# Mapping logistics in a post-globalisation world

Nathan Gouin

► To cite this version:

Nathan Gouin. Mapping logistics in a post-globalisation world. 2025. halshs-05246682

HAL Id: halshs-05246682

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05246682v1

Preprint submitted on 9 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Mapping logistics in a post-globalisation world

Nathan Gouin - Université Le Havre Normandie - nathan.gouin@univ-lehavre.fr

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0081-4026

**Résumé** : La globalisation contemporaine traverse une phase de remise en question profonde. Le modèle du globalisme néolibéral, fondé sur l'optimisation des coûts et la fragmentation mondiale des chaînes de valeur, se trouve fragilisé face aux critiques dénonçant à la fois la vulnérabilité de ces supply chains globalisées aux disruptions et leurs lourdes externalités sociales et environnementales. Dans ce contexte, de nouveaux paradigmes logistiques émergent en alternative aux supply chains globalisées dominantes. Cette contribution propose d'explorer, à partir d'une démarche de mapping, de nouveaux paradigmes allant de la post-croissance aux approches de sécurité économique. Cette exploration permet de mettre en avant l'existence aujourd'hui d'une pluralité de modèles et de postuler une plus grande hybridation à l'avenir, en réponses aux volontés diverses d'un retour au localisme, qu'il soit pour des raisons écologiques, sociales ou encore géopolitiques. Il est probable que se dessine ainsi, non pas une logistique unique, mais des logistiques différenciées selon les échelles, les territoires et les secteurs d'activité. Cette perspective ouvre de nouvelles questions de recherche sur les conditions institutionnelles et territoriales favorisant l'émergence de telle ou telle configuration, ainsi que sur les instruments de gouvernance nécessaires pour coordonner ces logiques hétérogènes.

**Mots-clés** : démondialisation, logistique, relocalisation, réindustrialisation, politique publique

**Abstract:** Contemporary globalisation is currently undergoing a period of profound scrutiny. The neoliberal globalism model, predicated upon cost optimisation and the worldwide fragmentation of value chains, is being undermined by criticism of both the vulnerability of these globalised supply chains to disruption and their significant social and environmental externalities. In the context of these developments, novel logistics paradigms are emerging as an alternative to the prevailing globalised supply chains. The present contribution employs a mapping approach to explore new paradigms ranging from post-growth to economic security approaches. This exploration highlights the existence of a plurality of models today, and postulates greater hybridisation in the future, in response to the various desires for a return to localism, whether for ecological, social or geopolitical reasons. It is probable that we will observe the emergence of a variety of logistics systems, rather than a single system, with the systems depending on factors such as scale, territory, and sector of activity. This perspective gives rise to novel research questions concerning the institutional and territorial conditions that favor the emergence
of specific configurations, as well as the governance instruments required to coordinate
these heterogeneous logics.

**Keywords:** deglobalisation, logistics, relocalisation, reindustrialisation, public policy

Introduction

Contemporary globalisation is undergoing a profound reassessment, driven by health, geopolitical, and environmental crises. The neoliberal model, based on the global fragmentation of value chains and cost optimization at the planetary scale, is showing its limitations. Since the 1980s, Global Production Networks (GPNs) have been a cornerstone of globalisation. In the current era, however, they are at the centre of debates on economic security, resilience, environmental sustainability, and competitiveness (Gong et al., 2022). The expansion of GPNs since the 1970s has been shaped by innovations in logistics, containerization, and the development of port and rail infrastructures (Wallerstein, 2004; Cowen, 2014).

Whilst the phenomenon of globalisation once appeared to be irreversible, recent indications suggest a possible shift. The concept of "deglobalisation" has been posited by scholars such as Williamson (2021), while others have advocated for "slowbalization" (Linsi, 2021). However, an analysis of trade data provides a nuanced perspective that challenges these assertions (Babic et al., 2024). Two main dynamics can be identified: the politicization of trade, fuelled by U.S.-China rivalry and the return of the state to value chains (Meunier & Nicolaidis, 2019; Blackwell & Harris, 2016; Bulfone, 2023), and the relative loss of neoliberal hegemony, challenged by national-populist and neo-progressive currents, giving rise to a "post-neoliberal interregnum" combining late neoliberalism and local political experiments (Peck & Theodore, 2019; Brennetot et al., 2025).

These transformations are reshaping productive and territorial systems. Reindustrialisation has become a central objective, while spatial planning paradigms are evolving at multiple scales (McKinnon et al., 2023; Juhász et al., 2023). This reconfiguration mobilises heterogeneous logics, often anchored in a localist perspective, ranging from autonomist initiatives and eco-villages to the European "open strategic autonomy" strategy (Franková & Johanisova, 2012; Smith, 2023). These diverse forms of localism pursue a range of objectives, including sovereignty, resilience, efficiency, solidarity and competitiveness, thereby initiating the transition from GPNs to Alternative Production Networks.

However, the impacts on supply chain organisation remain underexplored. Supply chains have been shown to be both a motivation for and an element of transformation. The European "open strategic autonomy" explicitly aims to strengthen supply chain resilience
in critical sectors, whereas hyper-localist currents seek to shorten them for ecological
and social reasons. Between these two perspectives, neo-municipalist movements
advocate for the adoption of more sustainable urban logistics models, which involve the
restriction of infrastructural development and the promotion of short food supply chains
and soft mobility. In this context, supply chains assume a pivotal role in the ongoing
transition, where the nexus of security, sustainability, and territorialisation becomes
increasingly evident.

The present contribution adopts a conceptual and exploratory approach. A narrative review of the academic literature was conducted using a snowball approach from peer-reviewed journals (Lecy et al., 2012). This approach resulted in the proposal of a typology of emerging logistics paradigms. Inspired by Max Weber's "ideal types" (Swedberg, 2018), this typology is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to generate provisional heuristics in a reconfiguring field. In accordance with Gibson-Graham's "weak theory" (2014), the objective is to interpret these transformations not as expressions of domination, but rather as manifestations of hybrid or marginalised practices.

