view of TPL.
A breakdown of these comprehensive studies by
geographical focus is provided in Table 4.
5. Review of research approaches taken in TPL
literature
In this section, the status of research approaches
taken in the literature on TPL is illustrated. Based
on the scheme developed by Olsen and Ellram
(1997), the collected articles have been classified
along two dimensions, from theoretical to empirical
and from prescriptive to descriptive. These dimen-
sions have been adopted within other review works
(e.g. Croom et al., 2000; Luo et al., 2001) and allow
a reasonably comprehensive assessment of research
approaches taken in the current body of literature
on the subject by highlighting both the basic
methodology used and the aim or focus of studies.
Within the first dimension, empirical research refers
to studies that report practice by means of surveys,
case studies, interviews or anecdotal information,
while theoretically based works primarily develop
models, concepts or conceptual frameworks. Be-
tween these two opposites, a third category exists
that includes articles that are both theoretical and
empirical: these works typically develop a number
of hypotheses and test them empirically. The second
distinction is made between prescriptive and de-
scriptive contributions, with the first type aimed at
proposing normative models (practices that organi-
zations and individuals ought to adopt) and the
latter aimed at describing, explaining and summar-
izing current practices. The prescriptive/descriptive
dimension is really a continuum in that many
articles are primarily descriptive but also give some
managerial implications (Olsen and Ellram, 1997);
however, in order to simplify the classification and
create comparable groups of articles, the contribu-
tions have been only categorized as prescriptive or
descriptive based on their main focus.
The distribution of articles by research approach
is given in Table 5. It can be observed that the
majority of reviewed articles (about 63%) fall into
the empirical category, suggesting an empirical and
more practitioner-oriented focus in the literature on
TPL. Theoretical works make up about 20% of the
total studies, while approximately 17% of the
reviewed articles have a theoretical and empirical
focus going beyond a descriptive presentation of the
investigated factual situations and emphasizing
explanation and evaluation through the refutation
or confirmation of specific hypotheses. Table 5
further indicates that TPL literature is mostly
Table 5
Distribution of articles by research approach
Types of methodology Prescriptive Descriptive Total
No. % No. % No. %
Theoretical 18 11.8 12 7.9 30 19.7
Theoretical and empirical 6 3.9 20 13.2 26 17.1
Empirical 7 4.6 89 58.6 96 63.2
Total 31 20.3 121 79.7 152 100.0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
descriptive in nature, with about 80% of the total
articles falling into this category.
Table 6 provides a summary of all the reviewed
articles that correspond to the methodology classi-
Table 6
Summary of references under the methodology classification scheme of the literature
Prescriptive
Theoretical Ackerman (1996), Alp et al. (2003),
Bask (2001), Bottani and Rizzi
(2006), Chen et al. (2001), Ding and
Stoner (2004), Ko et al. (2006),
Kumar et al. (2006), Lim (2000),
Logan (2000), Maltz and Ellram
(1997), Meade and Sarkis (2002),
Min and Joo (2006), Seth et al.
(2006), Tan and Kritchanchai
(2006), Vaidyanathan (2005), van
Damme and van Amstel (1996),
Yan et al. (2003)
Theoretical/ Abrahamsson and Wandel (1998),
empirical Bagchi and Virum (1996, 1998), de
Boer et al. (2006), Krumwiede and
Sheu (2002), Sink and Langley
(1997)
Empiricala Foggin et al. (2004) I, Gunasekaran
and Ngai (2003, 2004) C, Lambert
et al. (1999) I, Tate (1996) C, Tyan
et al. (2003) C, Zäpfel and Wasner
(2002) C
a
Includes the following methods: survey (S), case study (C), interview (I), anecdotal (A), focus group (F). The specific method is
indicated next to each reference.
b
Based on empirical material collected in research projects and action research.
139
fication scheme along with the indication of the
specific research methods used in empirical articles
(see the letters next to the references). It can be
observed that empirical research on TPL is largely
Descriptive
Bienstock (2002), Chapman et al. (2003), Delfmann et al. (2002), Evans
(2000), Fabbe-Costes (1997), Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000), Pappu and
Mundy (2002), Stank and Maltz (1996), Ratten (2004), Wu (2006), Ying and
Dayong (2005), Zinn and Parasuraman (1997)
Daugherty and Dröge (1997), Daugherty et al. (1996), Gardner et al. (1994),
Gentry (1996), Knemeyer and Murphy (2004), Knemeyer et al. (2003),
Kopczak (1997), Lai (2004), Maltz (1994), Maltz and Ellram (2000), Menon
et al. (1998), Moore and Cunningham (1999), Murphy and Poist (1998),
Panayides (2004), Rabinovich et al. (1999), Sauvage (2003), Sinkovics and
Roath (2004), Stank and Daugherty (1997), van Hoek (2000, 2001)
Aktas and Ulengin (2005) S, Andersson and Norrman (2002)b, Arroyo et al.
(2006) S, Bardi and Tracey (1991) S, Berglund et al. (1999) S, Bhatnagar et al.
(1999) S, Bhatnagar and Viswanathan (2000) C, Bolumole (2001, 2003) C,
Bowersox (1990) A, Boyson et al. (1999) S+I, Brah and Lim (2006) S,
Carbone and Stone (2005) I, Dapiran et al. (1996) S, Ellram and Cooper
(1990) S, Evangelista and Sweeney (2006) S, Fernie (1999) S, Flint et al.
