Skip to Main Content
Purpose

This study examines the physical internet (PI) concept, characterised as a global, open, interconnected logistics system, as a robust framework for reducing supply chain and logistics risks and significantly improving overall network resilience. PI addresses the systemic inefficiencies and lack of adaptive capability inherent in traditional dedicated logistics structures.

Design/methodology/approach

This study identifies a comprehensive set of 26 supply chain and logistics risks across four major categories: supply, demand, operational and external environmental risks. A quantitative decision-making model was employed to assess the capability of the emerging PI paradigm to mitigate these risks. The effectiveness of PI as a risk mitigation solution is assessed by evaluating the four core components of the logistics web, mobility, distribution, realisation, and supply, against the identified risks using the Fuzzy TOPSIS (Fz–Ts) approach.

Findings

The implementation of the PI framework demonstrates significant potential to build resilience, especially against possible supply chain risks. The Fz–Ts analysis, based on expert judgment, quantified the mitigating impact of the PI on major risks. The top three risks prioritised for reduction by PI implementation are logistics outsourcing risks, supplier logistics service risks and risk in custom clearances. The underlying flexibility and greater agility afforded by PI's interconnected logistics services outperform classic models in terms of resilience when facing facility disruptions.

Practical implications

New PI capabilities are synthesised through the encapsulation component of the logistics network to address supply chain risks. Organisations in the logistics sector can use the results of this study to develop more effective risk management strategies in the context of PI. Organisations will find PI useful for monitoring emerging risks, updating processes and integrating new technologies to stay ahead of potential disruptions to their operations.

Originality/value

This study formalises the risk spectrum of supply chains and their management using PI elements. PI web capabilities, such as realisation, distribution, mobility and supply webs, have been innovatively used to propose risk mitigation and management insights. The new capabilities of PI are synthesised by encapsulating the components of the logistics web to address supply chain resilience.

Future businesses are about to witness a significant change in their functioning, thanks to the onset of Industry 4.0 and its associated technologies, such as Automation, Cloud Computing, Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, Physical Internet (PI) and 3D printing, which will inevitably change the face of the industry altogether (Narula et al., 2020; Bigliardi et al., 2021).

The PI is recognised globally as a foundational response to the unsustainability and inefficiency of traditional logistics, aiming to address the “global logistics sustainability grand challenge” (Montreuil, 2011). The PI concept aims to replace the current logistics model by integrating independent logistics networks into a global, open and interconnected logistics system. This vision is structured on core principles: modularity, connectivity, optimisation, and collaboration which enable substantial efficiencies, such as load consolidation, asset sharing, and reduction of empty runs (Landschützer et al., 2015; Sarraj et al., 2014). Early applications, such as the Modulushca project in Europe, validated these outcomes, reporting notable reductions in logistics costs and carbon emissions (Danube Commission, 2025).

Successfully implementing this paradigm shift is intrinsically linked to overcoming global supply chain and logistics risks, which constantly threaten stability and interrupt the supply chain structure (Olson and Dash, 2011; Prakash et al., 2017b). Supply chain disruptions are a significant concern for enterprises, often resulting in adverse consequences and dramatic financial losses (Bugert and Lasch, 2018). Traditional supply chain networks, which are defined by dedicated assets and fixed configurations, inherently limit the capacity to cope with unforeseen disturbances. Critically, the PI provides innovative features that can fundamentally address these traditional problems in the logistics sector, including risk management and the creation of supply chain resilience (Montreuil, 2011).

The core mechanism of this resilience lies in PI's interconnected structure of the PI. Inventory models that apply interconnected logistics services in the PI demonstrate greater agility and flexibility, enabling them to outperform classic inventory models in terms of resilience when facing disruptions at facilities such as hubs and plants (Yang et al., 2017). This dynamic interconnectedness allows for swift stock repositioning, multisourcing options and adaptation to short- and long-term disturbances.

Although PI offers a paradigm shift in supply chain logistics, a systematic study of its role in improving resilience against a comprehensive spectrum of logistics risks remains underdeveloped (Wang et al., 2020). Previous studies have established that the PI framework relies on four primary structural elements, collectively known as the Logistics Web (Mobility, Distribution, Realisation and Supply) (Hakimi et al., 2012; Montreuil et al., 2013). The necessity for robust supply chain risk management (SCRM) strategies is well established in the literature, providing a foundation for understanding both empirical and conceptual findings and offering a roadmap for practical implementation (Pfohl et al., 2010). However, there is a distinct gap in the literature regarding a quantitative decision-making framework that systematically assesses how the capabilities of these four specific PI elements mitigate various categories of supply chain and logistics risks under uncertain conditions.

To address this gap, this study formalises the risk spectrum of supply chains and logistics, specific to PI elements. We investigate how implementing the PI and utilising the capabilities encapsulated within the Logistics Web provides a robust strategy for reducing supply chain risks and boosting the overall resilience of logistics operations. Effective risk management within the supply chain is critical, as it demonstrably increases organisational competitiveness (Chibaro et al., 2024). We achieve this by employing a decision-making model capable of handling the vagueness and imprecision inherent in the expert judgment. This study investigates the following two research questions:

  1. How do different risk categories within supply chain systems affect logistics operations?

  2. What strategies can be employed for supply chain risk management (SCRM) within the physical internet (PI)?

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review and identifies risk factors from the literature. Section 3 highlights the study's research design. Section 4 conducts an impact assessment of the risks using the Fz–Ts method. Section 5 presents the results of the study. The discussion is presented in Section 6. Finally, the conclusions and future research directions are presented in Section 7.

The following sections present a literature review focusing on the fundamental concepts and vision of PI, the spectrum of risks inherent in supply chain systems, and the intersection where PI acts as a strategic framework for managing these risks and building organisational resilience.

The PI is a concept aimed at transforming how physical objects are handled, moved, stored, realised and supplied efficiently, addressing the “global logistics sustainability grand challenge” identified by Montreuil (2011). This requires innovation in transportation methods, technology and adoption (Montreuil, 2011; Montreuil et al., 2013; Hakimi et al., 2012). According to the PI initiative manifesto, PI intends to transform how physical objects are handled, moved, stored, realised and supplied efficiently (http://www.physicalinternetinitiative.org/).

The PI is similar to the digital Internet but for physical items. In contrast to existing dedicated goods distribution solutions, PI entails the encapsulation of goods within modular, easy-to-interlock smart containers in an open, interconnected logistic system (Yang et al., 2018). Industry 4.0 is a rising technological movement that utilises next-generation information and communication technology (Wang et al., 2020; Narula et al., 2020). The smart factory system of Industry 4.0 will bring a paradigm shift across production systems, and logistics will align.

Recent academic research highlights the increasing significance of decision-making models in PI for strengthening supply chain resilience and reducing logistics-related risk. Mathematical optimisation remains a key focus in this field. Following Table 1 shows the summary of the recent literature. Collectively, these studies present a diverse yet convergent body of evidence that the PI, through robust decision models and emerging technologies, serves as a strategic framework for addressing various forms of supply chain and logistics risk in uncertain environments.

Table 1

Summary of the recent literature and insights

No.AuthorsType of decision modelPI domainRisk/resilience themeRelevance to SC/logistics risk
1Kulkarni et al. (2022) MILP, Graph-theoretic heuristicParcel delivery, logistics hubsDisruption risks, network resilienceHigh – Resilient network design under disruption
2Peng et al. (2021) Two-stage stochastic programmingProduction-inventory-distribution systemsDisruptions, mitigation planningHigh – Strategic resilience planning using PI
3Tordecilla et al. (2025) Multi-period MILP, Lexicographic optimisationHyperconnected supply chain networksCost-resilience trade-offsHigh – Decision support for resilient PI design
4Ji et al. (2023) Hybrid optimisationSupply–production–distributionFlexibility, sustainabilityMedium – Emphasis on sustainable design
5Peng et al. (2024) Multi-objective optimisation, hybrid heuristicProduction-routing with modular capacityResilience, sustainabilityHigh – Rapid response to disruptions via modular PI
6Yang et al. (2017) Inventory disruption modelInterconnected logistics servicesHub and plant disruptionsMedium – Early empirical evidence of PI resilience
7Fahim et al. (2021) Conceptual frameworkMaritime portsResilience, digitalisationMedium – Infrastructure risk management
8Gastón Cedillo-Campos et al. (2024) Analytical cargo theft model (CTM)Road transportationCargo theft riskHigh – Focused on operational risk
9Nguyen et al. (2022) Bibliometric mappingPI & Digital Twin integrationResearch trends, digital risksMedium – Overview of maturity and themes
10Zhao et al. (2024) Data traceability frameworkCyber-physical PI systemsTransparency, risk predictionMedium – Enhances risk visibility across networks
11Essghaier et al. (2023) Fuzzy multi-objective MIP, ε-constraintTruck scheduling in rail–road PI hubsMultimodal uncertainty, resource allocationHigh – Scheduling under operational uncertainty
12Nikitas et al. (2020) Conceptual and exploratorySmart mobility, urban logisticsAI integration, long-term resilienceMedium – Strategic insight into PI-enabled urban systems
Source(s): Authors’ own work

Supply chains are inherently dynamic systems that constantly face operational, environmental and financial instability, necessitating active SCRM strategies. Disruptive events, broadly defined as unplanned occurrences that hamper the SC system, range from natural disasters and civil disputes to financial crises and transportation infrastructure failure. This study extends the risk classification proposed by Christopher and Peck (2004). The possible risks in supply chain systems were synthesised from the literature. The broad classifications used were risk and business management (Jüttner, 2005), risk management (Bandyopadhyay et al., 1999), strategy (Jüttner, 2005), sustainability (Bai et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2006) and supply chain management (SCM) (Olson and Dash, 2011; Harland et al., 2003; Jüttner, 2005). These studies provide directions for four categories of risks to be assessed. The results of the risk categories are shown in Table 2. This section contributes to answering the first research question.

