making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature

Making connections: a review of supply chainmanagement and sustainability literature

Alison Ashby, Mike Leat and Melanie Hudson-Smith

School of Business Management, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

AbstractPurpose – The objective of this paper is to investigate systematically the discipline of supply chain management (SCM) within the context ofsustainability. The two concepts are increasingly aligned, and sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) represents an evolving field where theyexplicitly interact. Given their complex and holistic nature, breaking down the literature to understand its structures, processes, connections andlimitations can provide an objective view of the status of research in these highly important fields, identifying key areas for future research/theorydevelopment.Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review of current SCM literature is carried out, specifically in relation to the social and environmentaldimensions of sustainability.Findings – SSCM and the integration of sustainability into supply chains is a significant but evolving field evidenced by a current bias in the literaturetowards theory development and highly qualitative research methods. The environmental dimension is significantly better represented in the literaturethrough specific processes at all stages of the supply chain. The social dimension is recognised, but receives less emphasis than expected given SCM’sfocus on interaction, relationships and communication. These two dimensions are treated separately in the literature with limited insight on how tointegrate them and current SCM and sustainability research provides limited practical outputs.Research limitations/implications – The review focuses on environmental and social sustainability within supply chains without explicitconsideration of the economic dimension.Practical implications – The review highlights the key themes and issues for supply chain managers faced with implementing sustainability. It alsoillustrates a number of areas for future research, along with the need for researchers to develop more practical tools for implementing SSCM.Originality/value – Indicates the extent to which sustainability is integrated within SCM and where the research emphasis currently lies. Theenvironmental dimension is significantly more defined and developed in the literature. SCM literature emphasises the importance of long-term supplierrelationships, but this “people-focused” approach does not appear to translate into socially responsible supply chains. It suggests that the moreprocess-driven nature of environmental sustainability makes it easier to put into supply chain practice. There is also limited research or evidence on howthe two dimensions can be integrated despite recognition of their inter-relationship.

Keywords Supply chain management, Sustainable supply chain management, Environmental sustainability, Social sustainability,Sustainable development, Research

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

There is increasing consumer and stakeholder expectation forfirms to be fully responsible for their business operations, andto clearly demonstrate their environmental and ethicalbehaviour. Most organisations are a part of at least onesupply chain (Samaranayake, 2005) and in today’s globalmarket competition is increasingly based on “supply chain vssupply chain” (Gold et al., 2009; Soler et al., 2010).Therefore, the expected line of responsibility needs toextend along the full extent of a firm’s supply chains into itsproducts, processes and relationships.Globalisation and recent economic trends have created

highly complex supply chains (Varma et al., 2006) and thedesign, organisation, interactions, competences, capabilitiesand management of these supply chains have become key

issues (Gold et al., 2009). Supply chain management (SCM)

is therefore highly relevant both to successfully competing in

today’s market and in addressing responsible behaviour at all

stages of the supply chain. It represents a potentially

important discipline for establishing how to integrate

environmental and social considerations and practices, to

achieve the goal of sustainability.The development of SCM has been largely practitioner-led

(Burgess et al., 2006) and represents an evolutionary step

beyond logistics (Samaranayake, 2005). It extends logistics

thought by integrating the management of co-operations with

that of material and information flows (Handfield and Nichols,

1999). The prime driver for the rapid development of SCM

has been economic sustainability, based on the premise that an

integrated and efficient supply chain helps to minimise

monetary risks and increase profits (Fawcett et al., 2008).The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

17/5 (2012) 497–516

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]

[DOI 10.1108/13598541211258573]

Received 28 August 2010Revised 16 March 201130 June 20118 October 201121 December 2011Accepted 23 December 2011

497

However in 1983 the World Commission on theEnvironment and Development (WCED) was establishedand the result of their work formalised in the 1987Brundtland Report “Our Common Future”. It definedsustainability as “development which meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).A total of 25 years later this remains the most often quoteddefinition of this concept and its two central tenets are:1 “the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of

the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should begiven;” and

2 “the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technologyand social organisation on the environment’s ability tomeet present and future needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).