(2005) I, Foulds and Luo (2006) C, Fung and Wong (1998) C, Gibson and
Cook (2001) S, Gibson et al. (1996, 2002) S, Gutiérrez and Duran (1997) S,
Halldórsson and Skjoett-Larsen (2004, 2006) C, Hertz and Alfredsson (2003)
C, Hong et al. (2004) S, House and Stank (2001) C, Huiskonen and Pirttilä
(2002) C, Hum (2000) C, Jaafar and Rafiq (2005) S, Knemeyer and Murphy
(2005a, b) S, Koh and Tan (2005) C, Lai and Cheng (2003) S, Lai et al. (2005)
S, Larson and Gammelgaard (2001a, b) S, Leahy et al. (1995) S, Lemoigne
and Dagnaes (2003) C, Lieb (1992) S, Lieb and Bentz (2004, 2005a, b) S, Lieb
and Kendrick (2003) S, Lieb and Miller (2002) S, Lieb and Randall (1996a, b;
1999a, b) S, Lieb et al. (1993) S, Lynagh et al. (2001) S, Makukha and Gray
(2004) S, Maltz et al. (1993) S, McGinnis et al. (1995) S, Millen et al. (1997)
S, Min (2002) S, Moore (1998) S, Murphy and Poist (2000) S, Neo et al.
(2004) C, Paché (1998) I, Panayides and So (2005) S, Persson and Virum
(2001) C+I, Peters et al. (1998a, b) S, Piplani et al. (2004) S, Pokharel (2005)
S, Rabinovich and Knemeyer (2006) S, Rao and Young (1994) C, Sahay and
Mohan (2006) S, Sankaran et al. (2002) I, Sheffi (1990) A, Sink et al. (1996)
F, Skjoett-Larsen (2000) C, Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005) S, Sohail and Sohal
(2003) S, Sohail et al. (2004, 2006) S, Sohal et al. (2002) S, Spencer et al.
(1994) S, Stank et al. (1996) S, Stefansson (2006) C, Stone (2001) S+I, Sum
and Teo (1999)S, van Laarhoven et al. (2000) S, Wilding and Juriado (2004)
S, Wong et al. (2000) C, Yeung et al. (2006) S
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
140 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Table 7
Distribution of research approaches by content categories
Content category Theoretical
No. % No.
Context 11 18.0
Structure 2 20.0
Process 17 44.7
Outcome – –
Comprehensive – –
Total 30 19.7
based on surveys (about 64% of articles). However,
results show a great use also of case studies, with
25% of total empirical articles using this methodol-
ogy. Indeed, case studies represent a very useful and
appropriate instrument for research on relationships
as they allow an in-depth, ‘‘multi-perspectival’’
analysis, i.e. to consider not just the perspective of
the actors within the study but also of the
interaction between them (Frankel et al., 2005).
Finally, only few examples of the use of the
interview and anecdotal methods can be found.
In Table 7, the distribution of methodologies is
arranged under the five content categories. The
figures reported in this table confirm the empirical
focus of TPL literature across the content cate-
gories, with the exception of the process category.
Indeed, in comparison to the other content areas,
this category is characterized by a prevalence of
theoretically based articles, which typically propose
conceptual, normative models and frameworks of
TPL establishment/management. Table 7 further
shows that literature on TPL context and outcomes
experienced relatively more empirical contributions
that account for 64% and 73.3% of all the articles
addressing these issues, respectively. The structure
of TPL arrangements is mostly addressed through
empirical-oriented and theoretical/empirical re-
search. The latter typically proposes hypotheses
relating to lists/taxonomies of relationship’s fea-
tures that are tested through surveys in order to
provide a characterization of TPL relationships.
Finally, it can be observed that ‘‘comprehensive’’
studies are exclusively based on empirical methods.
As clarified before, these contributions primarily
aim at providing a general picture of TPL practices
in specific countries/regions and information is
gathered by means of quantitative methods with a
high potentiality for descriptive purposes such as
surveys.
Theoretical and empirical Empirical Total
% No. %
11 18.0 39 64.0 61
4 40.0 4 40.0 10
7 18.5 14 36.8 38
4 26.7 11 73.3 15
– – 28 100.0 28
26 17.1 96 63.2 152
6. Conclusion and research implications
In the recent past, the growing research interest in
and the importance of TPL has engendered a
plethora of contributions on this topic. This paper
has attempted to provide a picture of the body of
research produced in the field of TPL during the
period 1989–2006. The study is not without limita-
tions. First, only academic journal papers were
included in the review, as they are generally
considered to be the highest level of research for
acquiring information and disseminating new find-
ings (e.g. Ngai and Wat, 2002). Other relevant
knowledge concerning this topic might also be
found in conference proceedings papers, master’s
theses, doctoral dissertations and textbooks. Add-
ing knowledge from these sources might have
altered the results or validated the conclusions
made in this article. Second, some relevant articles
published within the specified time frame may have
been missed during the literature search. This may
also be due to the fact that, although the number
was small and negligible, there were some missing
issues of volumes of some journals (e.g. for
Transportation Science, there were two issues miss-
ing out of 72 issues over the 18 years, and this was
the highest percentage). A third potential limitation
concerns the choice of terms for the literature
search. Although it is believed that the right
descriptors have been used, it cannot be guaranteed
that other articles dealing with this subject do exist
but under different labels. Finally, though a
conscientious effort has been made to identify the
primary topic and research approach of each article,
the review and classification of the literature are to a
certain extent dependent on subjective estimation.
Notwithstanding these limitations, it is believed that
this study provides some reasonable insights into
the state of the art of TPL literature. Moreover,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
based on the review, classification and analysis of
the articles, some broad suggestions for future
research can be put forth. Indeed, in spite of the
significant development achieved over the last
decade, there remain many important issues for
future investigation. Without claiming to be ex-
haustive, four issues are identified for immediate
attention.
