Green, lean, and globalsupply chains

Diane Mollenkopf, Hannah Stolze, Wendy L. Tate andMonique Ueltschy

Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship among green, lean, and globalsupply chain strategies as found in the literature, with emphasis on the concurrent implementation ofthese three strategic initiatives, in order to develop a research agenda to guide theoretically basedfuture research that informs managerial decision making.

Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review is conducted to examine researchand practice with respect to the concurrent implementation of green, lean, and global supply chainstrategies.

Findings – An in-depth examination of the literature revealed drivers, barriers, converging, andcontradictory points across the three supply chain strategies. Future research opportunities fall intofour major themes: the need for theoretically grounded research, the need for a multi-functionalapproach, the need for a systems approach that adds strategic insight, and the need for integratedmeasurement application. Managerial aspects are highlighted in the discussion of the metrics acrossthe three strategic interfaces and integrated life cycle management is suggested as a framework formeasurement application across the three supply chain strategies.

Originality/value – Separate literature streams have arisen to address issues in green, lean, andglobal supply chain management, but research has largely neglected the intersection of these threestrategies practiced by multinational organizations. The current research synthesizes the literatureaddressing the intersections of green, lean, and global supply chain management, and suggests aresearch agenda to redress gaps in the literature.

Keywords Globalization, Sustainable development, Supply chain management,Environmental management, Lean production

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionFirms in the twenty-first century are grappling with a constantly changing world.Three supply chain trends in particular are converging to create an increasinglycomplex business environment: a move towards green initiatives, the utilization of leanprocesses, and globalization. The globalization of supply chains involves dimensionssuch as offshoring of production, inventories, suppliers and customers, and differencesin economies, infrastructures, cultures, and politics in the competitive environment(Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Schmidt and Wilhelm, 2000; Christopher, 2005).Globalization may enable increased revenue generation through entry to newmarkets and may provide access to suppliers that can provide materials and inputsmore efficiently than domestic sources. There has also been an increasing trend for

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

All authors contributed equally to the preparation and submission of this paper and are listed inalphabetical order.

IJPDLM40,1/2

14

Received March 2009Revised August 2009Accepted October 2009

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 40 No. 1/2, 2010pp. 14-41q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600031011018028

firms to shift operations from the host country to lower cost geographies to reducemanufacturing costs.

Lean supply chain strategies focus on waste reduction, helping firms eliminatenon-value adding activities related to excess time, labor, equipment, space, andinventories across the supply chain (Corbett and Klassen, 2006). Such strategies enablefirms to improve quality, reduce costs, and improve service to customers as traditionalbatch and queue mass production and supply chain approaches are transformed(Larson and Greenwood, 2004). Lean practices are becoming increasingly difficult toimplement and sustain as supply chains increase in complexity and length.

Green supply chain strategies refer to efforts to minimize the negative impact of firmsand their supply chains on the natural environment. In the wake of concerns regardingclimate change, pollution, and non-renewable resource constraints, firms are heedingstakeholder demands regarding corporate citizenship behavior and performance (Sarkis,2001; de Burgos Jimenez and Cespedes Lorente, 2001). A green supply chain focus requiresworking with suppliers and customers, analysis of internal operations and processes,environmental considerations in the product development process, and extendedstewardship across products’ life-cycles (Corbett and Klassen, 2006; Mollenkopf, 2006).

While there are separate streams of established research on green, lean, and globalissues, few authors have addressed the intersection of these strategic initiatives. This isa critical oversight because firms may be missing synergies available throughimproved concurrent implementation; they may also be failing to address importanttrade-offs that may arise when there are incompatibilities between strategic initiatives.For example, lean and green strategies are often seen as compatible initiatives becauseof their joint focus on waste reduction. When lean initiatives enable only demandedvolumes to flow through the supply chain (and not the safety stock and extra inventoryassocated with non-lean supply chains), a reduced amount of inventory needs to besourced, produced, transported, packaged and handled, which also minimizes thenegative environmental impact of the supply chain. However, lean strategies thatemploy just-in-time (JIT) delivery of small lot sizes can require increasedtransportation, packaging, and handling that may contradict a green approach. Byrecognizing this conflict, firms may be able to identify trade-offs or develop solutionsthat mitigate undesirable consequences. In the example just presented, firms thatrecognize the negative environmental impact of the pure JIT approach may considerreusable packaging and containers or adapt the lot-size to optimize cube utilizationduring transportation as a means to achieve both lean and green objectives. Thisexample, while simplistic, is meant to illustrate the potential for synergies and conflictsthat may arise when implementing any combination of green, lean, or global strategy.Indeed, introducing a global aspect to the lean-green initiatives, adds to the complexityof managing the supply chain, often due to regulatory differences across the globe.

Thus, the purpose of this research is twofold: first, to examine the green, lean, andglobal supply chain literature, with particular emphasis on the concurrentimplementation of these three strategic initiatives. This examination focusesspecifically on the highlighted areas in Figure 1, which shows the emerging domainof green, lean, and global supply chain literature. This integrative literature reviewexamines the relationship between these supply chain strategies, including theirconvergence and divergence. This provides a foundation for future researchers to buildupon and illuminate the strategies’ complementary aspects. Therefore, the second

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

15

purpose is to provide a research agenda that addresses gaps found in the literature toguide theoretically based future research that informs managerial decision making.

2. MethodologyAn extensive review of the literature in each of the three interfaces of green, lean, andglobal supply chain strategies was conducted using Google Scholar. Google Scholarallows researchers to search many sources, including peer-reviewed papers, theses,books, abstracts and articles, from both academic and professional organizations andpublishers. Google Scholar (2009) works to discover the most relevant research acrossmultiple disciplines and sources. Although Google Scholar does not provide all full-textarticles, it encompasses information pooled from many different databases. When usedin conjunction with a university research library, it directly links researchers tomultiple databases through one search engine, including EBSCO Business SourcePremier, Elsevier Science Direct, JSTOR, Springer Link, and Wiley Interscience.

The development of the keywords used to search Google Scholar was an iterativeprocess. The researchers first employed a brainstorming technique and then used asnowballing process to add keywords to the search as they were discovered in theliterature. These additional keywords were added until a point of saturation was reached,where no new keywords or articles were identified. The final list of keyword combinationsused to search Google Scholar is shown in Table I. All combinations of paired words acrossthe key categories were searched along with the term “supply chain”. The keywordsearches yielded an extensive list of articles (e.g. a search for “green” and “global” and“supply chain” yields 22,200 articles). Google Scholar prioritizes the display of articles in

Figure 1.Green, lean, and globalsupply chains: researchdomain

Lean supply chainprocesses

Com

petit

ive

envi

ronm

ent

Cul

tura

l env

iron

men

t

Market environment

Regulatory environment

Global supplychain

Environmentallysustainable

supply chains

Lean Green Global

Push-pull Environmental InternationalPostponement Environment MultinationalSix Sigma Sustainability TransnationalJIT Ecological

Table I.Keywords searched

IJPDLM40,1/2

16

order of relevance; therefore, the first 100 were reviewed for appropriateness. The title,abstract, and text of each of these 100 articles were scanned to determine relevance togreen/lean, lean/global, or green/global supply chains. Non-relevant articles wereeliminated; however, the authors erred on the side of inclusion until a more in-depthassessment on the content of the articles could be performed.

To supplement the keyword search, a list of scholarly journals that routinely publishsupply chain-related articles was generated through discussions with experts in the field.Literature reviews published in these journals that focused on the broad scope of the supplychain were assessed. For example, Hult and Chabowski (2008) recently conducted ananalysis of purchasing research. Keller et al. (2002) performed an extensive review oflogistics research, and Craighead and Meredith (2008) recently looked at operationsresearch. Additionally, the list of top-ranked journals from theFinancialTimeswas utilizedto incorporate general management journals (Financial Times, 2008). A comprehensive listof the journals used for this phase is shown in Table II along with the number of articlesscanned for inclusion in this research. The authors determined that only the first 1,000articles published between 1990 and 2009 would be scanned for inclusion.

A database of all relevant articles from both phases of the literature search was createdin Excel. The database articles were classified and coded according to where they best fitin the three interfaces considered relevant to this research (refer to Figure 1). These articleswere categorized by theory, methodology, scales, findings, and key topics of discussion.During this review, a number of themes emerged including the forces that drive firms toconcurrently implement green, lean, and global strategies, the hurdles that impedeeffective implementation, and the complementary and contradictory aspects of each of thethree strategies. These themes are discussed in the sections below.

3. Green, lean, and global strategies in a supply chain contextA growing number of firms have adopted lean processes to promote continuous supplychain performance improvement. Lean processes create value through the eliminationof “waste” in the supply chain (Disney et al., 1997), including the production of goodsnot yet ordered, waiting time, rectification of mistakes, and excess processing,movement, transport, and stock (Jones and Hines, 1997). Lean supply chain literaturehighlights the managerial application of lean practices (Manrodt et al., 2008), integrateslean and agile operations (Mason-Jones et al., 2000; Goldsby et al., 2006), takes a JITapproach to supply chain management (Das and Handfield, 1997), and focuses onspecific functional areas of the supply chain including lean logistics (Disney et al.,1997). Because of the widespread acceptance of lean supply chain practices and thegrowing pressure for environmental management, firms have started to incorporateenvironmentally friendly practices into their waste reduction schema.

