Joëlle Morana

Jesus Gonzalez-Feliu

A sustainable urban logistics dashboard from the perspective of a group of operational managers

Keywords: Sustainable Supply Chain Management, urban logistics, sustainability dashboard, collaborative decision making, consensus

The aim of this paper is to propose a sustainable dashboard for evaluating the sustainable performance of urban delivery systems, from the perspective of operational logistics managers, one of the categories of stakeholders given less consideration by public authorities in their quest for consensus.

First, a synthesis of the main works on the subject is proposed, in order to provide a common grid of economic, environmental and social/societal indicators for Sustainable Supply Chain Management, after which the method for defining the dashboard is presented. This method is derived from a collaborative decision-support approach and applied to a panel of operational logistics managers. Using a co-constructive method, a group of experts is consulted first separately then by small groups, then a group restitution and consensus search process is made to find an agreed set of indicators.

The results show a difference between the indicators chosen in the individual phase and those defined in small groups. They show also a gap between classical expert-obtained indicators (mainly made by one or a small group of non-operational experts) and the proposed dashboard, made by and for operational managers.

The originality of the paper is that it addresses two issues (urban logistics evaluation and consensus search) by using methods of natural and active pedagogy, and shows by an experimental method the interests and opportunities of collaboration in defining sets of indicators for urban logistics evaluation.

A sustainable urban logistics dashboard from the perspective of a group of logistics managers

Introduction

The sustainability of Supply Chain Management is becoming increasingly important for organizations that want to gain a competitive advantage, and for industries sensitive to environmental problems or social issues [START_REF] Svensson | Aspects of sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): conceptual framework and empirical example[END_REF][START_REF] Carter | A framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: moving toward new theory[END_REF][START_REF] Seuring | From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF][START_REF] Pagell | Building a more complete theory of sustainable Supply Chain Management using case studies of 10 exemplars[END_REF][START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF]. However, although these issues of sustainability are coming under greater theoretical and practical scrutiny (ecodesign, waste management, life-cycle assessments, etc.), the management and measurement of sustainability performance over their whole supply chains are given too little attention. Nonetheless, sustainability issues in supply chains have become an important topic in the strategic management of organizations and the adoption of a sustainable Supply Chain Management requires that particular attention be focused on performance management, accounting, auditing and management control. In our view, the design of a sustainable dashboard is a tool that can be used to encourage the practice of sustainable Supply Chain Management and allow stakeholders to discriminate positively in favor of sustainable products and services.

The need in companies to gather data, make information available, and generate knowledge for decision-making has never been stronger. Although economic indicators remain major concerns, the measurement and management of the social and environmental performance of complete supply chains are becoming steadily more central to the work of firms. The good reputation of a firm is increasingly linked to the elimination of forced labor and/or child labor. Also, the certification of "green" processes, products and services is a feasible means of supporting economic recovery. However, this requires reliable and clear key sustainability performance indicators.

The organizational aspects of urban logistics schemes in the global sustainable supply chain must be considered [START_REF] Allen | Sustainability strategies for city logistics[END_REF]. Indeed, as urban traffic increases, some organizations are faced with the problem of efficient urban freight distribution. Additional constraints include relations with public authorities which apply different criteria for managing products flows (i.e. no deliveries to the city-center by modes of transport considered highly pollutant).

The aim of this paper is to examine the use of indicators by private organizations in the context of sustainable urban supply chains, while considering the constraints of public actors. To do this we first provide a synthetic review of the literature to present the main principles of sustainable urban Supply Chain Management and its links with the global supply chain. Secondly, we assess the importance of performance measurement in sustainable urban logistics. Thirdly, we propose a dashboard with a set of indicators, designed on the basis of an investigation conducted with logistics professionals. Finally, we discuss these results and present further developments in a near-future perspective.

Literature review: from the performance measurement of Sustainable Supply Chain Management

(SSCM) to Urban SSCM

Taking into account the managerial interest of Sustainable Supply Chain Management

While the contribution of Supply Chain Management (SCM) is becoming ever more significant, it does not stop at the economic aspect. It can also to be found in ecosystem preservation. The same is true of social and societal recognition of the actors who make up the supply chain. It is therefore becoming appropriate to speak of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM), which is akin to Sustainable Development [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF].

Historically, French research dedicated to Sustainable Supply Chain Management initially focused on reflections on the notion of freight transport: maritime or fluvial [START_REF] Collin | Coord.). Ville portuaire, acteur du développement durable, L'Harmattan[END_REF][START_REF] Rodrigue | Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics[END_REF] and especially road [START_REF] Bernadet | Introduction au dossier « Transport et logistique durables : vers la nécessaire prise en compte de leur interdépendance[END_REF][START_REF] Bazin | Le renforcement des contraintes spatiales des entreprises : le transport comme vecteur de valorisation de la prestation logistique[END_REF]Blanquart and[START_REF] Blanquart | La place du transport dans les organisations logistiques durables[END_REF][START_REF] Blanquart | Evaluating the performance of freight transport: a service approach[END_REF]. It was then logical from the urban standpoint that attention was paid to the prominent economic/environmental aspect: high cost due to frequent stops correlated with growing pollution [START_REF] Ségalou | The Environmental Assessment of Urban Goods Movement[END_REF][START_REF] Gonzalez-Feliu | Are City Logistics Solutions Sustainable? The Cityporto case[END_REF]Dablanc and Rakotanarivo, 2010;[START_REF] Gonzalez-Feliu | Urban logistics and e-grocery: have new B2C trends a positive impact on the environment[END_REF]. The perspective then shifted to improving collaborative logistics practices [START_REF] Gonzalez-Feliu | Design and scenario assessment for collaborative logistics and freight transport systems[END_REF][START_REF] Carbone | Collaborative supply chains and environmental awareness: a typology in terms of "proximity[END_REF].