The first concerns implications of e-commerce for
TPL. The rise of e-commerce has been impressive in
the past decade, impelled by the rapid development
of telematics and computing power. Its influence as
a driving force of change in logistics is undeniable
both within companies and within supply chains. It
is therefore surprising that little attention has been
paid to investigate and assess direct as well as
indirect implications of e-commerce for TPL. In
particular, from the review of TPL literature it
appears that extant studies have mostly focused
on the potential of information technologies and
e-commerce applications for TPL providers to
reduce costs, increase productivity and improve
customer service (e.g. Evangelista and Sweeney,
2006; Koh and Tan, 2005; Lai et al., 2005; Lynagh
et al., 2001; Piplani et al., 2004). However, the
influence of e-commerce and related information
and communication technology (ICT) developments
on TPL can take other paths that deserve further
exploration. By influencing the operation and
organization of supply chains, e-commerce impacts
the demand for TPL services, in many cases creating
new demands on fulfilment. E-commerce also
provides the buyer and seller of logistics services a
wide array of tools and systems for communication
and information management, which are expected
to have a substantial effect on the interaction
between the parties and the nature of TPL relation-
ships. Moreover, by offering new management
tools and transparency of logistics service markets,
e-commerce gives rise to new forms of intermedia-
tion for logistics services, such as the transportation
or logistics exchanges that provide one-stop web-
sites for accessing transportation and logistics
services from multiple suppliers (Chow and Gritta,
2001). These issues of e-commerce implications for
TPL provide researchers with numerous opportu-
nities for further enhancing the field.
Another area with potential for further research
and understanding concerns the role of organiza-
tional culture in the formation and development of
TPL arrangements. Organizational culture plays a
relevant role in the development as well as in the
141
maintenance over the time of TPL arrangements—
especially of the close, partnership-like ones—as
highlighted, for example, in the study by House and
Stank (2001). While the influence of organizational
culture on TPL relationships is not debatable, there
have not yet been many attempts to capture the
implications of various culture dimensions on the
formation and management of TPL relationships.
Potential advancements concerning this issue are of
particular interest given the increasing internatio-
nalization trend in logistics outsourcing, which
boosts the problem of coping with cultural asym-
metries within TPL relationships (Voss, 2003).
Further research within the TPL field is also
needed to develop a deeper understanding of the
behavioural complexities that emerge through the
interaction between the buyer and provider of
logistics services. Increasingly, it is believed that
successful and lasting relational exchanges are those
in which partners go beyond short-term transac-
tional benefits and incorporate behavioural factors
such as trust and commitment (e.g. Dwyer et al.,
1987; Gundlach et al., 1995; Morgan and Hunt,
1994). This belief, which strongly pervades market-
ing thought and studies, has also informed recent
TPL research such that many scholars have begun
to approach TPL from a relationship marketing
perspective in order to investigate behavioural
attributes of TPL arrangements and their link with
outcomes of such relationships (e.g. Knemeyer et
al., 2003; Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a, b; Moore
and Cunningham, 1999). Although these studies
have generated significant knowledge on the beha-
vioural issues associated with TPL, yet little
empirical evidence exists on the dynamics of forma-
tion of such behavioural complexities over time.
Given the dynamic nature of TPL arrangements,
deeper insights into the evolution of behavioural
aspects of TPL arrangements could be provided by
relying on more longitudinal approaches that allow
to take into account the temporal dimension of
relationships.
A related area that needs closer investigation
concerns bonding processes and philosophies within
TPL arrangements. This concept, bonding, has been
identified as an important concept for examining
and explaining successful buyer–seller relationships
(e.g. Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Wilson, 1995).
Stability and overall performance of TPL arrange-
ments are likely to be severely affected by the
multiplicity of economic, technical and social bonds
that develop during the relationship between the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
142 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
parties. TPL studies would benefit from more
research designs aimed at identifying and explaining
integrative processes that serve to bond partners
and strengthen relationships. With an increasing
trend towards creating, managing and enhancing
long-term cooperative logistics arrangements (e.g.
Murphy and Poist, 2000; van Laarhoven et al.,
2000), organizations increasingly need to learn
about and invest in bonding processes.
Besides the opportunity for additional research in
the above areas, an overall suggestion for future
research in the TPL field can be advanced concern-
ing the need for a more comprehensive conceptual
basis. The literature review has shown a relative lack
of theoretical work in the field when compared with
empirically based studies. Consistent with the early
stages in the development of a scholarly body of
work, much of the literature on TPL has been
largely exploratory and descriptive. Further devel-
opment of the field requires greater emphasis on the
development of theory, constructs and conceptual
frameworks in order to build a conceptual founda-
tion for subsequent empirical studies—a point
strongly supported by Skjoett-Larsen et al. (2003)
and Maloni and Carter (2006). In particular, our
concern with the finding that TPL literature is
primarily empirical-descriptive regards the lack of a
guiding conceptual base incorporating a system-
atized set of definitions, constructs and models to be
used in order to investigate, describe and explain
TPL relationships and the factors influencing them.
The review conducted in this paper has shown that
efforts intended to develop models, conceptualiza-
tions and frameworks are limited to specific aspects
of TPL, especially concerning its developmental
process. Also, extant conceptual-type research
relating to specific TPL issues has been conducted
from various perspectives and is often based on
different definitions or interpretations of what is
meant by TPL. Therefore, it can be argued that
advancements in the field would benefit from the
development of a systematized conceptual base
consisting of common definitions of important
constructs and variables—such as the IMP’s inter-
action model—capable of explaining and describing
TPL relationships and the relation among the
constructs. Such a basis, when recognized by a
large number of researchers in the field, would
provide a robust structure that enables a more
comprehensive understanding of TPL relationships
also through greater sharing and comparison of
analyses and research results.
Acknowledgements
The author is most grateful to the anonymous
reviewers for their comments that helped improving
readability and contents of the paper and would
also like to thank Dr. Alfonso Morvillo for his
guidance and support in starting and completing
this research.
References
Abrahamsson, M., Wandel, S., 1998. A model of tiering in third-
party logistics with a service parts distribution case study.
Transport Logistics 1 (3), 181–194.
