Industry background and topic description
For the transportation and logistics industry, transportation performance comparison is not only about sustainability or compliance work, but also directly affects costs, equipment efficiency and operational stability. Just by looking at the total increase or decrease, it is often impossible to determine whether the change comes from output, product mix, equipment status, or real efficiency improvements. Without consistent benchmarks and continuous tracking, even if companies invest in improvement budgets, it will be difficult to confirm whether resources are used in the most impactful links.
Common pain points in management
[Pain Point 1｜Fuel, mileage and load data sources are scattered]
When the transportation and logistics industry used to deal with transportation performance comparisons, each unit usually collected fuel, mileage, load, route, transportation vehicle, storage energy and contractor information based on its own form and understanding. When customers, competent authorities or inspections required it, a small number of people would collect it together. This method is prone to problems such as different scopes, misplaced units, inconsistent periods, and lack of supporting evidence. Transportation emissions usually need to consider the vehicle, fuel, distance, load, loading rate, empty load and transportation workload to reasonably compare different routes. Without a common definition, even if the figures are completed, it will be difficult to explain the reasons for the changes, let alone determine whether the differences come from real improvements or changes in calculation caliber. When cargo owners, contracting fleets, shipping airlines, authorities and end customers raise further inquiries, the team often has to reconfirm, increase communication and redo work.
[Pain Point 2｜Lack of consistent method for emission allocation of common transportation]
Transportation performance comparison in the transportation logistics industry involves multiple departments and external partners, and each unit has different update frequency, review authority, and delivery time. If it is still transmitted through emails, shared folders and multiple Excels, it is difficult for the person in charge to know in real time which data has not been responded to, what content has been modified, and whether the deficiencies have been corrected. Manpower will be spent for a long time on collection, copying and pasting, and comparing versions instead of analyzing the reasons. Once personnel change or face multiple demands at the same time, work quality may also decline significantly. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Pain Point 3｜The data is completed, but it cannot support management decisions]
Many in the transport logistics industry view transport performance comparisons as a pre-delivery exercise for annual filings, customer questionnaires or verifications, and once completed the information remains in reports or personal files. Managers are unable to continuously compare differences across locations, products, periods, or partners, and it is difficult to identify areas that truly need improvement as a priority. In particular, the data comes from different vehicles and partners, and the empty load rate and allocation method affect the results. Without consistent classification and comparison benchmarks, a single total amount can easily cover up efficiency decline or local anomalies. The result is that even though companies spend a lot of time getting the numbers, they still lack the information to use for budgeting, targeting, and resource allocation. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Pain Point Four | External requirements are becoming more and more detailed, and evidence preparation cannot keep up]
Cargo owners, contracting fleets, shipping airlines, competent authorities and end customers are not only concerned about whether the company proposes policies, but will also further inquire about the data boundaries, methods, responsible persons, supporting evidence and improvement records. If the transportation performance comparison process does not retain coefficient versions, review comments, reasons for modifications, and attachment links, the organizer must reassemble the evidence in a short period of time. Although the formats used by different customers or auditing units are not exactly the same, the core data is often repeated. The lack of a shared data base will result in the same question being filled in repeatedly, and there may even be a risk of inconsistent external responses in different versions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
How to improve the management process and what benefits will it bring?
[Core Benefit 1｜Provide shippers with credible transportation carbon data and identify carbon reduction opportunities]
Originally, each unit used its own form to organize the data, and then the person in charge checked, merged and questioned each item one by one. The progress of the work was highly dependent on personal experience. After the product carbon footprint management system is introduced and paired with GLEC and GHG Protocol, routes, vehicles, ton-kilometers and emission coefficients can be unified according to GLEC and other methods according to the actual process of the transportation and logistics industry. The data can be logged in a common format when it is generated, and the source, period, coefficient, attachments and modification records can be retained. Users can quickly identify gaps and anomalies without retrieving data from different files every time; managers can understand the completion status and reasons for differences. This can turn one-time delivery work into daily management, and existing records can also be used to respond to audits or customer requests. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Core Benefit 2 | Reduce the burden of cross-department collaboration and version management]
Originally, transportation performance comparison required repeated collection through emails, meetings and shared files, making it difficult for the organizer to confirm the latest version and responsibility. After introducing the product carbon footprint management system, you can set up the filling, return, replacement, review and approval processes, and manage permissions and deadlines based on roles. Consulting services can help companies clarify processes, definitions and necessary evidence first, to avoid just moving confusing forms online. For those who fill in the form, the system can clearly display the work that needs to be completed and the gaps; for the coordinator, the progress can be viewed centrally without having to track each letter one by one. Cross-department collaboration is therefore more transparent, and existing records and rules can be used when personnel changes. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Three | Detect abnormalities early and focus on high-risk projects]
The original team usually waits until the annual compilation or external audit to discover data anomalies, missing data or overdue improvements, leaving limited time for on-site corrections. Through the product carbon footprint management system, companies can set reasonable ranges, necessary fields, risk classifications and overdue reminders based on transportation performance comparisons, and link exceptions to responsible units and improve records. Users can receive prompts during the data entry stage to reduce redoing afterwards; managers can also deal with projects with greater impact or risk first from a large number of projects. This shift from post-remedial to proactive prevention helps reduce the risk of missing checks, customer returns, and operational interruptions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Four | Let data become the basis for improvement and resource allocation]
Originally, transportation performance comparison results were mostly limited to annual figures or report chapters, and were not necessarily returned to the operating units after completion. It was difficult for managers to judge which base, process or partner resources should be invested in. After introducing the product carbon footprint management system and combining it with GLEC and GHG Protocol, consistent classification, comparison benchmarks and improvement tracking methods can be established, and fuel, mileage, load, route, transportation vehicle, storage energy and contractor data can be converted into comparable management information. Users can reduce duplicate spreadsheets and shift time to cause analysis; supervisors can prioritize based on risk, cost and improvement potential. After long-term accumulation of data, enterprises can not only respond to cargo owners, contract fleets, shipping companies, authorities and end customers, but also observe trends, check whether goals are effective, and provide a basis for next year’s budget, procurement or investment plans. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
Which enterprises or usage scenarios is it suitable for?
- Transportation and logistics industries that need to manage transportation performance comparisons but currently mainly use Excel, Email or shared folders
- Having multiple locations, factories, projects, products or suppliers requires unified data caliber
- Frequently face information, verification or disclosure requests from cargo owners, contract fleets, shipping and airlines, competent authorities and end customers
- Hope to reduce the burden of manual compilation, version comparison and collection
- There is a management system in place, but there is a lack of continuous tracking and cross-department collaboration tools
- Enterprises preparing to introduce relevant standards, third-party verification or customer supply chain projects