This has led, slowly, to social and environmental sustainabilitybecoming additional drivers for SCM, with sustainable supplychain management (SSCM) now a rapidly evolving field thatrequires a broadened approach to SCM, incorporating theecological and social aspects of business, as well as economicsustainability, in line with the Brundtland definition(Svensson, 2007). It is, therefore, “the strategic, transparentintegration and achievement of an organisation’s social,environmental and economic goals in the systemiccoordination of key inter-organisational business processesfor improving the long term economic performance of theindividual company and its supply chains” (Carter andRogers, 2008, p. 368).While there is clearly academic recognition of the need to

integrate economic, environmental and social sustainability,given the broad nature of these fields there is a tangible need todevelop a better and more focused understanding ofsustainability specifically in relation to supply chains. Howsustainable supply chains are defined, interpreted, researchedand practiced are key to this improved understanding and areview of relevant literature provides the most appropriatemeans to achieve this and guide future research in SSCM.Sustainability and SCM represent growing and highlyimportant areas for research, but there have been fewliterature reviews to date that examine the two fields togetherand even fewer systematic reviews. Given the complexity ofboth research areas the process of breaking down the literaturesystematically and understanding its structures, processes,connections and limitations can provide a more objective viewof the status of research in these two important fields.Through the use of a systematic review this paper will

address the following research questions:1 How has sustainability been represented in supply chain

research to date?. What are the key similarities and differences in focus

and findings/outputs?. What methodologies have been used, which dominate

and why?

This structured process will enable key gaps in the literatureto be identified and directions and approaches for futureresearch/theory development to be proposed. The followingsection will detail the methodology used for the systematicreview and is followed by a presentation of the findings. Thefindings are structured to discuss the broad discipline ofSupply Chain Management in relation to sustainability andthen focus more specifically on how the environmental andsocial dimensions are represented in the literature to date.These findings are then compared against other relevant

structured literature reviews and the contribution of thispaper detailed. Identified gaps in SCM and sustainabilityresearch are discussed and finally the impact of these findingson future Sustainable Supply Chain Management research isconsidered.

Methodology

For a systematic literature review it is important to defineclear boundaries to delimitate the research (Seuring andMuller, 2008a) and establish a protocol for identifying,selecting and reviewing literature relevant to the specificquestion (Burgess et al., 2006). This form of review typicallyhas the three defined stages of Planning, where the researchneed and question is identified; conducting which includesthe search for relevant literature and its analysis; andreporting where the findings are formalised andrecommendations made (Tranfield et al., 2003).Structured literature reviews within the Operations

Management discipline (Seuring and Muller, 2008b; Burgesset al., 2006) illustrate the objective nature of this approach inestablishing key themes or dimensions, and the benefits thatcan be provided to improve future research (Burgess et al.,2006). As well as reviewing content as in a standard literaturereview process, this approach investigates the underlyingstructure of the selected papers to identify differences andsimilarities in methods used and potential issues that resultfrom each. Through this process methodological strengths aretested and key gaps in knowledge identified.Once it was established that a systematic and objective

review of Supply Chain Management (SCM) andsustainability literature was to be undertaken a set of searchcriteria was applied to identify the most relevant papers. Theliterature search was limited to peer-reviewed journalsproduced in English and for quality purposes the initialproposal was to limit searches to journals rated from 2-4 * inthe ABS journal rankings (2010). However, recognising theinterdisciplinary nature of the subject areas, along with thefact that sustainability and SCM are both rapidly evolvingconcepts, it was deemed important to include relevantjournals which fell outside this scope, to ensure that all themost current and relevant research was included.Table I indicates the ABS ranking for each of the accessed

