The Sustainability Paradox in Fleet Decisions for Logistics

The Pressure to Go Green in Logistics

Sustainability has become the defining narrative in logistics. Across the world, companies are being asked to rethink how goods are moved, stored, and delivered in light of the climate crisis. The scientific consensus is clear. The IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that rapid and immediate cuts in emissions are required across every sector, and freight transport is no exception. The panel’s most recent assessment shows that demand-side measures, including cleaner fleets and more efficient logistics systems, could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 40-70% by 2050. At the same time, climate change is no longer a distant or abstract issue for supply chains. It is already disrupting the very networks that companies depend on. The UNDP Finance Initiative reported in 2024 that storms, floods, and other extreme weather events are increasingly damaging infrastructure and interrupting transport operations. For logistics managers, climate risk has become a direct supply chain risk.

The business community is also feeling pressure from all directions. The 2024 State of Supply Chain Sustainability report, published by MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and CSCMP - Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, found that stakeholder pressure has increased steadily over the past four years. Governments are imposing stricter regulations, customers are demanding greener options, and investors are embedding sustainability into their expectations. The report notes that none of these pressures show any sign of easing. Investors in particular are playing a decisive role. The Science Based Targets initiative recently launched its Supply Change campaign, urging companies to work with their suppliers to set climate targets aligned with global pathways. This call is significant for logistics, because it places transport providers and fleet managers firmly under the microscope. Companies can no longer credibly claim to meet climate goals if their transport partners are not also aligned.

The message is unambiguous: the future is green. Yet for operations leaders, the question remains unresolved. 

How can supply chains move toward sustainability without undermining cost competitiveness, service reliability, or customer trust?

This tension becomes most visible when global ambitions meet practical, asset-level choices. Few decisions illustrate the paradox more clearly than investing in freight vehicles. For a logistics company, choosing the right truck is not simply about brand or purchase price. It is about deciding which assets will carry the company’s goods, costs, and emissions profile for the next decade.

Evaluation Criteria: What Really Matters in Truck Selection

When it comes to fleet investment, the decision is rarely about a single figure on a purchase order. Trucks are long-term assets that shape operating costs, service reliability, and environmental performance for years to come. To reflect this complexity, our latest conference paper developed a decision framework in partnership with a leading Swiss logistics company. The goal was to capture the full spectrum of what truly matters in day-to-day fleet management, not just headline purchase costs.

Three broad categories emerged:

• First were operational performance factors. These included efficiency, payload capacity, and operating time. For a company serving regional and long-distance routes, the ability to maximize range, reduce downtime, and move goods reliably was critical.

• Second were financial considerations. These covered the purchase price, fuel consumption, depreciation, and the cost of consumable parts such as tires and fluids. Together, these factors determined the total cost of ownership and long-term financial viability of each option.

• Finally, there were environmental and safety dimensions. Gas emissions, driver comfort, and safety features were included to reflect both regulatory requirements and the company’s commitment to sustainable operations. These criteria acknowledged the importance of environmental impact and social responsibility, even if they carried less weight in immediate financial calculations.

Table of the key evaluation criteria considered in selecting the most suitable heavy vehicle for a Swiss logistics company. (Badulescu et al. 2025)

By structuring the evaluation in this way, the company could see the trade-offs clearly. A truck that scored well on emissions but poorly on efficiency, or one that offered strong comfort but prohibitive upfront costs, would not simply be judged on one dimension. The framework instead revealed how each option aligned with the company’s priorities, balancing sustainability goals with the hard realities of operational and financial performance.

Our Case: When Data Beats Narrative

Once the criteria were established, we applied a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making framework (FMCDM) to evaluate the options available. This allowed the company to compare conventional and electric trucks systematically, weighing each against the operational, financial, and environmental dimensions defined earlier.

The expectation was clear. Given the momentum around decarbonization, electric trucks seemed destined to come out on top. They aligned with sustainability commitments and promised reductions in emissions, particularly for urban deliveries.

The results told a different story. Diesel trucks consistently outperformed electric models. Put of the five alternative trucks evaluated (3 diesel, 2 electric), the diesel trucks emerged as the best options overall, while the two electric trucks ranked lowest.

The reasons were straightforward. Electric trucks had limited driving range, much higher upfront costs (nearly triple in some cases) and operational uncertainties linked to charging and maintenance. While attractive from a sustainability perspective, they were less practical for the company’s immediate needs.