Table 2

Categorisation of supply chain risks

Risk categoryRisk typeDescriptionReference
Supply risksInappropriate supplierRisk of selecting an improper supplierMicheli et al. (2008), Yadav et al. (2018) 
Supplier bankruptcyRisk caused by the insolvency of suppliers, i.e., suppliers have taken orders but are cash-strappedWu et al. (2006), Tse and Tan (2012), Niu et al. (2022) 
Quality of suppliesPlants facing quality issues in their supplies because of suppliers' inabilityTse and Tan (2012), Tse et al. (2011) 
Supplier logistics serviceRisk of owning and operating their own dedicated logistics arm by the suppliersOlson and Dash (2011) 
Logistics outsourcing risks (3PL, 4PL)For a supplier firm, these risks are caused by outsourcing the logistics services to 3PLPerçin (2009), Tsai et al. (2008) 
Risk in custom clearancesRisk related to customs clearances at portsSofyalıoğlu and Kartal (2012), Nachet et al. (2024) 
Operational riskTransportation costsRisk of fluctuating transportation costs due to fuel type used and pricesMacharis et al. (2010) 
Production related issuesThe firms face risks in their production facilities (machine breakdown, material shortage, etc.)Tse and Tan (2012), Tse et al. (2011), Achamrah et al. (2024) 
Inventory costsHigh cost of keeping inventoryTang (2006), Pan et al. (2014), Yan et al. (2023) 
Transit timeRisk related to the variability in the transit timeSofyalıoğlu and Kartal (2012) 
Congestion at port/roadRisk of congestion at ports or roads during the shippingSofyalıoğlu and Kartal (2012), Flores-Franco and Covarrubias (2024), Chargui et al. (2022) 
Information technology failuresRisk faced by the company's information (IT) infrastructure failureBandyopadhyay et al. (1999), Frendi et al. (2024) 
Low visibility and trackingVulnerability issues in supply chains for tracking and tracing the items in transit and transportationChristopher and Peck (2004) 
Demand risksDemand volatilityRisk of stock out or lost sales due to the uncertainty in demand from the market sideChen and Seshadri (2006), Pan et al. (2022), Luo et al. (2022) 
Market changesCompanies are forced to change the target markets/regionsChristopher and Peck (2004) 
Forecasting errorsRisk of forecasting errors on the firm's performance examples include lost sales, high inventory stocks, etc.Wu et al. (2006), Chargui et al. (2019) 
Labor strikeRisk of labour unrest, labour strikes, union strikes, etc.Jüttner et al. (2003), Li et al. (2022), Naganawa et al. (2024) 
External environmental risksNatural disastersRisk of supply chain disruption due to natural disasterOlson and Dash (2011), Wu et al. (2006), Tordecilla et al. (2025) 
Economic downturnThis reflects the consequences of doing business in countries or regions where the economy is at riskOlson and Dash (2011), Harland et al. (2003) 
  Simons (1999), Montreuil et al. (2013) 
Fiscal riskRisk of exposing the firms to financial threats (tax rate, debt condition, etc.)Harland et al. (2003) 
  Cucchiella and Massimo (2006) 
Asset impairment riskRisk of having low asset utilisation by the firmHarland et al. (2003), Simons (1999), Chargui et al. (2022) 
Competitive riskRisk of losing market due to lack of product differentiation, new products, etc.Harland et al. (2003), Simons (1999), Tordecilla et al. (2025) 
Legal, government regulationThey are putting the company at risk of lawsuits from clients, authorities, organisations, etc.Harland et al. (2003), Cucchiella and Massimo (2006), Perez et al. (2024) 
Political instabilityExposing the firms to politically unstable regionOlson and Dash (2011) 
High carbon footprint/greenThe risk of not getting a green supply chain in placeChadha et al. (2022), Niu et al. (2022) 
Terrorist activitiesRisk of having disturbances in supply chain operations due to terrorist activitiesWu et al. (2006), Harland et al. (2003) 
Source(s): Authors’ own work

Recent studies by Frendi et al. (2024) emphasised the mitigation of SC disruptions by integrating various logistics services within the PI framework. PI can improve the control of physical and information flows, thereby enhancing supply chain transparency and reducing risks related to inefficiencies and customer dissatisfaction (Nachet et al., 2024). Pan et al. (2022) highlight how PI can reduce risks related to costs and waste associated with perishable goods, offering a solution to mitigate risks in the supply chain of perishable products. PI enhances supply chain resilience and sustainability by standardising and optimising physical components, thereby reducing the risks associated with disruptions (Tordecilla et al., 2025). Delay and last-mile inefficiency are common in e-commerce. Omni-channel retailing and decentralised distribution reduce the risks associated with fragmented orders (Luo et al., 2022). The idea of reducing the idle runs of container trucks in PI helps address the risks associated with inefficiencies and profitability (Li et al., 2022).

Adopting technology will be a significant factor in the logistics sector, as it will enhance business capabilities (Treiblmaier et al., 2019; Narula et al., 2020). The current methods of shipping, delivery, storage and logistics of physical goods are unsustainable (Montreuil, 2011). The use of freight delivery in PI supply chains (Chadha et al. (2022), PI hubs and linked delays (Naganawa et al. (2024), cross-docks and transportation flows at ports with their design and operational agility Chargui et al. (2022), Essghaier et al. (2023) are examples. Niu et al. (2022) emphasised that PI can improve logistics efficiency and sustainability by effectively allowing door-to-door services with great parcel security. Achamrah et al. (2024) proposed a dynamic and reactive routing protocol for PI networks that addresses the complexity of managing interconnected logistics systems. Pan et al. (2021) assert that interoperability has become a critical component of supply chain systems due to the increasing trend of collaboration among various elements aimed at risk reduction. A significant portion of supply chain risks is associated with container management. Chargui et al. (2019) highlight the importance of planning, scheduling and managing PI containers.

The PI (or π) model has evolved into a global logistics system that moves, processes, stores and transports logistics products sustainably and efficiently (Matusiewicz, 2020). PI improves the mechanism of delivery time, cost and environmental risk (Jaziri et al., 2020). PI-enabled visibility of vehicles and routing optimisation help drivers recover in logistics support (Fazili et al., 2017). The PI foundation framework aims to achieve the global logistics sustainability challenge (Montreuil, 2011). This will increase sustainability in physical movement, storage, realisation and supply (Bai et al., 2010; Montreuil et al., 2013). PI is the largest resource that can be used to build consensus in supply chains for the efficient use of blockchains (Treiblmaier et al., 2019). Figure 1 depicts the framework of the PI foundations. PI is committed to establishing and implementing an efficient and sustainable logistics network. Such a framework can substantially mitigate supply chain risks and enhance the overall resilience of logistics operations by utilising advanced technologies and innovative strategies (Nguyen et al., 2022; Frendi et al., 2024). This study investigates how PI can provide a robust framework for reducing supply chain risks and enhancing the overall resilience of logistics operations.

Figure 1
The figure shows framework of Physical Internet layers from foundations to innovation.This figure explains the Physical Internet foundations framework in a simple, layered manner. At the top, PI is guided by economic, environmental, and social goals, all aimed at achieving efficiency and sustainability. These goals are translated into core logistics activities—moving, storing, realizing, supplying, and using goods—each supported by dedicated logistics webs that together form an integrated logistic web. The framework emphasizes open, global, and system-based operations, enabled through universal interconnectivity across physical, operational, and digital layers. Standardized encapsulation, interfaces, and protocols, supported by technology, business, and infrastructure, ultimately drive innovation in logistics systems.

PI foundations framework. Adopted from – Montreuil et al. (2013) 

Figure 1
The figure shows framework of Physical Internet layers from foundations to innovation.This figure explains the Physical Internet foundations framework in a simple, layered manner. At the top, PI is guided by economic, environmental, and social goals, all aimed at achieving efficiency and sustainability. These goals are translated into core logistics activities—moving, storing, realizing, supplying, and using goods—each supported by dedicated logistics webs that together form an integrated logistic web. The framework emphasizes open, global, and system-based operations, enabled through universal interconnectivity across physical, operational, and digital layers. Standardized encapsulation, interfaces, and protocols, supported by technology, business, and infrastructure, ultimately drive innovation in logistics systems.

PI foundations framework. Adopted from – Montreuil et al. (2013) 

Close modal

In addition, this study utilises the Fuzzy TOPSIS (Fz–Ts) method to assess and manage supply chain risks within the PI framework. This methodological approach enhances the robustness of our analysis and offers a systematic means of evaluating the effectiveness of risk management strategies. The following section delineates the specifics of the logistics web pertinent to the PI.

The integration of PI into the larger framework of Industry 4.0 involves complex, multi-participant settings where uncertainty, risk and emerging technologies interact. Owing to the innovative nature of PI and its continuous development, relying solely on traditional quantitative methods is inadequate for PI assessment. To address this challenge, our research used a combined qualitative–quantitative mixed methodology. Initially, we identified pertinent risk constructions from the existing literature, using expert opinion as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), followed by an expert survey.

In this study, we followed the consensus-based decision-making processes defined by The Consensus Council (CSH Org, 2021) which is an excellent method for capturing the varied opinions of people and synthesising them for final decision-making. One should not confuse this concept with a blockchain architecture-based consensus mechanism (Gai et al., 2024) that serves security purposes. The industry expert selection criteria included technological experience, possession of at least a master's degree, and a minimum of ten years in the supply chain/logistics. Ultimately, we identified 20 industry experts and three academic experts with some familiarity with the methods, tools and knowledge of the new technological approach to logistics known as PI. We employed a novel consensus-based method to gather input from all the participating experts. Three expert groups (six experts in one group) were formed, each led by an academic expert who provided research details and protocols to 18 industry experts, as two respondents withdrew during the online meetings. The compositions of these groups are detailed in Appendix 1.

The primary objective was to collect input for the linguistic scale (refer Table 3) to assess the ratings of various supply chain risks and criteria weights. This process enabled the authors to subsequently apply the Fz–Ts methodology and determine the prioritised risks for mitigation. The online discussion was moderated by the group lead, an academic person with an agenda to finalise the inputs for applying the Fz–Ts methodology. This process was inspired by the Delphi method (Rayens and Hahn, 2000). The consensus among the group members was reached by following the guidelines defined by The Consensus Council, Inc (CSH Org, 2021). In this way, each group removed bias and diversions in their inputs about PI, and we obtained refined views of the experts for our analysis. The inputs of the three decision-maker (DM) groups were used to apply the Fz–Ts method, which is similar to the methods used by Yadav et al. (2018). The Fz–Ts method was chosen because of its efficacy in addressing vagueness and imprecision inherent in human judgment, especially when decision variables are subjective and linguistic in nature. These characteristics are prevalent in the evaluation of emerging risks within PI logistics systems (Essghaier et al., 2023; Sofyalıoğlu and Kartal, 2012).