Firms are pressured by stakeholders to be more environmentally conscious and tointegrate environmental management into their processes and corporate strategies(Azzone and Bertele, 1994; Kovacs, 2008). The green supply chain management(GSCM) literature has examined the importance of working across the supply chainwith both customers and suppliers on environmental initiatives, which has been shownto lead to improved firm performance (Vachon and Klassen, 2006b). This type ofenvironmental collaboration develops knowledge-sharing capabilities (Vachon andKlassen, 2008) that serve as a resource for a sustainable competitive advantagethrough environmental efforts (Hart, 1995).

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

17

Firms have restructured their supply chains to “operate on a global basis to takeadvantage of the international product, factor, and capital markets” (Manuj and Mentzer,2008, p. 133). However, global supply chain management can present several challenges,including differences in economic, cultural, and regulatory environments. Global supplychain literature emphasizes the importance of risk management (Manuj and Mentzer,2008), the complexity and coordination involved in management (Mentzer, 2001), andspecific functional areas of the supply chain such as global sourcing (Fagan, 1991; Kotabeand Murray, 2004) and global logistics (Rodrigues et al., 2005).

3.1 The interface of green and global supply chain strategiesWhile the literature base in GSCM is growing rapidly, research focusing onglobal implementation is negligible, with minimal theoretically grounded research.

JournalsNumber of articles

scanned

Business and the Environment 59Business Strategy and the Environment 853California Management Review 1,000Decision Sciences 1,000European Journal of Operational Research 1,000European Management Journal 1,000Greener Management International 369Harvard Business Review 1,000Industrial Marketing Management 1,000International Journal of Logistics Management 393International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1,000International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 972International Journal of Production Economics 1,000International Journal of Production Research 1,000International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management 120Journal of Business Logistics 513Journal of Cleaner Production 1,000Journal of Industrial Ecology 1,000Journal of International Business Studies 1,000Journal of Operations Management 1,000Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (previously EuropeanJournal of Purchasing & Supply Management) 450Journal of Quality Management 152Journal of Supply Chain Management 476Management Science 1,000Multinational Business Review 318OMEGA – International Journal of Management Science 55Operations Research 1,000Production and Operations Management 1,000Sloan Management Review 1,000Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 586Transnational Corporations 616Transportation Journal 582Transportation Research: Part E 432Total 23,946

Table II.Journals searched inPhase 2 of literaturesearch

IJPDLM40,1/2

18

Two exceptions include the new development paradigm (NDP) and the sustainabilityframework. The NDP (Dunning and Fortanier, 2007) focuses on the social, environmentaland economic impacts of multinational firms and is similar to the recent introduction of thesustainability framework (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Although the design of global supplychains has a significant impact on the environment, little research highlights the impact ofglobal supply chains on the natural environment. One exception is the input-output modeldeveloped by Albino et al. (2002) that serves as a useful tool for global firms to assess theenvironmental impact of production processes in the supply chain.

Performance measurement in GSCM is discussed by researchers (Hervani et al.,2005; Clift, 2003); however there is little mention of the metrics that firms can use tomeasure their environmental footprint in a global context. One of the most commonglobal metrics for environmental initiatives is the International Organization forStandardization (ISO) 14000 certification, which requires procedures for identifying all“environmental aspects” of the site’s operations, safe handling and disposal proceduresfor hazardous materials and waste, and compliance with relevant environmentallegislation (Corbett and Kirsch, 2001). ISO-14000 certification is more commonly usedamong multinationals and these firms also encourage their suppliers to apply forcertification. The ISO-14000 standards are also being incorporated into the supplierselection process (Chen, 2005; Miles et al., 1999).

Other literature examines the impact of trade on the environment (Frankel and Rose,2005; Zeng and Eastin, 2007) and the link between green and global supply chainpractices and firm performance (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Rao, 2002). However,international research tends to address localized environmental issues, neglecting aglobal supply chain perspective.

Several factors lead firms to pursue green supply chain practices in a global context,including common global environmental standards such as ISO-14000 (Rappaport andFlaherty, 1992; Rondinelli and Berry, 2000; UNCTAD, 1993; Epstein and Roy, 1998; Milesand Russell, 1997), policies from corporate headquarters (Hadlock, 1994; Hansen et al.,2004), effects of environmental performance on firms’ global reputations (Christmann,1998), cost reduction (Zhu et al., 2005; de Brito et al., 2008; Dowell et al., 2000; Christmannand Taylor, 2001), and pressures from stakeholders (Zhu et al., 2008; Christmann andTaylor, 2001; Maxwell et al., 1997), and competitors (Zhu et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2008).The reviewed literature base consisted of anecdotal evidence (Rappaport and Flaherty,1992; UNCTAD, 1993; Rondinelli and Berry, 2000) and case studies or interviews (Maxwellet al., 1997; Walker et al., 2008; de Brito et al., 2008), with minimal theory testing.

Other factors were discovered that hinder the implementation of a green and globalsupply chain strategy. Successful implementation of environmental initiatives acrossthe supply chain requires cooperation between customers and suppliers (Vachon andKlassen, 2006a; Bowen et al., 2001). Barriers include resistant suppliers (Wycherley,1999; Walker et al., 2008), the newness of the concept of GSCM (Wycherley, 1999; Zhuand Sarkis, 2004), the lack of metrics and available data for measuring green practicesacross a global supply chain (Veleva et al., 2003), and the risk and opportunity cost oflosing key partners in a green supply chain (Zhu and Cote, 2004). Barriers wereidentified from case studies and interviews (Wycherley, 1999; Walker et al., 2008; Zhuand Cote, 2004), anecdotal evidence (Veleva et al., 2003), and one broad-based survey ofmanagers in Chinese manufacturing facilities (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). See Table III for asummary of drivers and barriers across the green/global interface.

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

19

Con

cep

tD

efin

itio

nC

itat

ion

Drivers

Com

mon

glo

bal

env

iron

men

tal

stan

dar

ds

Fir

ms

crea

teco

mm

ong

lob

alst

and

ard

sb

ecau

seof

var

yin

gen

vir

onm

enta

lre

gu

lati

ons,

cau

sin

gin

crea

sed

self

-re

gu

lati

onof

glo

bal

env

iron

men

tal

per

form

ance

Rap

pap

ort

and

Fla

her

ty(1

992)

,Ron

din

elli

and

Ber

ry(2

000)

and

UN

CT

AD

(199

3)

Cor

por

ate

hea

dq

uar

ters

’en

vir

onm

enta

lp

olic

ies

En

vir

onm

enta

lp

olic

ies

and

pra

ctic

esfr

omth

eco

un

try

ofco

rpor

ate

hea

dq

uar

ters

ofte

ntr

igg

erg

lob

alim

ple

men

tati

onH

adlo

ck(1

994)

and

Han

senet

al.

(200

4)

Glo

bal

env

iron

men

tal

rep

uta

tion

sE

ffec

tof

mu

ltin

atio

nal

s’en

vir

onm

enta

lp

erfo

rman

ceon

thei

rg

lob

alen

vir

onm

enta

lre

pu

tati

ons

Ch

rist

man

n(1

998)

Cos

tre

du

ctio

nC

ost

red

uct

ion

thro

ug

hst

and

ard

ized

glo

bal

env

iron

men

tal

stra

teg

ies;

ISO

1400

0m

ayh

ave

fin

anci

alb

enefi

tsth

rou

gh

avoi

din

gm

odifi

cati

onof

man

ufa

ctu

rin

geq

uip

men

tb

yst

and

ard

izin

gg

lob

alen

vir

onm

enta

lst

rate

gie

s

Zh

uet

al.

(200

5),

de

Bri

toet

al.

(200

8),

Dow

ellet

al.

(200

0)an

dC

hri

stm

ann

and

Tay

lor

(200

1)

Cu

stom

ers

Cu

stom

ers

usi

ng

env

iron

men

tal

crit

eria

insu

pp

lier

sele

ctio

nd

riv

eg

lob

alfi

rms

top

urs

ue

env

iron

men

tals

up

ply

chai

nst

rate

gie

sin

ord

erto

be

qu

alifi

edsu

pp

lier

sfo

rfo

reig

ncu

stom

ers

Zh

uet

al.

(200

8)an

dC

hri

stm

ann

and

Tay

lor

(200

1)

Non

-gov

ern

men

tal

org

aniz

atio

ns

(NG

Os)

Pre

ssu

res

from

NG

Os

pu

shin

gla

rge

glo

bal

corp

orat

ion

sto

be

env

iron

men

tall

yco

nsc

iou

sM

axw

ellet

al.

(199

7)

Com

pet

itor

sG

lob

alco

mp

etit

ors

dri

vin

gu

seof

env

iron

men

tal

man

agem

ent

syst

ems

Zh

uet

al.

(200

7)an

dW

alk

eret

al.

(200

8)

Barriers

Res

ista

nt

sup

pli

ers

Res

ista

nt

sup

pli

ers

bec

ause

ofco

sts

ofen

vir

onm

enta

lim

pro

vem

ents

,co

nfl

icti

ng

stra

teg

icob

ject

ives

and

skep

tici

smof

per

form

ance

ofen

vir

onm

enta

lp

rod

uct

s

Wy

cher

ley

(199

9)an

dW

alk

eret

al.

(200

8)

New

nes

sof

the

con

cep

tN

ewn

ess

ofth

eco

nce

pt

ofG

SC

M;

lack

ofin

form

atio

n,

exp

erti

sean

dm

anag

emen

tca

pab

ilit

ies

for

glo

bal

imp

lem

enta

tion

Wy

cher

ley

(199

9)an

dZ

hu

and

Sar

kis

(200

4)

Dat

aan

dm

etri

csn

otav

aila

ble

Dat

afo

rm

easu

rin

gen

vir

onm

enta

lsu

stai

nab

ilit

yac

ross

ag

lob

alsu

pp

lych

ain

are

ofte

nn

otav

aila

ble

and

dev

elop

men

tof

ind

icat

ors

req

uir

eco

llab

orat

ion

wit

hsu

pp

lych

ain

par

tner

sou

tsid

eof

the

org

aniz

atio

n

Vel

evaet

al.