The paradox was clear. Sustainability was the aspiration, yet diesel still offered the most viable balance of cost, efficiency, and reliability.

Why Going Green Isn’t Simple

This does not mean that electric trucks have no role to play. On emissions and noise they performed very well, and the company had already introduced a small number of them for city deliveries where shorter distances and stricter urban regulations made them suitable. The challenge arose once the discussion shifted from limited pilot projects to the broader question of scaling up across a larger fleet. At that point, other considerations began to outweigh the environmental advantages.

Efficiency and truck capacity emerged as the most influential factors, since they directly shaped the company’s ability to move goods reliably over regional and long-distance routes. Fuel consumption and the initial investment required for each vehicle determined the financial logic of the decision and whether a truck could be considered viable over its full life cycle. These were the criteria most closely tied to the company’s immediate operational needs and long-term cost structure.

Other elements, such as resale value or driver comfort, were included in the analysis but had little influence on the final ranking. What is equally important, however, are the criteria that were not emphasized in this evaluation. Broader strategic considerations such as positioning the company as a sustainability leader, responding to public perception, or aligning more visibly with government incentives for green transport were not central in this case. For this specific case study, operational continuity and financial prudence mattered more than reputational or strategic gains, and so these factors were not weighted heavily in the framework.

It is not difficult to imagine a different organization reaching another conclusion. A firm seeking to strengthen its public image, compete in markets where green credentials influence customer choice, or prepare proactively for regulatory tightening might choose to elevate these less tangible criteria. Under those conditions, electric trucks could become the preferred option even if they remain more expensive and operationally challenging in the short term.

The insight here is that sustainability goals cannot be pursued in isolation from the practical realities of logistics, but nor can those realities be divorced from longer-term strategic positioning. Each company must decide what truly matters in its own context, and recognize that the weight assigned to different criteria will inevitably shape the outcome of such decisions.

The Strategic Lesson for Leaders

The outcome of this case carries a broader lesson for supply chain leaders who are navigating the complex path toward decarbonization.

• Sustainability is not a binary choice. It is not a matter of going fully green or falling behind. The transition must be staged, often uneven, and will inevitably involve conventional assets for some years while companies build the infrastructure, financial capacity, and operational readiness needed to scale greener alternatives.

• Frameworks beat intuition. Decisions about fleet investment cannot rest on habit or brand loyalty. A transparent decision-making process that weighs multiple, interdependent factors provides a far stronger foundation. It ensures that each investment aligns with both long-term sustainability ambitions and current operational realities, which is particularly important in an environment of rapid technological and regulatory change.

• The road to green is paved with trade-offs. Companies that rush into electrification without accounting for constraints such as cost, efficiency, and driving range risk undermining their own performance. The result can be higher costs, reduced service reliability, and ultimately dissatisfied customers. The lesson is not to delay sustainability, but to integrate it carefully into investment frameworks that balance ambition with realism.

• Leaders must balance present competitiveness with future readiness. Success depends on holding two priorities at once: delivering reliable, cost-effective logistics today while preparing deliberately for a low-carbon future. Companies that adopt evidence-based tools to guide this balance will be better positioned to navigate the transition than those relying on intuition or external pressure alone.

The sustainability paradox revealed in this case is not confined to the choice of heavy vehicles. Similar tensions arise across other areas of supply chain management, whether in: 

• Warehousing, where the gains from automation must be balanced against higher energy consumption 

• Packaging, where recyclable materials often compete with cost and durability

• Energy sourcing, where renewables may clash with the need for reliability of supply.

These examples show that sustainability in logistics is never a simple choice but a matter of managing trade-offs that cut across operations. To deal with these complexities, leaders need structured frameworks that combine hard data with expert judgment. The fuzzy logic approach applied in our study illustrates how such methods can bring clarity under uncertainty, align competing priorities, and provide a roadmap that extends well beyond the decision of which vehicle to purchase.

The broader lesson is that going green is not about making a single leap into an unknown future, but about navigating a transition in which every investment decision matters. For supply chain leaders, the challenge is to balance the urgency of climate commitments with the operational and financial realities that keep goods moving today. Electric vehicles, renewable energy, and recyclable packaging will all play a larger role over time, but their adoption must be grounded in evidence, not assumption. 

The paradox is that the greenest option is not always the best option right now. 

Those who succeed will be the leaders who embrace structured, data-driven frameworks to guide complex choices, ensuring that sustainability becomes not just an aspiration but a workable reality.