Table 3

Linguistic scale for weights of the criteria

S. no.Linguistic termFuzzy triangular number
1Very less important (VLI)(Value range “0.00, 0.00, 0.25”)
2Less important (LI)(Value range “0.00, 0.25, 0.50”)
3Important (I)(Value range “0.25, 0.50, 0.75”)
4Very important (VI)(Value range “0.50, 0.75, 1.00”)
5Extremely important (EI)(Value range “0.75, 1.00, 1.00”)

Table 2 demonstrates that contemporary supply chains encounter substantial risk challenges, which are thoroughly documented in the SCRM literature. Current SCRM methodologies primarily focus on formulating strategies to manage or mitigate internal and external risks. Various analytical tools, including cause-and-effect analysis, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), stochastic programming, fuzzy applications and robust optimisation, have been employed to model diverse risks within supply chain systems (Prakash et al., 2017a). A flow diagram of the proposed methodology is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2
A flowchart shows sequential fuzzy decision steps from constructing a matrix to a final stop outcome.The flowchart begins at the top with a box labeled “Construct the matrix of compiling the alternatives versus criteria for the given”, and a downward arrow leads to the next labeled “Choose the Linguistic variables for the importance weight of each criterion Linguistic variables for the ratings”. A downward arrow arises from this box and points to the following rectangular box labeled “Enter the ratings proposed by the decision Makers for various alternatives with regard to criteria : the importance weight of the criteria assigned by Decision Maker and develop a fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy weights of their alternatives”, and a downward arrow leads to the next box. The next box is labeled “Construct the fuzzy normalized and fuzzy weighted normalized decision matrix”, and a downward arrow leads to the following rectangular box labeled “Identify the set of positive and negative ideal solutions. Select the fuzzy positive ideal solution (F P I S) and fuzzy negative ideal solution (F N I S)”. A downward arrow then leads to a rectangular box containing the text “Calculate similarly degree of each candidate to F P I S and F N I S”. Another downward arrow points to a rectangular box labeled “Calculate Closeness Coefficient (C C i)”, and a downward arrow then leads to the next rectangular box labeled “Rank the preference order of each alternative”. A downward arrow points from this box to a diamond-shaped decision box that reads “Does the highest ranking option fit with Best practicable and economical option”. From this decision box, the left branch labeled “No” loops back upward and points to the downward arrow arising from “Construct the matrix of compiling the alternatives versus criteria for the given”. The downward branch from the diamond box labeled “Yes” leads downward to an oval labeled “stop”.

Flow diagram of Fz–Ts methodology. Source – Authors’ own work

Figure 2
A flowchart shows sequential fuzzy decision steps from constructing a matrix to a final stop outcome.The flowchart begins at the top with a box labeled “Construct the matrix of compiling the alternatives versus criteria for the given”, and a downward arrow leads to the next labeled “Choose the Linguistic variables for the importance weight of each criterion Linguistic variables for the ratings”. A downward arrow arises from this box and points to the following rectangular box labeled “Enter the ratings proposed by the decision Makers for various alternatives with regard to criteria : the importance weight of the criteria assigned by Decision Maker and develop a fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy weights of their alternatives”, and a downward arrow leads to the next box. The next box is labeled “Construct the fuzzy normalized and fuzzy weighted normalized decision matrix”, and a downward arrow leads to the following rectangular box labeled “Identify the set of positive and negative ideal solutions. Select the fuzzy positive ideal solution (F P I S) and fuzzy negative ideal solution (F N I S)”. A downward arrow then leads to a rectangular box containing the text “Calculate similarly degree of each candidate to F P I S and F N I S”. Another downward arrow points to a rectangular box labeled “Calculate Closeness Coefficient (C C i)”, and a downward arrow then leads to the next rectangular box labeled “Rank the preference order of each alternative”. A downward arrow points from this box to a diamond-shaped decision box that reads “Does the highest ranking option fit with Best practicable and economical option”. From this decision box, the left branch labeled “No” loops back upward and points to the downward arrow arising from “Construct the matrix of compiling the alternatives versus criteria for the given”. The downward branch from the diamond box labeled “Yes” leads downward to an oval labeled “stop”.

Flow diagram of Fz–Ts methodology. Source – Authors’ own work

Close modal

In this study, the four web features of PI are considered the main criteria and are used to assess the impact of 26 identified supply chain risks. PI leverages web dimensions to facilitate the efficient and sustainable establishment, construction and operation of a global and open logistics network (Montreuil et al., 2013). The logistic web comprises four key components, as shown in Figure 3 (Hakimi et al., 2012). A logistics web framework was used to access risk management in the PI environment.

Figure 3
A figure shows layered transport maps and webs illustrating how distribution, mobility, and supply form a Logistics Web.The bottom of the figure shows a legend that defines all symbols and line styles used in the maps. The legend includes labels for a horizontal bar labeled “Port”, a dashed line labeled “Maritime route”, a dot dashed line labeled “Air route”, a solid line labeled “Road”, a parallel line labeled “Rail Road”, and a thick black line labeled “Highway”. It also explains colored and shaped symbols, which include a red horizontal block “Open pi Port”, a circle labeled “Open pi factory zone”, a yellow upward triangle labeled “Open pi Store and pi-Distribution Zone”, an orange diamond labeled “Open multimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, and a pink diamond labeled “Open unimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”. The figure shows three horizontally aligned oval maps on the left. The oval maps depict stylized transport networks composed of roads, highways, rail Roads, maritime routes, and air routes, shown through different line styles and colors. The top oval displays a network with several intersecting lines that represent transport links, including thin black roads, thicker black highways, and an Open pi factory zone. The middle oval shows a similar transport network but includes several colored node symbols, such as yellow triangles “Open pi Store and pi-Distribution Zone”, and red horizontal blocks “Open pi Port”. The bottom oval shows another network with differently positioned nodes and includes several colored node symbols, such as orange diamond shapes “Open multimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, pink diamonds “Open unimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, and red horizontal blocks “Open pi Port”. A right pointing arrow arises from the three ovals and points to a vertically oriented rectangular block labeled “Distribution Web” on the top and “Realization Web” on the bottom. From “Distribution Web”, a downward pointing curved arrow arises and points to “Realization Web”. From this rectangular block, a right pointing arrow arises and points to a vertical dashed line, beyond which stands an elongated hexagon shape labeled “Supply Web (For providing, getting and supplying objects)”. Further right appears another dashed vertical line, followed by a jagged-edged block labeled “Logistics Web (The union of mobility web, Distribution web, Realization web and Supply Web)”.

The constituents of the logistic web. Adopted from – Hakimi et al. (2012) 

Figure 3
A figure shows layered transport maps and webs illustrating how distribution, mobility, and supply form a Logistics Web.The bottom of the figure shows a legend that defines all symbols and line styles used in the maps. The legend includes labels for a horizontal bar labeled “Port”, a dashed line labeled “Maritime route”, a dot dashed line labeled “Air route”, a solid line labeled “Road”, a parallel line labeled “Rail Road”, and a thick black line labeled “Highway”. It also explains colored and shaped symbols, which include a red horizontal block “Open pi Port”, a circle labeled “Open pi factory zone”, a yellow upward triangle labeled “Open pi Store and pi-Distribution Zone”, an orange diamond labeled “Open multimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, and a pink diamond labeled “Open unimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”. The figure shows three horizontally aligned oval maps on the left. The oval maps depict stylized transport networks composed of roads, highways, rail Roads, maritime routes, and air routes, shown through different line styles and colors. The top oval displays a network with several intersecting lines that represent transport links, including thin black roads, thicker black highways, and an Open pi factory zone. The middle oval shows a similar transport network but includes several colored node symbols, such as yellow triangles “Open pi Store and pi-Distribution Zone”, and red horizontal blocks “Open pi Port”. The bottom oval shows another network with differently positioned nodes and includes several colored node symbols, such as orange diamond shapes “Open multimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, pink diamonds “Open unimodal pi-hub and pi-transit zone”, and red horizontal blocks “Open pi Port”. A right pointing arrow arises from the three ovals and points to a vertically oriented rectangular block labeled “Distribution Web” on the top and “Realization Web” on the bottom. From “Distribution Web”, a downward pointing curved arrow arises and points to “Realization Web”. From this rectangular block, a right pointing arrow arises and points to a vertical dashed line, beyond which stands an elongated hexagon shape labeled “Supply Web (For providing, getting and supplying objects)”. Further right appears another dashed vertical line, followed by a jagged-edged block labeled “Logistics Web (The union of mobility web, Distribution web, Realization web and Supply Web)”.

The constituents of the logistic web. Adopted from – Hakimi et al. (2012) 

Close modal

The mobility web aims to meet the transportation needs of people, goods, and materials in a seamless, efficient, and reliable multi-modal and cross-segment mode. Physical objects move seamlessly, efficiently and reliably within connected open unimodal hubs, transits, ports and roads (Hakimi et al., 2009, 2012). The distribution web is a concept aimed at meeting the need to distribute physical objects in a timely manner. It addresses the physical distribution of products through world-interconnected open warehouses and distribution centres. The realisation web takes on the role of open global production plants or plants. These are about making, assembling and personalising physical products within open, internationally interconnected factories. The supply web is an interconnected supply network, each having embedded interrelated supply chains of many organisations. Simultaneously, the logistics web is an open and global logistics system of people, organisations, communities and society (Jaziri et al., 2020; Montreuil et al., 2013). These webs constitute essential elements within the foundational framework of PI and are extensively explained by Montreuil et al. (2013). However, it is necessary to note that this study does not include an analysis of the service web, as it primarily centres on using objects to access the functionality offered by other objects, as elucidated by Montreuil et al. (2013). Figure 3 shows the constituents of the logistic webs. The following section presents the methodology adopted in this study.

This study employed a structured methodology to analyse the data by integrating expert opinions with the Fz–Ts decision-making approach. The inputs from the decision-maker (DM) group were utilised within the Fz–Ts framework, which was deemed the most appropriate method because of its widespread application in prioritising factors with uncertain data (Yazdi, 2018). Historically, Yazdi (2018) extensively applied Fz–Ts to evaluate various types of risks within the supply chain. All calculations were conducted using Microsoft Excel, adhering to the best practices established in previous research (Yadav et al., 2018). Appendix 2 delineates the implementation steps for the Fz–Ts method. The initial step involves assigning weights to the different supply chain webs. Subsequently, the responses were converted into linguistic terms (fuzzy triangular numbers) to evaluate the impact of the four webs on the 26 distinct supply chain risks. According to Lima et al. (2014), the criteria weights within the linguistic scale can be categorised into five groups: Further details regarding the linguistic scale used to assess the criteria weights are presented in Table 3.