Ackerman, K.B., 1996. Pitfalls in logistics partnerships. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment 26 (3), 35–37.
Aktas, E., Ulengin, F., 2005. Outsourcing logistics activities in
Turkey. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management
18 (3), 316–329.
Alp, O., Erkip, N.K., Güllü, R., 2003. Outsourcing logistics:
Designing transportation contracts between a manufacturer
and a transporter. Transportation Science 37 (1), 23–39.
Anderson, J.C., Håkansson, H., Johanson, J., 1994. Dyadic
business relationships within a business network context.
Journal of Marketing 58, 1–15.
Andersson, D., Norrman, A., 2002. Procurement of logistics
services—Minutes work or a multi-year project? European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 8, 3–14.
Arroyo, P., Gaytan, J., de Boer, L., 2006. A survey of third party
logistics in Mexico and a comparison with reports on Europe
and USA. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 26 (6), 639–667.
Ashenbaum, B., Maltz, A., Rabinovich, E., 2005. Studies of
trends in third-party logistics usage: What can we conclude?
Transportation Journal 44 (3), 39–50.
Bagchi, P.K., Virum, H., 1996. European logistics alliances:
A management model. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 7 (1), 93–107.
Bagchi, P.K., Virum, H., 1998. Logistical alliances: Trends and
prospects in integrated Europe. Journal of Business Logistics
19 (1), 191–213.
Bardi, E.J., Tracey, M., 1991. Transportation outsourcing:
A survey of US practices. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 21 (3), 15–21.
Bask, A.H., 2001. Relationships among TPL providers and
members of supply chains—A strategic perspective. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 16 (6), 470–486.
Berglund, M., 2000. Strategic positioning of the emerging third-
party logistics providers. Department of Management and
Economics, Linköping Studies in Management and Econom-
ics, Dissertation no. 45.
Berglund, M., van Laarhoven, P., Sharman, G., Wandel, S.,
1999. Third-party logistics: Is there a future? The Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management 10 (1), 59–70.
Bhatnagar, R., Viswanathan, S., 2000. Re-engineering global
supply chains—Alliances between manufacturing firms and
global logistics service providers. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (1), 13–34.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A.S., Millen, R., 1999. Third party logistics
services: A Singapore perspective. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 29 (9),
569–587.
Bienstock, C.C., 2002. Undesrtanding buyer information acquisi-
tion for the purchase of logistics services. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
32 (8), 636–648.
Bolumole, Y.A., 2001. The supply chain role of third-party
logistics providers. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 12 (2), 87–102.
Bolumole, Y.A., 2003. Evaluating the supply chain role of
logistics service providers. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 14 (2), 93–107.
Bottani, E., Rizzi, A., 2006. A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to
support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 11 (4), 294–308.
Bowersox, D.J., 1990. The strategic benefits of logistics alliances.
Harvard Business Review 68, 36–45.
Boyson, S., Corsi, T.M., Dresner, M.E., Rabinovich, E.,
1999. Managing effective third-party logistics partnerships:
What does it take? Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1),
73–100.
Brah, S.A., Lim, H.Y., 2006. The effects of technology and TQM
on the performance of logistics companies. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36
(3), 192–209.
Carbone, V., Stone, M.A., 2005. Growth and relational strategies
used by the European logistics service providers: Rationale
and outcomes. Transportation Research Part E 41, 495–510.
Chapman, R.L., Soosay, C., Kandampully, J., 2003. Innovation
in logistic services and the new business model—A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 33 (7), 630–650.
Chen, F.Y., Hum, S.H., Sun, J., 2001. Analysis of third-party
warehousing contracts with commitments. European Journal
of Operational Research 131, 603–610.
Chow, G., Gritta, R., 2001. The growth and development of the
US third party logistics industry. In: Proceedings of the Ninth
World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, Korea, July
22–27 (CD Rom).
Christopher, M., 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Management.
Pitman Publishing, London.
Christopher, M., 2000. The agile supply chain. Competing in
volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management 29,
37–44.
Cousins, P.D., 2002. A conceptual model for managing long-term
inter-organisational relationships. European Journal of Pur-
chasing & Supply Management 8 (2), 71–82.
Coyle, J.J., Bardi, E.J., Langley, C.J., 2003. The Management of
Business Logistics—A Supply Chain Perspective. South-
Western Publishing, Mason.
Croom, S., Romano, P., Giannakis, M., 2000. Supply chain
management: An analytical framework for critical literature
review. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Manage-
ment 6, 67–83.
Dapiran, P., Lieb, R.C., Millen, R., Sohal, A.S., 1996. Third
party logistics services usage by large Australian firms.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 26 (10), 36–45.
Daugherty, P., Dröge, C., 1997. Organizational structure in
divisionalized manufacturers: The potential for outsourcing
143
logistical services. International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion & Logistics Management 27 (5/6), 337–349.
Daugherty, P.J., Stank, T.P., Rogers, D.S., 1996. Third-party
logistics service providers: Purchasers’ perceptions. The
Journal of Supply Chain Management 32 (2), 23–29.
de Boer, L., Gaytan, J., Arroyo, P., 2006. A satisficing model of
outsourcing. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 11 (5), 444–455.
Delfmann, W., Albers, S., Gehring, M., 2002. The impact of
electronic commerce on logistics service providers. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment 32 (3), 203–222.
Ding, F.Y., Stoner, A., 2004. An evaluation procedure for
materials service centers. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 9 (2), 197–204.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing 51 (2), 11–27.
Ellram, L.M., Cooper, M.C., 1990. Supply chain manage-
ment, partnerships, and the shipper–third party relationship.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 1 (2),
1–10.
Evangelista, P., Sweeney, E., 2006. Technology usage in the
supply chain: The case of small 3PLs. The International
Journal of Logistics Management 17 (1), 55–74.