Indeed, emerging paradigms coexist, often in hybrid forms. The globalised logistics system, based on cost optimization, remains dominant in many territories but coexists with alternative experiments, sometimes subtle, sometimes conflicting. The central hypothesis of this paper is that these paradigms do not merely replace the dominant model, but rather coexist with it in hybrid and territorialised forms. In summary, it may be posited that the future of logistics may be contingent upon a plurality of interdependent models.

The article is organised into three sections. The initial section of this study examines the pivotal role of logistics within the neoliberal model, along with the critiques it has encountered. The second part of the study explores emerging paradigms, analysing their rationales, scales of action, and the reconfigurations they effect on supply chains. Ultimately, the third section provides a cross-cutting discussion and a synthesis of the observed dynamics.

# 1. Critiques of supply chains and the reconfiguration of production systems

## A. Supply chains and globalised capitalism

A historical perspective reminds us that the organisation of transport and logistics has been decisive in successive phases of capitalist expansion (commercial then industrial; Wallerstein, 2004). The control over the circulation of goods and the rationalisation of flows enabled "the subjugation of space and time to the valorisation of capital" (Arnaud & David, 2013).
Logistics and supply chains occupy a central position in the neoliberal globalism model, even constituting an essential condition for its expansion and functioning (McKean, 2020). Some scholars regard supply chains not solely as conduits of economic exchange, but also as authentic political institutions that influence international relations (Cowen, 2010; Chua et al., 2018). Tsing (2009) employs the term "supply chain capitalism" to characterise the contemporary capitalist configuration, in which distant economic, social, and geographical entities are interconnected through logistical networks. Similarly, Danyluk (2021) employs the concept of "supply chain urbanism" to emphasise the inseparability of metropolitan development and logistics development (Dablanc & Frémont, 2015), thereby underscoring the processes of exclusion and expropriation that serve to bolster capitalism.

Within this neoliberal perspective, priority is given to facilitating international trade, which is perceived as the driving force of economic globalisation. This entails particular attention to the quality of infrastructure, logistics services, and cross-border procedures. The World Bank's Logistics Performance Index (LPI) was developed from 2007 onwards in this context, encompassing several dimensions critical for trade fluidity. These dimensions include the efficiency of customs procedures, the quality of transport infrastructure and logistics information systems, the ease and cost of international shipments, the logistics service competence, the cargo tracking capacity, and adherence to delivery deadlines. The resulting rankings are closely monitored by businesses and public authorities alike; the latter view them as levers of territorial competitiveness.

Public policies therefore aim to attract logistics investment and adopt roles as both facilitators and regulators, in line with Horner's (2017) classification of public action within global production networks. Coe (2020) notes that, since the 2000s, public logistics strategies have largely been guided by the needs of leading firms, following a 'client-following process'. Rodrigue (2017) argues that public authorities should implement logistics policies based on a supply-side approach, involving the simplification and harmonisation of interfaces (gateways), the facilitation of land access, workforce training, and the improvement of digital infrastructure, particularly port community systems (PCS).

Several authors also emphasise the growing importance of regulating negative externalities related to logistics. Debrie and Mareï (2022) highlight how public policies are now shaped by sustainability objectives such as pollution reduction, congestion mitigation, land preservation and combatting land artificialisation. These concerns reflect the broader trend of incorporating logistics into the policy toolbox for mobility (Raimbault, 2014), thereby establishing logistics as a political issue in its own right.

To implement these strategies, public authorities have several instruments at their disposal. They can exert direct or indirect control over infrastructure, such as ports, roads and airports, through public planning or public-private partnerships (Savy, 2025). Fiscal
levers — such as subsidies, fuel taxes, VAT and exemptions — complement these instruments, alongside technical standards, social regulations and safety requirements. Finally, research and development, particularly in clean technologies, emerges as a transformative lever at the intersection of economic and environmental concerns.

## B. Critical perspectives

This dominant logistics model has been the subject of extensive criticism in scholarly literature. One such critique concerns the territorial transformations it generates. In urban areas, logistics has accompanied metropolitan expansion by meeting the consumption needs of increasingly dense populations. Frémont and Dablanc (2014) describe the emergence of a 'logistics metropolis', the spatial organisation of which is profoundly shaped by the demands of the globalised economy. According to Danyluk (2021), urban spaces are reconfigured as nodes within global commercial capital circuits, producing significant environmental and social effects, including air pollution, congestion, accidents and deterioration of living conditions for local residents.

From a social perspective, several studies have highlighted the exploitation of workers within supply chains (Rème-Harnay, 2024). Employment in both warehousing and transport is often precarious, low-paid and sometimes hazardous. Furthermore, the logistics system itself relies on cheap industrial labour in countries with limited labour rights. Cowen (2010) summarises this dynamic by arguing that, without the spatial fluidity ensured by logistics, the 'efficient' exploitation of this labour would not be possible, making the system as economically inefficient as it is environmentally unsustainable.

Critics also focus on the processes of territorial expropriation induced by the expansion of logistics infrastructure. Several studies demonstrate that communities affected by major projects are frequently among the poorest or comprise ethnic minorities. These communities often face eviction, nuisance and increased pollution (De Lara, 2018). Finally, the global environmental impact of the logistics system is considerable. Land artificialisation, ecosystem fragmentation — particularly in coastal and estuarine areas — and the carbon footprint of logistics activities make it a key topic in sustainability debates.

These critical approaches challenge the prevailing perception of logistics as merely a technical or managerial discipline. An increasing number of authors are emphasising the social, spatial and political dimensions of logistics networks. Cowen (2010, 2014), Chua (2018) and Danyluk (2019, 2021), among others, offer a geopolitical interpretation of logistics, drawing attention to the power relations, exploitation and expropriation processes that it enables or renders invisible. Therefore, logistics cannot be considered neutral infrastructure; it is a device at the heart of the dynamics of contemporary global capitalism.
More recently, several critiques focus on the geopolitical risks associated with the economic interdependence of supply chains. Scholars argue that globalisation makes economies vulnerable to strategic threats, with supply chains potentially being weaponised (Farrell & Newman, 2022) and transmitting economic and security shocks (Foroohar, 2023). This perspective fuels the notion that deglobalisation and decoupling are necessary in order to limit dependence on potentially hostile partners (Evenett, 2022). However, other research advises caution, highlighting that many assumptions commonly made in public and academic debates are not necessarily substantiated by empirical evidence. For example, just-in-time management is not necessarily more vulnerable, efficient supply chains can be resilient, and reliance on foreign suppliers does not automatically lead to systemic fragility (Thakur-Weigold & Miroudot, 2024).