Regarding research published in English in the period 2007-2009, several studies focused on a review of work on the Sustainable Supply Chain Management, in order to define a conceptual framework and a generic definition. Several definitions were provided, such as:

-"SSCM requires a broadened approach of SCM. It should emphasize economic, ecological and social aspects of business practices and theory." [START_REF] Svensson | Aspects of sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): conceptual framework and empirical example[END_REF];

-"we define SSCM as the strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an organization's social, environmental, and economic goals in the systemic coordination of key interorganizational business processes for improving the long-term economic performance of the individual company and its supply chains." [START_REF] Carter | A framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: moving toward new theory[END_REF] ; -"we define Sustainable Supply Chain Management as the management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, into account which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements." [START_REF] Seuring | From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF]; -"To be truly sustainable a supply chain would at worst do no net harm to natural or social systems while still producing a profit over an extended period of time; a truly sustainable supply chain could, customers willing, continue to do business forever.[…] A sustainable supply chain is then one that performs well on both traditional measures of profit and loss as well as on an expanded conceptualization of performance that includes social and natural dimensions" [START_REF] Pagell | Building a more complete theory of sustainable Supply Chain Management using case studies of 10 exemplars[END_REF]; In line with these works, we consider the definition of [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF]: "Sustainable Supply Chain Management can be understood as the management of the flows of materials, information, capital, people and intelligence with an economic, environmental and social/societal goal. As a strategic management approach, it can be found in the quite deliberate set of intra-and inter-organizational connections, in view to ensuring the long-term performance of each company and of its supply chain."

These developments show that Sustainable Supply Chain Management has become a strategic issue for firms. But it must be clear that its success depends on the ability to clearly connect each economic, environmental and social/societal element. Consequently, we built a chart (see figure 1) in which we can find paths for the coherent implementation of SSCM: To operate, SSCM requires the conjunction of three elements, i.e. economic, environmental and social/societal while the measurement of its performance can be established by implementing dashboard(s):

-the application of SSCM from the economic standpoint is based mainly on intra-and interorganizational connections. These connections have an impact on the "three basic logistics" which are often outlined in the description of the logistical strategy: upstream, production (internal) and downstream stages. But in a long-term framework, other elements need to be developed like strategic transport management (transport pooling, urban logistics space management), the role of the logistics providers, the traceability approach and, of course, information and communication technologies used to facilitate these connections; -the strategic importance of environmental SSCM has become a crucially important element. The article by [START_REF] Srivastava | Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review[END_REF] provides an interesting insight into green logistics. We enriched this work [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF] and considered three main focal areas: green design and eco-design with the latter integrated in processes and building; green operation with actions in green manufacturing and remanufacturing, waste management such as electrical and electronic equipment waste management1 and reverse logistics; and thirdly, green transport with actions to promote multimodality, the use of vehicles considered non or less-pollutant, eco-conduct and eco-taxes; -it is crucial to link (internal and external) human resources and logistics. Although human aspects are often highlighted in (Green) Supply Chain Management, the interest of specifying these aspects clearly has become appropriate. In line with the work of [START_REF] Gond | Gestion des ressources humaines et Développement Durable[END_REF] who examined human resources in Sustainable Development, we propose two main focal areas for sustainable logistics. Firstly, in an internal context with particular emphasis given to four aspects: individual rights withfor example-the implementation of the SA8000 standard 2 ; organizational commitment which focuses on the recognition of competence, motivation, training, etc.; organizational identification; and, finally, job satisfaction. Secondly, in an external context, we highlight the role of the company's attractiveness, reputation and image (for instance, the implementation of the IS0 14000 standard and traceability), and the support of unions and external partners.

To conclude this paragraph, we must not forget "performance measurement" which, as is generally recognized, falls under the adage "we can only manage what we can measure". In our view, as a decisionsupport measuring tool, performance measurement is one of the most influential factors of the "dashboard". In logistics, this tool must highlight financial (linked to a financial type balance sheet) and non-financial indicators (qualitative indicators). In SSCM, the dashboard presents economic data (cost, but also according to us, quality and delay for logistics), and environmental (pollution, for instance) and social/societal (rate of absenteeism and customer satisfaction) data.

Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Urban logistics

Although all the links in the supply chain are important, it is necessary to underline the value of urban logistics or "last-mile logistics". Indeed, logistics in close connection to customers' needs has always been an important element in the supply chain [START_REF] Mossman | Logistics of distribution systems[END_REF], and the growth of e-commerce only reinforces this fact. Thus FEVAD (Fédération des Entreprises de Vente A Distance -Federation of Remote Sales Companies) has reported an increase in online sales in Europe in 2012 3 . In terms of logistics, this has consequences for the ways in which orders are prepared and delivered. In addition to the constraints of private actors, it must take into account the requirements of public authorities. Therefore, having a tool that incorporates key performance measures which consider the interests of all market players is essential. Figure 2 presents the approach proposed. This approach specifies the challenges involved in evaluating/maximizing sustainable performance measures of urban flows. To assure good coordination between private and public actors, it is necessary to determine sustainable variables that can be used to represent the interests of each stakeholder. Naturally, the success of an urban Sustainable Supply Chain Management system must consider the interests of the global logistics system. Thus clear understanding of the supply chain concerned is also needed.

Figure 2 -Urban logistics in a sustainable global logistics system * platforms for grouping/degrouping operations usually exist a few miles from city centers. Their role is to manage flows bound for areas of dense traffic.