Evans, K., 2000. The remaining need for localisation of logistics
practices and services in Europe. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (5),
443–453.
Fabbe-Costes, N., 1997. Information management in the logistics
service industry: A strategic response to the reintegration of
logistical activities. Transport Logistics 1 (2), 115–127.
Fawcett, S.E., Vellenga, D.B., Truitt, L.J., 1995. An evaluation of
logistics and transportation professional organizations, pro-
grams, and publications. Journal of Business Logistics 16 (1),
299–314.
Ferguson, W., 1983. An evaluation of journals that publish
business logistics articles. Transportation Journal 22 (4),
69–72.
Fernie, J., 1999. Outsourcing distribution in UK retailing.
Journal of Business Logistics 20 (2), 83–95.
Flint, D.J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B., Mentzer, J.T., 2005.
Logistics innovation: A customer value-oriented social
process. Journal of Business Logistics 26 (1), 113–147.
Foggin, J.H., Mentzer, J.T., Monroe, C.L., 2004. A supply chain
diagnostic tool. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 34 (10), 827–855.
Ford, D., 1980. The development of buyer–seller relationships in
industrial markets. European Journal of Marketing 14 (5/6),
339–353.
Foster, T.A., 1999. Lessons learned. Logistics Management and
Distribution Report 38, 67–72.
Foulds, L.R., Luo, Y., 2006. Value-added services for sustainable
third-party warehousing. International Journal of Logistics
Systems and Management 2 (2), 194–216.
Frankel, R., Naslund, D., Bolumole, Y., 2005. The ‘‘white space’’
of logistics research: A look at the role of methods usage.
Journal of Business Logistics 26 (2), 185–208.
Frazier, G.L., 1983. Interorganizational exchange behaviour: A
broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing 47 (4), 68–78.
Fung, P., Wong, A., 1998. Case study: Managing for total quality
of logistics services in the supply chain. Logistics Information
Management 11 (5), 324–329.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
144 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Gardner, J.T., Cooper, M.C., Noordewier, T., 1994. Under-
standing shipper–carrier and shipper–warehouser relation-
ships: Partnerships revisited. Journal of Business Logistics 15
(2), 121–143.
Gentry, J.J., 1996. The role of carriers in buyer–supplier strategic
partnerships: A supply chain management approach. Journal
of Business Logistics 17 (2), 35–55.
Gibson, B.J., Cook, R., 2001. Hiring practices in US third-party
logistics firms. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 31 (10), 714–732.
Gibson, B.J., Rutner, S.M., Mundy, R.A., 1996. Building
successful alliances: Are shippers doing their part? Transpor-
tation Quarterly 50 (2), 35–46.
Gibson, B.J., Rutner, S.M., Keller, S.B., 2002. Shipper–carrier
partnership issues, rankings and satisfaction. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32
(8), 669–681.
Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., 2003. The successful manage-
ment of a small logistics company. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33 (9),
825–842.
Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., 2004. 3PL: Experiences
from China resources logistics (Hong Kong). Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 1 (1),
81–97.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S., Mentzer, J.T., 1995. The structure
of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing 59 (1),
78–92.
Gutiérrez, G., Duran, A., 1997. Information technology in
logistics—A Spanish perspective. Logistics Information
Management 10 (2), 73–79.
Håkansson, H. (Ed.), 1982. International Marketing and
Purchasing of Industrial Goods. An Interaction Approach.
Wiley, Chichester.
Håkansson, H., 1987. Industrial Technological Development. A
Network Approach. Croom Helm, London.
Håkansson, H., Johanson, J., 1990. Formal and informal
cooperation strategies in international networks. In: Ford,
D. (Ed.), Understanding Business Markets. Academic Press,
London, pp. 459–467.
Håkansson, H., Snehota, I., 1995. Developing Relationships in
Business Networks. Routledge, London.
Halldórsson, Á., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2004. Developing logistics
competencies through third party logistics relationships.
International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment 24 (2), 192–206.
Halldórsson, Á., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2006. Dynamics of relation-
ship governance in TPL arrangements—A dyadic perspective.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 36 (7), 490–506.
Hertz, S., 2001. Dynamics of alliances in highly integrated supply
chain networks. International Journal of Logistics: Research
and Applications 4 (2), 237–256.
Hertz, S., Alfredsson, M., 2003. Strategic development of third
party logistics providers. Industrial Marketing Management
32, 139–149.
Hong, J., Chin, A., Liu, B., 2004. Logistics outsourcing by
manufacturers in China: A survey of the industry. Transpor-
tation Journal 43 (1), 17–25.
House, R.G., Stank, T.P., 2001. Insights from a logistics
partnership. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 6 (1), 16–20.
Huiskonen, J., Pirttilä, T., 2002. Lateral coordination in a
logistics outsourcing relationship. International Journal of
Production Economics 78, 177–185.
Hum, S.H., 2000. A Hayes–Wheelwright framework approach
for strategic management of third party logistics services.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11 (2), 132–137.
Jaafar, H.S., Rafiq, M., 2005. Logistics outsourcing practices in
the UK: A survey. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications 8 (4), 299–312.
Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2004. Evaluating the perfor-
mance of third-party logistics arrangements: A relationship
marketing perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management
40 (1), 35–51.
Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2005a. Exploring the potential
impact of relationship characteristics and customer attributes
on the outcomes of third-party logistics arrangements.
Transportation Journal 1, 5–19.
Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2005b. Is the glass half full or
half empty? An examination of user and provider perspectives
towards third-party logistics relationships. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
35 (10), 708–727.
Knemeyer, A.M., Corsi, T.M., Murphy, P.R., 2003. Logistics
outsourcing relationships: Customer perspectives. Journal of
Business Logistics 24 (1), 77–109.
Ko, H.J., Ko, C.S., Kim, T., 2006. A hybrid optimization/
simulation approach for a distribution network design of
3PLS. Computers & Industrial Engineering 50, 440–449.
