A sustainable offer with competing service boundaries
A customer asks a French logistics provider to compare two distribution proposals for the same destination and delivery window. One quote includes only a main rail leg, while the competing road quote includes collection and final delivery. The first proposal needs two terminals and additional handling, and the available emissions estimates cover different activities. A marketing draft nevertheless promises a fixed percentage reduction without stating a factor or allocation method. The customer also expects complete deliveries during a seasonal peak, but no capacity commitment has been confirmed. The business must prepare a defensible commercial response using customer requirements, complete cost and comparable evidence. No current carbon factor, compulsory reporting threshold or universal environmental saving is supplied.
1. What comparison should precede the recommendation?
Read the worked answer
Compare the complete feasible service, including collection, terminals, handling, delivery, capacity, timing and relevant risks. Use consistent emissions boundaries, suitable activity data and appropriate verified or explicitly supplied factors rather than compare a single main leg with a whole service.
2. How should the proposal express commitments and uncertainty?
Read the worked answer
Define the service and measurable SLA, confirm capacity for the peak and state evidence limits. Remove the unsupported fixed saving and distinguish a forecast from a contractual commitment or measured result.