Key Performance Indicators in Sustainable (Urban) SCM

In logistics, the aim of measuring performance is in general directly linked to a goal of ensuring permanent improvement that leads to the conceptualization and implementation of measurement systems combining diagnostics and decision-aids. If we focus on evaluating Supply Chain Management (SCM) with Key Performance Indicators (KPI), we find two interesting references on the subject: (1) the work of [START_REF] Gunasekaran | Performance measures and metrics in logistics and Supply Chain Management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and applications[END_REF], with a list of 26 indicators; and (2) the work of [START_REF] Griffis | Aligning logistics performance measures to the information needs of the firm[END_REF] with 14 indicators. Although these lists do not include any environmental indicator, while social indicators are over-represented, they can be used as a basis for an initial sustainability evaluation [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF].

Regarding the context of measuring sustainable urban logistics from the standpoint of a private company, [START_REF] Morana | Urban Consolidation and Logistics Pooling[END_REF] proposed a set of 28 indicators (14 for economic, 6 for environmental and 8 for social performance) (Cf. Table 1).

A supply chain

Methodology

Using a basic list of indicators, we propose a collaborative decision support methodology in view to formulating a sustainable urban logistics dashboard. This can be done with two prerequisites:

-the first is the consideration of a minimum number of indicators, as recommended by [START_REF] Bouquin | Le contrôle de gestion[END_REF]. According to this author, as an instrument of action, a dashboard includes a "relatively small number of indicators (five to ten) [integrated] to inform managers of the state and evolution of the systems they control and identify the trends that will influence these systems over a time scale consistent with the nature of their functions" (Ibid, 2001, pp. 397-398); -the second is the inclusion of three types of measurement that reflect the three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e. economic, environmental and social/societal. We also try to precise the "stakeholder" quality, i.e. is it an indicator for public (public authorities and/or customer/inhabitants) and/or private actor (supplier, producer and/or distributor).

To answer our question, we propose a method based on active adult pedagogy findings, mainly those of natural pedagogy [START_REF] Collin | Coord.). Ville portuaire, acteur du développement durable, L'Harmattan[END_REF]. More precisely, we aim to use a socio-constructive collective method to obtain, by agreement, a dashboard, from a panel of operational managers. The choice of the target individuals has been made because most evaluation methods are based on city logistics experts [START_REF] Patier | A methodology for the evaluation of urban logistics innovations[END_REF], public authorities [START_REF] Lindholm | Urban freight transport from a local authority perspective-a literature review[END_REF] or strategic managers (Gonzalez-Feliu and Morana, 2014) but the main stakeholders dealing daily with the constraints and difficulties of the urban logistics field at an operational level are drivers, land crew and operational managers. To have the managerial component, we chose to focus on operational managers.

In order to develop a socio-constructive procedure, the construction of the dashboard has been divided into four stages:

1. The first stage is that of "personal knowledge", in which each involved "expert" choses, from her or his experience, the set of indicators she or he thinks are the most adapted to evaluate urban logistics, considering also her or his expertise field. In this phase, no support is provided to define the indicators: each expert defines them, individually, without any external help or support. 2. The second stage is a first data consolidation phase. From the answers of the experts, a set of indicators is defined, reproducing all indicators given by each expert, but without indicating the frequency of each answer. 3. The third stage is a sub-group construction phase. In other words, the entire group of experts is divided into several homogeneous subgroups that will exchange their experience to define a set of indicators. In this phase, two support documents are provided: a first list containing all indicators identified in the first stage (and consolidated in the second) and a list of indicators provided by city logistics experts (which details are provided in Gonzalez-Feliu and Morana, 2014).

4. The fourth and last phase is a group decision making phase, in which each subgroup restitutes to the entire group their results, then, once all indicators retained by each group are identified and communicated, a consensus search dialogue is initiated to converge to a set of indicators agreed by the entire group.

This method differs from a basic group-decision process [START_REF] Yearwood | The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning[END_REF] in one main point: in a basic group decision making process, decisions are individually made, if possible without interactions with others. This process is followed by a decision communication phase where choices and the importance of using the different indicators were discussed. Third and last, a consensus research phase took place between experts in order to make consensual decisions. In the proposed method, individual decisions are of course made, but then a co-construction phase makes individuals make a first consensual solution search, in subgroups of small size. In this way, the co-construction process accentuates collaboration and the will of finding consensus. The group restitution phase and the need of find a real agreement (i.e. the acceptance of a common decision) instead of a consensus (which, according to [START_REF] Yearwood | The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning[END_REF], can finish into a non-decision by the impossibility of finding agreements), which guaranteed a final set of indicators.

To illustrate this method, 25 managers have participated to the experimental phase. Those managers belong to three categories, each associated to the type of company they belong to:

-9 managers belong to the transport (2PL) or logistics service (3PL, 4PL) field: 5 are related to transport management and 4 to freight forwarding. -8 to the production and manufacturing field: 4 related to production management and 4 to distribution management. -8 to the distribution field: 5 related to wholesaling and 3 to integrated distribution.