Koh, S.C.L., Tan, Z., 2005. Using e-commerce to gain a
competitive advantage in 3PL enterprises in China. Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 1 (2–3),
187–210.
Kopczak, L.R., 1997. Logistics partnerships and supply chain
restructuring: Survey results from the US computer industry.
Production and Operations Management 6 (3), 226–247.
Krumwiede, D., Sheu, C., 2002. A model for reverse logistics
entry by third-party providers. Omega 30, 325–333.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., Shankar, R., 2006. A multi-objective 3PL
allocation problem for fish distribution. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36 (9),
702–715.
Lai, K.H., 2004. Service capability and performance of logistics
service providers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review 40, 385–399.
Lai, K.H., Cheng, T.C.E., 2003. Supply chain performance in
transport logistics: An assessment by service providers.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
6 (3), 151–164.
Lai, K.H., Ngai, E.W.T., Cheng, T.C.E., 2005. Information
technology adoption in Hong Kong’s logistics industry.
Transportation Journal 44 (4), 1–9.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain
management. Industrial Marketing Management 29, 65–83.
Lambert, D.M., Emmelhainz, M.A., Gardner, J.T., 1999.
Building successful logistics partnerships. Journal of Business
Logistics 20 (1), 165–181.
Langley, Jr., C.J., Allen, G.R., Tyndall, G.R., 2002. Third-Party
Logistics Study: Results and Findings of the 2002 Seventh
Annual Study. Unpublished Report, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Langley Jr., C.J., van Dort, E., Moore, P.D., Ang, A., Sykes,
S.R., 2005. 2005 Third-Party Logistics Study: Results and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Findings of the 10th Annual Study. Unpublished Report,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Larson, P.D., Gammelgaard, B., 2001a. Logistics in Denmark: A
survey of the industry. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications 4 (2), 191–206.
Larson, P.D., Gammelgaard, B., 2001b. The logistics triad:
Survey and case study results. Transportation Journal 41
(2/3), 71–82.
Leahy, S.E., Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 1995. Determinants of
successful logistical relationships: A third-party provider
perspective. Transportation Journal 35 (2), 5–13.
Lemoigne, W., Dagnaes, L., 2003. Globalisation strategies and
business organisation of a network of logistics service
providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 33 (3), 209–228.
Lewis, I., Talalayevsky, A., 2000. Third-party logistics: Lever-
aging information technology. Journal of Business Logistics
21 (2), 173–185.
Li, T., Cavusgil, S.T., 1995. A classification and assessment of
research streams in international marketing. International
Business Review 4 (3), 251–277.
Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2004. The use of third-party logistics
services by large American manufacturers: The 2003 survey.
Transportation Journal 43 (3), 24–33.
Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2005a. The use of third-party logistics
services by large American manufacturers: The 2004 survey.
Transportation Journal 2, 5–15.
Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2005b. The North American third party
logistics industry in 2004: The provider CEO perspective.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 35 (8), 595–611.
Lieb, R.C., Kendrick, S., 2003. The year 2002 survey: CEO
perspectives on the current status and future prospects on the
third party logistics industry in the Unites States. Transporta-
tion Journal 42 (3), 5–12.
Lieb, R.C., Miller, J., 2002. The use of third-party logistics
services by large US manufacturers, the 2000 survey.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
5 (1), 1–12.
Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1996a. A comparison of the use of
third-party logistics services by large American manufac-
turers, 1991, 1994, and 1995. Journal of Business Logistics 17
(1), 305–320.
Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1996b. CEO perspectives on the
current status and future prospects of the third-party logistics
industry in the United States. Transport Logistics 1 (1),
51–66.
Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1999a. Use of third-party logistics
services by large US manufacturers in 1997 and comparisons
with previous years. Transport Reviews 19 (2), 103–115.
Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1999b. 1997 CEO perspectives on the
current status and future prospects of the third party logistics
industry in the United States. Transportation Journal 38 (3),
28–41.
Lieb, R.C., 1992. The use of third-party logistics services by large
American manufacturers. Journal of Business Logistics 13 (2),
29–42.
Lieb, R.C., Millen, R.A., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1993. Third-
party logistics services: A comparison of experienced
American and European manufacturers. International Jour-
nal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 23 (6),
35–45.
145
Lim, W.S., 2000. A lemons market? An incentive scheme
to induce truth-telling in third party logistics providers.
European Journal of Operational Research 125, 519–525.
Logan, M.S., 2000. Using agency theory to design successful
outsourcing relationships. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 11 (2), 21–32.
Luo, W., Van Hoek, R.I., Roos, H.H., 2001. Cross-cultural
logistics research: A literature review and propositions.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
4 (1), 57–78.
Lynagh, P.M., Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., Grazer, W.F., 2001.
Web-based informational practices of logistics service provi-
ders: An empirical assessment. Transportation Journal 40 (4),
34–45.
Makukha, K., Gray, R., 2004. Logistics partnerships between
shippers and logistics service providers: The relevance of
strategy. International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 7 (4), 361–377.
Maloni, M.J., Carter, C.R., 2006. Opportunities for research in
third-party logistics. Transportation Journal 45 (2), 23–38.
Maltz, A., 1994. The relative importance of cost and quality in
the outsourcing of warehousing. Journal of Business Logistics
15 (2), 45–62.
Maltz, A., Ellram, L.M., 1997. Total cost of relationship: An
analytical framework for the logistics outsourcing decision.
Journal of Business Logistics 18 (1), 45–66.
Maltz, A., Ellram, L.M., 2000. Selling inbound logistics services:
Understanding the buyer’s perspective. Journal of Business
Logistics 21 (2), 69–88.
Maltz, A., Riley, L., Boberg, K., 1993. Purchasing logistics
services in a transborder situation: Logistics outsourcing in
US–Mexico co-production. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 23 (8), 44–54.