journals. Important publications that did not fit within thespecified range include the Journal of Cleaner Production andGreener Management International. These journals are notcurrently ABS ranked but are explicitly focused on cuttingedge research in the field of sustainability with a strongemphasis on the operational context, and respectivelycontributed 10 and 12 relevant papers for review.As the subject of sustainability is expansive, the search was

focused on sustainability in relation to supply chains andSCM. Sustainability is considered “an important conceptualframework” for aligning economic, environmental and socialdimensions (Dempsey et al., 2009) and these three “pillars”are pervasive within sustainability literature (Springett, 2003;Vachon and Mao, 2008; Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008).However, while the importance of the economic dimension isrecognised it was considered to be outside the scope of thisreview and therefore excluded from the literature search as akeyword/phrase.

Search criteriaThe idea of sustainability was verbalised by Schumacher asearly as 1972, as “permanence”, where “nothing makes

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

498

economic sense unless its continuance for a long time can be

projected without running into absurdities” (Grinde and

Khare, 2008), and was acknowledged in key works such as

“Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al., 1972) which modelled

the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and

finite natural resources. However it was not until the WCED

was established that the environmental and social dimensions

of sustainability were more explicitly formalised. Therefore

only publications from 1983 to present day were included in

the literature search to ensure these two key dimensions were

represented. It also indicates how recent the multi-dimensional

concept of sustainability is in academic literature and how it

has paralleled SCM, which has only been formally recognised

as a discipline since the early 1980s (Svensson and Baath,

2008). Figure 1 shows the spread of the reviewed papers from

1983 and illustrates the growing research interest in the fields

of sustainability and SCM, with the most substantial growth

occurring from 2001 onwards.

This review intends to inform sustainability research within

SCM. The literature search was restricted to peer-reviewed

publications within the broad definition of business,

management and economics applied by the chosen search

databases, recognising the cross-disciplinary nature of both

fields. The literature search simultaneously employed the

three databases of Science Direct, EBSCO and Emerald

Fulltext. While this relatively small number of databases could

be considered as a limitation they provided collective access to

over 4,500 academic publications including all key operations

and supply chain journals. They therefore provided a

significant hit rate for relevant SCM and sustainability

literature across multiple disciplines, which was a key

consideration for this review. However it also created some

duplication, so it was necessary to cross-check the search

results from each database to ensure that the correct numbers

of hits were recorded.

Table I Reviewed journals

Journal title ABS ranking No. of papers

Academy of Management Journal 4 1

Academy of Management Review 4 6

British Journal of Management 4 2

Business Ethics: A European Review 2 1

Business Process Management Journal 1 1

Business Strategy & the Environment 2 14

California Management Review 3 1

Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management 1 6

European Journal of Operational Research 3 2

European Management Journal 2 1

Greener Management International 10

Harvard Business Review 4 3

International Food & Agribusiness Management Review 1

International Journal of Management Reviews 3 1

International Journal of Operations & Production Management 3 8

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 2 3

International Journal of Production Economics 3 3

International Journal of Production Research 3 3

International Journal of Purchasing & Material 1

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2 1

Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 2 1

Journal of Business Logistics 2 3

Journal of Cleaner Production 12

Journal of Industrial Ecology 2 1

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 2 2

Journal of Marketing 4 1

Journal of Operations Management 4 6

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2 1

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 3 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management 1 9

Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 3 1

Production & Operations Management 4 2

Social Responsibility Journal 1

Strategic Management Journal 4 1

Supply Chain Management Review 5

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 3 15

Sustainable Development 2

Transportation Research Part E 3 1

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

499

An initial search was made using the term sustainable supplychain management in all search fields and this produced acombined results list of 11,020 hits. The same term was thenrestricted to article title or keyword and substantially reducedthe number of hits to just 70. Allowing for duplication of hitsand calls for papers across the three databases and identifyingthose papers which specifically related to sustainable supplychain management this number was reduced to 14 articlesfrom quality peer reviewed journals. A search forsustainability and supply chain management in all fieldsproduced 8,156 results, while a focus on title and/or keywordsreduced it to 35 hits. This smaller number allowed for theabstract of each paper to be reviewed to establish its relevanceto the research question and provided a further six papers tothe overall review.A standard approach to selecting papers for a literature