Similarly, the evaluation of the ratings of all supply chain risks on a linguistic scale can be divided into five groups: very low impact (VLI) (value range “0.0, 0.0, 2.5”), medium to low impact (MLI) (Value range “0.0, 2.5, 5.0”), medium impact (MI) (Value range “2.5, 5.0, 7.5”), medium to high impact (MHI) (Value range “5.0, 7.5, 10.0”) and high impact (HI) (Value range “7.5, 10.0, 10.0”) (see Table 4).

Table 4

Linguistic scale for ratings of supply chain risk

S. no.Linguistic termFuzzy triangular number
1VLI(Value range “0.00, 0.00, 0.25”)
2MLI(Value range “0.00, 0.25, 0.50”)
3MI(Value range “0.25, 0.50, 0.75”)
4MHI(Value range “0.50, 0.75, 1.00”)
5HI(Value range “0.75, 1.00, 1.00”)

According to the inputs of the DM groups, the importance of different supply chain webs (considered as criteria) weights in the supply chain is shown in Table 5. Table 6 shows the impact of supply webs on various supply chain risks. It should be noted that supply chain risks are similar to the ratings of alternatives.

Table 5

Weights of different supply chain webs

“Mobility web”“Distribution web”“Realisation web”“Supply web”
DM Group 1MIVIVIVI
DM Group 2IVIVIVI
DM Group 3MIMIIVI
Table 6

Impact of different various webs on various supply chain risk

S. no.Supply chain risks“Realisation web”“Supply web”“Mobility web”“Distribution web”
{DM group 1DM group 2DM group 3}{DM group 1DM group 2DM group }{DM group 1DM group 2DM group 3}{DM group 1DM group 2DM group 3}
1Inappropriate supplierMHIHIMHIHIHIHIMLIMLIMIMIHIMI
2Supplier bankruptcyMHIHIHIMIHIMHIMLILIMLIMIMHIMI
3Quality of suppliesMHIHIMHIHIHIMHIMLIMLIMLIMHIMHIMI
4Supplier logistics serviceMIHIHIHIHIHIMLIMHIMHIHIHIMI
5Logistics outsourcing risks (3PL, 4PL)MIHIMHIMHIHIMHIHIHIHIHIHIHI
6Risk in custom clearancesMHIMLIMHIMHIMHIMLIHIMHIHIHIHIHI
7Transportation costsMIMHIHIMIMHIMLIHIHIHIHIMLIHI
8Transit timeMILIMIHIMHIMLIHIMHIHIHIMIHI
9Production related issuesHIHIMIMLIMIMLIMLIMIHIHIMIMHI
10Inventory costsHIHIMIMHIMIMHIMIMHIHIHIMIMHI
11Congestion at port/roadMHILIMHIMHIMIMHIMIMHIHIHIMIMHI
12Information technology failuresMLIMLIHIHIHIHIMHIMLIHIHIMIMI
13Labor strikeMHILIHIMIMILIMLILIMLIMLIMILI
14Demand volatilityMHILIMHIHIHIMIMLILIMLIMLIMILI
15Market changesMILIMLIMHIMLIMIMLILIMLIMLIMIMI
16Forecasting errorsMILIMLIMIMLIMILILIMLIMLIMIMLI
17Natural disastersMHILILIMIMIMIMLILILIMLIMLIMLI
18Economic downturnMILIMLIMHIMHIMHIMLILILIMLIMLIMLI
19Fiscal riskMILILIMHIMHIMHIMLILILIMLIMLILI
20Asset impairment riskMILIMLIMHIMLIMHILILILILILILI
21Competitive riskLILILIMHIMHIMHILILILIMLILILI
22Legal, government regulationLILIMLIMIMLIMILILIMLIMLIMLILI
23Political instabilityLILILIMIMIMHILILIMLIMLIMILI
24Terrorist activitiesLILIMIMLIMIMILILIMLILIMLILI
25High carbon footprintMHIHIMHIMIHIHILIMLIMIMIMIMI
26Low visibility and trackingMHIHIMIHIHIHILIMLIMIMIMIMI

Note(s): The rating scale in full form is given above in Tables 3 and 4 

This study employed the Fz–Ts method proposed by Chen (2000) and Yadav et al. (2018). This method is based on fuzzy set theory, which was initially introduced by Zadeh (1965). Within this framework, the decision-making group utilises linguistic variables to evaluate the weightage of variouss attributes or alternatives. The procedural steps for implementing the Fz–Ts method are detailed in Appendix 2.

As discussed earlier, the responses were converted into linguistic terms to represent the fuzzy triangular numbers (FTN) suggested by Lima et al. (2014). Figure 4 shows the scheme of criteria weights (webs), and Figure 5 shows the scenario ratings.

Figure 4
A graph shows five triangular fuzzy membership functions labeled V L I, I, V I, and E I.The vertical axis is labeled “Mu (X)”, and ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.2 units. The horizontal axis ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.1 units. Along this axis, the fuzzy linguistic reference points are labeled at the top, from left to right, as “m u”, “M m i”, “m i”, “m v i”, and “m a i”. Five triangular fuzzy membership functions span the graph. The first triangle is the linguistic variable “Very less important (V L I)”, and is drawn using a dotted line. This triangle begins at point (0.0, 0.0), rises to a peak at the “m u”, where the point is (0.0, 1.0), and then decreases to (0.23, 0.0). The interior of this triangle contains the symbol “V L I”. The second triangle is “Less important (L I)”, and is drawn using a densely dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.0, 0.0), reaches its peak at “M m i”, where the point is (0.23, 1.0), and decreases to end at (0.5, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “L I”. The third triangle is “Important (I)”, and is drawn using a dash dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.23, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m i”, where the point is (0.5, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (0.73, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “I”. The fourth triangle is “Very important (V I)”, and is drawn using a dashed line. This triangle begins at (0.5, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m v i”, where the point is (0.73, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “V I”. The fifth triangle is “Extremely important (E I)”, and is drawn using a solid line. This triangle begins at (0.73, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m a i”, where the point is (1.0, 1.0), and falls to end at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “E I”. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

Linguistic weights of criteria used in the study. Source – Authors’ own work

Figure 4
A graph shows five triangular fuzzy membership functions labeled V L I, I, V I, and E I.The vertical axis is labeled “Mu (X)”, and ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.2 units. The horizontal axis ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.1 units. Along this axis, the fuzzy linguistic reference points are labeled at the top, from left to right, as “m u”, “M m i”, “m i”, “m v i”, and “m a i”. Five triangular fuzzy membership functions span the graph. The first triangle is the linguistic variable “Very less important (V L I)”, and is drawn using a dotted line. This triangle begins at point (0.0, 0.0), rises to a peak at the “m u”, where the point is (0.0, 1.0), and then decreases to (0.23, 0.0). The interior of this triangle contains the symbol “V L I”. The second triangle is “Less important (L I)”, and is drawn using a densely dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.0, 0.0), reaches its peak at “M m i”, where the point is (0.23, 1.0), and decreases to end at (0.5, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “L I”. The third triangle is “Important (I)”, and is drawn using a dash dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.23, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m i”, where the point is (0.5, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (0.73, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “I”. The fourth triangle is “Very important (V I)”, and is drawn using a dashed line. This triangle begins at (0.5, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m v i”, where the point is (0.73, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “V I”. The fifth triangle is “Extremely important (E I)”, and is drawn using a solid line. This triangle begins at (0.73, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m a i”, where the point is (1.0, 1.0), and falls to end at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “E I”. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

Linguistic weights of criteria used in the study. Source – Authors’ own work

Close modal
Figure 5
A graph shows five triangular membership functions for impact levels ranging from very low to high on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale.The vertical axis is labeled “Mu (X)”, and ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.2 units. The horizontal axis ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.1 units. Along this axis, the fuzzy linguistic reference points are labeled at the top, from left to right, as “m u”, “M m i”, “m i”, “m v i”, and “m a i”. Five triangular fuzzy membership functions span the graph. The first triangle is the linguistic variable “Very low impact (V L I)”, and is drawn using a dotted line. This triangle begins at point (0.0, 0.0), rises to a peak at the “m u”, where the point is (0.0, 1.0), and then decreases to (0.23, 0.0). The interior of this triangle contains the symbol “V L I”. The second triangle is “Medium to low impact (M L I)”, and is drawn using a densely dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.0, 0.0), reaches its peak at “M m i”, where the point is (0.23, 1.0), and decreases to end at (0.5, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M L I”. The third triangle is “Medium impact (M I)”, and is drawn using a dash dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.23, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m i”, where the point is (0.5, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (0.73, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M I”. The fourth triangle is “Medium to high impact (M H I)”, and is drawn using a dashed line. This triangle begins at (0.5, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m v i”, where the point is (0.73, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M H I”. The fifth triangle is “High impact (H I)”, and is drawn using a solid line. This triangle begins at (0.73, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m a i”, where the point is (1.0, 1.0), and falls to end at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “H I”. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

Linguistic ratings of different risks in the supply chain. Source – Authors’ own work

Figure 5
A graph shows five triangular membership functions for impact levels ranging from very low to high on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale.The vertical axis is labeled “Mu (X)”, and ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.2 units. The horizontal axis ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.1 units. Along this axis, the fuzzy linguistic reference points are labeled at the top, from left to right, as “m u”, “M m i”, “m i”, “m v i”, and “m a i”. Five triangular fuzzy membership functions span the graph. The first triangle is the linguistic variable “Very low impact (V L I)”, and is drawn using a dotted line. This triangle begins at point (0.0, 0.0), rises to a peak at the “m u”, where the point is (0.0, 1.0), and then decreases to (0.23, 0.0). The interior of this triangle contains the symbol “V L I”. The second triangle is “Medium to low impact (M L I)”, and is drawn using a densely dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.0, 0.0), reaches its peak at “M m i”, where the point is (0.23, 1.0), and decreases to end at (0.5, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M L I”. The third triangle is “Medium impact (M I)”, and is drawn using a dash dotted line. This triangle begins at (0.23, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m i”, where the point is (0.5, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (0.73, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M I”. The fourth triangle is “Medium to high impact (M H I)”, and is drawn using a dashed line. This triangle begins at (0.5, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m v i”, where the point is (0.73, 1.0), and decreases until it ends at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “M H I”. The fifth triangle is “High impact (H I)”, and is drawn using a solid line. This triangle begins at (0.73, 0.0), reaches its peak at “m a i”, where the point is (1.0, 1.0), and falls to end at (1.0, 0.0). Inside this triangle is the label “H I”. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

Linguistic ratings of different risks in the supply chain. Source – Authors’ own work

Close modal

The responses of the DM groups were converted into FTN. The aggregate FTN of the criteria weights is presented in Table 5. The aggregate rankings of the alternatives (risks) are presented in Table 7. In the next step, an aggregate supply chain risk ranking matrix was obtained (Table 8).