(200

3)

Ris

kof

losi

ng

sup

pli

ers

Los

ing

key

sup

pli

ers

orp

artn

ers

can

be

det

rim

enta

lto

the

env

iron

men

tal

imp

act

ofth

eg

lob

alsu

pp

lych

ain

and

hav

esi

gn

ifica

nt

opp

ortu

nit

yco

sts

Zh

uan

dC

ote

(200

4)

Table III.Summary of the greenand global supply chaininterface

IJPDLM40,1/2

20

3.1.1 Implementing green and global supply chain strategies. Three points ofconvergence between green and global supply chain strategies were identified. First,multinational firms have knowledge-transfer capabilities to extend pollution-reductionstrategies across global activities, due to their size, high research and developmentinvestment and international coordination of manufacturing (Levy, 1995). Second, globalfirms with strong public reputations are more likely to experience greater externalpressure to be environmentally responsible (Williams et al., 1993). Third, while globalperceptions of environmental issues in logistics are similar across US, Canadian, andWestern European managers (Murphy and Poist, 2003), government regulations in thesecountries differ. Increased trade in these areas can lead to strict abidance of environmentalstandards and improved compliance through self-regulation (Zeng and Eastin, 2007).

While some factors favor the implementation of green and global supply chainstrategies, others hinder implementation. Differing legislation can be either a driver or abarrier, depending on how a firm optimizes regulatory trade-offs. Operations spanningmultiple countries face varying environmental regulations; therefore, firms are forced todecide between a standardized or differentiated environmental supply chain strategy(Levy, 1995). These varied regulations and levels of implementation make environmentalsourcing more difficult globally (Dobilas and Macpherson, 1997). Also, globalization of thesupply chain leads to more pollution production because of extended transportationdistances and heightened manufacturing batches (Levy, 1995). Research investigatingthese conflicting points between green and global supply chain strategies includes aUnited Nations survey of environmental practices (Levy, 1995) and empirical evidencefrom multinationals in the telecommunications sector (Dobilas and Macpherson, 1997).

The literature includes case studies that examine possible outcomes of green and globalsupply chain strategies (Maxwell et al., 1997; Rock et al., 2006; Wycherley, 1999; Zhu andCote, 2004). For example, Volvo pushes to make the environment a “cornerstone” of itsproduct, integrates environmental practices throughout its global supply chain, and hasdeveloped a very rigorous environmental training program for employees and suppliers(Maxwell et al., 1997). Similarly, Proctor and Gamble (P&G) has integrated globalenvironmental concerns into their business strategy since the 1980s whensuper-concentrated Lenor detergent was introduced to meet environmental pressures inGermany. In addition to material reduction and recycling programs, P&G also works withsuppliers to generate markets for recycled materials (Maxwell et al., 1997). This integrationof strategies and information sharing both upstream and downstream is important for thesuccessful implementation of a green and global supply chain.

Undertaking environmental initiatives across a large supply base can beoverwhelming. Implementing programs with key suppliers first allows firms toleverage their support in implementing environmental practices further down thesupply chain (Mamic, 2005). Motorola’s success in implementing their environmentalstrategy throughout their supply chain has been dependent on cooperation from keysuppliers (Rock et al., 2008, 2006). Researchers have shown that the purchasingfunction is an important link for implementing green supply chain strategies in aglobal context (Ofori, 2000; Walton et al., 1998; Lamming and Hampson, 1996).

3.2 The interface of green and lean supply chain strategiesLean supply chain management literature is fairly well developed. However, the risingconcern about environmental issues has increased interest in the synergy between

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

21

green and lean business practices. The lean process focus on waste eliminationpotentially includes a decline of environmental waste. However, the causal relationshipbetween lean processes and environmental sustainability has been much debated inliterature (King and Lenox, 2001). Innovative firms with continuously improvingmanufacturing processes seem to be more likely to take on environmental innovations(Florida, 1996), but auto industry research by Rothenberg et al. (2001) indicates that notall lean processes and waste reduction are positively related to environmentalperformance or pollution reduction. Their findings, based on surveys on environmentalperformance and manufacturing performance in addition to qualitative interviews at17 manufacturing plants, suggest that plants with lean practices have higher volatileorganic compound (VOC) emissions than plants where such lean practices have notbeen implemented (these differences relate to the paint application process). Whileutilizing spray paints was more cost effective and yielded better quality, the impact ofsuch paint was more environmentally damaging. This research suggests that lean andgreen practices may not always be compatible.

The integration of lean supply chain processes and environmental practices isdriven by both internal and external factors. Internal pressures include cost reductionand profitability, commodity risk management, and the preservation of a corporateculture (Friedman, 2008; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Externaldrivers include governmental (Hansen et al., 2004; Cole, 2008; Kleindorfer et al., 2005),customer and environmental pressures (Cole, 2008; Hall, 2000; Vachon and Klassen,2006a), a similar focus on continuous innovation and process improvement (Florida,1996), and the potential for further profitability through added customer value(Kleindorfer et al., 2005). The drivers were compiled from anecdotal evidence andbenchmarking (Friedman, 2008; Cole, 2008), conceptual (Corbett and Kleindorfer, 2001;Kleindorfer et al., 2005), and empirical research (Florida, 1996; Hall, 2000; Hansen et al.,2004; Vachon and Klassen, 2006a).

There are several barriers to implementing green and lean supply chain strategies,including a lack of environmental awareness (Rothenberg et al., 2001), the commonbelief that environmental practices do not pay (Porter and van der Linde, 1995), and theperception that green initiatives are time consuming and expensive. The barriers andcontradictions between green and lean practices were found in research conducted inthe auto and trucking industries through empirical and benchmarking studies(Rothenberg et al., 2001; Cole, 2008). See Table IV for a summary of the drivers andbarriers across the green/lean interface.

3.2.1 Implementing green and lean supply chain strategies. Lean operations add tocompetitive advantage through implementing complementary elements ofenvironmental performance (Hart, 1997). One major area of synthesis between greenand lean is evident in improvement through the reduction of waste (King and Lenox,2001; Green et al., 1998; Florida, 1996; Larson and Greenwood, 2004; Linton et al., 2007).Another complementary advantage is that both green and lean strategies require similarmethodologies of external auditing and ongoing reviews (Parker, 2008). Also, the leanemphasis on rework elimination requires efficient systems to reduce generation ofundesired by-products, thus creating an environmental benefit (Womack et al., 1990;Friedman, 2008). While lean practices can lead to environmental benefits, inverselyenvironmental practices often lead to improved lean practices (Kleindorfer et al., 2005;Hansen et al., 2004). In practice, the implementation of both green and lean supply chain

IJPDLM40,1/2

22

Con

cep

tD

efin

itio

nC

itat

ion

Drivers

Cos

tre

du

ctio

ns

Inth

eg

roce

ryin

du

stry

,le

anan

dg

reen

app

lica

tion

sar

ed

riv

enb

yco

stF

ried

man

(200

8)

Com

mod

ity

risk

man

agem

ent

Lea

nan

dg

reen

app

lica

tion

sb

oth

add

toa

pro

du

ct’s

via

bil

ity

inth

em

ark

etp

lace

Fri

edm

an(2

008)

Cor

por

ate

cult

ure

Lea

nan

dg

reen

init

iati

ves

are

bot

hd

riv

enfr

omth

eto

pd

own

wit

hin

firm

sF

ried

man

(200

8)

Gov

ern

men

tre

gu

lati

ons

and

stan

dar

ds

Reg

ula

tion

san

dIS

Ost

and

ard

s(9

000

and

1400

0)ar

eb

ecom

ing

inte

gra

lin

afi

rm’s

rep

uta

tion

and

corp

orat

eim

age

Han

senet

al.

(200

4),

Col

e(2

008)

and

Kle

ind

orfe

ret

al.

(200

5)

Cu

stom

eran

dst

akeh

old

erp

ress

ure

Fir

ms

rep

orte

dth

atth

eir

vis

ibil

ity

tocu

stom

ers

was

ad

riv

ing

forc

eC

ole

(200

8),

Hal

l(2

000)

and

Vac

hon

and

Kla

ssen

(200

6a)

Pro

fita

bil

ity

En

vir

onm

enta

lp

ract

ices

inin

du

stry

can

enh

ance

pro

fita

bil

ity

by

imp

rov

ing

cust

omer

sati

sfac

tion

and

loy

alty

Kle

ind

orfe

ret

al.

(200

5)

Foc

us

onin

nov

atio

nIn

nov

atio

nan

dp

roce

ssim

pro

vem

ent

crea

ted

by

lean

pro

cess

esex

pan

ds

toen

vir

onm

enta

lim

pro

vem

ents

Flo

rid

a(1

996)

Barriers

Un

awar

enes

sF

irm

sw

ith

lean

pra

ctic

esin

pla

ced

on

otst

rate

gic

ally

seek

env

iron

men

tal

ben

efits

and

ofte

nd

on

otre

cog

niz

een

vir

onm

enta

lri

sks

Rot

hen

ber

get

al.