review is to apply a statistical sampling method to a largenumber of results (Burgess et al., 2006), but the above processhighlights how sustainability in SCM is a developing field witha limited number of articles that deal explicitly with thissubject. Therefore the use of title and/or keywords as thesearch criteria enabled the number of articles to be reduced tothe extent that it was possible to evaluate the relevance of thepapers individually. However the 26 papers resulting from theabove process were considered insufficient for an effectivereview and a further set of search terms were utilised tocapture papers that did not sit explicitly within sustainablesupply chain management, but that were still relevant tosustainability in the context of supply chains. Therefore thiswas not a random search process, but one that wasprogressively refined by the use of specific search terms andensured that appropriate and high quality papers wereretrieved for review.Sustainability is an expansive, multi-faceted and heavily

debated concept (Wilkinson et al., 2001), and a search on this

single term yielded 74,642 results in all fields and more than6,000 if restricted to a keyword, so it was important to ensurethat the chosen literature dealt specifically with the concept inrelation to supply chains and supply chain management. Theterms of Sustainability and Sustainable Development arefrequently used interchangeably (Aras and Crowther, 2009),so the latter term was added to the literature search and usedin conjunction with the keywords of supply chains and/orsupply chain management. There was significant overlap withthe prior search using the term sustainability, but it did yield afurther five papers for review.“Green supply chains” as a search term used in both title

and keyword produced 122 combined results across the threedatabases. Using quality criteria of peer reviewed journals andkey recognised authors in the field, removing calls for papersand duplications across the three databases plus papers thathad already been identified this number was reduced to 35papers. This represented the largest group of papers across allthe search terms, as indicated in Table II.This process was repeated with other key search terms that

related to the whole supply chain and which align withsustainability (see Table II). All search terms were used inconjunction with the additional terms of supply chains andsupply chain management for both title and keyword.Through this process and the restricted search criteria atotal of 134 articles were selected for review. While thesearticles represent a significant proportion of the relevantliterature on sustainability and SCM it was recognised thatthe chosen methodology and specific search criteria wouldinevitably exclude some work in the field.

Analysis and findings

Table I lists the journals that were accessed for the review andthe number of papers acquired from each. While there is a

Figure 1 Number of reviewed papers per year

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

500

strong emphasis on operations and supply chain management

journals as would be expected, it also illustrates the multi-

disciplinary approach required in a systematic review (Burgess

et al., 2006; Tranfield et al., 2003) with journals crossing

business management, strategy and sustainability. This

recognises the need for considering cross-disciplinary

perspectives in systematic reviews and shows the different

ways the research topic has been approached (Tranfield et al.,2003; Burgess et al., 2006).To minimise any potential bias the search process was

conducted using keywords across a series of research databases

and not at individual journal level. However it is pertinent to

note how many of the accessed journals in Table I relate

specifically to the environmental dimension, and the high

proportion of papers which they provided. As previously

outlined ABS ranked 2-4* journals represented the largest

percentage of reviewed publications. However given the

growing importance and contemporary nature of

sustainability within the supply chain management discipline,

the most up to date material is often found in newer and/or

lower ranking journals as they typically have shorter

publication lead times. Therefore, journals that were deemed

highly relevant, but which fell outside the 2-4* scope were still

included to ensure the most current research was represented.The range of papers reviewed illustrates the holistic nature

of supply chain management (SCM) and sustainability and

highlights the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to

capture the most relevant literature (Burgess et al., 2006).

