Editorial: Building sustainable connectivity through logistics and supply chains Free

The performance of global logistics and supply chains increasingly reflects the quality of connections across organisations, technologies and institutional arrangements rather than the efficiency of individual operations alone. Rising geographic dispersion, digital integration and regulatory demands have made coordination of goods, information, finance and responsibility central to resilience and sustainability outcomes (Calatayud et al., 2016). Connectivity extends beyond physical infrastructure to encompass digital integration, organisational practices, governance arrangements and relational alignment across supply chains (Closs et al., 2005; Vivaldini and de Sousa, 2021).

This special issue of the International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM) is based on selected papers from the 28th International Symposium on Logistics (ISL, 2024), held in Bangkok, Thailand which focused on Building Sustainable Connectivity through Logistics and Supply Chains. The conference addressed a wide range of current logistics challenges, including geopolitical disruption, climate risk, social sustainability and digital transformation and showed how each depends on effective connectivity. Rather than treating these challenges in isolation, ISL 2024 emphasised connectivity as an integrative concept linking structure, behaviour and performance across logistics and supply chain systems.

Drawing on selected papers from ISL 2024, this special issue advances understanding of how sustainable connectivity is designed, enabled and operationalised across different contexts. The contributions treat connectivity not as a narrow technological or infrastructural solution, but as a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by institutional frameworks, organisational capabilities, relational governance and analytical tools. Together, these studies align with IJLM's focus on execution and show how connectivity links strategic intent to operational performance and wider societal outcomes.

The aim of this special issue is to bring together diverse perspectives on logistics and supply chain connectivity and examine how it shapes execution and outcomes in complex operating environments.

In this special issue, connectivity refers to how well logistics and supply chain systems work together in practice. It captures the ability to coordinate the movement of goods, information, finance and responsibility across organisations, technologies and institutional settings (Calatayud et al., 2016). Connectivity is therefore not an abstract concept. It is visible in everyday logistics and supply chain execution.

Connectivity is not limited to physical infrastructure or digital systems. Transport assets, platforms and data tools matter, but they do not create connectivity on their own. Effective connectivity also depends on organisational practices, governance arrangements and working relationships between supply chain actors. Trust, information-sharing routines and aligned incentives often determine whether technical links translate into reliable and visible supply chain operations (Closs et al., 2005; Vivaldini and de Sousa, 2021).

In this editorial, connectivity is treated as an execution capability. Connectivity shapes how strategies are implemented, how risks are detected and managed and how sustainability commitments are translated into operational decisions. Weak connectivity is reflected in delays, poor visibility and fragmented decision-making. Strong connectivity supports coordination, responsiveness and resilience across supply chains that operate across borders and sectors.

The papers in this special issue adopt this practical view. They do not seek to refine definitions or propose a single model. Instead, they examine how connectivity is built, constrained and used in real settings and how it affects performance, resilience and sustainability outcomes.

The papers in this special issue approach connectivity from different starting points, but they address a common question: how is coordination achieved in practice in complex logistics and supply chain systems? Rather than proposing a single model or framework, the contributions show how connectivity plays out at points where execution either holds together or starts to break down.

Several papers focus on institutional connectivity, examining how rules, governance arrangements and system interfaces shape coordination and performance. This includes work on border processes, regulatory transparency and system-level frictions that affect cross-border flows and risk management (Banomyong et al., 2026; Tan et al., 2026). Other papers examine organisational and relational connectivity, showing how internal collaboration, inter-organisational relationships and governance practices support trust, coordination and joint action among supply chain actors (Tran et al., 2026; Sawyerr and Bourlakis, 2026).

A final group of papers focuses on digital and analytical connectivity. These studies show how data, analytics and artificial intelligence support managerial decision-making and early risk identification in dispersed supply chains (Kühl et al., 2026; Lau et al., 2026).

Following the editorial framing of connectivity, this section briefly summarises the selection and review process through which the included papers were identified and developed. Following the formal presentation of papers at the conference, the ISL Scientific Committee conducted an initial round of review and selection to determine the papers included in the conference proceedings. The ISL 2024 conference featured 82 peer-reviewed paper presentations, including full papers and structured abstracts, aligned with the conference theme of sustainable connectivity.

After this initial selection, the invited guest editors reviewed the papers selected by the Scientific Committee and identified a subset of contributions for potential inclusion in this special issue of the IJLM. Selected authors were invited to submit extended versions of their papers for journal consideration. All invited manuscripts then entered IJLM's formal double-blind peer review process and were reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Papers were revised in response to reviewer and editorial feedback. Any potential conflicts of interest involving the guest editors were managed by transferring editorial oversight to the Editor-in-Chief. Six papers were ultimately accepted for publication in this special issue.