Table 7

Aggregate fuzzy triangular numbers of weight for all four webs

C1C2C3C4
Mobility webDistribution webRealisation webSupply web
(0.58, 0.83, 0.92)(0.58, 0.83, 1.00)(0.42, 0.67, 0.92)(0.50, 0.75, 1.00)
Table 8

Aggregate ranking matrix of supply chain risk

S. no.Supply chain risksMobility web (C1)Distribution web (C2)Realisation web (C3)Supply web (C4)
1Inappropriate supplier0.83, 3.33, 5.834.17, 6.67, 8.335.83, 8.33, 10.007.50, 10.00, 10.00
2Supplier bankruptcy0.0, 1.67, 4.173.33, 5.83, 8.336.67, 9.17, 10.005.00, 7.50, 9.17
3Quality of supplies0.0, 0.0, 2.504.17, 6.67, 9.175.83, 8.33, 10.006.67, 9.17, 10.00
4Supplier logistics service3.33, 5.33, 8.334.17, 6.67, 9.175.83, 8.33, 9.177.50, 10.00, 10.00
5Logistics outsourcing risks7.50, 10.00, 10.007.50, 10.00, 10.005.00, 7.50, 9.175.83, 8.33, 10.00
6Risk in custom clearances6.67, 9.17, 10.007.50, 10.00, 10.003.33, 5.83, 8.333.33, 5.83, 8.33
7Transportation costs7.50, 10.00, 10.005.00, 7.50, 8.335.00, 7.50, 9.172.50, 5.00, 7.50
8Transit time6.67, 9.17, 10.005.83, 8.33, 9.171.67, 3.33, 5.834.17, 6.67, 8.33
9Production related issues3.33, 5.83, 7.505.0, 7.50, 9.175.83, 8.33, 9.170.83, 3.33, 5.83
10Inventory costs5.00, 7.50, 9.175.0, 7.50, 9.175.83, 8.33, 9.173.33, 5.83, 8.33
11Congestion at port/road5.00, 7.50, 9.175.0, 7.50, 9.171.67, 3.33, 5.832.50, 5.00, 30.00
12Information technology failures4.17, 6.67, 8.334.17, 6.67, 8.332.50, 5.00, 6.677.50, 10.00, 10.00
13Labor strike0.00, 1.67, 4.170.83, 2.50, 5.004.17, 5.83, 7.501.67, 4.17, 6.67
14Demand volatility0.00, 1.67, 4.170.83, 2.50, 5.003.33, 5.00, 7.509.17, 4.17, 6.67
15Market changes0.00, 1.67, 4.171.67, 4.17, 6.670.83, 2.50, 5.002.50, 5.00, 7.50
16Forecasting errors0.00, 0.83, 3.330.83, 3.33, 5.830.83, 2.50, 5.002.50, 5.00, 7.50
17Natural disasters0.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 2.50, 5.001.67, 2.50, 5.005.00, 7.50,10.00
18Economic downturn0.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 2.50, 5.000.83, 2.50, 5.001.67, 4.17, 6.67
19Fiscal risk0.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 1.67, 4.170.83, 1.67, 4.173.33, 5.83, 8.33
20Asset impairment risk0.00, 0.00, 2.500.00, 0.00, 2.500.83, 2.50, 5.002.50, 5.00, 7.50
21Competitive risk0.00, 0.00, 2.500.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 0.00, 2.505.00, 7.50, 10.00
22Legal, government regulation0.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 1.67, 4.170.00, 0.83, 3.331.67, 4.17, 6.67
23Political instability0.00, 0.00, 2.500.83, 2.50, 5.000.00, 0.00, 2.503.33, 5.83, 8.33
24Terrorist activities0.00, 0.83, 3.330.00, 0.83, 3.330.83, 1.67, 4.171.67, 4.17, 6.67
25High carbon footprint0.83, 2.50, 5.002.50, 5.00, 7.505.83, 8.33, 10.005.83, 8.33, 9.17
26Low visibility and tracking0.83, 2.50, 5.002.50, 5.00, 7.505.00, 7.50, 9.177.50, 10.00, 10.00

A weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix (FzDM) can be generated by directly multiplying the aggregated criteria weights with the aggregated alternative rankings. The resulting matrices are listed in Table 9.

Table 9

Weighted normalised FzDM

S. no.Supply chain risksMobility web (C1)Distribution web (C2)Realisation web (C3)Supply web (C4)
1Inappropriate supplier0.048, 0.276, 0.5360.242, 0.553, 0.8330.245, 0.558, 0.9200.375, 0.750, 1.000
2Supplier bankruptcy0.000, 0.139, 0.3840.193, 0.484, 0.8330.280, 0.614, 0.9200.250, 0.563, 0.917
3Quality of supplies0.00, 0.000, 0.2300.242, 0.553, 0.9170.245, 0.558, 0.9200.334, 0.688, 1.000
4Supplier logistics service0.193, 0.484, 0.7660.338, 0.692, 0.9170.245, 0.558, 0.8440.375, 0.750, 1.000
5Logistics outsourcing risks (3PL, 4PL)0.435, 0.830, 0.9200.435, 0.830, 1.0000.210, 0.503, 0.8440.292, 0.625, 1.000
6Risk in custom clearances0.387, 0.761, 0.9200.435, 0.830, 1.0000.140, 0.391, 0.7660.167, 0.437, 0.833
7Transportation costs0.435, 0.830, 0.9200.290, 0.623, 0.8330.210, 0.503, 0.8440.125, 0.375, 0.750
8Transit time0.387, 0.761, 0.9200.338, 0.692, 0.9170.70, 0.223, 0.5360.209, 0.500, 0.833
9Production related issues0.193, 0.484, 0.6900.290, 0.623, 0.9170.245, 0.558, 0.8440.042, 0.250, 0.583
10Inventory costs0.290, 0.623, 0.8440.290, 0.623, 0.9170.245, 0.558, 0.8440.167, 0.437, 0.833
11Congestion at port/road0.290, 0.623, 0.8440.290, 0.623, 0.9170.70, 0.223, 0.5360.125, 0.375, 3.000
12Information technology failures0.242, 0.534, 0.7660.242, 0.553, 0.8330.105, 0.335, 0.6140.375, 0.750, 1.000
13Labor strike0.000, 0.139, 0.3840.048, 0.208, 0.5000.175, 0.391, 0.6900.084, 0.250, 0.583
14Demand volatility0.000, 0.139, 0.3840.048, 0.208, 0.5000.140, 0.335, 0.6900.292, 0.625, 0.917
15Market changes0.000, 0.139, 0.3840.097, 0.346, 0.6670.035, 0.168, 0.4600.084, 0.313, 0.667
16Forecasting errors0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.048, 0.277, 0,5830.035, 0.168, 0.4600.459, 0.313, 0.667
17Natural disasters0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.000, 0.208,0.5000.70, 0.168, 0.4600.125, 0.375, 0.750
18Economic downturn0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.000, 0.208, 0.5000.035, 0.168, 0.4600.125, 0.375, 0.750
19Fiscal risk0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.00, 0.138, 0.4170.035, 0.112, 0.3840.250, 0.563, 1.000
20Asset impairment risk0.000, 0.000, 0.2300.000, 0.000, 0.2500.035, 0.168, 0.4600.125, 0.375, 0.750
21Competitive risk0.000, 0.000, 0.2300.000, 0.069, 0.3330.000, 0.000, 0.2300.250, 0.563, 1.000
22Legal, government regulation0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.000, 0.138, 0.4170.000, 0.056, 0.3060.084, 0.313, 0.667
23Political instability0.000, 0.000, 0.2300.048, 0.208, 0.5000.000, 0.000, 0.2300.167, 0.437, 0.833
24Terrorist activities0.000, 0.069, 0.3060.000, 0.069, 0.3330.035, 0.112, 0.3840.084, 0.313, 0.667
25High carbon footprint0.048, 0.208, 0.4600.145, 0.145, 0.7500.245, 0.558, 0.9200.292, 0.625, 0.917
26Low visibility and tracking0.048, 0.208, 0.4600.145, 0.415, 0.7500.210, 0.503, 0.8440.375, 0.750, 1.000

Finally, the closeness coefficient (CCi) was calculated. The closeness coefficient (CCi) results are presented in Table 10 to prioritise the impact of different supply chain webs on various supply chain risks.

Table 10

Closeness coefficient (CCi)

S. no.Supply chain risksCloseness coefficient (CCi)CCi in %
1Logistics outsourcing risks (3PL, 4PL)0.62663
2Supplier logistics service0.57758
3Risk in custom clearances0.57157
4Transportation costs0.5555
5Inventory costs0.54554
6Congestion at port/road0.52953
7Transit time0.52553
8Information technology failures0.52352
9Inappropriate supplier0.5252
10Production related issues0.4848
11Low visibility and tracking0.47748
12Quality of supplies0.47347
13High carbon footprint0.46947
14Supplier bankruptcy0.46947
15Demand volatility0.37838
16Labor strike0.3232
17Market changes0.31632
18Forecasting errors0.31231
19Fiscal risk0.30631
20Natural disasters0.29129
21Economic downturn0.28929
22Competitive risk0.2626
23Political instability0.2626
24Asset impairment risk0.24224
25Legal, government regulation0.2424
26Terrorist activities0.2424

The study results show that the top three risk categories are logistics outsourcing risks, supplier logistics services and customs clearances. Table 11 shows the values of CCi rearranged to gain insights into the top three items in the risk categories. To investigate further, the top three risks for each constituent of the logistic web were analysed.