The experimentation process took place in two different days, between them a time period of 3 days was necessary for data formatting and analysis. The entire process was effectively developed as follows:

1. In the first stage, managers were consulted separately, without the possibility of communicating their results to the others. First, an introduction of 30 minutes about urban logistics and the needs of evaluating and measuring impacts were given to them. After that, each manager had 15 minutes to write a set of 5 to 10 indicators to measure the sustainability of urban logistics solutions. The novelty with respect to other dashboard construction methods is that in this phase, each manager had no external support, so she or he could only count with her or his memory and personal experience. This was done to avoid biasing the data collection process, since giving in the first phase a list of indicators would condition each individual's answers. 2. After collecting all lists of indicators, the second phase started. During the three days between the two meetings, data was checked, standardized, corrected, aggregated and analyzed. The main actions dealt to identify which indicators were similar (although sometimes having different names) and find which indicators were identified by the highest number of managers. With those results, a list of indicators was produced. 3. To prepare the third phase, two lists of indicators were prepared, to support the group decision process. The first list results from the second stage. The resulting indicators were sorted alphabetically to do not give an idea of which measures were the most popular. The second one was obtained by an analysis of the literature, which basis can be found in [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF] and Gonzalez-Feliu and Morana (2014). 4. Three days after the first meeting, a second meeting was organized. In a first time, the group was divided into 7 subgroups. Note that according to active pedagogy, a subgroup for co-construction purposes needs to have at least 3 individuals. A first phase of 30' was given for individual reflection, in order to prepare the group decision process and complement each manager's choices with the support of the two given lists. Then, during 1 hour, each subgroup discussed about which indicators would be selected. Each subgroup should give a list of 5 to 10 indicators. 5. After that, a group restitution phase took place. During 1 hour, each subgroup explained the reasons of choosing their proposed set of indicators, and presented them. All indicators were noted in a paperboard to show to the group the similarities and differences in their choices. 6. Finally, a group concordance phase took place. Opposing to consensus, the concordance implies finding an agreement by unanimity. It takes more time (in the proposed experimental process, it took about 1h) but at the end all individuals accepted the retained solution. After this phase, a restitution of the given set of indicators was made to the group.

Results

This section presents the results of the collaborative decision making procedure. We propose to examine the results after the different steps. After step 1, a total list of 182 answers has been obtained, i.e. that each operational manager has selected 7.3 indicators in average. Overall, 95 different indicators have defined by the total panel of experts, i.e. about 3.8 per individual. This leads to a long list of indicators, most of them identified by one or two individuals. We report in Table 2 the 21 indicators that are identified by at least two experts. We observe that no indicator makes the unanimity. Indeed, only one of the triad indicators (costquality-time), the service rate, is identified by more than half of the group. However, it is identified by only 13 of the 25 experts. The greenhouse gas emission rate, one of the main indicators to measure environmentally of urban logistics, comes in second position, with 12 of the 25 experts proposing it. The logistics costs and the customers' satisfaction rate, also used in classical logistics evaluation, remain popular among the set of experts: they are proposed by respectively 11 and 10 experts. It is important to note that the experts did not have any support to define the set of indicators, which make the exercise difficult. However, we observe that, without support or communication, each expert has its vision and a consensus seems far to be reached. For that reason, two sets of indicators were defined during the second stage, without the opinion of experts: the first includes the 95 indicators extracted from the results of the first stage, renaming them when necessary to produce a standard set of indicators; the second comes from the extension of the 75 indicators proposed in [START_REF] Gonzalez-Feliu | Assessing urban logistics pooling sustainability via a hierarchic dashboard from a group decision perspective[END_REF] by adding 25 indicators coming from classical accounting and management studies [START_REF] Morana | Sustainable Supply Chain Management[END_REF], which gives us a set of 100 indicators.

Those both sets have been given to the group, and the third stage has been launched by dividing the group into 7 subgroups of 4 or 5 experts each. Each subgroup has defined the set of indicators that seemed the more suitable for its members, and then a group restitution procedure (fourth stage) has been animated. To summarize the results and feed the last group decision making phase, all indicators identified by each subgroup have been noted and aggregated to propose the following table:

First comments:

Firstly, we can compare the result of Tables 2 and3. As a remember, Table 2 concerns the ranking of indicators by each expert, and Table 3 relates to the consolidation of the 7 subgroups. We notice that only 6 indicators on 21 have been maintained unchanged, and 2 have been partially modified, that is a total of 8 indicators on 21 (38%). We can say that the decision of the group(s) modify(ie) largely the individual decisions. Besides, except for the service rate, indicators of Table 2 change order of ranking. We can also say that the indicators of the Table 3 seem more general, and that it is possible to find a consolidation. For instance, "pollution emission rates" (number 4 -Table 3), "energy consumption" (number 8 -Table 2) and greenhouse gas emissions (number 15 -Table 3) are all related to environmental impacts. For some sources of energy (mainly fuel), energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are related, and also for some pollutants [START_REF] Ségalou | The Environmental Assessment of Urban Goods Movement[END_REF]. However, it is not always possible to define a unique "environmental impact" indicator but some frameworks, like Life Cycle Analysis, allow to define some generic indicators that identify raw savings satisfactorily. On the economic, environmental and social/societal distribution, we note a "better representativity" of the number of indicators between the tables. So, between the two tables, we pass from 62% 1 of the review of literature (Cf. annex 1), we notice two main differences. First, indicators in connection with the management of warehouse are not evoked by the experts.

The experts center rather their interests on the transport and the delivery. Then, the societal level is not finally retained by the experts. They take more a look on the place and the role of employee in the firm. In the end we find a certain convergence between both tables on the environmental indicators After the concordance phase, and in agreement with Bouquin's advice4 , 8 indicators have been selected and agreed. The first seven indicators having being identified by the majority (Cf. Table 3), they were naturally accepted by all subgroups. The eighth indicator (social/societal) was more difficult to define, as it took almost one hour to decide if other indicators were or not added to the set. After a complex discussion, it was decided not to add other indicator. Having more than 9-10 indicators was considered too much by the group. The resulting dashboard can be then declined as follows:

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1 -Paths of Sustainable Supply Chain Management, adapted from Morana, 2013

  Main indicators for urban logistics sustainability from the standpoint of private companies[START_REF] Morana | Urban Consolidation and Logistics Pooling[END_REF]

  The rest of the indicators are proposed by less than 8 experts. Only 9 indicators are proposed by at least 5 experts, which make about 9.5% [9/95] of the total number of different indicators. Moreover, 5 indicators are proposed by three experts, 6 by two experts and 71 by only one expert.