(200

1)

Lac

kof

exp

ecte

dp

rofi

tsC

omm

onb

elie

fth

atg

reen

pra

ctic

esd

on

otp

ayan

d“e

rod

eco

mp

etit

iven

ess”

Por

ter

and

van

der

Lin

de

(199

5,p

.12

0)

Cos

tL

ean

pro

cess

esar

eof

ten

pu

rsu

edfo

rco

stre

du

ctio

ns,

bu

tg

reen

init

iati

ves

are

seen

asti

me

con

sum

ing

and

exp

ensi

ve

tose

tu

p

Rot

hen

ber

get

al.

(200

1)

Table IV.Summary of the lean

and green supplychain interface

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

23

strategies impacts functional processes throughout the supply chain (Lamming andHampson, 1996). Finally, organizations that pursue ISO-9000 quality standards arelikely to adopt ISO-14000 environmental standards (King and Lenox, 2001).

Some literature has portrayed green and lean supply chain practices ascontradictory by nature. There is consensus in the operations management literaturethat environmental regulations are an impediment on manufacturing processes andefficiency (Rothenberg et al., 2001). While lean practices may be compatible withenvironmentally responsible practices, firms fail to strategically capitalize on theenvironmental benefits that are a by-product of lean processes (Larson and Greenwood,2004). Rather, the benefits are identified solely for their cost efficiencies. Firms may beresistant to implementing environmental initiatives because they can be timeconsuming and expensive (Larson and Greenwood, 2004). Lean manufacturing andmass customization require more setups, which generates more waste and uses moreenergy (King and Lenox, 2001). Altering manufacturing technologies to makeprocesses and products more environmentally responsible requires a large upfrontinvestment, for which the return may not be realized in the short-term, as it is with leancost-reduction strategies (Rothenberg et al., 2001).

Wal-Mart has recognized that aligning green and lean practices across the supplychain drives the financial performance of the firm and earns respect from customers(Friedman, 2008). Firms benchmarked by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)have seen increased savings by balancing strict lean principles and environmentalefficiency. Firms such as General Motors, Andersen Corporation, Intel, 3M, and ComEd have saved significantly by integrating green and lean initiatives (United StatesEPA, 2000). Similar examples of compatible green and lean supply chain strategies canbe seen in the furniture industry. Firms have identified ways to reuse sawdust andwood scraps, employ alternative technologies to reduce VOC emissions, eliminaterework through increased efficiency and utilize recyclable pallets for deliveries(Handfield et al., 1997).

Lean supply arrangements demand high levels of information sharing, rapidperformance improvements with suppliers and minimal transaction costs (Dyer, 1997;Lamming, 1993). This type of relationship may provide the incentive firms need tobridge the lean and environmental supply chain practices of their suppliers (Simpsonand Power, 2005). Improvements in manufacturing systems can lead to direct andindirect benefits for environmental management, usually in the form of wastereduction (Simpson and Power, 2005).

3.3 The interface of lean and global supply chain strategiesWhile lean and global supply chains have been studied across multiple industries(Nellore et al., 2001; Levy, 1997; Das and Handfield, 1997; McIvor, 2001; Barker, 1994;Srai and Gregory, 2008) few researchers have considered the integration of globalsupply chain and lean processes to ascertain where they are complementary and wherethey are contradictory. Research conducted by Levy (1997) supported the hypothesisthat lean production could potentially facilitate globalization. For example, in oneinternational computer supply chain, a manufacturer was able to continue itsglobalization efforts while implementing design-for-manufacturing and qualityimprovements – two key aspects of lean production. However, other research hassuggested conflicts between lean and global strategies, such as the fact that offshore

IJPDLM40,1/2

24

sourcing contributes to longer lead times and more inventories, which is contrary tolean principles (Christopher and Lee, 2004).

A number of factors drive global firms to pursue lean supply chain strategies. Driversinclude customer demands (van Hoek et al., 1999; Jin, 2004), increased transparency anddefragmentation of the global market, volatile demand, the development of informationtechnology (van Hoek et al., 1999), Six Sigma implementation (Christopher and Lee, 2004;Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Choi et al., 2001; Bozarth et al., 1998), cost-reductioncapabilities (Nellore et al., 2001), and global competition (Christensena et al., 2005). Leanand global research is largely based on atheoretical descriptive case studies, with littleattention to empirical studies or quantitative methods.

Anecdotal evidence and case study research points to barriers such as theincompatibility in the nature of lead times (Christopher and Lee, 2004), the risk ofdisruptions inherent in global supply chains (Das and Handfield, 1997), the reduction ineconomies of scale due to small lot sizes in a lean supply chain (Levy, 1997), and differencesin corporate governance structures (Christopherson, 2007). These barriers are oftenovercome through trade-offs and compromise among lean, agile, and postponementprocesses in order for global firms to capitalize on the benefits of lean supply chainswithout risking their ability to respond quickly to customer demands (van Hoek, 1997).See Table V for a summary of the drivers and barriers across the lean/global interface.

3.3.1 Implementing lean and global supply chain strategies. Successfulimplementation of lean and global supply chain strategies is predicated on the benefitsof close buyer-supplier relationships (Christopher and Lee, 2004; Minner, 2003; Hertz, 2001;Fynes and Ainamo, 1998; MacDuffie and Helper, 1997). Reduction of defects andengineering change orders through design for manufacturing stabilizes a supply chainand enables the acceleration of new product production internationally. This higher initialinvestment allows for improved quality and efficiency with global sourcing (Levy, 1997).Additionally, global firms may turn to lean processes within each region of operation inorder to minimize costs and increase efficiency. Postponement allows for costminimization through global economies of scale, while utilizing lean productionupstream of the decoupling point and agile customer responsiveness further downstreamin the supply chain (van Hoek, 1997; Naylor et al., 1999; Christopher, 2000).

There are several areas of conflict between lean and global supply chain strategies.In fact, Womack and Jones (1996) have suggested that lean production is notcompatible with global supply chains. Lean supply chains demand low inventory andfrequent deliveries, whereas global supply chains require higher inventory because oflonger transit times; this reduces the flexibility gained through lean supply chainstrategies (Levy, 1997; Minner, 2003; Christopher and Lee, 2004; Das and Handfield,1997). Lean supply chains also prescribe collaboration and constant communication,which can be difficult to attain in a global supply chain for lack of geographicproximity and language differences (Levy, 1997). Additionally, price pressurescommon in global purchasing are not dominant in lean sourcing, often creatingtrade-offs among price, quality, and efficiency (Bruce and Daly, 2004; Nellore et al.,2001). Finally, global supply chains traditionally use push methods, while lean is morecompatible with pull methods of inventory control. These conflicting inventory controlmethods often create trade-offs (Pyke and Cohen, 1990). Differences between lean andglobal sourcing approaches must be strategically managed (Das and Handfield, 1997).

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

25

Con

cep

tD

efin

itio

nC

itat

ion

Drivers

Cu

stom

erd

eman

dT

om

inim

ize

the

risk

ofh

old

ing

inv

ento

ry,m

any

cust

omer

sar

ere

qu

esti

ng

freq

uen

t,sm

all

rep

len

ish

men

tsh

ipm

ents

bas

edon

real

tim

esa

les,

forc

ing

even

glo

bal

firm

sto

com

ply

wit

hd

eman

ds

van

Hoe

ket

al.

(199

9)an

dJi

n(2

004)

Incr

ease

dtr

ansp

aren

cyan

dd

efra

gm

enta

tion

ofg

lob

alm

ark

etIn

crea

sed

tran

spar

ency

and

def

rag

men

tati

onal

low

for

imp

rov

edco

mm

un

icat

ion

bet

wee

nfi

rms,

wh

ich

ises

sen

tial

ina

lean

sup

ply

chai

n

van

Hoe

ket

al.

(199

9)

Dem

and

vol

atil

ity

Vol

atil

ity

inte

rms

ofv

olu

me,

mix

,ti

min

g,

and

pla

cem

ake

itn

eces

sary

for

glo

bal

sup

ply

chai

ns

toim

ple

men

tp

ostp

onem

ent

and

lean

stra

teg

ies

toav

oid

obso

lete

inv

ento

ry

van

Hoe

ket

al.

(199

9)

Dev

elop

men

tof

info

rmat

ion

tech

nol

ogy

Tec

hn

olog

yen

able

sfi

rms

toh

ave

ad

egre

eof

con

trol

ing

lob

alsu

pp

lych

ain

sth

atis

esse

nti

alfo

rth

eim

ple

men

tati

onof

ale

anst

rate

gy

van

Hoe

ket

al.

(199

9)

Six

Sig

ma

imp

lem

enta

tion

Use

das

ale

anco

ntr

olto

olto

red

uce

var

iab

ilit

yan

dri

skin

tran

snat

ion

alp

roce

sses

and

incr

ease

sup

ply

chai

nse

curi

tyw

ith

gre

ater

con

trol

over

glo

bal

sup

ply

bas

e

Ch

rist

oph

eran

dL

ee(2

004)

,K

lein

dor

fer

and

Saa

d(2

005)

,C

hoi

etal.

(200

1)an

dB

ozar

thet

al.

(199

8)C

ost

red

uct

ion

Bot

hle

ansu

pp

lyan

dg

lob

also

urc

ing

are

dri

ven

by

cost

red

uct

ion

cap

abil

itie

sN

ello

reet

al.

(200

1)

Glo

bal

com

pet

itio

nD

riv

ing

firm

sto

use

lean

pra

ctic

esu

pst

ream

ing

lob

alsu

pp

lych

ain

sto

crea

te“b

uil

d-t

o-or

der

”p

roce

sses

dow

nst

ream

ina

glo

bal

sup

ply

chai

n

Ch

rist

ense

naet

al.