## 2. The emergence of new territorial models challenging global supply chains

In the face of multiple crises — health, geopolitical and environmental — that have revealed vulnerabilities of global supply chains, new territorial models offering alternatives are emerging. Most of these models are still in the experimental stage and seek to redefine the relationships between production, consumption, and logistics within more resilient, locally anchored, and socially just frameworks.

The crisis of the neoliberal model and critiques of globalised supply chains create space for experimenting with alternative logistics models. Frankova (2012) and T. S. Smith (2023) propose a typology of these emerging territorial models based on ideal types, which allows the identification of the theoretical paradigms, organisational forms, motivations and scales of action that characterise them (see Figure 1). These alternatives are far from purely theoretical; they are rooted in territorial transformations that are already underway.
<table><caption>Figure 1: Emerging Neo-Localist Paradigms. Based on T.S. Smith (2023) and Frankova et al. (2012).</caption><thead><tr><td>Paradigms</td><td>Key Concepts</td><td>Examples of Experimentation</td><td>Central Actors</td><td>Motivations</td><td>Scale of Action</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hyper-localism</td><td>Sufficiency; frugality; micro-economy</td><td>Small farm villages; eco-villages; eco-hamlets</td><td>Residents, collectives, and associations</td><td>Ecology</td><td>Town, suburb, neighbourhood, rural area</td></tr><tr><td>Open localism</td><td>Degrowth; collective sufficiency; proximity economy</td><td>Local wool production (Klepp 2022); short food supply chains; CSA (Community Supported Agriculture)</td><td>Citizen collectives, local businesses</td><td>Democracy, sustainability</td><td>Bioregion</td></tr><tr><td>Cosmo-localism</td><td>Sharing; commons; global design, local manufacturing; open source; universality</td><td>Circular economy; Fab City movement</td><td>Developer and maker communities</td><td>Anti-waste, urban production, local governments</td><td>Metropolises, cities, urban regions</td></tr><tr><td>Foundational economy</td><td>Human well-being, essential infrastructures, social justice</td><td>New municipalism (Cleveland and Preston, Wales 2014)</td><td>Local authorities (fund infrastructures), public enterprises</td><td>Access to essential goods and services, inequality, ecology</td><td>Local to national</td></tr><tr><td>Developmental nationalism</td><td>Relocation, reindustrialization</td><td>New industrial policies</td><td>State and large corporations (new state capitalism)</td><td>Rising populism, jobs, sovereignty</td><td>State</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic autonomy</td><td>Economic security, friendshoring, strategic dependency, weaponized dependency, de-risking</td><td>Open strategic autonomy</td><td>Transnational organizations, European champions, EU (European Commission)</td><td>Sovereignty, resilience, geoeconomic concerns</td><td>EU, States</td></tr></tbody></table>

For our analysis, we grouped these six ideal types into four logistical paradigms, based on two criteria: the availability of academic literature that specifically addresses logistics issues and the coherence of the underlying logic of action:

* The post-growth logistics model combines hyper-localism and open localism based on a logic of frugality. Emphasising sufficiency, small-scale economies and simplicity, it is manifested in eco-villages, short food supply chains and community-supported agriculture (CSAs).

* The circular logistics model articulates cosmo-localism and the foundational economy, operating according to a logic of pooling and resource sharing. Notably, it incorporates circular economy principles.

* The industrial reshoring logistics model is aligned with national developmentalism and its sovereignist logic, incorporating directives for reshoring and reindustrialisation.

* The economic security logistics model relies on geopolitical logic. Notably, it aligns with the EU's open strategic autonomy agenda.

Each of these paradigms addresses the diagnosed limitations of the prevailing system in its own way and according to different logics, scales and actors. This typology stems from an exploratory approach based on keyword searches in academic databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science) and a cross-reading of scientific texts related to contemporary logistics issues, rather than from a systematic literature review (see methodological
appendix). It provides a starting point for a more in-depth analysis of alternative logistics models to neoliberal globalism, considering territorial and political factors.

## A. Logistics in the post-growth localist model

The scientific literature addressing logistics in a post-growth or degrowth society remains very limited. A search in Web of Science (see the methodological appendix) yielded only ten results, two of which directly addressed logistics. Luzzini et al. (2024) observe that analyses of supply chain management rarely question the growth paradigm. An early French text by Arnaud and David (2013) raised the question of logistics from a voluntary degrowth perspective. Therefore, the topic remains underexplored, despite some works approaching post-growth concepts without explicitly referring to them.

Regarding the ecological footprint of supply chains, literature on 'green logistics', which is integrated within the green growth paradigm, is more abundant. While these studies address the three pillars of sustainable development, the social dimension is often marginalised, accounting for less than 15% of articles according to Safri (2015). Economic drivers remain central and environmental concerns are primarily addressed as issues to be mitigated through decarbonisation or innovation without challenging the overarching growth model.

Post-growth perspectives do not advocate the end of industry, but rather a profound transformation of the principles that guide production organisation. Logistics, and transport in particular, are seen as key drivers of the growth model, facilitating competition between territories, reducing prices, encouraging offshoring, and resulting in significant externalities such as land artificialisation, congestion, pollution and waste production. The prioritisation of just-in-time and logistics optimisation is heavily criticised in particular. The pursuit of agility encourages intensive road use at the expense of mass transportation, resulting in frequent, lightly loaded trips. This ecological inefficiency is exacerbated by market distortions, such as permissive regulations, fuel tax exemptions and subsidies, which encourage the extreme fragmentation of value chains at the expense of environmental coherence.

Arnaud and David (2013) propose a transformation of logistics involving reassessing its real impacts, reducing its footprint, reshoring, restructuring via massification and short supply chains, redistribution, recycling, reuse and reconceptualising dominant narratives (notably the obsession with flexibility and immediate performance).