McGinnis, M.A., Kochunny, C.M., Ackerman, K.B., 1995.
Third-party logistics choice. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 6 (2), 93–102.
Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 2002. A conceptual model for selecting and
evaluating third-party reverse logistics providers. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 7 (5), 283–295.
Menon, M.K., McGinnis, M.A., Ackerman, K.B., 1998. Selec-
tion criteria for providers of third-party logistics services: An
explanatory study. Journal of Business Logistics 19 (1),
121–137.
Millen, R., Sohal, A.S., Dapiran, P., Lieb, R., Van Wassenhove,
L.N., 1997. Benchmarking Australian firms’ usage of contract
logistics services. A comparison with American and Western
European practice. Benchmarking: An International Journal
4 (1), 34–46.
Min, H., 2002. Outsourcing freight bill auditing and payment
services. International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 5 (2), 197–211.
Min, H., Joo, S.J., 2006. Benchmarking the operational efficiency
of third party logistics providers using data envelopment
analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 11 (3), 259–265.
Moore, K.R., 1998. Trust and relationship commitment in
logistics alliances: A buyer perspective. International Journal
of Purchasing and Materials Management 34 (4), 24–37.
Moore, K.R., Cunningham III, W.A., 1999. Social exchange
behavior in logistics relationships: A shipper perspective.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 29 (2), 103–121.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
146 A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment–trust theory
of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 20–38.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 1998. Third-party logistics usage: An
assessment of propositions based on previous research.
Transportation Journal 37 (4), 26–35.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2000. Third-party logistics: Some user
versus provider perspectives. Journal of Business Logistics 21
(1), 121–133.
Neo, H.Y., Xie, M., Tsui, K.L., 2004. Service quality analysis:
Case study of a 3PL company. International Journal of
Logistics Systems and Management 1 (1), 64–80.
Ngai, E.W.T., Wat, F.K.T., 2002. A literature review and
classification of electronic commerce research. Information
& Management 39, 415–429.
Ojala, L., 2003. Estimating the size of the Finnish TPL market.
In: Andersson, D., Dryer, H.C., Halldórsson, Á., Jahre, M.,
Ojala, L., Skjoett-Larsen, T., Virum, H. (Eds.), Third Party
Logistics—A Nordic Research Approach. Publications of the
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration,
Series A-4:2003, Finland, pp. 47–58.
Olsen, R.F., Ellram, L.M., 1997. Buyer–supplier relationships:
Alternative research approaches. European Journal of Pur-
chasing & Supply Management 3 (4), 221–231.
Paché, G., 1998. Logistics outsourcing in grocery distribution: A
European perspective. Logistics Information Management 11
(5), 301–308.
Panayides, P., 2004. Logistics service providers: An empirical
study of marketing strategies and company performance.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
7 (1), 1–15.
Panayides, P.M., So, M., 2005. Logistics service provider–client
relationships. Transportation Research Part E 41, 179–200.
Pappu, M., Mundy, R.A., 2002. Understanding strategic
transportation buyer–seller relationships from an organiza-
tional learning perspective: A grounded theory approach.
Transportation Journal 41 (4), 36–50.
Persson, G., Virum, H., 2001. Growth strategies for logistics
service providers: A case study. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 12 (1), 53–64.
Peters, M.J., Cooper, J., Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1998a. The
third-party logistics industry in Europe: Provider perspectives
on the industry’s current status and future prospects.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
1 (1), 9–26.
Peters, M.J., Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1998b. The use of third-
party logistics services by European industry. Transport
Logistics 1 (3), 167–179.
Piplani, R., Pokharel, S., Tan, A., 2004. Perspectives on the use of
information technology at third party logistics service
providers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics 16 (1), 27–41.
Pokharel, S., 2005. Perception on information and communica-
tion technology perspectives in logistics: A study of transpor-
tation and warehouses sectors in Singapore. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 18 (2), 136–149.
Rabinovich, E., Windle, R., Dresner, M., Corsi, T., 1999.
Outsourcing of integrated logistics functions—An examina-
tion of industry practices. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 29 (6), 353–373.
Rabinovich, E., Knemeyer, A.M., 2006. Logistics service
providers in internet supply chains. California Management
Review 48 (4), 84–108.
Rao, K., Young, R.R., 1994. Global supply chains: Factors
influencing outsourcing of logistics functions. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 24
(6), 11–19.
Ratten, V., 2004. Learning and information dissemination in
logistics alliances. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics 16 (4), 65–81.
Razzaque, M.A., Sheng, C.C., 1998. Outsourcing of logistics
functions: A literature survey. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28 (2),
89–107.
Ring, P.M., Van de Ven, A.H., 1994. Developmental processes of
cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of
Management Review 19 (1), 90–118.
Sahay, B.S., Mohan, R., 2006. 3PL practices: An Indian
perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 36 (9), 666–689.
Sankaran, J., Mun, D., Charman, Z., 2002. Effective logistics
outsourcing in New Zealand—An inductive empirical inves-
tigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 32 (8), 682–702.
Sauvage, T., 2003. The relationship between technology and
logistics third-party providers. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33 (3),
236–253.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G., Vrat, P., 2006. A conceptual model
for quality of service in the supply chain. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36
(7), 547–575.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., Westhaus, M., Morana, R., 2005.
Conducting a literature review—The example of sustain-
ability in supply chains. In: Kotzab, H., Seuring, S.,
Müller, M., Reiner, G. (Eds.), Research Methodo-
logies in Supply Chain Management. Physica, Heidelberg,
pp. 91–106.
Sheffi, Y., 1990. Third-party logistics: Present and future
prospects. Journal of Business Logistics 11 (2), 27–35.