(200

5)

Barriers

Lea

dti

me

inco

mp

atib

ilit

yO

ffsh

ore

sou

rcin

gco

ntr

ibu

tes

tolo

ng

erle

adti

mes

,w

hic

his

con

trar

yto

lean

pri

nci

ple

sC

hri

stop

her

and

Lee

(200

4)

Ris

kof

dis

rup

tion

sG

lob

alsu

pp

lych

ain

sar

ep

ron

eto

mor

ed

isru

pti

ons,

wh

ile

lean

req

uir

esle

vel

sup

ply

tofi

lld

eman

ds

wit

hli

ttle

bu

ffer

inv

ento

ryD

asan

dH

and

fiel

d(1

997)

Red

uce

dec

onom

ies

ofsc

ale

Fle

xib

lem

anu

fact

uri

ng

thro

ug

hsm

all

lot

size

sre

du

ces

the

econ

omie

sof

scal

e,w

hic

hm

inim

izes

the

enti

cem

ent

for

glo

bal

pro

du

ctio

n

Lev

y(1

997)

Dif

feri

ng

corp

orat

eg

over

nan

cest

ruct

ure

sL

ean

app

roac

hes

that

wor

kin

one

cou

ntr

yof

ten

do

not

succ

eed

wh

entr

ansf

erre

din

the

glo

bal

sup

ply

chai

nC

hri

stop

her

son

(200

7)

Table V.Summary of the lean andglobal supply chaininterface

IJPDLM40,1/2

26

However, there is evidence that lean and global supply chain strategies can becomplimentary. When lean is utilized as a supply chain strategy, lean production, andlean initiatives such as continuous improvement can be optimized along the globalsupply chain, whether through localized operations, postponement, or leagile strategies(Goldsby et al., 2006; Christopher, 2005). Firms use leagility and postponement toimplement lean supply chain strategies within a global context (Bruce and Daly, 2004;Christopher, 2000; Yang and Burns, 2003; Aitken et al., 2002). For example, a firm in theprecision mechanical products industry uses an integrated demand planning system tosynchronize requirements for global manufacturing locations on a weekly basis, thusenabling physical distribution in the global supply chain to be aligned with actualdemand (Mason-Jones et al., 2000). Hewlett Packard (HP) shifted production processesto fit the lean model by customizing the printers in each local market, thus providing a25 percent reduction in total manufacturing, transportation, and inventory costs (vanHoek et al., 1999). Wal-Mart however, had difficulty applying its lean supply chainmodel in a global context. The logistics applications associated with Wal-Mart’ssuccess in the USA did not produce the same savings in Germany. Customers in theGerman market wanted neighborhood stores, which did not work with the lean modelused with the large retail format common in the USA (Christopherson, 2007).

Although some lean and global supply practices are incompatible, firms have usedprinciples from lean process management to improve their global supply chain efficiency(Das and Handfield, 1997). Bose, Kawasaki, and Ford have been successful at combininglean and global sourcing strategies through careful logistics planning, shipmentconsolidation, and single sourcing with multilingual personnel in key interface positions.They also create separate warehouses for inventory holding to create a JIT scenario,although they have found it almost impossible to have a pure JIT system in their globalsupply chains (Das and Handfield, 1997). Similarly, Apple uses “vendor hubs” managedby its shipping firms and foreign suppliers to warehouse parts from all over the world toserve its European operations. This allows Apple to utilize a JIT approach locally whilestill sourcing globally, saving millions in inventory expense (Fynes and Ainamo, 1998).Other firms in the computer industry use a similar push-pull inventory strategy (Berry andNaim, 1996). While the barriers discussed make it difficult to implement a lean and globalsupply chain, the quality control and communication principles of lean management provebeneficial to the global supply chain if strategically implemented.

4. Synthesis of the literature – green, lean, and global supply chainsCommon drivers and barriers lead to both complementary and conflicting points acrossgreen/lean, green/global and lean/global supply chain strategies. Synthesizing theliterature in the areas of green, lean, and global strategy allowed the researchers to drawinferences about a combined green, lean, and global supply chain strategy. Four majorfactors motivate firms to adopt some combination of these strategies: cost reductions,customer demands, international standards such as ISO-9000 and ISO-14000, and riskmanagement. Toyota is a prime example of a firm that has successfully integrated agreen and lean supply chain strategy in a global setting. Toyota’s commitment is evidentthrough its ISO certifications and financial investment into quality and environmentalresearch and development (Toyota, 2008; Womack and Jones, 2005).

A lack of consistency in terminology across all three interfaces may arise from adiffering focus in multiple disciplines. For example, the lean/global literature and

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

27

lean/green literature both highlight the common goal of risk management, but this isnot evident in the literature on green/global strategies. Risk management manifestsitself as Six Sigma implementation in lean/global and control variability andcommodity risk management in lean/green. While risk management is not specificallyevidenced in the green/global literature, global environmental reputation managementis a driver of green and global supply chain strategies incorporated in riskmanagement.

An examination of the intersecting drivers of green, lean, and global supply chainstrategies revealed three interesting findings. First, despite the fact that existingliterature has highlighted competition as a driver in both global interfaces, it does notsurface as a driver in the lean/green interface. Second, although green, lean, and globalsupply chain strategies each focus on cost-reduction capabilities, green strategies alsocapitalize on the potential profitability from gaining new customer market segments.While the lean/green supply chain literature highlights profitability as a driver, it is notspecified in the green/global supply chain literature. Third, due to the importance ofcorporate culture in a lean supply chain, culture is expected to be an apparent driver ofany lean strategy, even in a global setting. However, culture is highlighted as a driverin lean/green and green/global supply chain strategies, but is not cited as a driver forlean/global strategies.

A similar analysis was conducted to assess common barriers across all threeinterfaces. Although existing research shows various hurdles to the implementation ofthese strategies, none of these were common across green/lean, green/global orlean/global supply chain strategies. Two barriers converged across the two greeninterfaces: a lack of awareness among managers of the benefits of green initiatives anda lack of metrics. This is most likely due to the novelty of GSCM.

An assessment of the points of convergence across all three strategic interfacesreveals no common similarities amongst the green, lean, and global supply chainliterature. Instead, common similarities emerge between two of the three interfaces.The ISO-9000 quality standard has been shown to be highly correlated with theadoption of ISO-14000 environmental standard (King and Lenox, 2001). There isevidence of this relationship across both lean interfaces, but quality improvement hasnot been explored at the conjunction of all three strategies. Also, literature reveals thatfirms implementing green/lean and green/global supply chain strategies are usingself-regulation in different forms, such as lean auditing procedures or environmentalself-regulation. However, government regulation often drives the need for greenpractices while lean auditing is internally driven. The relationship between internaland external pressures on self-governance has not yet been explored at the interface ofthe three strategies. Only one common contradiction arose across both green interfaces.Green initiatives focus on reducing pollution, while this is not a priority driving leanand global supply chains. In some cases, the literature shows increases in pollutionfrom implementation of lean and global supply chain strategies, highlighting the needto assess strategic trade-offs.

Conflicting goals appear to consistently arise in the literature. Managers find itdifficult to simultaneously implement these three strategies. For example,buyer-supplier alignment is addressed differently across the three interfaces.Buyers often focus on low costs, whereas suppliers may incur greater costs whileattempting to provide more environmentally responsible or higher quality products.

IJPDLM40,1/2

28

These differences manifest themselves particularly in sourcing strategies andinter-organizational communication. For example:

[. . .] it is difficult to ask suppliers to engage in environmental practices when the buyingorganization lacks (or is perceived to lack) environmental commitment and concrete practices.Thus, buyers may need to “get their own house in order” before requiring the same ofsuppliers, or vice versa (Gattiker et al., 2008, p. 28).

The lack of commonality across drivers, barriers, convergences, and contradictionsmay be explained by different stages of development among the three literaturestreams. Lean processes were initially developed in the 1940s, globalization of supplychains became common in the 1980s and 1990s, and green issues have become pressingeven more recently. Lean research is the most developed literature stream, with moredrivers and barriers specified in the research. Lean supply chain research may be ableto lend constructs and measures to the areas of green and global supply chain strategy.

From a theoretical perspective, the GSCM literature is underdeveloped, and evenless so in a green/global context. Two recent exceptions discussed earlier work towarddeveloping new theory through conceptual frameworks for sustainable supply chainmanagement (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Muller, 2008). This review of thegreen, lean, and global intersections in the literature reveals that 77 percent of theresearch published is a theoretical. Of the research, 6 percent is based on transactioncost economics (TCE) or game theory, and 17 percent of the literature reviewedrepresents a wide variety of other theoretical approaches each used in only one article.Lack of theoretical development may be due to the exploratory nature of researchregarding the relationships among green, lean, and global phenomena.

5. Agenda for future researchAs new concepts are shaped, programmatic research fosters progress in a systematicmanner. The intersection of green, lean, and global supply chain strategies has not yetbeen simultaneously addressed. To encourage research at any of the two-wayinterfaces or at the confluence of green, lean, and global supply chain strategies, gapsin the existing literature are highlighted as a basis for developing a research agenda.