On a similar note, Luzzini and al. (2024) propose a conceptual framework based on three principles: replacing customer primacy with a focus on collective well-being that incorporates previously externalised social and environmental criteria; selective scaling favouring slower flows, geographic proximity and small-scale structures; and transitioning from firm-centred management to a systemic approach that recognises the interdependence between logistics, society and ecosystems, necessitating shared
governance of supply chains. These proposals converge towards a redefinition of logistics, where efficiency gives way to sustainability, territorial resilience and social equity.

Research related to the social and solidarity economy (SSE) extends these reflections. While not explicitly advocating degrowth, they share several principles. For instance, Safri (2015) describes 'public supply chains' in the United States and Brazil that are not focused on reducing costs, but on meeting social needs. She calls for the development of solidarity-based logistics founded on cooperation and coordination. Deif (2024) suggests incorporating SSE principles into supply chain management based on values such as solidarity, commons management, democratic governance, sustainability, fair trade and global-local integration (cosmo-localism). He emphasises model diversity (e.g. cooperatives and citizen initiatives), inclusion, and organisational resilience.

While these ideas remain largely theoretical, there are also practical experiments documented in the scientific literature. In short food supply chains, for instance, 'logistics collectives' manage resources, particularly vehicles, as commons through shared governance among producers, consumers and territorial actors (Raimbert & Raton, 2021). These arrangements support small producers, strengthen local anchoring and position consumers as active, yet non-prioritised, system participants. In Rosario and Madrid, neo-municipalist 'counter-logistics', developed as part of experimental initiatives during the lockdown imposed due to the pandemic, challenge capitalist acceleration logics. They rely on collaborative platforms, exclude large private actors and are organised around ecological and democratic values (see Minuchin & Maino, 2023; Jiménez, 2024).

## B. Logistics in the circular economy model

The circular economy aims to establish a regenerative system in which resource input, waste, emissions and energy leaks are minimised by slowing, closing and narrowing material and energy loops (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Unlike the degrowth model, this approach situates logistical transformations within the 'green growth' paradigm by seeking to decouple economic growth from resource extraction and environmental degradation (Genovese et al., 2017). Although the local dimension is important, it is less pronounced than in post-growth models, since the circular economy can be implemented at micro, meso and macro levels (Geng & Doberstein, 2008). However, Torre and Bourdin (2025) highlight the lack of geographic and territorial reflection in this field.

Supply chains are a crucial element of this paradigm shift. As early as 2013, the World Economic Forum identified supply chains as 'the key unit of action for the establishment and success of the circular economy', and in 2015 the European Union followed with the 'Closing the Loop' strategy (European Commission, 2015). The circular economy requires changes to the structure and relationships within supply chains and considerably
complicates traditional linear circuits (Batista et al., 2018; Farooque et al., 2019). This transformation requires profound changes to practices, moving from supply chain management structured around forward logistics to integrating 'reverse logistics', which involves understanding how customers use products to plan for reuse (De Angelis et al., 2018).

Although Tjahjono and Ripanti observed limited academic interest in this topic in 2019, the situation has changed radically. A bibliometric search on the Web of Science reveals that 2,840 academic articles have addressed logistics and the circular economy, 99% of which were published after 2019, reflecting the recent surge in interest. This literature explores the integration of the circular economy with Industry 4.0 (Dev, Shankar & Qaiser, 2020), using the Internet of Things to optimise production, artificial intelligence to predict demand and perform predictive maintenance, and blockchain technology to enable the traceability of materials. Sector-specific approaches are also emerging in areas such as automotive, healthcare and construction, as well as in studies focusing on specific components, such as packaging or reverse logistics.

Two main definitions structure this emerging field. Batista et al. (2018) propose a perspective close to sustainable development, defining circular supply chain management (SCM) as “the coordination of forward and reverse supply chains through integration of the business ecosystem to create value from flows of products, by-products, and waste.” In contrast, Farooque et al. (2019) adopt a more transformative perspective, defining it as 'the integration of circular thinking into supply chain management that restores technical materials and regenerates biological materials towards a zero-waste vision'.

Industrial districts, characterised by the geographical concentration of SMEs connected through networks of economic and social relationships (Becattini, 1990), provide an ideal setting for this transformation (Bressanelli et al., 2022). Geographic proximity facilitates the diffusion of environmental knowledge and resource sharing, thereby reinforcing ecological innovation. While there have been few studies exploring the relationship between the circular economy, supply chains and industrial districts, a district can be considered a network of supply chains, often with informal interdependencies between companies (Carbonara et al., 2002).

An article by Bressanelli et al. (2022) on the textile district of Prato illustrates this transformation. Initially characterised by a weak hierarchy, a strong division of labour among subcontractors, and limited information exchange, the supply chain evolved into a more coordinated model under the influence of the circular economy. Lead firms now orchestrate relationships among partners, enabling better resource mobilisation and long-term coordination. This observation is consistent with Zeng et al.'s (2021) analysis of Chinese eco-industrial parks, which shows a shift from fragmented organisation to centralised governance led by pivotal firms. Proximity enables shared infrastructure, by-
product recycling and improved environmental efficiency. Public authorities play a
decisive role by applying institutional pressure to encourage firms to comply with
regulatory requirements. This aligns with Torre and Bourdin's (2025) observations on the
proactive role authorities need to take in adopting strategies suited to territorial
characteristics.

C. Logistics in the industrial nationalism model

The industrial nationalism model refers to a policy of extensive state intervention in the
economy to strengthen, develop and protect domestic industries, pursuing diverse
objectives such as economic sovereignty, national power and the creation of skilled jobs
(Aiginger & Rodrik, 2020). Joe Biden's economic policy illustrates this trend through
substantial investments, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS
and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which are intended to reindustrialise
the United States, reduce dependence on China, and restore skilled jobs to the middle
classes, who have been impoverished since the subprime crisis.

