VOlUME 05 ISSUE 06 June 2026
1Agung Sasongko, 2Willy Arafah, 3Kadarsah Suryadi, 4Wahyuningsih Santosa
1,2,3,4Trisakti University, Jakarta
DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i6n40Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the determinant factors of sustainable warehouse and their impact on sustainable logistics performance, with Logistics 4.0 examined as a moderating variable in the context of TIP/rest areas along the Trans-Java Toll Road. The study adopts the triple bottom line perspective and positions sustainable warehouse as a second-order construct composed of economic, social, and environmental dimensions, while sustainable logistics performance is treated as the outcome variable reflecting broader logistics sustainability achievements. The research applies a quantitative design using a structured survey distributed to business managers and decision-makers involved in warehousing, distribution, and logistics operations near the Trans-Java Toll Road corridor. A total of 191 valid responses were analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling with the Partial Least Squares approach (PLS-SEM), covering measurement model assessment and structural model testing, including the moderation effect of Logistics 4.0. The results indicate that the direct effect of sustainable warehouse on sustainable logistics performance is not significant, and the moderating role of Logistics 4.0 is also not supported. In contrast, the economic dimension positively influences sustainable logistics performance (β = 0.2959, p < 0.05), the social dimension positively influences sustainable logistics performance (β = 0.4709, p < 0.05), and the environmental dimension positively influences sustainable logistics performance (β = 0.2048, p < 0.05). These findings indicate that the social dimension is the strongest contributor among the three dimensions in explaining sustainable logistics performance in the TIP/rest area context. These findings imply that sustainable warehouse practices in the toll road rest area context are still at an early stage of maturity, so the impact of integrated warehouse sustainability has not yet fully translated into system-level logistics sustainability outcomes. At the same time, the significant role of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions indicates that practical sustainability improvements at the operational level remain essential levers for strengthening logistics performance in developing logistics ecosystems. From a theoretical perspective, the study enriches the sustainable logistics and warehousing literature by integrating the triple bottom line framework with Logistics 4.0 in the context of toll road logistics infrastructure. From a managerial and policy perspective, the study highlights the need for stronger operational integration, better environmental investment, and more systematic digital adoption if sustainable warehouses are expected to produce measurable impacts on sustainable logistics performance. The originality of this study lies in its focus on sustainable warehouse development in TIP/rest area logistics environments on the Trans-Java Toll Road and in examining Logistics 4.0 as a moderator in a relationship that has received limited empirical attention in Indonesia.
KEYWORDS:Triple bottom line, sustainable warehouse, Logistics 4.0, sustainable logistics performance, rest area logistics, Trans-Java Toll Road.
REFERENCES1) Bank, J., & Murphy, B. (2013). Warehousing sustainability standards development. In Proceedings of the 20th Advances in Production Management Systems (APMS) (pp. 294–301).
2) Chen, X., Chen, J., & Wu, S. (2017). The examination of key performance indicators of warehouse operation systems based on detailed case studies. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 38(2), 367–389.
3) Delmonico, D., & Bezerra, B. S. (2020). A systematic literature review on sustainable logistics. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 23, 118–135.
4) He, Y., Wang, J., & Lai, K. H. (2017). Performance measurement system and strategies for developing low-carbon logistics: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 395–405.
5) Kah‑Shien, T., Ali, S. M., & Ong, B. (2009). Sustainable warehouse management. In International Workshop on Enterprises & Organizational Modeling and Simulation (pp. 1–15).
6) Karolina, W. L., & Paulina, G. D. (2021). Sustainable logistics quality management and economic performance in small and medium enterprises. Sustainability, 13(4), 1–18.
7) Larson, P. D. (2021). Relationships between logistics performance and aspects of sustainability: A cross‑country analysis. Sustainability, 13(2), 623.
8) Lakshmanan, T. R. (2011). The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1), 1–12.
9) Lewandowska, K. W., & Dawson, P. G. (2021). Sustainable logistics management maturity: Theoretical assessment framework and empirical results from Poland. Sustainability, 13(3), 1341.
10) Mensah, Y. A., et al. (2020). The role of green logistics management practices, supply chain traceability and logistics ecocentricity in sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120718.
11) Nagendra, K. S., & Gyaneshwar, S. K. (2017). A study on Indian logistics network and its impact on economic growth. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 28(3), 345–364.
12) Nantee, N., & Sureeyatanapas, P. (2021). The impact of logistics 4.0 on corporate sustainability: A performance assessment of automated warehouse operations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(10), 2865–2888.
13) Orestis, K. E., & Stavros, T. P. (2021). Industry 4.0 technologies and their impact in contemporary logistics: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(21), 11643.
14) Paul, J. (2021). Economic indicators and sustainable logistics performance: A review. Journal of Business Research, 132, 252–263.
15) Prabodhika, K. N. D., Perera, H. S. C., & Perera, A. (2021). Measuring sustainability performance of logistics service providers using AHP. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 1–11).
16) Strandhagen, J. O., Vallandingham, L. R., Fragapane, G., Strandhagen, J. W., Stangeland, A. B. H., & Sharma, N. (2017). Logistics 4.0 and emerging sustainable business models. Advances in Manufacturing, 5, 359–369.
17) Teh, B. H., et al. (2022). Interrelationship between three dimensions of sustainable performance measurement among Malaysian manufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 345, 131149.
18) Torabizadeh, M., Hanne, T., & Sadeghi, A. (2019). Identifying sustainable warehouse management system indicators and proposing a new weighting method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119190.
19) Viswanadham, N., & Gaonkar, R. (2003). Leveraging logistics to enhance Indian economic competitiveness. CII Logistics Report.
20) Wit, B., & Pylak, K. (2020). Implementation of triple bottom line to a business model canvas in reverse logistics. Electronic Markets, 30, 679–697.
21) Zagloel, T. Y. M., Siregar, M. T., Hidayatno, A., & Setiawan, A. D. (2024). Development of sustainable logistics performance model using system dynamics in urban logistics service companies in Indonesia. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2286684.
Cite this Article:Sasongko, A., Arafah, W., Suryadi, K., & Santosa, W. (2026). Analysis of Determinant Factors of Sustainable Warehouse and their Impact on Sustainable Logistics Performance with the Moderating Role of Logistics 4.0: A Study on Tip / Rest Areas of the Trans-Java Toll Road. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCHS, 5(6), 1725-1734. https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i6n40