5.1 The need for theoretical application in researchThe most frequently utilized theoretical frameworks examining combinations of two ofthe interfaces include TCE and game theory. As research matures in the intersection ofgreen, lean, and global supply chain strategies, the sustainability framework proposedby Carter and Rogers (2008) can serve as a guide for the development of green supplychains in a lean and global context. The NDP is similar to the sustainability frameworkin that it is also characterized by social, ecological and economic developmentobjectives (Dunning and Fortanier, 2007). Theoretical underpinnings to bothapproaches include resource-based view, TCE, population ecology, and resourcedependence theory (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Each of these theoretical views providesa unique lens through which the knowledge base on green, lean, and global supplychain strategies can be further enhanced.

Green, lean, and global strategies require cross-functional and inter-organizationalinvolvement. Therefore, theoretical approaches that take a more holistic andstrategic perspective could be employed to better explain this developing phenomenon.

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

29

Theories such as strategy-structure-performance (SSP), the political economyparadigm (PEP) and network theory can be applied to the intersection of green,lean, and global supply chain strategies. The relationship between the strategies andthe structures can be explored in different contexts focusing on the green, lean, andglobal strategies and the ensuing structures of the supply chain. An SSP approachadds strategic impact, which has been lacking in the literature thus far. It highlightsthe structural requirements in order to facilitate the joint implementation of green, lean,and global supply chain strategies and leads to better understanding of financialperformance from the simultaneous implementation of these strategies. The PEP canbe used as a conceptual basis for how firms manage green, lean, and global supplychain strategies (Arndt, 1983; Stern and Reve, 1980; Achrol et al., 1983) because itincorporates both behavioral as well as economic factors and by its nature considersthe inter-firm context. Network theory also employs an inter-firm and inter-functionalapproach necessary to study supply chain decisions (Choi et al., 2001). Supply chainsand supply networks are continuously emerging, self-organizing, dynamic, andevolving (Choi et al., 2001). The network view includes explanations about extendedrelationships amongst actors in the network and is not restricted to a dyadicperspective (Fomburn, 1982; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Applying network theory tothe green/lean/global phenomenon would allow researchers to study this complex andcontinuously adapting environment with involvement of multiple actors and inter-firmcollaboration.

Each of these theories provides a unique lens to investigate the phenomenon ofinterest. Theories employed to date have more of a tactical focus, whereas thesuggested theories provide a more expansive strategic supply chain focus.Combinations of the SSP theory, the PEP, and network theory can provide furthersynergy for the development of a deeper understanding of green, lean, and globalsupply chain strategies.

5.2 The need to strategically integrate siloed knowledgeReview of the green, lean, and global supply chain literature reveals silos in bothresearch and practice. Silo perspectives in research impede the cross-functional andinter-organizational scope needed to gain a holistic perspective of the broaderphenomenon. Silo approaches in research also tend to focus on tactical and operationalissues, missing the strategic perspective needed to study a phenomenon likegreen/lean/global. For example, lean research is predominantly focused on firm-leveloperational issues and only recently has addressed lean strategies from a supply chaincontext. The research in green practices has been more tactical in nature, focusing onpollution prevention and end-of-pipe measures (Handfield et al., 1997). Research shouldbe more multi-disciplinary in order to address inter-firm decision making. Supply chainresearch involves researchers from many disciplines. Therefore, supply chainresearchers need to step out of their comfort zones and collaborate with academics inother disciplines to further research of the strategic integration of green, lean, andglobal supply chains.

Silo approaches in practice impede the effective implementation of the threestrategies, in part because silo approaches alone tend to focus on improvements at thefunctional level rather than the supply chain strategy level. Purchasing and operationsare faced with trade-offs when considering the impact of low cost versus quality control.

IJPDLM40,1/2

30

For example, purchasing managers attempt to obtain products at the lowest possibleprice, whereas operations managers tend to focus more on receiving high qualitypurchased products. Such objectives are often incompatible, leaving suppliers caught ina web of conflicting goals. Silos tend to focus on fixing problems (i.e. waste, costreductions, quality, etc.) instead of looking at the strategic picture of competitiveadvantage. A supply chain by definition (Mentzer, 2001) is inter-organizational. In orderfor firms to effectively implement green and lean supply chain strategies in a globalcontext, managers must move beyond their silos, considering the entire supply chainand all of its participants.

5.3 The need to develop a systems approachThe interaction of green, lean, and global supply chain strategies is arguably present inpractice but absent in the peer-reviewed body of knowledge. There is extensive literatureon each of the individual supply chain strategies and substantial research in the contextof green/lean, green/global, and lean/global supply chain strategies. However, researchcombining all three strategies has not yet emerged. As environmental regulationsbecome more stringent, firms will be forced to face this intersection. Therefore, supplychain researchers must broaden their approach to understand how firms can bestmanage this concurrent implementation to optimize the supply chain as a whole.

Theoretically grounded research utilizing the SSP paradigm, network theory, or thebroad scope of PEP is suggested to enable researchers and practitioners to approachsupply chain strategy and decisions from a systems perspective. A systems approachencapsulates the complexity of the supply chain. Considering the number of barriersand drivers to implementing green, lean, and global strategies concurrently, a holisticapproach is needed to optimize supply chain performance through adaptive strategiesto obtain fit for both the firm and the supply chain. In order to achieve supply chainstrategic fit, firms and researchers should understand how to adapt to complexity andbetter manage the global supply chain.

More research on the subcomponents of the supply chain (i.e. purchasing, logistics,measures, and metrics) should be undertaken to understand how to obtain synergiesfrom the drivers, overcome the barriers, and make trade-offs where necessary. At thecurrent stage of literature development, researchers cannot predict the optimumbalance point in determining trade-offs. For example, researchers could begin byfurther investigating the linkages between ISO-9000 and ISO-14000 in the globalcontext in order to be better able to predict best practices for implementing a green,lean, and global supply chain strategy.

The final part of the agenda discusses methods of investigation for researchers andapplication of measurement tools for practitioners that would facilitate theimplementation of lean and green initiatives across the global supply chain. Thisagenda item has broad implications for both researchers and practicing managers.

5.4 The need for applied metrics and measurement methodsA common theme across the three strategic interfaces is the lack of integrated metricsand measurement methods. Research has examined performance metrics in green,lean, and global supply chain strategies individually at the product or firm level, butlittle research focuses on metrics that encompass all three strategies throughout thesupply chain. Research could address the simultaneous implementation of these

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

31

strategies to provide more holistic measures that allow managers to understand thesynergies available or to make appropriate trade-off decisions should there be conflictacross green/lean strategies in their global supply chains. In order for managers toimplement green, lean, and global supply chain strategies successfully, practical toolsand guidelines are needed that enable data collection for consistent reporting anddecision making across supply chain participants.

A number of metrics do exist within the individual lean, green and global domains,relating to efficiency, costs, and environmental impact. Two challenges must beovercome, however, to provide managers with useful tools for incorporating lean andgreen concurrently into their decision-making processes: the measurement frameworkneeds to become more holistic and more standardized. Current environmental metricsand reporting procedures tend to be piecemeal and based on what a company canconveniently measure, for example. Just as research needs to extend beyond disciplinarysilos, managers need frameworks and measurement tools that enable them to integratelean/efficiency and environmental measures and performance metrics across functionalareas within the firm, and even beyond the firm and product levels, to enable moreeffective decision making across the supply chain in a more holistic manner.

On the standardization front, the ISO-9000 family of standards provides guidelinesfor quality management systems to help firms achieve desired quality requirementsand enhance customer-supplier relationships (Guler et al., 2002); environmentalmanagement systems are often predicated on the ISO-14000 family of standards andguidelines (Corbett and Kirsch, 2001). Guidelines that focus on environmentalperformance evaluation provide a basis for measuring and monitoring a firm’s impacton the environment (e.g. tons of CO2 emissions per year, contaminant concentration inwastewater, and number of regulatory fines per year). The current interest in carbonfootprinting as but one environmental performance measure (Gattiker et al., 2008),addresses an individual component of a broader environmental management systembut lack of standards in data collection procedures and standard assumptions inmetrics makes these measurement techniques challenging. Wal-Mart’s recentannouncement of an environmental labeling program for the products it carries mayprovide the impetus for standardization in measuring and reporting the environmentalimpact of many consumer products (Bustillo, 2009), going beyond single issue metrics.

While the details of Wal-Mart’s initiative are still unknown, the need forstandardization in measuring and reporting environmental impact of a firm’s productscannot be underestimated. As legislation and market demands around the worldescalate regarding environmental performance, measures and metrics need to bestandardized, to allow global entities to measure their performance across multipleoperating arenas with a level of consistency that holds up for internal decision makingas well as to external scrutiny. Standardized metrics and performance measures alsoprovide an important base for shifting from ad hoc, static performance indicatorstowards systems of continuous improvement over time.

An integrated life cycle management (ILCM) approach may provide the framework tobind green, lean, and global decisions more strategically across a firm and across itssupply chains. The ILCM approach involves integrating efficiency and environmentalsustainability into firms’ decisions, optimizing costs, and minimizing the environmentalimpact caused by the product from cradle to grave (Linnanen et al., 1995; Wolters et al.,1997). Importantly, ILCM represents a systematic management process that supports

IJPDLM40,1/2

32

decision making across time and across supply chain echelons. A measurementapproach across time and across the supply chain is important because decisions madeat the product design stage in one part of the supply chain, for example, can haveimportant implications for both efficiency (lean) and environmental (green) performanceat another echelon within the supply chain, or at a different point in time (e.g. carbonfootprint at point of production should not be considered separately from carbonfootprint at point of use, which may occur in very different places and at very differenttimes).