This interventionism represents a significant change of direction following several
decades of liberalism and support for GPNs. The national territory is now being
reconsidered as a 'container of production' (Gong et al., 2022), which is having a profound
effect on the relationship between the state and GPNs (Horner, 2017). Traditionally acting
as a facilitator and regulator, the state is increasingly taking on the roles of producer and
strategic purchaser, particularly in the energy and defence sectors.

This resurgence of industrial policies can be explained by several converging factors
(Aiginger & Rodrik, 2020): the U.S.–China trade war and the increasing geo-economic risk
of supply chain disruption; the exposure of supply chain vulnerabilities during the
pandemic; technological disruption from Industry 4.0; and the impoverishment of
Western workers and the rise of populist movements advocating sovereignty-oriented
policies. Even mainstream political actors have adopted some of these concerns, moving
away from their traditional liberal ideological base.

This phenomenon has received multiple theoretical interpretations. The relational state
approach (Jessop, 2006) views it as an evolution in the interests of private actors, whereas
theories of the entrepreneurial state (Mazzucato, 2015) interpret it as a desire for
territorial development through risk-taking and shaping the market towards innovation.
Neoclassical theories consider it more simply to be a response to market failures.

At the heart of these transformations lies reshoring — the process of bringing production
activities back to a company's home country (Barbieri & al., 2019)— which crystallises
the challenges of supply chain reconfiguration. Driven by global economic changes,
political risks, declining comparative advantages and the 'hidden costs' of offshoring (e.g.
quality, intellectual property and reputation), reshoring remains limited in scope.
Messaoudi et al. (2024) report just 22 relocations in the Grand Est region between 2009
and 2022, creating 589 jobs. Persistent obstacles include access to skills, financial risks, and energy and land costs (Bailey & De Propris, 2014).

Nevertheless, the state constitutes the primary driver of these transformations through financial incentives and training policies (Barbieri et al., 2018). This aligns with a broader logic of economic sovereignty, which is defined as the ability to control strategic resources and value chains in order to protect national interests against external vulnerabilities. This reindustrialisation effort is broader than mere reshoring and implies the deliberate return of industry in potentially renewed forms.

The post-Brexit British case provides particular insight into these logistical changes. Moradlou et al. (2020a, 2021) demonstrate that companies have re-evaluated their location decisions in order to minimise geopolitical disruptions. Paradoxically, they relocated production facilities to the EU while shifting distribution centres to the UK, prioritising market proximity and operational efficiency in response to new tariff and non-tariff barriers. The automotive, pharmaceutical, food, healthcare and aerospace sectors are the most sensitive to these reconfigurations. The state actively orchestrates these transformations, as evidenced by the dirigiste development of a battery industry to safeguard the UK automotive sector (Bridge & Faigen, 2023). This 'selective and directive, rather than neutral and merely facilitative' approach (Bridge & Faigen, 2023) demonstrates interventionism that leads to territorial selection and the potential creation of regional inequalities in reindustrialisation processes.

These developments reflect a profound reconfiguration of supply chains under industrial nationalism, where geopolitical and social considerations increasingly take precedence over the mere economic optimisation of globalised logistical flows.

## D. Logistics in the economic security model

Economic security, defined by Bown (2024) as a country's ability to obtain necessary goods and services in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost and by Murphy and Topel (2013) as 'the set of public policies that protect citizens' safety or health against significant threats', is emerging as a paradigm that is profoundly reshaping the organisation of global supply chains. Although the term gained prominence during the Trump and Biden administrations, as well as through the European 'open strategic autonomy' initiative, its analytical foundations can be traced back to Lakoff and Collier's (2007) work on 'vital security systems', which aim to protect the critical infrastructures of the economic and political order — from transportation and communications to food and finance.

Globalisation-induced interdependence has transformed the conception of national security: 'Protecting trade has become as essential as protecting people and territory' (Cowen, 2010). This evolution accelerated after 11 September 2001, when vulnerabilities related to mobility and transport were revealed (Cowen, 2022), and after the 2011
Fukushima tsunami, which caused major disruption to Japanese supply chains with global repercussions (Todo, 2021). Farrell and Newman (2019) theorised this transformation through the concept of 'weaponised interdependence', describing how states exploit critical infrastructures by monitoring or restricting access to resources as a tool of geoeconomic coercion.

The rise of Sino-American geoeconomic tensions, vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 crisis, and risks associated with Chinese investment in critical infrastructures have highlighted the need for new strategies. Unlike the industrial nationalism model, which prioritizes territorial reshoring, the economic security paradigm does not necessarily aim to repatriate production but rather to secure supply chains in strategic sectors. The tools deployed in this process include risk identification, supply chain diversification, sourcing repositioning towards allied countries (friendshoring or allyshoring), and the strengthening of domestic production for certain critical products.

This "de-risking" approach, a term first coined by Ursula von der Leyen in March 2023, aims to mitigate vulnerabilities without compromising international trade to any significant extent. In the U.S., Japan and the European Union, priority sectors include high technology, automotive, pharmaceuticals and rare earths, particularly semiconductors, which concentrate the main political and academic concerns.

The European Union is a paradigmatic example of this shift. The European Union (EU) has historically been characterised by a liberal vision of interdependence (McNamara, 2023). However, it has recently undergone a shift in focus towards a "geoeconomic turn," (Meunier & Nicolaidis, 2019), as evidenced by the adoption of the European Economic Security Strategy in June 2023. In response to China's "weaponisation"—with China itself being designated a "strategic rival" since 2019—and the evolving U.S. policy, the stated objective is "to maximize the benefits of openness while minimizing the risks of interdependence," encapsulated in the oxymoronic notion of "open strategic autonomy."

In Japan, these developments began as early as 2012 with the second administration of Abe, following the Fukushima shock (Todo, 2021). The government provides financial incentives to companies that transfer a proportion of their production to Japan or that establish new production sites within the ASEAN region. The Economic Security Promotion Act (2022) stipulates the provision of assistance on the condition of fulfilling reporting obligations pertaining to the supply and stock of critical products (Aoyama, 2022).