Consequently a range of research philosophies and methods

were represented (see Table III), rather than a focus on one

type of study or form of data (Armitage and Keeble-Allen,

2008). Table III indicates how substantial the research

interest is in sustainability within supply chains and the extent

to which it is discussed in academic literature. However it also

illustrates a lack of systematic literature reviews (only 4 of the

17 literature reviews apply a systematic approach) in

comparison to other methods and emphasises the need for a

systematic review of these fields.The majority of the reviewed literature was academic

research papers – 108 in total with four of these explicitly

referenced as conceptual papers. A total of 28 of the reviewed

items were classified as articles and these were largely more

report based rather than dealing with an explicit research

question. There were also four introductions to special issues

on sustainability with two specific to sustainable supply chain

management (SSCM). The diversity in the literature

illustrates the contemporary nature of the subject and that it

is broadly discussed and reported as well being heavilyresearched across multiple areas of business and management.

Research methodologiesTable III illustrates the highly qualitative nature of the currentliterature as less than 25 per cent of the reviewed papers usedquantitative data collection methods or analysis. Case studiesrepresented the dominant research methodology in relation tosupply chains and sustainability. Over 50 per cent of the casestudies were conducted with just one or two firms with thegreater proportion being with single firms and investigatingtheir whole supply chain. Only one case study used more thanfive firms and focused on ten exemplar organisations thatemploy socially responsible buying (Pagell and Wu, 2009).Very few of the reviewed papers applied a pure deductive

approach to “test” pre-established theory, indicating how newthe integration of sustainability into SCM is, and how thetheory related to this area is still developing. This may explainthe dominance of inductive research methods such as casestudies, which are better at gaining insight and understandingof complex, contemporary “real world” phenomena (Yin,2009) in this review.There were ten instances of interviews being used as the

method of data collection and the majority of these interviewswere semi-structured where questions may be adjusted oradapted in response to any new or interesting facets that ariseduring the interview process (Reuter et al., 2010). Thisindicates an emphasis in current research on acquiring morequalitative, rich and descriptive information. The survey andquestionnaire methods also focused on acquiring qualitativerather than quantitative data although these methods lendthemselves to either form. Two Delphi studies were undertakenwith experts/practitioners in the supply chain field and weremore quantitative in their approach (Seuring, 2008; Handfieldet al., 2002). The former applied a Likert scale and statisticalanalysis to inform understanding of SSCM while the otherapplied a ranking approach to key environmental criteria todevelop a potential decision support model.This latter study provided one of the few tangible outputs

within the reviewed literature – eight models and 16conceptual frameworks were developed with 6 of theseframeworks appearing in Supply Chain Management: anInternational Journal (SCMIJ). The largest number ofmodels/frameworks focused on the concept of sustainablesupply chain management, followed closely by environmentalmanagement, and the emphasis for both of these themes wason supply chain strategy and decision making. Two socially

Table III Methodologies of reviewed papers

Methodology Number of instances

Case study 28

Survey/questionnaire 21

Discussion/evaluation 18

Literature review 17

Theory/concept development 14

General review of papers/tools/concepts 12

Interviews 10

Modelling 7

Content analysis 3

Delphi study 2

Statistical analysis 2

Table II Search terms

Search term Number of papers

Green supply chains 35

Supply chain management (SCM) 29

Sustainability/sustainable development 16

Environmental sustainability 14

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) 14

Corporate social responsibility 8

Social sustainability 7

Closed loop supply chains 7

Life cycle analysis (LCA) 3

Integrated chain management 1

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

501

responsible purchasing models were developed (Leire andMont, 2010; Carter and Jennings, 2002), perhaps reflectingthe more measurable nature of this supply chain stage as itdeals with tangible materials. Four models focused on socialresponsibility/CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007; Hahn et al., 2010;McElroy et al., 2007; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) whileonly one output explicitly addressed the more holistic conceptof “closed loop” supply chains (Defee et al., 2009).This lack of outputs further highlights that current research

is focused on understanding the emergent phenomenon ofsustainable supply chains and developing theory. SCM isfundamentally a practical discipline which focuses onproducts and processes and the links/relationships thatfacilitate these. While the different research methodsexhibited in Table III are largely grounded in understanding“real world” situations current sustainable supply chainresearch is not informing practice significantly. This supportsa recognised lack of impact of research on managementpractice (Ghoshal, 2005), and the difficulties in addressingthe more “human” elements of sustainability.While the reviewed literature may not currently provide a