Table 11

Constituents of the logistic web and top three risks

S. no.RisksCCi
1Logistics outsourcing risks (3PL, 4PL)63
2Supplier logistics service58
3Risk in custom clearances57
4Transportation costs55
5Inventory costs54
6Congestion at port/road53
7Demand volatility38
8Labor strike32
9Forecasting errors31
10Fiscal risk31
11Natural disasters29
12Economic downturn29

The PI framework fundamentally improves risk management by transforming traditional dedicated networks into open, interconnected services anchored by Logistics Web components (Mobility, Distribution, Realisation and Supply).

6.1.1 Handling supply risks and mitigation

PI mitigates supply-side risks (such as supplier dependency, outsourcing and customs issues) through network restructuring and transparency. By leveraging the supply web, suppliers can strategically position their inventories closer to key markets, thereby reducing dependence on any single supplier and addressing risks related to resilience planning (Chowdhury et al., 2022). The globally connected open hubs of the mobility web reduce reliance on individual companies' fixed logistics resources (Nikitas et al., 2020), which is crucial for managing the inherent risks of outsourcing processes to 3PL or 4PL providers. PI also enables enhanced disruption mitigation through safety stock planning and optimised rerouting (Guo et al., 2023).

Standardisation and encapsulation protocols increase shipment transparency and security for customs. The realisation web aids compliance by supporting local production and assembly, which can eliminate customs burdens and reduce risks associated with customs clearance processes (Zidi et al., 2023). Automated customs processes are supported by intelligent standard universal containers (Yang et al., 2018).

6.1.2 Handling operational risks and mitigation

Operational risks, particularly those related to costs, inefficiency and inventory, are addressed through PI's optimised resource utilisation and flexibility. Mobility webs address operational inefficiencies, leading to high transportation costs by enabling the open sharing of excess transportation capacity and intensive consolidation. Simulation models confirm that PI improves efficiency indicators such as cost, emissions, transit time, and delivery time through efficient path routing and fewer truck trips (Sarraj et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2018). Logistics, a major component of the supply chain, presents specific vulnerabilities, such as cargo accumulation risks in maritime supply chains, emphasising the need for focused risk management (Freichel et al., 2022).

PI significantly impacts inventory costs by reducing the storage cubic volume and inventory product count. The distribution and mobility web enables the strategic deployment and redeployment of products, minimising the need for extensive inventory to avoid stock-outs under fluctuating demand (Fazili et al., 2017; Chowdhury et al., 2022). PI substantially mitigates the risk of cargo theft in road transportation (Gastón Cedillo-Campos et al., 2024; Flores-Franco and Covarrubias, 2024). The realisation of the web's encouragement of local manufacturing reduces the volume of truck trips required by finishing products closer to target markets.

6.1.3 Mitigating demand risk

The PI enhances responsiveness by mitigating demand volatility and forecasting errors. The PI supply web allows supply chain managers to quickly accommodate a greater supply of materials, meeting demand promptly. The realisation web minimises forecast errors by enabling dynamic production, assembly or customisation based on current market needs (Chargui et al., 2019). Owing to the high interconnectivity across the distribution, realisation and supply networks, PI can efficiently reduce the impact of non-generalised labour strikes (Li et al., 2022; Naganawa et al., 2024). Disruptions can be mitigated by redirecting production or distribution via unaffected regions (Nikitas et al., 2020).

6.1.4 External environment risks and mitigation

PI's modularity and collaboration of PIs provide robustness against external shocks. Encapsulation and synchronised transfer routes in mobility and distribution webs help manage unforeseen events, such as natural disasters (Yang et al., 2018). The collaborative nature of the realisation and supply webs supports co-production during difficult times for effective disaster mitigation (Jaziri et al., 2020). The distribution web supports rapid responses to new market conditions during economic downturns. Similarly, the realisation web helps mitigate financial risk by allowing firms to cater to different market locations and protect revenue streams. PI integration with Industry 4.0 technologies enables effective risk handling. Overall, PI provides a robust framework for reducing supply chain risks and boosting the overall resilience of logistics operations (Nguyen et al., 2022; Frendi et al., 2024).

6.2.1 Theoretical implications

The concept of PI represents a significant theoretical advancement in supply chain and logistics management, offering a novel approach to tackling the complexities of modern supply chains. This study is an original attempt to evaluate the proposed risks and systems. Researchers may create theoretical models that explain how these elements work together to reduce risks by utilising PI's supply, mobility and realisation webs. Theoretical frameworks can be created to investigate how PI affects operational inefficiencies in transportation networks.

6.2.2 Practical implications

Businesses can expedite customs clearance procedures and improve transparency and security in cargo processes by adopting PI concepts, such as containerisation and standardisation (Flores-Franco and Covarrubias, 2024). By placing inventory closer to essential markets and clients, supply chain participants can strategically use the supply web to lessen their dependency on specific suppliers and lower supply side risks. Implementing PI in supply chain and logistics businesses can bring significant practical benefits, including enhanced efficiency, cost reduction, improved customer service, streamlined operations, better collaboration with partners and increased adaptability to market changes. Embracing PI principles can help businesses overcome modern supply chain challenges and achieve sustainable growth. The study results offer researchers new insights into the application of industry 4.0 technologies in SCRM within the PI.

6.2.3 Policy making implications

Practitioners and policymakers can benefit from practical guidelines to enhance risk management strategies, improve operational efficiency and support sustainable practices in logistics operations (Bai et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2017). Universal and public service/infrastructure alignment with PI requirements will be challenging. If firms start adopting the PI framework, the government and other support bodies need to support the initiative. This study shows the direct benefit potential of the unified approach of PI and how many current challenges become irrelevant in the PI environment. If the initiative receives support from the government and industry bodies, future logistics may realise the dream of the flow of products like data packets.

Practitioner policymakers and decision-makers can benefit from practical guidelines to improve risk management strategies, operational efficiency and support sustainable practices in logistics operations (Bai et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2017). However, the universal and public service/infrastructure orientation with the PI requirements is a challenge. If companies accept the PI framework, the government and other support authorities must support the initiative. This research shows the direct benefit potential of PI and whether the initiative is beneficial for current SCRM (Chowdhury et al., 2022; Gastón Cedillo-Campos et al., 2024).

The PI with Industry 4.0 technologies offers a potent approach to address logistics challenges within supply chains. This study categorised supply chain risks into four categories: supply, demand, operational and environmental risks. This study utilised the PI concept as a logistics web, incorporating elements of mobility, sales, realisation and the supply web to analyse the risk in supply chains. The potential status of each risk category in PI activation and a fresh risk management perspective within the logistics web concept are discussed. Utility networks can better withstand disruptions without significant losses, thereby reducing waste and increasing overall efficiency. The risks associated with supplier logistics services, customs clearance and logistics outsourcing can be significantly reduced or eliminated by implementing PI systems. There is substantial evidence that PI offers benefits such as reduced transportation costs, decreased port and road congestion and significantly shorter transit times for freight. However, the proposed risk assessments for each PI element require validation. This can be accomplished through PI-powered supply chain case studies. Flexibility in route planning and faster transit times comprehensively address demand-side and supply chain risks, ultimately improving business profitability.

To leverage the “mobility web”, “distribution web”, “realisation web” and “supply web” for effective risk management, the following actionable recommendations are made.

  1. Use of IoT and blockchain technologies to complement the mobility web objectives of secure logistics.

  2. Flexible and decentralized logistics hubs and movement of packages through shared networks with automation and AI implementation

  3. Promoting collaboration through platform sharing, such as shared ERPs and fleets, to achieve the greater goals of PI objectives and sustainable practices.

Future research should focus on validating the proposed risk assessments for each PI element through case studies to demonstrate the benefits of PI systems in reducing transport costs, decreasing congestion and shortening transit times. Additionally, exploring how the combined use of PI with Industry 4.0 technologies can enhance risk management strategies is an essential area for future exploration.

We extend our sincere gratitude to the experts who generously contributed their time and expertise to participate in the survey for this research. The author acknowledges the utilisation of Paperpal (https://www.paperpal.com/) for basic editing, grammar and spell-checking.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.