The six papers in this special issue examine connectivity as it is exercised in practice across different logistics and supply chain contexts. Each contribution focuses on how connectivity is built, constrained or mobilised during execution and how these conditions affect coordination, risk management and performance. Together, the papers address connectivity not as a technological or infrastructural objective, but as a practical condition shaping how supply chain activities are coordinated and decisions are implemented in real operating environments.

Banomyong et al. (2026) examine connectivity at the border by developing and validating a Border Performance Index (BPI) that captures how institutional and operational conditions shape cross-border logistics execution. The paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing that border performance depends on the interaction between infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, logistics service providers and shippers rather than on any single element in isolation. Using evidence from nine land border checkpoints in Thailand, the study demonstrates how weak institutional or infrastructural connectivity translates into delays, coordination failures and uneven performance across borders.

The key contribution lies in operationalising connectivity as a measurable execution capability. The BPI provides a structured way to identify where connectivity breaks down at borders and where improvements are most likely to yield performance gains. The findings show that, while regulatory processes were generally assessed as adequate, infrastructure-related connectivity remained a binding constraint across all cases. Together, these insights position the BPI as a practical instrument for linking institutional connectivity to execution outcomes and policy-relevant decision-making.

Tan et al. (2026) examine connectivity through the lens of supply chain transparency and institutional governance, focusing on how healthcare organisations respond to modern slavery reporting requirements under the Australian Modern Slavery Act. The paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing how transparency functions as an institutional interface linking upstream suppliers, downstream buyers, regulators and societal stakeholders. Connectivity, in this context, is shaped less by technical traceability tools and more by the alignment of governance mechanisms, disclosure practices and stakeholder engagement.

The study shows that healthcare organisations rely heavily on formal governance mechanisms such as supplier codes of conduct, risk assessments and reporting structures in order to create visibility across complex and fragmented supply chains. However, limited upstream visibility, regulatory diversity and supply chain complexity constrain the effectiveness of these mechanisms. This means that transparency often remains partial and uneven, reinforcing information asymmetries rather than resolving them.

The key contribution of the paper lies in highlighting the gap between disclosure and execution. Transparency requirements strengthen institutional connectivity by formalising expectations and accountability, but weak relational and operational connectivity upstream limits meaningful risk mitigation. In doing so, the study clarifies why institutional connectivity based on disclosure alone can support coordination and reporting, yet still fall short of delivering effective execution across multi-tier global supply chains.

Tran et al. (2026) examine connectivity at the organisational level by analysing how internal supply chain collaboration mediates the relationship between organisational culture and differentiation-based competitive advantage in Vietnam's garment industry. The paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing that internal connectivity within firms is a critical precondition for effective coordination and competitive differentiation, particularly in fragmented and low-margin supply chain contexts.

The findings highlight that group and development-oriented organisational cultures strengthen internal collaboration across functional units, supporting shared decision-making, information exchange and joint problem-solving. This internal connectivity, rather than external collaboration alone, enables firms to respond more effectively to operational challenges and pursue differentiation strategies. In contrast, external collaboration with suppliers and customers plays a more limited role in the absence of strong internal coordination, reflecting the structural constraints of contract manufacturing arrangements. The key contribution of the paper is to show that connectivity begins inside the firm. Cultural alignment and internal collaboration shape how activities are coordinated and how strategic intent is translated into execution. The study clarifies how organisational connectivity shapes downstream relationships and performance outcomes in globally integrated supply chains operating under tight structural constraints.

Sawyerr and Bourlakis (2026) examine connectivity through the lens of inter-organisational relationships, focusing on how organisations in food aid supply chains simultaneously cooperate and compete. The paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing how relational connectivity is shaped by shared social purpose, resource scarcity and power asymmetries rather than by formal coordination mechanisms alone.

The study highlights that redistributors depend on dense relational ties to coordinate food flows, share resources and respond to demand uncertainty. At the same time, competition for surplus food, funding and recognition creates tensions that weaken trust and fragment coordination. Connectivity in this context is, therefore, neither stable nor uniform but continuously negotiated through relational practices, informal safeguards and value trade-offs. The key contribution of the paper lies in demonstrating that relational connectivity can both enable and undermine execution. Strong relationships support joint action and resource sharing, but unresolved power imbalances and value conflicts can lead to coordination failures and value destruction. The study highlights the contingent and fragile nature of relational connectivity, shaped by institutional and social conditions in humanitarian and non-commercial supply chains.