Table 2 -Result of steps 1: indicators defined by at least two experts during the individual decision stage.

 2

			Frequency of
	Number	Indicators	answer (nb. of	Ranking's consolidator Type Actor**
			experts/25)
	1 Service rate	52% (13/25)	Economic*	PrA & FC
	2 Greenhouse gas emission rate	48% (12/25)	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	3 Logistics costs	44% (11/25)	Economic	PrA
	4 Customers' satisfaction rate	40% (10/25)	Economic	PrA & FC
	5 Number of trucks	28% (7/25)	Economic	PrA & PuA
	6 Inhabitants satisfaction rates	28% (7/25)	Social/Societal	I
	7 Delivery times	24% (6/25)	Economic	PrA
	8 Energy consumption	24% (6/25)	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	9 Congestion	20% (5/25)	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	10 Employment creation rates	16% (4/25)	Social/Societal	PrA & PuAut
	11 Economic viability rates	12% (3/25)	Economic	PrA
	12 Number of deliveries	12% (3/25)	Economic	PrA
	13 Noise level	12% (3/25)	Environmental	PuA & I
	14 Economic savings	12% (3/25)	Economic	PrA
	15 Number of delivery platforms	12% (3/25)	Economic	PrA & PuA
	16 Reclamation rate	8% (2/25)	Social/Societal	PrA
	17 Delay rates	8% (2/25)	Economic	PrA & FC
	18 Vehicles' loading rates	8% (2/25)	Economic/Environmental	PrA & PuAut
	19 Maintenance rates	8% (2/25)	Economic	PrA
	20 Number of ruptures of charge	8% (2/25)	Economic	PrA
	21 Time delay due to congestion	8% (2/25)	Economic	PrA
	* as a reminder, and according to us, economic indicators in Sustainable Supply Chain Management
	concern cost, quality and delay.
	** PrA: private actors concern firms (supplier, producer and distributor);PuA: public actors; FC: final
	customer; PuAut: public authorities and I: inhabitant.

Table 3 -Identified indicators by each subgroup

 3

	Number	Indicator	Frequency of selection (nb. of subgroups/7)	Rankings comparison Table 2 & 3	Ranking's consolidator Type Actor
	1	Service rates	100% (7/7)	1 => 1	Economic	PrA & FC
	2	Customers' satisfaction rates	100% (7/7)	4 => 2	Economic	PrA & FC
	3	Congestion	71% (5/7)	9 => 3	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	4	Pollution emission rates	57% (4/7)	New	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	5	Operational costs	57% (4/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	6	Monetary savings	57% (4/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	7	Customers' evolution	57% (4/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	8	Vehicles' loading rates	43% (3/7)	18 => 8	Economic/Env. PrA & PuAut
	9	Products' prize	29% (2/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	10	Staff turnover	29% (2/7)	New	Social/Societal	PrA & PuAut
	11	Delivery times	29% (2/7)	7 => 11	Economic	PrA
	12	Number of deliveries	29% (2/7) A part of 15	Economic	PrA & PuA
	13	Average distance per delivery	14% (1/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	14	Employees' satisfaction rates	14% (1/7)	New	Social/Societal	PrA
	15	Greenhouse gas emission rates	14% (1/7)	2 => 15	Environmental	PrA & PuA
	16	Logistics reliability	14% (1/7)	New	Economic	PrA
	17	Number of employments created/destroyed/reconverted	14% (1/7)	A part of 10	Social/Societal	PrA & PuAut

  [13/21] to 59% [10/17] for economic indicators, from 19% [4/21] to 18% [3/17] for environmental indicators, from 14% [3/21] to 18% [3/17] for social/societal and 1 indicator which has an economic/environmental status for each table. Now if we compare the Table 3 with the Table

Table 4 -Final dashboard for experts: the key indicators of urban logistics from the standpoint of sustainability

 4

	Domains	Category	Main indicator (total = 8)	Correspondence with Table 3.	Ranking's consolidator Type Actor
	Economic	Logistics Audit	Operational costs Monetary savings	Ind. n° 5 Ind. n° 6	Economic Economic	PrA PrA
	Economic	Service quality

Decree no.

2005-829 of 20 July 2005 (Official Gazette no. 22) 2 The SA8000 standard was drawn up in 1997 by an American organization: SAI (Social Accountability International). It relies upon human rights reference texts. It is based on the conventions signed by the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights published by the United Nations (UN) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 3 http://www.fevad.com/uploads/files/Publications/Chiffres_Cles_2013(1).pdf. In 2012, the European e-commerce annual turnover was €312 Billion.

A dashboard must have a minimum set of indictors as to be understood and use.

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was supported by the ANNONA Project, financed by the French National Agency for Research (ANR), in its Sustainable City and Building program. Authors aim to thank André Van Hecke and Florence Usclade for their exchanges on socio-constructive and active methods, as well as to anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped to improve the paper.

Service rates

Ind To sum up, we observe that the indicators are in general more specific than those proposed in the literature.

The needs imply the definition of detailed indicators that public and/or private stakeholders from both sides can understand. For example, logistics indicators are related to transport loading rates, with and without linking them to the distances traveled. Similarly, such indicators need to be associated with warehousing performance (in terms of loading rates) and with the general financial balance. In this case, for instance, no inventorying performance indicators were calculated due to collaboration with transport carriers or the parties directly associated with them (i.e., mainly 2PL and 3PL), as they make their inventory management decisions themselves.