Achamrah
,
F.E.
,
Lafkihi
,
M.
and
Ballot
,
E.
(
2024
), “
A dynamic and reactive routing protocol for the physical internet network
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
62
No. 
13
, pp. 
4735
-
4753
, doi: .
Bai
,
C.
,
Joseph
,
S.
and
Xiaopeng
,
W.
(
2010
), “
Addressing key sustainable supply chain management issues using rough set methodology
”,
Management Research Review
, Vol. 
33
No. 
12
, pp. 
1113
-
1127
, doi: .
Bandyopadhyay
,
K.
,
Peter
,
P.M.
and
Kathleen
,
M.
(
1999
), “
A framework for integrated risk management in information technology
”,
Management Decision
, Vol. 
37
No. 
5
, pp. 
437
-
445
, doi: .
Bigliardi
,
B.
,
Casella
,
G.
and
Bottani
,
E.
(
2021
), “
Industry 4.0 in the logistics field: a bibliometric analysis
”,
IET Collaborative Intelligent Manufacturing
, Vol. 
3
No. 
1
, pp. 
4
-
12
, doi: .
Bugert
,
N.
and
Lasch
,
R.
(
2018
), “
Supply chain disruption models: a critical review
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
11
No. 
5
, pp. 
1
-
35
.
Chadha
,
S.S.
,
Ülkü
,
M.A.
and
Venkatadri
,
U.
(
2022
), “
Freight delivery in a physical internet supply chain: an applied optimisation model with peddling and shipment consolidation
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
60
No. 
16
, pp. 
4995
-
5011
, doi: .
Chargui
,
T.
,
Bekrar
,
A.
,
Reghioui
,
M.
and
Trentesaux
,
D.
(
2019
), “
Proposal of a multi-agent model for the sustainable truck scheduling and containers grouping problem in a Road-Rail PI hub
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
58
No. 
18
, pp. 
5477
-
5501
, doi: .
Chargui
,
T.
,
Ladier
,
A.-L.
,
Bekrar
,
A.
,
Pan
,
S.
and
Trentesaux
,
D.
(
2022
), “
Towards designing and operating physical internet cross-docks: problem specifications and research perspectives
”,
Omega
, Vol. 
111
, 102641, doi: .
Chen
,
C.T.
(
2000
), “
Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment
”,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems
, Vol. 
114
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
9
, doi: .
Chen
,
Y.J.
and
Seshadri
,
S.
(
2006
), “
Supply chain structure and demand risk
”,
Automatica
, Vol. 
42
No. 
8
, pp.
1291
-
1299
.
Chibaro
,
M.
,
Muchemwa
,
M.
,
Mahwine
,
M.
and
Mpfiga
,
C.
(
2024
), “
Supply chain risks and organisational competitiveness in corporate timber manufacturing companies in Mutare metropolitan region, Zimbabwe
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
17
No. 
1
, pp.
1
-
14
.
Chowdhury
,
S.
,
Mohiuddin
,
A.K.M.
and
Gokasar
,
I.
(
2022
), “
Designing a bi-level resilient supply web network under disruption risk in a physical internet context
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
60
No. 
9
, pp. 
2800
-
2821
.
Christopher
,
M.
and
Peck
,
H.
(
2004
), “
Building the resilient supply chain
”,
International Journal of Logistics Management
, Vol. 
15
No. 
2
, pp. 
1
-
19
, doi: .
CSH Org
(
2021
), “
Consensus-decision-making process
”,
available at:
 https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/38-National-Partner-Recommendation-Consensus-Decision-Making-Process-incl-Modified-Consensus.pdf (
accessed
 17 October 2021).
Cucchiella
,
F.
and
Massimo
,
G.
(
2006
), “
Risk management in supply chain: a real option approach
”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
, Vol. 
17
No. 
6
, pp. 
700
-
720
, doi: .
Danube Commission
(
2025
),
Report on Gap Analyses on R&D to Promote Market Uptake Conditions (2025)
,
available at:
 https://www.danubecommission.org/uploads/doc/Platina3/01_Market/D1.2_Report-on-gap-analyses-on-RD-to-promote-market-uptake-conditions.pdf (
accessed
 10 February 2025).
Eisenhardt
,
K.M.
(
1989
), “
Building theories from case study research
”,
Academy of Management Review
, Vol. 
14
No. 
4
, pp. 
532
-
550
, doi: .
Essghaier
,
F.
,
Chargui
,
T.
,
Hsu
,
T.
,
Bekrar
,
A.
,
Allaoui
,
H.
,
Trentesaux
,
D.
and
Goncalves
,
G.
(
2023
), “
Fuzzy multi-objective truck scheduling in multi-modal rail–road Physical Internet hubs
”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering
, Vol. 
182
, 109404, doi: .
Fahim
,
P.
,
Rezaei
,
J.
,
Jayaraman
,
R.
,
Poulin
,
M.
,
Montreuil
,
B.
and
Tavasszy
,
L.
(
2021
), “
The physical internet and maritime ports: ready for the future?
”,
IEEE Engineering Management Review
, Vol. 
49
No. 
4
, pp. 
136
-
149
, doi: .
Fazili
,
M.
,
Venkatadri
,
U.
,
Cyrus
,
P.
and
Tajbakhsh
,
M.
(
2017
), “
Physical internet, conventional and hybrid logistic systems: a routing optimisation-based comparison using the Eastern Canada road network case study
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
55
No. 
9
, pp. 
2703
-
2730
, doi: .
Flores-Franco
,
E.
and
Covarrubias
,
D.
(
2024
), “
A physical internet-based analytic model for reducing the risk of cargo theft in road transportation
”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering
, Vol. 
190
, 110016, doi: .
Freichel
,
S.L.
,
Wörtge
,
J.K.
,
Haas
,
A.
and
ter Veer
,
L.
(
2022
), “
Cargo accumulation risks in maritime supply chains: a new perspective towards risk management for theory, and recommendations for the insurance industry and cargo shippers
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
15
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
19
.
Frendi
,
M.
,
Nachet
,
B.
and
Adla
,
A.
(
2024
), “
Physical internet-based ontology for supporting traceability in logistic IoT
”,
International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems
, Vol. 
15
No. 
1
, pp. 
427
-
440
, doi: .
Gai
,
T.
,
Wu
,
J.
,
Cao
,
M.
,
Liu
,
Y.
and
Liang
,
C.
(
2024
), “
Blockchain platform selection for supply chain finance: a bilateral-negotiation-based group multi attribute decision making method
”,
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
, Vol. 
11
No. 
5
, pp. 
6072
-
6086
, doi: .
Gastón Cedillo-Campos
,
M.
,
Flores-Franco
,
J.E.
and
Covarrubias
,
D.
(
2024
), “
A physical internet-based analytic model for reducing the risk of cargo theft in road transportation
”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering
, Vol. 
190
, 110016.
Guo
,
Z.X.
,
Cheng
,
T.C.E.
,
Tang
,
C.S.
and
Zhao
,
X.
(
2023
), “
Designing a robust physical internet-based supply chain network under inventory and transportation disruption risks
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
256
, 108775.
Hakimi
,
D.
,
Montreuil
,
B.
and
Labarthe
,
O.
(
2009
), “
Supply web: concept and technology
”, in
Seventh Annual International Symposium on Supply Chain Management
,
Toronto - Ontario
,
October 28-30
, pp. 
1
-
21
,
available at:
 https://www.picenter.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/2009scm-supply_web_concept_technology-article-hakimi_et_al.pdf (
accessed
 23 July 2021).
Hakimi
,
D.
,
Montreuil
,
B.
,
Sarraj
,
R.
,
Ballot
,
E.
and
Pan
,
S.
(
2012
), “
Simulating a physical internet enabled mobility web: the case of mass distribution in France
”, in
9th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization & SIMulation-MOSIM'12 Bordeaux
,
France
, p.
10
,
available at:
 https://hal.science/hal-00728584/ (
accessed
 10 July 2021).
Harland
,
C.
,
Brenchley
,
R.
and
Walker
,
H.
(
2003
), “
Risk in supply networks
”,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
, Vol. 
9
No. 
2
, pp. 
51
-
62
, doi: .
Jaziri
,
R.
,
Korbi
,
K.
and
Gontara
,
S.
(
2020
), “
The application of PI in Saudi Arabia: towards a logistics hub in 2030
”,
Journal of Management and Training for Industries
, Vol. 
7
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
16
, doi: .
Ji
,
S.
,
Zhao
,
P.
and
Ji
,
T.
(
2023
), “
A hybrid optimization method for sustainable and flexible design of supply–production–distribution network in the physical internet
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
15
No. 
7
, p.
6327
, doi: .
Jüttner
,
U.
(
2005
), “
Supply chain risk management: understanding the business requirements from a practitioner perspective
”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management
, Vol. 
16
No. 
1
, pp. 
120
-
141
, doi: .
Jüttner
,
U.
,
Peck
,
H.
and
Christopher
,
M.
(
2003
), “
Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research
”,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
, Vol. 
6
No. 
4
, pp.
197
-
210
.
Kulkarni
,
O.
,
Dahan
,
M.
and
Montreuil
,
B.
(
2022
), “
Resilient hyperconnected parcel delivery network design under disruption risks
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
251
, 108499, doi: .
Landschützer
,
C.
,
Ehrentraut
,
F.
and
Jodin
,
D.
(
2015
), “
Containers for the physical internet: requirements and engineering design related to FMCG logistics
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
8
, pp. 
1
-
22
, doi: .
Li
,
M.
,
Shao
,
S.
,
Li
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
H.
,
Zhang
,
N.
and
He
,
Y.
(
2022
), “
A physical internet (PI) based inland container transportation problem with selective non-containerized shipping requests
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
245
No. 
1
, 108403, doi: .
Lima
,
F.R.
,
Osiro
,
L.
and
Carpinetti
,
L.C.R.
(
2014
), “
A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection
”,
Applied Soft Computing
, Vol. 
21
, pp.
194
-
209
.
Luo
,
H.
,
Wang
,
Y.
and
Luo
,
Z.
(
2022
), “
Physical internet enabled two-tier city logistics solution in the new retail era
”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems
, Vol. 
122
No. 
6
, pp. 
1453
-
1479
, doi: .
Macharis
,
C.
,
Van Hoeck
,
E.
,
Pekin
,
E.
and
Van Lier
,
T.
(
2010
), “
A decision analysis framework for intermodal transport: comparing fuel price increases and the internalisation of external costs
”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
, Vol. 
44
No. 
7
, pp.
550
-
561
.
Matusiewicz
,
M.
(
2020
), “
Logistics of the future-PI and its practicality
”,
Transformational Journal
, Vol. 
59
No. 
2
, pp. 
200
-
214
, doi: .
Micheli
,
G.J.L.
,
Cagno
,
E.
and
Zorzini
,
M.
(
2008
), “
Supply risk management vs supplier selection to manage the supply risk in the EPC supply chain
”,
Management Research News
, Vol. 
31
No. 
11
, pp. 
846
-
866
, doi: .
Montreuil
,
B.
(
2011
), “
Toward a PI: meeting the global logistics sustainability grand challenge
