Abstract
One primary issue of this article is that of terminology, and specifically the meaning of terms such as social logistics, physical distribution and logistics.
The first is that “social logistics”, if the term is allowed, is not similar to macro-logistics but to societal or green logistics.
Second, the term logistics had first been associated with use by the military, and it is a more comprehensive term than physical distribution. U.S. military strategies and operations have been executed presupposing well-planned logistics systems featuring Caucasian logistics philosophy, as professor S. Hayashi suggested. Japanese military forces, especially the Japanese army, ignored logis-tics with poor concepts and the Japanese term “Heitan, ” ofen refered as an equivalent for military logistics in English has many points of likeness in tangible physical factors ; however, the two terms are quite differnt in intangible concepts. We must notice not only the physical dimension, but metaphysical concepts, and it is not too much to say that the logistical power decided the result of the war.
Third, the reason why the use of logistics has recently prevailed as a business term instead of physical disiribution is that it contains ideal models and such concepts as globalization, system integration and strategic viewpoints now regrded as key concepts by business firms.