This transformation has led to a notable augmentation in the influence of the state within the sphere of global value chain governance. Aoyama (2022) describes a "shift from cost-driven governance to diplomacy-driven governance." Public authorities negotiate agreements with allied countries and provide economic security information to firms. Yasuyuki (2024) highlights a market failure: the establishment of new supply chains is
costly, and risk information does not provide a sustainable competitive advantage. This leads firms to underestimate disruption risks due to managerial myopia.

The repercussions for supply chains, although not yet extensively documented, encompass greater regionalisation, increasing geopolitisation, and adaptations in operational practices. As Bednarski and Roscoe (2023) observe, there is a possibility of an increase in inventory levels, resulting in the displacement of just-in-time practices (Brakman et al., 2020) that have been employed to address disruptions. This phenomenon carries implications for storage infrastructure and associated expenditures. This development signifies a partial yet substantial shift towards a paradigm in which security considerations assume precedence over the purely economic optimisation of global flows.

<table><caption>**Figure 2: Logistical motivations and implications in emerging territorial models.**
Source: author.</caption><thead><tr><th>Models</th><th>Key concepts / notions</th><th>Critiques of current supply chain functioning</th><th>Envisaged logistical changes</th><th>Role of public authorities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Degrowth model</td><td><ul><li>Relocalisation</li><li>Short food supply chains</li><li>Sobriety</li><li>Territorial autonomy</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Excessive chain length (CO<sub>2</sub> emissions)</li><li>Dependence on imports</li><li>Overconsumption and accelerated flows</li><li>Disconnection between production and consumption</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Short food supply chains and large-scale relocalisation</li><li>Drastic reduction of international flows</li><li>Territorial food and productive autonomy</li><li>Development of local infrastructures</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Binding regulations</li><li>Territorial planning</li><li>Incentives for short supply chains</li><li>Limitation of long-distance flows</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Circular economy model</td><td><ul><li>Closed loops</li><li>Reverse logistics</li><li>Industrial symbiosis</li><li>Geographical proximity</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Linear "take-make-dispose" circuits</li><li>Resource waste</li><li>One-way shipments</li><li>Lack of coordination for reuse</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Integration of reverse logistics</li><li>Increased coordination between partners</li><li>Shared infrastructures</li><li>Recovery and reuse circuits</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Incentive regulations</li><li>Support for circular innovations</li><li>Creation of territorial ecosystems</li><li>Institutional pressures</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Industrial nationalism model</td><td><ul><li>Reshoring</li><li>Industrial sovereignty</li><li>Protectionism</li><li>Strategic sectors</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Deindustrialisation and loss of sovereignty</li><li>Strategic dependence on imports</li><li>Vulnerability to disruptions</li><li>Loss of control over critical sectors</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Targeted industrial relocalisation</li><li>Development of national infrastructures</li><li>Substitution for imports</li><li>State control of critical chains</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Massive state intervention</li><li>Reshoring subsidies</li><li>Voluntary industrial policies</li><li>Customs protection</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic Security model</td><td><ul><li>De-risking</li><li>Friendshoring</li><li>Diversification</li><li>Weaponized interdependence</li><li>Critical infrastructures</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions- Risky geographical concentrations</li><li>Lack of resilience to crises</li><li>Underestimation of geoeconomic risks</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Regionalization of supply chains</li><li>Diversification of supply sources</li><li>Increase of strategic stocks</li><li>Securing logistical corridors</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Trade agreements with allied countries</li><li>Collection and dissemination of information</li><li>Subsidies for diversification</li><li>Protection of critical infrastructures</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

## Discussion

The conceptual mapping approach adopted in this article reveals that alternatives to globalised supply chains already exist and are gaining visibility (Figure 2). The neoliberal logic remains predominant, but it is increasingly being challenged. On the one hand, state-driven industrial development strategies and economic security imperatives assert themselves in a context of trade geopolitization. Conversely, experiments characterised by territorialisation—such as targeted reshoring and circular economy initiatives—are
proliferating across multiple scales. This dynamism is reflected in the literature, where attention to these alternative models is rapidly increasing.

These recompositions, which are characteristic of an interregnum period devoid of a single hegemonic force (Stahl, 2019), suggest a growing hybridisation of logistical models. Public policies oscillate between different logics, sometimes within the same territory or at the same institutional level, thereby demonstrating this emerging plurality.

Consequently, it is probable that the future will not be characterised by a "single logistics" model, but rather by a variety of logistics systems that are tailored to different scales, territories and sectors. This differentiation is already observable. In the food sector, the structuring of short supply chains is achieved through the establishment of regional platforms and distribution cooperatives. Conversely, sectors such as aerospace and semiconductors remain anchored in highly specialised global chains while incorporating strategies for securing and diversifying supplies, reshaping their productive geography. The most plausible hypothesis is that there is a pragmatic articulation of paradigms, rather than the dominance of a single one.

The coexistence of these four paradigms gives rise to tensions, both in theory and in practical implementation.

The primary source of tension relates to the question of the appropriate scale of intervention. While post-growth models advocate maximum relocalization ("100 km maximum" for certain short food circuits), economic security strategies operate at a continental scale (EU-North America friendshoring). These logics may be in conflict: the local supply of renewable energy may be incompatible with the imperatives of secure sourcing for critical metals required for green technologies.

The second source of tension pertains to the objectives pursued by each paradigm, thereby unveiling profound normative conflicts. The post-growth model prioritizes sobriety and social justice, sometimes at the expense of economic efficiency. Conversely, economic security is maintained as a central objective, despite the perpetuation of territorial inequalities. Despite its clear ecological ambitions, the circular economy may, in fact, reproduce technical optimisation logics that overlook the democratic concerns that are central to the post-growth approach.

The third source of tension pertains to conflicts in land use. Developing circular logistics often requires infrastructure (sorting centers, repair platforms) that may compete with short food circuits for peri-urban land.

The balancing act of economic efficiency, resilience, sustainability, and territorial equity poses considerable challenges for public action. How can international competitiveness be reconciled with relocalization objectives? How can short supply chains avoid becoming privileges of affluent territories? How can interdependencies between differentiated logistical systems be managed? These questions underscore the
profoundly political dimension of logistical choices and the necessity for novel
governance instruments capable of coordinating heterogeneous logics.

References

Arnaud, A., & David, B. (2013). La logistique au défi de la décroissance volontaire. In N. Fabbe-Costes & G. Paché (Eds.), *La logistique* (pp. 1–). Presses universitaires de Provence.

Babic, M., de Graaff, N., Linsi, L., & Weinhardt, C. (2024). The geoeconomic turn in international trade, investment, and technology. *Politics and Governance*, 12.

Bailey, D., & De Propris, L. (2014). Reshoring: opportunities and limits for manufacturing in the UK—the case of the auto sector. *Revue d'économie industrielle*, (145), 45-61.

Barbieri, P., Ciabuschi, F., Fratocchi, L., & Vignoli, M. (2018). What do we know about manufacturing reshoring? *Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing*, 11(1), 79–122.

Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2018). In search of a circular supply chain archetype – A content-analysis-based literature review. *Production Planning & Control*, 29(6), 438–451.

Bourdin, S., & Torre, A. (2025). Economic geography's contribution to understanding the circular economy. *Journal of Economic Geography*, 25(2), 293–308.

Bown, C. P. (2024). Trade policy, industrial policy, and the economic security of the European Union. In J. Pisani Ferry, B. Weder di Mauro, & J. Zettelmeyer (Eds.), *Paris Report 2: Europe's Economic Security*. CEPR Press.

Brennetot, A., Gouin, N., & Viroleau, F. (2025). Neo-Progressivism and urban politics in the ongoing interregnum: A conjunctural approach of ecologist electoral victories in major French cities in 2020. *Urban Affairs Review*, 10780874251322743.

Bridge, G., & Faigen, E. (2023). Lithium, Brexit and Global Britain: Onshoring battery production networks in the UK. *The Extractive Industries and Society*, 16, 101328.

Bressanelli, G., Visintin, F., & Saccani, N. (2022). Circular economy and the evolution of industrial districts: A supply chain perspective. *International Journal of Production Economics*, 243, 108348.

Bulfone, F. (2023). Industrial policy and comparative political economy: A literature review and research agenda. *Competition & Change*, 27(1), 22–43.

Chang, H. J., & Andreoni, A. (2020). Industrial policy in the 21st century. *Development and Change*, 51(2), 324–351.

Chua, C., Danyluk, M., Cowen, D., & Khalili, L. (2018). Introduction: Turbulent circulation: Building a critical engagement with logistics. *Environment and Planning D: Society and Space*, 36(4), 617–629.

Collier, S. J., & Lakoff, A. (2008b). The vulnerability of vital systems: How “critical infrastructure” became a security problem. In M. Dunn & K. S. Kristensen (Eds.), *The Politics of Securing the Homeland: Critical Infrastructure, Risk and Securitisation* (pp. 17–39).

Cowen, D. (2010). A geography of logistics: Market authority and the security of supply chains. *Annals of the Association of American Geographers*, 100(3), 600–620.

Cowen, D. (2014). *The deadly life of logistics: Mapping violence in global trade*. University of Minnesota Press.

Dablanc, L., & Frémont, A. ( Directors.). (2015). *La métropole logistique*. Paris: Armand Colin.
Danyluk, M. (2019). Fungible space: Competition and volatility in the global logistics network. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research*, 43(1), 94–111.

Danyluk, M. (2021). Supply-chain urbanism: Constructing and contesting the logistics city. *Annals of the American Association of Geographers*, 111(7), 2149–2164.

Davies, W., & Gane, N. (2021). Post-neoliberalism? An introduction. *Theory, Culture & Society*, 38(6), 3–28.

De Angelis, R., Howard, M., & Miemczyk, J. (2018). Supply chain management and the circular economy: Towards the circular supply chain. *Production Planning & Control*, 29(6), 425–437.

De Lara, J. D. (2018b). "This port is killing people": Sustainability without justice in the neo-Keynesian green city. *Annals of the American Association of Geographers*, 108(2), 538–548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1393328

Dev, N. K., Shankar, R., & Qaiser, F. H. (2020). Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Operational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain performance. *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*, 153, 104583.

Di Maria, E., De Marchi, V., & Galeazzo, A. (2022). Industry 4.0 technologies and circular economy: The mediating role of supply chain integration. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 31(2), 619–632.

Eatwell, R., & Goodwin, M. (2018). *National populism: The revolt against liberal democracy*. Penguin UK.

European Commission. (2015, December 2). *Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy* (COM(2015) 614 final). Publications Office of the European Union.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2022). Weak links in finance and supply chains are easily weaponized. *Nature*, 605(7909), 219–222.

Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Circular supply chain management: A definition and structured literature review. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 228, 882–900.

Foroohar, R. (2023). *Homecoming: The path to prosperity in a post-global world*. Crown.

Fraser, J., & Brown, K. (2017). Backshoring: A systematic review of the literature. *International Journal of Production Research*, 55(13), 3721–3738.

Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving “leapfrog development.” *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology*, 15(3), 231–239.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2014). Rethinking the economy with thick description and weak theory. *Current Anthropology*, 55(S9), S147–S153.

Gong, H., Hassink, R., Foster, C., Hess, M., & Garretsen, H. (2022). Globalisation in reverse? Reconfiguring the geographies of value chains and production networks. *Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society*, 15(2), 165–181.

Jiménez, A. C. (2024). Popular logistics for collective unpredictabilities in pandemic Madrid. *Environment and Planning D: Society and Space*, 42(3), 358–379.

Joy, M., & Vogel, R. K. (2021). Beyond neoliberalism: A policy agenda for a progressive city. *Urban Affairs Review*, 57(5), 1372–1409.
Lecy, J. D., & Beatty, K. E. (2012). Representative literature reviews using constrained snowball sampling and citation network analysis.

Liu, L., Song, W., & Liu, Y. (2023). Leveraging digital capabilities toward a circular economy: Reinforcing sustainable supply chain management with Industry 4.0 technologies. *Computers & Industrial Engineering*, 178, 109113.

Linz, L. (2021). Speeding up “slowbalization”: The political economy of global production before and after COVID-19. *Global Perspectives*, 2(1), 24433.