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
3
Nos
2-3
, pp. 
71
-
87
, doi: .
Montreuil
,
B.
,
Meller
,
R.D.
and
Ballot
,
E.
(
2013
), “Physical internet foundations”, in
Borangiu
,
T.
,
Thomas
,
A.
and
Trentesaux
,
D.
(Eds),
Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi Agent Manufacturing and Robotics, Studies in Computational Intelligence
,
Springer
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
, Vol. 
472
, pp. 
151
-
166
, doi: .
Nachet
,
B.
,
Frendi
,
M.
and
Adla
,
A.
(
2024
), “
Physical internet enabled traceability systems for sustainable supply chain management
”,
Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences
, Vol. 
48
No. 
1
, pp. 
99
-
116
, doi: .
Naganawa
,
H.
,
Hirata
,
E.
,
Firdausiyah
,
N.
and
Thompson
,
R.G.
(
2024
), “
Logistics hub and route optimization in the physical internet paradigm
”,
Logistics
, Vol. 
8
No. 
2
, p.
27
, doi: .
Narula
,
S.
,
Prakash
,
S.
,
Dwivedy
,
M.
,
Talwar
,
V.
and
Tiwari
,
S.P.
(
2020
), “
Industry 4.0 adoption key factors: an empirical study on manufacturing industry
”,
Journal of Advances in Management Research
, Vol. 
17
No. 
5
, pp. 
697
-
725
, doi: .
Nguyen
,
T.
,
Duong
,
Q.H.
,
Van Nguyen
,
T.
,
Zhu
,
Y.
and
Zhou
,
L.
(
2022
), “
Knowledge mapping of digital twin and physical internet in supply chain management: a systematic literature review
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
244
, 108381, doi: .
Nikitas
,
A.
,
Michalakopoulou
,
K.
,
Njoya
,
E.T.
and
Karampatzakis
,
D.
(
2020
), “
Artificial intelligence, transport and the smart city: definitions and dimensions of a new mobility era
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
12
No. 
7
, p.
2789
, doi: .
Niu
,
B.
,
Dai
,
Z.
,
Liu
,
Y.
and
Jin
,
Y.
(
2022
), “
The role of physical internet in building trackable and sustainable logistics service supply chains: a game analysis
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
247
, 108438, doi: .
Olson
,
D.L.
and
Dash
,
W.D.
(
2011
), “
Risk management models for supply chain: a scenario analysis of outsourcing to China
”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
, Vol. 
16
No. 
6
, pp. 
401
-
408
, doi: .
Pan
,
S.
,
Nigrelli
,
M.
,
Ballot
,
E.
,
Sarraj
,
R.
and
Yang
,
Y.
(
2014
), “
Perspectives of inventory control models in the PI: a simulation study
”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering
, Vol. 
84
, pp. 
122
-
132
.
Pan
,
S.
,
Trentesaux
,
D.
,
McFarlane
,
D.
,
Montreuil
,
B.
,
Ballot
,
E.
and
Huang
,
G.Q.
(
2021
), “
Digital interoperability in logistics and supply chain management: state-of-the-art and research avenues towards Physical Internet
”,
Computers in Industry
, Vol. 
128
, 103435, doi: .
Pan
,
F.
,
Pan
,
S.
,
Zhou
,
W.
and
Fan
,
T.
(
2022
), “
Perishable product bundling with logistics uncertainty: solution based on physical internet
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
244
, 108386, doi: .
Peng
,
X.
,
Ji
,
S.
,
Thompson
,
R.G.
and
Zhang
,
L.
(
2021
), “
Resilience planning for Physical Internet enabled hyperconnected production-inventory-distribution systems
”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering
, Vol. 
158
, 107413, doi: .
Peng
,
X.
,
Ji
,
S.
,
Zhang
,
L.
,
Thompson
,
R.G.
and
Wang
,
K.
(
2024
), “
Physical Internet enabled sustainable and resilient production-routing problem with modular capacity
”,
Kybernetes
, Vol. 
54
No. 
11
, pp. 
6189
-
6222
, doi: .
Perçin
,
S.
(
2009
), “
Evaluation of third‐party logistics (3PL) providers by using a two‐phase AHP and TOPSIS methodology
”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal
, Vol. 
16
No. 
5
, pp.
588
-
604
.
Perez
,
M.-J.
,
Chargui
,
T.
and
Trentesaux
,
D.
(
2024
), “
A two-stage optimisation approach for a sustainable physical multi-modallti-modal Barge–Road hub terminal
”,
Information
, Vol. 
15
No. 
12
, p.
756
, doi: .
Pfohl
,
H.C.
,
Köhler
,
H.
and
Thomas
,
D.
(
2010
), “
State of the art in supply chain risk management research: empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the implementation in practice
”,
Logistics Research
, Vol. 
2
No. 
1
, pp. 
33
-
44
, doi: .
Prakash
,
S.
,
Soni
,
G.
,
Rathore
,
A.P.S.
and
Singh
,
S.
(
2017a
), “
Risk analysis and mitigation for perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy industry
”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal
, Vol. 
24
No. 
1
, pp. 
2
-
23
, doi: .
Prakash
,
S.
,
Soni
,
G.
and
Rathore
,
A.P.S.
(
2017b
), “
A critical analysis of supply chain risk management content: a structured literature review
”,
Journal of Advances in Management Research
, Vol. 
14
No. 
1
, pp. 
69
-
90
, doi: .
Rayens
,
M.K.
and
Hahn
,
E.J.
(
2000
), “
Building consensus using the policy Delphi method
”,
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
, Vol. 
1
No. 
4
, pp. 
308
-
315
, doi: .
Sarraj
,
R.
,
Ballot
,
E.
,
Pan
,
S.
,
Hakimi
,
D.
and
Montreuil
,
B.
(
2014
), “
Interconnected logistic networks and protocols: simulation-based efficiency assessment
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
52
No. 
11
, pp. 
3185
-
3208
, doi: .
Simons
,
R.
(
1999
), “
How risky is your company?
”,
Harvard Business Review
, Vol. 
77
No. 
3
, pp. 
85
-
94
,
209, available at:
 https://hbr.org/1999/05/how-risky-is-your-company
Sofyalıoğlu
,
Ç.
and
Kartal
,
B.
(
2012
), “
The selection of global supply chain risk management strategies by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process – a case from Turkey
”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
, Vol. 
58
, pp. 
1448
-
1457
, doi: .
Tang
,
C.S.
(
2006
), “
Perspectives in supply chain risk management
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
103
No. 
2
, pp. 
451
-
488
, doi: .
Tordecilla
,
R.D.
,
Montoya-Torres
,
J.R.
and
Guerrero
,
W.J.
(
2025
), “
Resilient design of hyperconnected multiactor physical internet supply chain networks
”,
International Transactions in Operational Research
, Vol. 
32
No. 
6
, pp. 
3528
-
3564
, doi: .
Treiblmaier
,
H.
,
Mirkovski
,
K.
,
Lowry
,
P.B.
and
Zacharia
,
Z.G.
(
2019
), “
The PI as a new supply chain paradigm: a systematic literature review and a comprehensive framework
”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management
, Vol. 
31
No. 
20
, pp. 
239
-
287
.
Tsai
,
M.-C.
,
Liao
,
C.-H.
and
Han
,
C.-S.
(
2008
), “
Risk perception on logistics outsourcing of retail chains: model development and empirical verification in Taiwan
”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
, Vol. 
13
No. 
6
, pp. 
415
-
424
, doi: .
Tse
,
Y.K.
and
Tan
,
K.H.
(
2012
), “
Managing product quality risk and visibility in multi-layer supply chain
”,
International Journal of Production Economics
, Vol. 
139
No. 
1
, pp. 
49
-
57
, doi: .
Tse
,
Y.
,
Hua Tan
,
K.
,
Ho Chung
,
S.
and
Kim Lim
,
M.
(
2011
), “
Quality risk in global supply network
”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
, Vol. 
22
No. 
8
, pp. 
1002
-
1013
, doi: .
Wang
,
M.
,
Asian
,
S.
,
Wood
,
L.C.
and
Wang
,
B.
(
2020
), “
Logistics innovation capability and its impacts on the supply chain risks in the Industry 4.0 era
”,
Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications
, Vol. 
2
No. 
2
, pp. 
83
-
98
, doi: .
Wu
,
T.
,
Blackhurst
,
J.
and
Chidambaram
,
V.
(
2006
), “
A model for inbound supply risk analysis
”,
Computers in Industry
, Vol. 
57
No. 
4
, pp. 
350
-
365
, doi: .
Yadav
,
V.
,
Kumar
,
M.S.
and
Singh
,
S.
(
2018
), “
Intelligent evaluation of suppliers, using extent fuzzy TOPSIS method: a case study of an Indian manufacturing SME
”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal
, Vol. 
25
No. 
1
, pp. 
259
-
279
, doi: .
Yan
,
W.
,
Li
,
N.
and
Zhang
,
X.
(
2023
), “
Enhancing supply chain management in the physical internet: a hybrid SAGA approach
”,
Scientific Reports
, Vol. 
13
No. 
1
, 21470, doi: .
Yang
,
Y.
,
Pan
,
S.
and
Ballot
,
E.
(
2017
), “
Mitigating supply chain disruptions through interconnected logistics services in the Physical Internet
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
55
No. 
14
, pp. 
3970
-
3983
, doi: .
Yang
,
Y.
,
Ballot
,
E.
and
Cedillo-Campos
,
M.G.
(
2018
), “
Contribution of physical internet containers to mitigate the risk of cargo theft
”,
2018 International Material Handling Research Colloquium Savsannah
,
Georgia USA
,
July 23-26, 2018
.
Yazdi
,
M.
(
2018
), “
Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-modified TOPSIS approach
”,
Safety Science
, Vol. 
110
Nos
Part-A
, pp. 
438
-
448
, doi: .
Zadeh
,
L.A.
(
1965
), “
Information and control
”,
Fuzzy Sets
, Vol. 
8
No. 
3
, pp. 
338
-
353
, doi: .
Zhao
,
Z.
,
Zhang
,
M.
,
Wu
,
W.
,
Huang
,
G.Q.
and
Wang
,
L.
(
2024
), “
Spatial-temporal traceability for cyber-physical Industry 4.0 systems
”,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
, Vol. 
74
, pp. 
16
-
29
, doi: .
Zidi
,
S.
,
Ksouri
,
I.
and
Hammami
,
R.
(
2023
), “
A collaborative framework for resilient cross-border physical internet networks under disruption
”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
, Vol. 
173
, 103079.
ALICE
(
2020
),
European Technology Platform for Logistics
,
available at:
 https://www.etp-logistics.eu/ (
accessed
 10 February 2025).
Cimon
,
Y.
(
2014
), “
Implementing the PI real-world interface: beyond business models, the devil is in the details
”,
1st International PI Conference
,
Quebec
,
May 28-30
, pp. 
1
-
9
,
available at:
 https://www.cirrelt.ca/ipic2014/pdf/1014a.pdf (
accessed
 21 March 2020).
Münch
,
C.
,
Wehrle
,
M.
,
Kuhn
,
T.
and
Hartmann
,
E.
(
2023
), “
The research landscape around the PI–a bibliometric analysis
”,
International Journal of Production Research
, Vol. 
62
No. 
6
, pp. 
2015
-
2033
, doi: .
Sallez
,
Y.
,
Pan
,
S.
,
Montreuil
,
B.
,
Berger
,
T.
and
Ballot
,
E.
(
2016
), “
On the activeness of intelligent PI containers
”,
Computers in Industry
, Vol. 
81
, pp. 
96
-
104
, doi: .
Published in Logistics Research. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at Link to the terms of the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Supplementary data

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal