When the Right Choice Becomes the Wrong One
In logistics decarbonization, companies are often required to choose from among multiple technological options in conditions of uncertainty, balancing environmental targets with economic and operational constraints. However, these decisions are highly sensitive to external factors — such as energy prices, carbon regulation, infrastructure availability and utilization patterns — that are not fully under managerial control. As a result, the risk of error is substantial. A solution that seems optimal today may quickly become inefficient or even counterproductive, leading to higher emissions, higher costs or both. For this reason, decarbonizing logistics is not simply about selecting the “best” technology, but about understanding the conditions under which each choice remains valid over time.
Decisions in Conditions of Uncertainty
To address these challenges, a recent research study developed within the Sustainable Operations and Supply Chain (SOSC) Monitor at SDA Bocconi School of Management investigates how well-intentioned decisions in logistics decarbonization aiming at sustainability can turn into costly mistakes if some conditions are not fully anticipated. At the core of the decision are two main technological pathways. On one side, technological substitution — such as electric trucks — represents a long-term transition aligned with disruptive innovation. These solutions can eventually outperform traditional systems, but only when key conditions are met, including access to clean energy, adequate charging infrastructure and high utilization rates. Without these conditions, their expected environmental and economic advantages may not fully materialize.
Substitution vs Revamping
On the other side, technological revamping offers a more immediate and flexible alternative. By integrating renewable inputs into existing systems — such as HVO or bio-LNG — companies can significantly improve environmental performance without replacing fleets or infrastructure. This is what we define as the revamping effect: incumbent technologies adapt and regain competitiveness, leveraging existing assets to close the gap with newer solutions. In some cases, revamping can even match or exceed required performance thresholds, while enabling faster implementation and avoiding large upfront investments. This duality creates a fundamental managerial dilemma. Substitution promises long-term transformation but comes with uncertainty and capital intensity. Revamping delivers short-term gains and operational continuity but may face constraints in scalability and long-term impact. As a result, choosing between these pathways is far from straightforward.
Factors That Amplify Mistakes
The complexity increases further when considering the factors that influence outcomes and amplify the related mistakes. Several factors play a critical role in shaping the outcomes of decarbonization decisions, often in ways that are underestimated. Energy price volatility, for instance, can rapidly erode the economic advantage of any technology, turning what initially appears to be a cost-efficient solution into a financially burdensome commitment. At the same time, carbon pricing mechanisms — such as the Emissions Trading System — can disproportionately impact combustion-based systems, especially when the actual sustainability of alternative fuels is uncertain or dependent on upstream processes.
Other factors like infrastructure availability and distance further complicate the picture. Solutions that rely on continuous fuel consumption expose companies to cumulative risks, as every additional kilometer driven increases both costs and emissions. Over time, this creates a compounding effect that can significantly alter the expected performance of a chosen technology. In parallel, operational variability — including efficiency losses, load factors and the real composition of the energy mix — can dramatically influence outcomes, in some cases eliminating the environmental benefits that initially justified the investment. These are not marginal effects, but structural drivers of error that can undermine both sustainability targets and financial viability. What makes them particularly challenging is that many of these variables are out of the companies’ control.
The True Risk in Decision-Making
Rather than providing a single answer, our research highlights where and why decision errors may occur, enabling companies to select solutions that remain robust across different scenarios. From the research, it clearly emerges that the real risk is not choosing the wrong technology for logistics decarbonization, but underestimating how quickly the “right” choice can become the wrong one due to exogenous and uncontrollable factors.