Environmental indicators showed the importance of greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions. It is noteworthy that noise was not selected because transport and logistics practitioners are less sensitive to societal issues than public authorities. Additionally, gains in less congestion (reduction in the number of trucks, for example) appear as more central for public actors than for private actors. Regarding the social path, the importance of converting the potential number of employees to be shed into new and added-value jobs is also viewed more as a public issue than a private one.

Finally, it is important to note that to evaluate sustainable urban performance, it is necessary to establish/identify a reference grid in terms of key performance indicators in order to respond to the problems faced by professional and private stakeholders, and with members of both parts in attendance.

Conclusion

The evaluation of urban logistics projects should be seen from the perspective of Sustainable Development.

Consequently, three dimensions (economic, environmental and social/societal) must be taken into account.

Likewise, it is advisable to enumerate a limited though sufficient number of indicators for decision-making. We proposed a framework based in group decision-making for defining a dashboard to evaluate the sustainability of urban logistics projects, taking into account both public and private stakeholders' visions and viewpoints.

From the economic standpoint, the perspective of private enterprise predominates. Two main groups of economic indicators were evaluated in the different works (dealing equally with the efficiency of the company as a whole and with global logistics in the case of urban goods transport): the macroscopic indicators of a company's economic continuity and the economic performance indicators of logistics.

Regarding the environmental dimension, the main variables to be studied are the following: energy consumption, variations of pollutant emissions in comparison to an initial situation and to all urban transport emissions (people + goods). Only greenhouse gas emissions as an indicator appear central for professionals, while others elements are considered by public authorities (congestion, noise)

The social/societal dimension is more difficult to characterize and requires more in-depth study. Nonetheless, identifying social/societal factors within the company and variations in the number of jobs and their reassignment appear to be the main variables involved in the search for social and societal indicators.

The interest of this work was to question operational experts. We also notice that the influence of the group modifies the individual decision. The main limit is that this group of experts did not contain a staff of public authorities. If this had been the case, we think that we would have had finally 1 or 2 societal indicators in the final dashboard.


Joachim Schöpfel

Open Supply? On the Future of Document Supply in the World of Open Science

Keywords: Document supply, open science, open access Article Classification: Viewpoint

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

The recent conclusions of the Competiveness Council of the European Union established the roadmap for the transition "to a new way of doing research and science based on openness, big data and cloud computing"1 in Europe. The overall goal is open science, i.e. a new "friendly regulatory environment for research and innovation (which) breaks down the barriers around universities and ensures that society benefits as much as possible from all scientific insights (maximizing) the input of researchers, universities and knowledge institutions". All scientific publications ought to be freely accessible by 2020.

Speed up scientific communication, make scientific publications and results accessible, in particular for industrial R&D -this offensive research policy opens a wide boulevard for information services, such as academic interlending and document supply which pursues similar goals. However, today these services appear strangely absent from the debate, as if in a "time warp (…) on the periphery of traditional STM publishing" (Brown 2016, p.207). Have they definitively become relicts from a bygone library past? In a world with 100% freely available scientific documents and data, a document supply service may look like a kind of Palmyra ruins of scientific information.

So is there no future for document supply in open science? Some may object that only fools or dreamers will believe in 100% free content. But in the lapse of time of reading this paper, let us dream. Let us imagine that the EU Member States transformed their declaration of intention into action and that they reached their ambitious objectives. What would this mean for the development of document supply? Could document supply become "open supply"? Here are some elements of an answer to the usual questions of strategic marketing.

What is the business?

IFLA defines document supply as "making information in all formats available throughout the world through a variety of resource sharing and document supply techniques"2 , or more generally, "shared use of individual library collections (…) supply of loans and copies between libraries"3 . Usually, this is true for lending of returnables (books etc.) and copy delivery (journal articles etc.), not only to and via libraries but also to the end-user. Interlending & Document Supply, the leading journal in the field, describes its scope as "information discovery and access (and explores) the digital information supply chain i.e. transport, flows, tracking, exchange and sharing, including within and between libraries (and) digital information capture, packaging and storage by 'collectors' of all kinds"4 . Access and discovery, not dissemination or curation is the business. Basically, the reason for document supply is not scarcity of information but unequal and unsatisfactory distribution of vital resources for education, research and development. Document supply is a process to provide access to information despite this uneven distribution, to deal with or better, to compensate inequality. Initially a library-based service related to local holdings, document supply has incorporated for several years now information brokering, providing documents from a great variety of sources, including publishers and authors themselves.

With the rapid growth of journal publishing and the Xerox technology, interlibrary loan developed into document delivery; with the rise of large digital libraries, it moved forwards to a long tail business. Today, the challenge is twofold and paradoxical: while more and more scientific documents are freely available (the search engine BASE indexes nearly 4,500 sources with over 90m items), the future relevance of publications for scientific research is uncertain, above all because of the development of research data infrastructures. Today document supply has to decide how to deal with open access -should it integrate open access, for instance because library users still continue to struggle with information retrieval [START_REF] Baich | Open access: help or hindrance to resource sharing?[END_REF]? Should it consider open access as an opportunity for further service development [START_REF] Schöpfel | Open access and document supply[END_REF])? Nevertheless, the next question will be (already is) content of supply: will (should) document supply cover the whole range of scientific information, which means more and more data and "all kinds of stuff", or should it limit itself to the object "document" stricto sensu, i.e. books, articles, dissertations etc., thus running the risk of transformation from a long tail to a niche service?

Who are the customers?

The scope of traditional document supply is narrow and large at the same time. Narrow, insofar as it is designed above all for public Higher Education and research communities, with their specific information needs and usage. At the same time large, because one part of the service is supplied for the industrial R&D sector, a great consumer of scientific information with various objectives and constraints. With open science, the focus shifts towards an even larger target, including unaffiliated knowledge workers [START_REF] Brown | Access to scientific research. Challenges facing communications in STM[END_REF]) and people involved in citizen science, i.e. public participation in scientific research conducted at least partly by amateur or nonprofessional scientists [START_REF] Hand | Citizen science: People power[END_REF].

