Dominant external pressure was the financial crisis and reputational damage from poor service performance

Primary strategic focus was financial survival and cost-cutting

Sustainability positioning was vague and non-essential, sidelined during the restructuring process

External drivers were largely reactive to negative media and customer dissatisfaction

Regulatory environment involved less-binding external sustainability regulations

Strategic focus on environmental issues was limited to those inherent to logistics, such as fuel efficiency, and not integrated into core strategy

Dominant external pressure included a strong EU regulatory framework (e.g. EU taxonomy, CSRD), customer expectations and owner interest

Primary strategic focus was strategic alignment with sustainability as value creation

Sustainability positioning became core to business strategy with attempts to integrate across all operations

External drivers prompted a more proactive response to regulatory compliance and competitive positioning

Regulatory environment saw increasingly binding sustainability-related accounting and reporting requirements such as CSRD and the EU taxonomy

Strategic focus entailed clear, measurable goals across environmental and social domains, broken into actionable, time-bound targets as planning controls

Small, centralised sustainability team under the communications department

Sustainability treated as a support function, mainly coordination and reporting

Group-level functions (legal, sourcing, finance) involved in sustainability, but with limited integration

Few employees with sustainability roles relative to overall headcount (33,000+)

Sustainability handled separately from financial or operational processes

Monthly KPI monitoring with group level

Countries worked independently; integration across units was weak (“we work in silos”)

Social sustainability structures were underdeveloped compared to environmental ones

Informal environmental council met quarterly, but no formal cross-country or cross-functional teams

Sustainability roles moved down into country-level organisations, enabling operational embedding

40+ people in sustainability roles, in spite of overall headcount decreasing by 3,000

Creation of country sustainability departments (e.g. 12 in Country A) and sustainability controllers assigned per country

“Sustainable by EuroLogistics” initiative introduced as a virtual, cross-country and cross-functional structure

Surge in hiring of recent sustainability-focused graduates; competence shift towards technically skilled and cost-effective personnel

Emergence of sustainability controller roles that bridged accounting and sustainability

Persistent organisational silos and resistance from finance or operations in some areas

Development of joint calculation models between sustainability and finance functions, particularly for emissions and regulatory reporting

Strategic targets (e.g. “fossil-free by 2030”) broken into operational metrics, though practical integration remained questionable

Internal tensions over resource allocation and responsibility-sharing

Concerns that operational staff were disconnected from strategic sustainability goals

Some integration occurred where financial and environmental data overlapped, such as fuel and energy costs

A balanced scorecard was used that included both financial and non-financial KPIs, including sick leave, carbon emissions and gender equality

Sustainability data were collected by different departments, then compiled into a report but not integrated technically across systems

There was a strong performance measurement culture, with financial and non-financial KPIs tracked through annual goals and long-term targets for managers

Systems lacked a unified platform or calculability infrastructure for aligning sustainability and financial performance

Technical systems were not sufficiently connected to support comprehensive sustainability decision-making

Data handling relied on manual compilation and department-specific systems, which limited reliability and efficiency

Regulatory pressure such as the CSRD led to increased development of IT tools for sustainability reporting

Existing financial accounting systems such as SAP were repurposed for environmental data collection and calculations

Financial and sustainability controllers collaborated to develop models (which were then transferred to sustainability controllers to run) linking financial and environmental performance, including emissions based on transport data

Easier to track data in some instances through shared systems

In other instances, sustainability data remained decentralised and manually compiled, with each country doing it their own way. This created challenges for cross-country comparisons and reporting consistency

Sustainability calculations required assumptions, such as electricity source types, often handled through conservative worst-case scenario estimates

Environmental data was generally handled better than social data, with softer metrics such as brand awareness and employee motivation still excluded from core systems

Manual reporting processes, inconsistent data quality and slow IT adaptation remained major barriers

Some staff expressed frustration with system limitations, including lack of accuracy, internal changes and disruptions from market conditions

Sustainability awareness mostly limited to top three management tiers

Many group-level managers lacked prior training for sustainability roles

Broader employee engagement was weak and was emotionally rather than strategically

Engagement hindered by company size, making communication difficult

Few structured platforms for cross-hierarchical communication on sustainability topics

Higher cognitive engagement among those in sustainability roles; motivated by both ethical and professional concerns

Financial controllers expressed willingness to collaborate with sustainability staff, even if not directly responsible for sustainability work

Greater reliance on data (metrics, KPIs) to bridge mindsets across functions

Expansion of mandatory e-training to all employees, complemented by role-specific training for managers

Lower levels (e.g. drivers, terminal staff) still remain largely disengaged

Perception that many staff are “mainly interested in economics” of logistics industry

Sustainability valued differently across departments and between generations

Realisation that integration requires structured control systems to support change