Lau et al. (2026) examine connectivity at the upstream operational level, focusing on how resource use, benchmarking and peer comparison shape execution performance in food supply chains. Using the case of Australian banana farms, the paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing that weak operational connectivity at the production stage propagates inefficiencies and waste across the wider supply chain.

The study demonstrates that inefficiencies in labour use, fertiliser application, packaging and scale are not isolated farm-level problems but reflect limited connectivity between production practices, performance feedback and decision-making. Farms operating without clear benchmarks or peer reference points struggle to identify inefficiencies and adjust resource use, leading to persistent waste and uneven performance. In contrast, farms that effectively connect operational data to managerial decisions achieve higher efficiency and lower waste outcomes.

The key contribution of the paper lies in reframing efficiency analysis as a connectivity mechanism. Benchmarking tools create informational links between farms, enabling knowledge sharing, peer learning and coordinated improvement. The analysis highlights the role of analytical connectivity at the upstream stage in strengthening execution discipline, sustainability outcomes and downstream supply chain performance.

Kühl et al. (2026) examine connectivity through the lens of digital and analytical integration, focusing on how large language models can enhance early identification of supply chain risks. The paper contributes to understanding connectivity by showing how analytical tools connect fragmented external information such as news and textual data to operational risk assessment and managerial decision-making in globally dispersed supply chains.

The study highlights that the value of AI in risk management does not lie solely in automation, but in its ability to create reliable links between weak signals, classification processes and execution responses. Poorly configured analytical tools introduce noise and uncertainty, undermining trust and limiting their usefulness for decision-making. In contrast, carefully calibrated models strengthen digital connectivity by producing stable, interpretable risk signals that can be acted upon consistently. The key contribution of the paper lies in reframing AI-enabled risk identification as an execution problem rather than a technical one. Effective connectivity depends on how analytical outputs are tuned, interpreted and integrated into organisational processes. The findings underscore the importance of aligning digital connectivity with operational decision-making for anticipatory risk management and resilience.

Together, the papers show that connectivity is best understood as an execution capacity shaped by institutional arrangements, organisational relationships and analytical capabilities, rather than as an outcome of infrastructure investment or digital adoption alone. Weaknesses at any of these points undermine coordination, risk management and performance, particularly under conditions of stress and uncertainty. Across the diverse contexts examined in this special issue, connectivity determines how decisions are coordinated, how risks are identified and managed and how strategies are translated into operational outcomes. Where connectivity is weak, execution fragments; where it is strong, coordination becomes more reliable and responsive.

A consistent message across the contributions is that technology enables connectivity but does not guarantee it. Digital tools, analytics and data platforms support execution only when they are embedded in organisational routines and governance arrangements. Institutional rules, regulatory interfaces and transparency requirements set the conditions for coordination, but their impact depends on how organisations interpret and act on them in practice. Culture, trust and working relationships determine whether information flows translate into joint action.

For IJLM readers, these findings reinforce the importance of looking beyond isolated interventions. Improving connectivity requires attention to how institutions, organisations, relationships and analytical tools interact at the execution level. For researchers, the papers point to the need for more work on how connectivity is built, sustained and repaired in complex supply chains. For managers, they highlight where connectivity failures emerge and where targeted interventions are most likely to improve performance, resilience and sustainability outcomes.

Connectivity in logistics and supply chains is rarely stable or permanent. Across the contributions, connectivity appears uneven and often fragile, particularly when systems are exposed to disruption, regulatory change or demand volatility. Breakdowns in coordination should therefore be seen as a normal condition rather than as exceptional failures. From an execution perspective, performance depends less on designing perfect connections than on the ability to recognise when connectivity has weakened and to restore it through adaptation, re-alignment and practical problem-solving. This focus on repair shows that connectivity does not hold automatically and requires ongoing management as conditions change.

This special issue reinforces the view that connectivity in logistics and supply chains is not achieved through technology or infrastructure alone. Effective connectivity depends on how coordination is organised and sustained at the execution level across institutional arrangements, organisational practices, relational structures and analytical tools. The papers show that weaknesses in any of these areas can undermine performance, even when physical or digital assets are in place.

Several directions for future research emerge from this collection. More work is needed to examine how different forms of connectivity interact over time, particularly under conditions of disruption and uncertainty. Further empirical research could also explore how connectivity is repaired when coordination breaks down and how trade-offs between efficiency, resilience and sustainability are managed in practice. Comparative and longitudinal studies would be especially valuable in advancing this understanding.

For managers, the findings underline the importance of diagnosing connectivity problems at their source rather than relying on isolated fixes. For researchers, they point to connectivity as a fertile area for examining execution, coordination and performance in complex logistics and supply chain systems.