Established efficiency metrics used for measuring and monitoring lean processesacross a global supply chain become an important component of an ILCM approach.Likewise, existing environmental metrics such as life cycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle costing (LCC) need to be incorporated into an ILCM approach. LCA focusesprimarily on environmental metrics (Frankl and Rubik, 2000) at the product level. LCCprovides an economic piece to understanding environmental performance byquantifying costs across the life cycle of a product (Asiedu and Gu, 1998). Both LCAand LCC provide important environmental measurement approaches, but focus at theproduct level and typically neglect global supply chain implications. Finally, strategicglobal supply chain decisions are increasingly influenced by social considerations. AnILCM system could incorporate the necessary social metrics using social life cycleassessment (SLCA) as a starting point (Brent and Labuschagne, 2005). These socialmeasures influence green as well as lean strategies. Consider for example the locationof suppliers, availability of labor and clean water, wage rates and working conditions.All of these factors influence the availability of inventory, the location and quality ofinventory, and the accessibility of suppliers.

ILCM is gaining interest in practice (Caterpillar, 2008; Toyota, 2008) but needs furthertheory development and testing by researchers. Researchers need to better understandhow to incorporate ILCM metrics across multiple geographies and supply chains. Theresulting knowledge would ultimately provide supply chain managers consistent andcohesive tools with standardized approaches that allow for better decision making.These tools would also help to minimize the conflict across green/lean/global strategiesand help managers capitalize on synergistic areas across supply chain decisions that areoften measured independently but implemented in parallel.

6. ConclusionsThere are several limitations to this research. Searches conducted using Google Scholarhave potential for slight variation. Literature is continuously being published andtherefore added to the base of existing knowledge. This research was conducted at asingle point in time, utilizing only the articles then available. The continuous growth ofresearch in this area is indicative of a developing phenomenon and shows much futureresearch potential. Another limitation relates to the external operating factorsconsidered to be beyond the scope of the current research. Future research couldexamine the influence of the external environment on the intersection of green, lean,and global supply chain strategies, with respect to regulation, trade barriers, andgovernment intervention. There is also significant opportunity to examine the role ofcorporate culture in the green, lean, and global supply chain.

In spite of the limitations, this research makes several contributions to the body ofsupply chain management knowledge. This is the first attempt at synthesizing the

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

33

literature on green, lean, and global supply chain strategies. The literature is repletewith discussion on the individual strategies, but has thus far not addressed how firmscan implement these strategies concurrently. A thorough examination of the individualbodies of literature was used as a means to guide future research at the intersection ofgreen/lean/global supply chain strategies. The future research agenda addresses gapsin the current literature, and suggests several theoretical lenses from which to explorethis phenomenon. The agenda presented in this paper allows for future research thatbegins to meet the call for more theoretical research in supply chain managementliterature (Flint et al., 2005; Mentzer and Kahn, 1995).

The fact that green, lean, and global strategies have not been researchedconcurrently is not surprising given the inherent contradictions. Although somestrategies do not seem naturally synergistic, the benefits gained by understanding thetrade-offs and optimization possible could lead to future performance enhancement.The advantages of a broad perspective of these three supply chain strategies can serveresearchers and managers alike. From a theoretical perspective, we suggest threetheoretical lenses through which to examine this emerging phenomenon; eachapproach would allow researchers to take the systems approach necessary tounderstand the concurrent implementation of green and lean supply chain strategies ina global context. Further theoretically grounded research will allow academics to beginto predict the best methods of implementation for managers seeking to optimize on thesynergies of these three supply chain strategies. From a managerial perspective,creating an awareness of the synergies and conflicts between and among these threestrategies will allow for more effective decision making. Also, managers need toactively participate in the development and application of metrics and standards thatfacilitate integrated, holistic decision making within their firms and across their supplychains. As the world market becomes increasingly homogenized, green supply chainpractices will continue to be an opportunity for firms to maximize lean qualityimprovements and performance while staying competitive in a complex global supplychain system.

References

Achrol, R.S., Reve, T. and Stern, L.W. (1983), “The environment of marketing channel dyads:a framework for comparative analysis”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 55-67.

Aitken, J., Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2002), “Understanding, implementing and exploitingagility and leanness”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 5,pp. 59-74.

Albino, V., Izzo, C. and Kuhtz, S. (2002), “Input-output models for the analysis of a local/globalsupply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 119-31.

Arndt, J. (1983), “The political economy paradigm: foundation for theory building in marketing”,The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 44-54.

Asiedu, Y. and Gu, P. (1998), “Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 883-908.

Azzone, G. and Bertele, U. (1994), “Exploiting green strategies for competitive advantage”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 69-81.

Barker, R.C. (1994), “The design of lean manufacturing systems using time-based analysis”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 86-96.

IJPDLM40,1/2

34

Berry, D. and Naim, M.M. (1996), “Quantifying the relative improvements of redesign strategiesin a P.C. supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vols 46-47 No. 3,pp. 181-96.

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001), “The role of supplymanagement capabilities in green supply”, Production and Operations Management,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 174-89.

Bozarth, C., Handfield, R. and Das, A. (1998), “Stages of global sourcing strategy evolution:an exploratory study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 241-55.

Brent, A. and Labuschagne, C. (2005), “Sustainable life cycle management: a case study in theprocess industry to develop a calculation procedure for social indicators followingconventional LCA methods”, paper presented at 4th Australian LCA Conference, Sydney.

Bruce, M. and Daly, L. (2004), “Lean or agile: a solution for supply chain management in thetextiles and clothing industry?”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 151-70.

Bustillo, M. (2009), “Wal-Mart puts green movement into stores”, TheWall Street Journal, July 16,pp. A1-A10.

Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management:moving toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.

Caterpillar (2008), 2008 Sustainability Report, available at: www.cat.com/cda/files/1401995/7/Cat_08SR_e_only.pdf (accessed July 28, 2009).

Chen, C. (2005), “Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 927-33.

Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001), “Supply networks and complex adaptivesystems: control versus emergence”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 351-66.

Christensena, W.J., Germain, R. and Birou, L. (2005), “Build-to-order and just-in-time aspredictors of applied supply chain knowledge and market performance”, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 470-81.

Christmann, P. (1998), “Environmental strategies of multinational chemical companies: globalintegration or national responsiveness?”, working paper, The Anderson School at UCLA,University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.

Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2001), “Globalization and the environment: determinants of firmself-regulation in China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 3,pp. 439-58.

Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.

Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics & Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks,3rd ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.

Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 388-96.

Christopherson, S. (2007), “Barriers to ‘US style’ lean retailing: the case of Wal-Mart’s failure inGermany”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 451-69.

Clift, R. (2003), “Metrics for supply chain sustainability”, Clean Technologies and EnvironmentalPolicy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 240-7.

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

35

Cole, L. (2008), “Keen to be green”, Road Transport, May 22, available at: www.roadtransport.com/Articles/2008/05/22/130767/keen-to-be-green.html (accessed January 17, 2009).

Corbett, C.J. and Kirsch, D.A. (2001), “International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification”,Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 327-42.

Corbett, C.J. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending the horizons: environmental excellence as keyto improving operations”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,pp. 5-22.

Corbett, C.J. and Kleindorfer, P. (2001), “Environmental management and operationsmanagement: introduction to Part 1”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 107-11.

Craighead, C. and Meredith, J. (2008), “Operations management research: evolution andalternative future paths”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 710-26.

Das, A. and Handfield, R.B. (1997), “Just-in-time and logistics in global sourcing: an empiricalstudy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27Nos 3/4, pp. 244-59.

de Brito, M.P., Carbone, V. and Blanquart, C.M. (2008), “Towards a sustainable fashion retailsupply chain in Europe: organisation and performance”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 534-53.

de Burgos Jimenez, J. and Cespedes Lorente, J.J. (2001), “Environmental performance as anoperations objective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1553-72.

Disney, S.M., Naim, M.M. and Towill, D.R. (1997), “Dynamic simulation modeling for leanlogistics”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27Nos 3/4, pp. 174-96.

Dobilas, G. and Macpherson, A. (1997), “Environmental regulation and international sourcing”,Growth and Change, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Dowell, G., Hart, S. and Yeung, B. (2000), “Do corporate global environmental standards create ordestroy market value?”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1059-74.

Dunning, J. and Fortanier, F. (2007), “Multinational enterprises and the new developmentparadigm: consequences for host country development”, Multinational Business Review,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-45.

Dyer, J.H. (1997), “Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs andmaximize transaction value”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 535-56.

Epstein, M. and Roy, M. (1998), “Managing corporate environmental performance:a multinational perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 284-96.

Fagan, M.L. (1991), “A guide to global sourcing”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 12 No. 2,pp. 21-5.

Financial Times (2008), “Financial Times journal list”, available at: http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/MKS/marketing%20science/list.pdf (accessed May 28).

Flint, D., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B. and Mentzer, J. (2005), “Logistics innovation: a customervalue-oriented social process”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 113-47.

Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing”,California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 80-105.

Fomburn, C.J. (1982), “Strategies for network research in organizations”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 280-91.

IJPDLM40,1/2

36

Frankel, J.A. and Rose, A.K. (2005), “Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out thecausality”, Review of Economics & Statistics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 85-91.

Frankl, P. and Rubik, F. (2000), Life Cycle Assessment in Industry and Business: AdoptionPatterns, Applications and Implications, Springer, Heidelberg.

Friedman, P. (2008), “Leaning toward green: green your supply chain with lean practices”,available at: http://outsourced-logistics.com/operations_strategy/leaning_toward_green_1108/index.html (accessed December 23, 2008).

Fynes, B. and Ainamo, A. (1998), “Organisational learning and lean supply relationships: the caseof Apple Ireland”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2,pp. 96-107.