ILDS defines its target readership as "digital information researchers (including) educators, knowledge professionals in education and organisations, knowledge managers in media, health care and government, as well as librarians" (see footnote 2). The Amsterdam Call for Action, main input to the Competitiveness Council on the 27 th May states that "excessive time periods between submission and publication, payment walls, embargos and other access barriers impede the transfer of knowledge (and obstruct) the evolution towards an open and transparent academic process and the associated knowledge exchange with society at large" (Netherlands' EU Presidency 2016, p.20). With open science, "society at large" becomes the target of scientific communication.

At the same time, this target is no longer seen as a (passive) consumer of information but as a (active) partner of knowledge exchange. Citizen science is considered as an "innovative model for knowledge transfer", along with crowdsourcing (ibid. p.23). Crowdsourcing -another key concept for this new environment. The term encompasses many practices and may be identified with virtually any type of internet-based collaborative activity. But the blurry nature is part of the concept, along with participative activity, task-orientation, voluntarism, heterogeneity of knowledge, resources and contributors (individuals, institutions, non-profit organizations, companies...) and mutual benefits (Estellés-Arolas & González-Ladrón-de Guevara 2012, p.197).

Thus, through open science, document supply is faced with a choice: either to limit its activity to scientists from universities, research institutes and corporate R&D, or to broaden its scope to "society at large", beyond the scientific community, which means more participation and exchange, and also much more variety of needs and usage than before. Recently, OANA, the Open Access Network of Austria stated that "all research results should be accessible to people that are diverse in physical, economic and other conditions" (Kraker et al. 2016, p.6). A couple of years ago we said that "modern document supply is customer-centred, not service-centred" and that "document suppliers need to improve knowledge of their customers (…), who their customers (are) and for whom they work, and why" (Schöpfel & Gillet 2007, p.202). This knowledge is more than ever, a key to development. Adjusting to diversity -open supply is at this price.

What is the value for them?

What do customers appreciate? Studies on document supply reveal several aspects, such as a broad range of information, high quality information, simple discovery and ordering, timeliness, legal compliance, control, (re)-usability and reasonable, affordable pricing; some customers are also concerned with privacy issues or request confidential and secured processing to protect strategic interests. Customers want the requested item anywhere, at any time, in a format that fits with the intended use [START_REF] Dehlez | Beyond the photocopy machine' revisited: document delivery in a digital library environment[END_REF], which may be simple reading, import in resource management systems and also reuse in patent or new drug application or for promotion, conferences, publications or educational issues.

Different needs mean a large offering of formats and media, delivery options, rights and prices. For the service provider, this implies adjustment, flexibility, customization, one stop shopping, but no one-size-fits-all approach. Also, to provide access to a wide range of information in a world of distributed knowledge bases does not necessarily imply rich holdings but, more than anything, compatible systems and formats (interoperability) to determine "who has what", open workflows, networking and resource sharing, an "incredible source of value to (the) users" (Goldner & Birch 2012, p.9).

In the age of Amazon, Google and Facebook, one stop shopping (a physical or virtual place where customers get all or most of what they want) is expected and has become trivial; added value of document supply is more than that. For instance:

Availability: more and more documents are online but not necessarily available to all users, because embargoed, with limited rights or restricted to campus access. Sometimes they are available but too expensive. Non-availability has always been a major argument to call a service provider. Today, are libraries and document suppliers able to extend this service to sometimes rather tricky situations? Can they supply items for lower costs with less usage rights and options? Can they supply items (dissertations, reports etc.) which are restricted to campus or institutional use? Reusability: depending on intended usage, customers need different formats, media and licenses. Reading a print copy may be enough in one case, while another customer expects to exploit the same item via text and data mining. In the past, document suppliers were able to negotiate with publishers' rights for multiple copies and/or commercial usage. Today they should be able, in particular in countries without fair use and Text and Data Mining exceptions, to obtain these rights on behalf of their customers.

Knowledge: in the past, document suppliers were able, through acquisition policies, source selection and discovery tools, to guarantee content quality, at least good search results. Today, with the ever growing mass of information, the relevance of a single item tends to decrease. Will the document supply be able to add knowledge to documents? To link documents to other information, to provide knowledge extracted from requested batches of documents?

Where is the business going?

Open science emphasizes the importance of dissemination and curation, in order to improve and guarantee findability, discoverability, accessibility and reusability of research results. The political and societal challenges are Ebola and Zika, global warming, new energies etc., and the objective is to accelerate and generalize availability of scientific publications and data in order to foster innovation. Open science shifts the focus from acquisition and access to dissemination, related to activities early in the value chain of scientific communication, and upstream of usual document supply.

The Amsterdam Call for Action covers issues like the assessment, evaluation and reward systems, text and data mining, intellectual property and privacy, transparency, research infrastructures, open access and new publishing models. At the same time, the action plan confirms the decreasing role of libraries which are NOT, unlike publishers and "businesses", considered as stakeholders on their own. As a part of "Research Performing Organizations" (p.3), their role is mainly limited to the stimulation of new publishing models for knowledge transfer (Action Item 8) where they should "act as publishers of open access for their institutions, create a database of open science best practices (and) support discipline-based foundations that help flip subscription journals to FAIR 5 open access by providing funds for APCs and transition by 2020" (p.23). As a matter of fact, the Amsterdam Call disregards the traditional library functions while the monitoring and management of the transition period are conferred to research performing organizations and publishers.