Luzzini, D., Pagell, M., Devenin, V., Miemczyk, J., Longoni, A., & Banerjee, B. (2024). Rethinking supply chain management in a post-growth era. *Journal of Supply Chain Management*, 60(4), 92–106.

MacKinnon, D., Kinossian, N., Pike, A., Béal, V., Lang, T., Rousseau, M., & Tomaney, J. (2023). Spatial policy since the global financial crisis. *European Urban and Regional Studies*.

Maihold, G. (2022). *A new geopolitics of supply chains: The rise of friend-shoring*. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik -SWP- Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit.

McNamara, K. R. (2024). Transforming Europe? The EU's industrial policy and geopolitical turn. *Journal of European Public Policy*, 31(9), 2371-2396.

Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, K. (2019). The geopoliticization of European trade and investment policy. *Journal of Common Market Studies*, 57, 103–122.

Messaoudi, D., Paranthoën, J.-B., & Piantoni, S. (2024). La (re)localisation des activités industrielles dans le Grand Est. Contextualisation, évolutions, motivations. *Géographie, Économie, Société*, 26(4), 465-491.

Minuchin, L., & Maino, J. (2023). Counter logistics and municipalism: Popular infrastructures during the pandemic in Rosario. *Urban Studies*, 60(11), 2367–2386.

Moradlou, H., Fratocchi, L., Skipworth, H., & Ghadge, A. (2022). Post-Brexit back-shoring strategies: What UK manufacturing companies could learn from the past? *Production Planning & Control*, 33(14), 1319–1336.

Moradlou, H., Reefke, H., Skipworth, H., & Roscoe, S. (2021). Geopolitical disruptions and the manufacturing location decision in multinational company supply chains: A Delphi study on Brexit. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, 41(2), 102–130.

Murphy, K. M., & Topel, R. H. (2013). Some basic economics of national security. *American Economic Review*, 103(3), 508–511.

Paché, G. (2007). Slowness logistics: Towards a new time orientation? *Time & Society*, 16(2–3), 311–332.

Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2019). Still neoliberalism? *South Atlantic Quarterly*, 118(2), 245–265.

Raimbert, C., & Raton, G. (2021). Collectifs logistiques et territoires dans les circuits courts alimentaires de proximité: La robustesse de la coopération analysée au prisme des communs. *Développement durable et territoires*, 12(1).

Ripanti, E. F., & Tjahjono, B. (2019). Unveiling the potentials of circular economy values in logistics and supply chain management. *The International Journal of Logistics Management*, 30(3), 723–742.

Sarkar, B., Debnath, A., Chiu, A. S., & Ahmed, W. (2022). Circular economy-driven two-stage supply chain management for nullifying waste. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 339, 130513.
Safri, M. (2015). Mapping noncapitalist supply chains: Toward an alternate conception of value creation and distribution. *Organization*, 22(6), 924–941.

Stahl, R. M. (2019). Ruling the interregnum: Politics and ideology in nonhegemonic times. *Politics & Society*, 47(3), 333–360.

Smith, T. S. (2023). Mapping complexity in deglobalisation: A typology of economic localisms from ‘hyper-localism’ to ‘strategic autonomy’. *Local Economy*, 38(3), 242–263.

Swedberg, R. (2018). How to use Max Weber’s ideal type in sociological analysis. *Journal of Classical Sociology*, 18(3), 181–196.

Tsing, A. (2009). Supply chains and the human condition. *Rethinking Marxism*, 21(2), 148–176.

Werner, M. (2021). Geographies of production II: Thinking through the state. *Progress in Human Geography*, 45(1), 178–189.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). *World-systems analysis: An introduction*. Duke University Press.

Williamson, P. (2021). De-globalisation and decoupling: Post-COVID-19 myths versus realities. *Management and Organization Review*, 17(1), 29–34.

World Economic Forum. (2013). *Towards the circular economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains*. Geneva: World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/towards-circular-economy-accelerating-scale-across-global-supply-chains/
# Methodological Appendix

## Documentary Corpus Construction

**Source and Period:** The literature search was conducted in April 2025 using the Web of Science database (Clarivate Analytics). The corpus is limited to academic articles published in English. The objectives were twofold: to quantify the treatment of research questions and to identify sources within the academic literature.

**Definition of Keywords:** Keywords were defined based on a preliminary review of the literature on emerging territorial models. This exploratory phase allowed us to identify stabilized terminologies in each thematic field.

The corpora were constructed using the following searches:

* **Logistics in the post-growth localist model:**
  TOPIC=(degrowth OR post-growth) AND ("logistics" OR "supply chain" OR "freight") → 10 results

* **Logistics in the circular economy model:**
  TOPIC=(logistic* OR "supply chain" OR "freight") AND "circular economy" → 2,840 results (99% published since 2019)

* **Logistics in the industrial nationalism model:**
  TOPIC=("state interventionism" OR "industrial policy" OR "industrial policies" OR "developmental nationalism" OR "economic nationalism" OR "backshoring" OR "onshoring" OR "reshoring" OR "trade policies" OR "reindustrialization") AND ("logistics" OR "supply chain" OR "freight" OR "transport") → 348 results (71% since 2020; 94% after 2010)

* **Logistics in the economic security model:**
  TOPIC=("economic security" OR "de-risking" OR "friendshoring" OR "nearshoring" OR "allyshoring" OR "weaponization") AND ("logistics" OR "supply chain" OR "freight" OR "transport") → 140 results (85% since 2017)

## Selection and Processing:

From this initial corpus of 3,338 references, a "snowball" approach (Lecy et al., 2012) was applied. The procedure involved three steps:

1. Review of titles, abstracts, and keywords to identify relevant articles

2. Manual selection based on the contribution to the analysis of emerging logistical paradigms

3. Bibliographic extension via cited references

**Limitations:** This exploratory approach has several limitations, including linguistic bias (English-only publications), which was mitigated by complementary searches in French using Google Scholar; thematic imbalance (uneven corpus sizes); and the subjectivity inherent in manual selection. These limitations are consistent with the heuristic objectives of the mapping approach.