Gattiker, T.F., Tate, W.L. and Carter, C.R. (2008), “Focus study: supply management’s strategic rolein environmental practices”, available at: www.capsresearch.org (accessed February 11,2009).

Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), “Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chainstrategies”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80.

Google Scholar (2009), “About Google Scholar”, available at: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html (accessed July 7, 2009).

Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1998), “Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improvecompanies’ environmental performance?”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 89-95.

Guler, I., Guillen, M. and Macpherson, J. (2002), “Global competition, institutions, and thediffusion of organizational practices: the international spread of ISO 9000 qualitycertificates”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 207-32.

Hadlock, C.R. (1994), “Multinational corporations and the transfer of environmental technologyto developing countries”, International Environmental Affairs, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 149-74.

Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chain dynamics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8No. 6, pp. 455-71.

Handfield, R.B., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K. and Melnyk, S.A. (1997), “‘Green’ value chainpractices in the furniture industry”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 293-315.

Hansen, J.D., Melnyk, S.A. and Calantone, R. (2004), “Core values and environmentalmanagement: a strong inference approach”, Greener Management International, Vol. 46,pp. 29-40.

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.

Hart, S.L. (1997), “Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 75, pp. 66-77.

Hertz, S. (2001), “Dynamics of alliances in highly integrated supply chain networks”,International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 237-56.

Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supplychain management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-53.

Hult, G. and Chabowski, B. (2008), “Sourcing research as an intellectual network of ideas”,Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 323-35.

Jin, B. (2004), “Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balances under demanduncertainty”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24No. 12, pp. 1292-305.

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

37

Jones, D.T. and Hines, P. (1997), “Lean logistics”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, p. 153.

Keller, S., Savitskie, K., Stank, T., Lynch, D. and Ellinger, A. (2002), “A summary and analysis ofmulti-item scales used in logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 2,pp. 83-281.

King, A. and Lenox, M. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationshipbetween lean production and environmental performance”, Production and OperationsManagement, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.

Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G. (2005), “Managing disruption risks in supply chains”, Productionand Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 53-68.

Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operationsmanagement”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 14, pp. 482-92.

Kotabe, M. and Murray, J.Y. (2004), “Global sourcing strategy and sustainable competitiveadvantage”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 7-14.

Kovacs, G. (2008), “Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain”, Journal ofCleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1571-8.

Lamming, R. (1993), Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply,Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as a supply chain management issue”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. S45-S62 (special issue).

Larson, T. and Greenwood, R. (2004), “Perfect complements: synergies between lean productionand eco-sustainability initiatives”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 27-36.

Levy, D. (1995), “The environmental practices and performance of transnational corporations”,Transnational corporations, Vol. 41, pp. 44-67.

Levy, D. (1997), “Lean production in an international supply chain”, Sloan Management Review,Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 94-102.

Linnanen, L., Bostrom, T. and Miettinen, P. (1995), “Life cycle management: integrated approachtowards corporate environmental issues”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 4No. 3, pp. 117-27.

Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.

McIvor, R. (2001), “Lean supply: the design and cost reduction dimensions”, European Journal ofPurchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 227-42.

MacDuffie, J. and Helper, S. (1997), “Creating lean suppliers: the Honda way”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 118-51.

Mamic, I. (2005), “Managing global supply chain: the sports footwear, apparel and retail sectors”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 81-100.

Manrodt, K.B., Vitasek, K. and Thompson, R. (2008), “Putting lean to work”, LogisticsManagement, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 74-7.

Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 133-55.

Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D. (2000), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supplychain to the marketplace”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 17,pp. 4061-70.

IJPDLM40,1/2

38

Maxwell, J., Rothenberg, S., Briscoe, F. and Marcus, A. (1997), “Green schemes: corporateenvironmental strategies and their implementation”, California Management Review,Vol. 39, pp. 118-34.

Mentzer, J.T. (Ed.) (2001), Supply Chain Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K. (1995), “A framework of logistics research”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 231-51.

Miles, M. and Russell, G. (1997), “ISO 14000 total quality environmental management: theintegration of environmental marketing, total quality management, and corporateenvironmental policy”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 151-68.

Miles, M.P., Munilla, L.S. and Mcclurg, T. (1999), “The impact of ISO 14000 environmentalmanagement standards on small and medium sized enterprises”, Journal of QualityManagement, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 111-22.

Minner, S. (2003), “Multiple-supplier inventory models in supply chain management: a review”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 81-82, pp. 265-79.

Mollenkopf, D.A. (2006), Environmental Sustainability: Examining the Case forEnvironmentally-sustainable Supply Chains, Council of Supply Chain ManagementProfessionals, Lombard, IL.

Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2003), “Green perspectives and practices: a ‘comparative logistics’study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-31.

Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agilemanufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 107-18.

Nellore, R., Chanaron, J.J. and Eric Soderquist, K. (2001), “Lean supply and price-based globalsourcing – the interconnection”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 101-10.

Ofori, G. (2000), “Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore”, European Journal ofPurchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 195-206.

Parker, D. (2008), “Holden’s drive for green, lean supply chains”, Manufacture’s Monthly,November, p. 16.

Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, pp. 120-34.

Pyke, D.F. and Cohen, M.A. (1990), “Push and pull in manufacturing and distribution systems”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 24-43.

Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 631-55.

Rappaport, A. and Flaherty, M.F. (1992), Corporate Responses to Environmental Challenges:Initiatives by Multinational Management, Quorum Books, New York, NY.

Rock, M., Angel, D.P. and Pao Li, L. (2006), “Impact of firm-based environmental standards onsubsidiaries and their suppliers: evidence from Motorola-Penang”, Journal of IndustrialEcology, Vol. 10, pp. 257-78.

Rock, M., Murphy, J.T., Rasiah, R., van Seters, P. and Managi, S. (2008), “A hard slog, not a leapfrog: globalization and sustainability transitions in developing Asia”, TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 241-55.

Rodrigues, A., Bowersox, D. and Calantone, R. (2005), “Estimation of global and national logisticsexpenditures: 2002 data update”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

39

Rondinelli, D.A. and Berry, M.A. (2000), “Environmental citizenship in multinationalcorporations: social responsibility and sustainable development”, EuropeanManagement Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 70-84.

Rothenberg, S., Pil, F. and Maxwell, J. (2001), “Lean, green, and the quest for environmentalperformance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-43.

Sarkis, J. (2001), “Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 666-86.

Schmidt, G. and Wilhelm, W.E. (2000), “Strategic, tactical and operational decisions inmulti-national logistics networks: a review and discussion of modelling issues”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1501-23.

Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework forsustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,pp. 1699-710.

Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply relationship to develop lean and greensuppliers”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-8.

Srai, J.S. and Gregory, M. (2008), “A supply network configuration perspective on internationalsupply chain development”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 386-411.

Stern, L. and Reve, T. (1980), “Distribution channels as political economies: a framework forcomparative analysis”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 52-64.

Toyota (2008), 2008 North America Environmental Report: Challenge, Commitment, Progress,Toyota Motor North America, Washington, DC.

UNCTAD (1993), Environmental Management in Transnational Corporations: Report on theBenchmark Corporate Environmental Survey, United Nations, New York, NY.

United States EPA (2000), “The lean and green supply chain: a practical guide for materialsmanagers and supply chain managers to reduce costs and improve environmentalperformance”, EPA 742-R-00-001, EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,Washington, DC.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006a), “Extending green practices across the supply chain”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26, pp. 795-821.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006b), “Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case ofthe package printing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 6/7, pp. 661-71.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturingperformance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.

van Hoek, R. (1997), “Postponed manufacturing: a case study in the food supply chain”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 63-75.

van Hoek, R.I., Vos, B. and Commandeur, H.R. (1999), “Restructuring European supply chains byimplementing postponement strategies”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 505-18.

Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T. and Crumbley, C. (2003), “Indicators for measuringenvironmental sustainability: a case study of the pharmaceutical industry”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 107-19.

Walker, H., di Sisto, L. and Mcbain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supplychain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal ofPurchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 14, pp. 69-85.

IJPDLM40,1/2

40

Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The green supply chain: integratingsuppliers into environmental management processes”, International Journal of Purchasing& Materials Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 2-11.

Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Williams, H., Medhurst, J. and Drew, K. (1993), “Corporate strategies for a sustainable future”,Environmental Strategies for Industry, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 117-46.

Wolters, T., James, P. and Bouman, M. (1997), “Stepping-stones for integrated chain managementin the firm”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 121-32.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in YourCorporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2005), Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can CreateValue and Wealth Together, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Womack, J.P., Roos, D. and Jones, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Macmillan,New York, NY.

Wycherley, I. (1999), “Greening supply chains: the case of the Body Shop International”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-7.

Yang, B. and Burns, N. (2003), “Implications of postponement for the supply chain”, InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 2075-90.

Zeng, K. and Eastin, J. (2007), “International economic integration and environmental protection:the case of China”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 971-95.

Zhu, Q. and Cote, R.P. (2004), “Integrating green supply chain management into an embryoniceco-industrial development: a case study of the Guitang Group”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 12 Nos 8/10, pp. 1025-35.

Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performanceamong early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinesemanufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-89.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures,practices and performance”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-68.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.-H. (2007), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practicesand performance within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 15 Nos 11/12, pp. 1041-52.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J. and Lai, K.-H. (2008), “Firm-level correlates of emergent greensupply chain management practices in the Chinese context”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 4,pp. 577-91.

Corresponding authorWendy L. Tate can be contacted at: wendy.tate@utk.edu

Green, lean,and global

supply chains

41

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.