Sink, H.L., Langley, C.J., 1997. A managerial framework for the
acquisition of third-party logistics services. Journal of
Business Logistics 18 (2), 163–189.
Sink, H.L., Langley, C.J., Gibson, B.J., 1996. Buyer observations
of the US third-party logistics market. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 26 (3),
38–46.
Sinkovics, R.R., Roath, A.S., 2004. Strategic orientation,
capabilities and performance in manufacturer–3PL relation-
ships. Journal of Business Logistics 25 (2), 43–64.
Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2000. Third party logistics—From an inter-
organizational point of view. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (2),
112–127.
Skjoett-Larsen, T., Halldórsson, Á., Andersson, D., Dryer, H.,
Virum, H., Ojala, L., 2003. Third-party logistics—A nordic
approach. In: Andersson, D., Dryer, H.C., Halldórsson, Á.,
Jahre, M., Ojala, L., Skjoett-Larsen, T., Virum, H. (Eds.),
Third Party Logistics—A Nordic Research Approach. Pub-
lications of the Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration, Series A-4:2003, Finland, pp. 7–24.
Sohail, M.S., Al-Abdali, O.S., 2005. The usage of third party
logistics in Saudi Arabia. Current position and future
prospects. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 35 (9), 637–653.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147
Sohail, M.S., Sohal, A.S., 2003. The use of third party logistics
services: A Malaysian perspective. Technovation 23, 401–408.
Sohail, M.S., Austin, N.K., Rushdi, M., 2004. The use of third-
party logistics services: Evidence from a sub-Sahara African
nation. International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 7 (1), 45–57.
Sohail, M.S., Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A.S., 2006. A comparative
study on the use of third party logistics services by
Singaporean and Malaysian firms. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36 (9),
690–701.
Sohal, A.S., Millen, R., Moss, S., 2002. A comparison of the use
of third-party logistics services by Australian firms between
1995 and 1999. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 32 (1), 59–68.
Spencer, M., Rogers, D., Daugherty, P., 1994. JIT systems and
external logistics suppliers. International Journal of Opera-
tions & Production Management 14 (6), 60–74.
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P., 1997. The impact of operating
environment on the formation of cooperative logistics
relationships. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 33 (1), 53–65.
Stank, T.P., Maltz, A.B., 1996. Some propositions on third-party
choice: Domestic vs. international logistics providers. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice 4 (2), 45–54.
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P., Ellinger, A.E., 1996. Information
exchange, responsiveness and logistics provider performance.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 7 (2),
43–57.
Stefansson, G., 2006. Collaborative logistics management and
the role of third-party service providers. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36 (2),
76–92.
Stone, M.A., 2001. European expansion of UK third-party
logistics service providers. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications 4 (1), 97–115.
Sum, C.C., Teo, C.B., 1999. Strategic posture of logistics service
providers in Singapore. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 29 (9), 588–605.
Tan, A., Kritchanchai, D., 2006. An information technology
implementation framework for the logistics industry in
Singapore. International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management 2 (4), 371–386.
Tate, K., 1996. The elements of a successful logistics partnership.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 26 (3), 7–13.
Tyan, J.C., Wang, F.K., Du, T.C., 2003. An evaluation of freight
consolidation policies in global third party logistics. Omega
31, 55–62.
Vaidyanathan, G., 2005. A framework for evaluating third-party
logistics. Communications of the ACM 48 (1), 89–94.
Van Damme, D.A., van Amstel, M.J., 1996. Outsourcing logistics
management activities. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 7 (2), 85–94.
147
Van de Ven, A.H., 1976. On the nature, formation, and
maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of
Management Review 1 (4), 24–36.
Van Hoek, R.I., 2000. The role of third-party logistics providers
in mass customization. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 11 (1), 37–46.
Van Hoek, R.I., 2001. The contribution of performance
measurement to the expansion of third party logistics
alliances in the supply chain. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 21 (1/2), 15–29.
Van Laarhoven, P., Berglund, M., Peters, M., 2000. Third-party
logistics in Europe—Five years later. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (5),
425–442.
Voss, H., 2003. International logistics outsourcing—Competitive
advantages for 3PL-providers through intercultural compe-
tence. In: Juga, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual
Conference for Nordic Researchers in Logistics ‘‘Striving for
Leading Edge Logistics,’’ 12–13 June, Faculty of Economics
and Business Administration, University of Oulu, Oulu,
Finland, pp. 447–463.
Wilding, R., Juriado, R., 2004. Customer perceptions on logistics
outsourcing in the European consumer goods industry.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 34 (8), 628–644.
Wilson, D.T., 1995. An integrated model of buyer–seller
relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences
23 (4), 333–345.
Wong, Y.Y., Maher, T., Nicholson, J., 2000. Strategic alliances in
logistics outsourcing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics 12 (4), 3–21.
Wu, Y.J., 2006. Assessment of technological innovations in
patenting for 3rd party logistics providers. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 19 (5), 504–524.
Yan, J., Chaudhry, P.E., Chaudhry, S.S., 2003. A model of a
decision support system based on case-based reasoning for
third-party logistics evaluation. Expert Systems 20 (4),
196–207.
Yeung, J.H.Y., Selen, W., Sum, C.C., Huo, B., 2006. Linking
financial performance to strategic orientation and operational
priorities. An empirical study of third-party logistics provi-
ders. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 36 (3), 210–230.
Ying, W., Dayong, S., 2005. Multi-agent framework for third
party logistics in e-commerce. Expert Systems with Applica-
tions 29, 431–436.
Zäpfel, G., Wasner, M., 2002. Planning and optimization of hub-
and-spoke transportation networks of cooperative third-party
logistics providers. International Journal of Production
Economics 78, 207–220.
Zinn, W., Parasuraman, A., 1997. Scope and intensity of
logistics-based strategic alliances. A conceptual classification
and managerial implications. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment 26, 137–147.