The "open science business" -future paradigm of scientific information -is moving away from document supply and out of the library. Other key elements for the understanding of the actual development of scientific information are:

 the rapidly growing volume and variety of published and unpublished material, print as well online, including articles, books, grey literature, posts and comments on blogs and social networks, tweets etc.;  the growing importance of big and small research data and related tools (repositories6 , infrastructures, data management plans, data journals etc.);  the development of research information systems for the analysis and evaluation of all kinds of research-related data, including metrics on impact, usage, networking etc.;  the development of citizen science and crowdsourcing in the field of scientific research;  the increasingly commercial character of open access, and the globalization and concentration of the scientific information market.

At first sight, all this seems very far from document supply; at least as far away as the Kazakhstan, home of Sci-Hub7 , the "world's largest pirate website for scholarly literature8 ", created by the neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 and today indexing more than 50m "research papers", i.e. mainly articles. Some people say that Sci-Hub is here to stay. For others, Sci-Hub is an illegal singularity of massive counterfeiting. Speaking about counterfeiting: studying the case of Elzevier's counterfeited "Amsterdam Printings" of the French Journal des Scavans 350 years ago, we concluded that "to the extent that the mediation becomes an obstacle for open, smooth and seamless distribution of information, for instance through high pricing or excessive protection, the Republic of Letters will search for alternative options, such as direct communication" (Volpe & Schöpfel 2013, p.152). Even if one does not share Lawrence Lessig's statement that "many kinds of 'piracy' are useful and productive" (2004, p. 66), it is clear that large scale counterfeiting such as Sci-Hub, and its massive and global usage, are symptoms of the dramatic dysfunctional character of the academic publishing market. Sci-Hub has its roots in unequal access to vital resources. And here we are back again in the field of document supply.

Where should document supply go?

Crucial for the success of Sci-Hub are easy usage, immediate and free access to documents, and rich content. Of course, Sci-Hub is not an option for document supply, for at least three reasons: less than rudimentary search facilities, anti-reusable file formats (unstructured PDF) and, last but not least, complete lack of legal compliance. Fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud corrupts everything says an ancient legal adage, and this is not an option either for public and corporate service providers or for their customers. We could also add a fourth reason, which is lack of transparency about the quality and origin of the indexed files. But, what could document supply offer more and better than Sci-Hub?

To be(come) part of open science, document supply should develop at least three features: an appropriate service offering for customers outside of traditional academia, more interactivity with the target groups, and integration into a global service for research, instead of remaining a standalone, library-oriented service.

As a demand-driven service, it should move toward a kind of scientific information commons, able to provide all kinds of information on demand -research results, publications and also information about research and outcomes -to anybody interested and involved in research, in-or outside of academia, and in any format and with any license requested for specific usage. Some aspects:

 Innovation: efficient discovery and search technology, user experience design of the front office.  Rich and structured formats compliant with content mining tools.  Legal compliance and customized licensing.  More and other content, including datasets, multimedia files, print material, learning objects, metadata, from trustworthy sources.  Knowledge extracted from documents, data and metadata.

Concluding remarks

As far as we can see, open science is here to stay. It will shape our way of seeing and doing research, and it will impact the dissemination of scientific information. Basically, open science is not a librarybased or even library-friendly project. Open science does not offer a solution for the actual problems of document supply. Basically during some years of transition, document supply can continue as before, doing the same business as usual. Why: the open science policy deadline is 2020, and there are still four years to go. Also, as this policy concerns above all public funded research and journal publishing, significant parts of scientific output remain more or less "out of scope", as for instance corporate or privately funded research, grey literature, older print material etc. Third, the EU Member States produce "only" one third of the worldwide scientific articles and, moreover, this percentage is slowly eroding (between 2010 and 2015 from 32% to 31%9 ) while the share of China and India is increasing (from 15% to 18%)10 -a fact that limits the impact of the EU policy on the free availability of global scientific information. Document supply will remain useful for some years at least, and for one part of scientific literature.

However, in the context of open science, open access and open data, doing just business as usual will not be a solution as it would progressively marginalize document supply even more. Already, its share of access to scientific articles can be estimated at only 0.1% of the usage statistics of the major publishers' platforms. This is still useful but insignificant. Our last survey on public document suppliers shows a "shattered landscape" far from past ambitions; with institutional rather than global strategies and a focus on domestic needs; and suffering from budget cuts and political deficit [START_REF] Schöpfel | Document supply of grey literature and open access: ten years later[END_REF]. As we said before, open science does not offer a solution for the actual problems of document supply. But it provides an opportunity to transform document supply into something else -open supply, rooted in the basics of networking, resource sharing and awareness of inequality and clearly addressing the challenge of 21 st century science.

Libraries, so long and insofar as they prove their usefulness in research organisations, are part of the game. They can contribute to the development of new types of services to researchers in support of open science. Our conviction is that document supply can and should be part of these new types of services. Is this utopia? Utopia keeps walking, said Eduardo Galeano, and for document supply this utopia requires the development of new organisational structures, skills and functions, including

Council of the European Union

26-27 May 2016 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2016/05/26-27/

IFLA Document Delivery and Resource Sharing Section http://www.ifla.org/docdel

IFLA International Resource Sharing and Document Delivery: Principles and Guidelines for Procedure http://www.ifla.org/publications/international-resource-sharing-and-document-delivery-principles-andguidelines-for-proc?og=56

4 ILDS on Emeraldinsight http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=ilds

The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management: findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618

See the international directory http://www.re3data.org with more than 1,500 data repositories

Sci-Hub http://sci-hub.cc/

Science Magazine April 28, 2016 http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-piratedpapers-everyone

After Brexit, the EU part would only be 26%.

Figures from the Scimago Journal & Country Rank website, based on Scopus http://www.scimagojr.com/