significant number of tangible outputs it does reveal a researchbias toward operational processes, assessments and procedures,i.e. practical measures as the means to address sustainability insupply chains. A total of 46 per cent of the reviewed papersfocused on the “greening” of products, processes andperformance and yet both SCM and sustainability areconcepts that implicitly require an integrated, holisticapproach. This could be considered a key limitation ofcurrent sustainability and SCM research and highlights thehighly complex and challenging nature of these fields.

Sustainability dimensionsTable IV illustrates the high proportion of articles relatingspecifically to the environmental dimension of sustainability,with “green” supply chains representing a particularly strongarea of research. This aligns with the higher number ofarticles coming from environmentally focused journals (seeTable I). To examine this observed difference in emphasis,during the review process it was recorded whether an articlereferred to the key dimensions of society and environmentindividually and/or collectively. A total of 106 papers in totalexplicitly discussed one or more of the dimensions while theremaining 28 papers made no substantial reference to eitherdimension, discussing SCM and sustainability in a broadercontext. This process enabled the current research status ofeach aspect to be established and to gain an indication of howintegrated the dimensions are within supply chains.The environmental dimension is substantially better

represented than the social dimension in the literature and,even where both were discussed, the emphasis was onenvironmental, rather than social practices/principles. Papersthat dealt specifically with the social dimension tended tofocus on one specific area or practice, for example Fairtraderather than taking a fully holistic view. The environmentseemed more fully aligned with supply chain performance as itcan provide measurable benefits, whereas social sustainability

was considered more ambiguous (Banerjee, 2010). Inaddition, its inter-relationship with the environmentaldimension received limited explicit discussion within theliterature, and those papers that referred to both dimensionstreated them as separate entities.

Key themesHaving systematically identified the most relevant literaturethe process of research synthesis was undertaken, whichcollectively relates to the summarizing and integrating ofdifferent studies on the chosen topic (Tranfield et al., 2003).As well as identifying key similarities it was important to applya critical approach when reviewing the text to identify andassess both heterogeneity between the papers and theirindividual quality (Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008). Thisinterpretative, “meta-synthesis” approach allows theimportant similarities and differences to be considered(Tranfield et al., 2003; Burgess et al., 2006) and looks forexplanations to gain a deep understanding of the studied area(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The use of coding schemes(Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Miles, 1979; Charmaz, 2006) andcross-comparison with the other papers enabled theidentification of a series of key themes and categories withinsustainability and Supply Chain Management literature todate.Table V presents the key themes that were identified

through the above analysis process and lists all the papers thathad content associated with each theme, together with anoverall count which is ranked to indicate the themes that havereceived the most research attention to date. The referencenumbers cross reference to those allocated to each of thereviewed papers in the Appendix. These key themes arediscussed and reported in the following sections, firstly inrelation to the discipline of sustainable supply chainmanagement (SSCM) and then specifically to theenvironmental and social dimensions of sustainability.Where appropriate the reference numbers for specific paperswithin a theme are cited.

(Sustainable) supply chain management

There were 29 papers relating to supply chain management(SCM) as evidenced in Table V and while sustainable supplychain management (SSCM) is an explicit evolvement of thisdiscipline it is currently less well represented in the literature,with only 14 reviewed papers (see Table V) dealing explicitlywith this subject. The earliest publication date on SSCM was2003, compared to the reviewed SCM papers which started in1996. While this shows that SSCM is an emergent field themajority of SCM papers featured in the review were publishedafter 2005 and showed a growth in line with the SSCMliterature. The dominant research method utilised in bothfields is the literature review, followed by case studies. Four ofthe literature reviews employed a systematic method (12, 14,109, 129) with three being published in 2011 and only 1paper in either of the studied fields used a statistical/quantitative research method (89).The initial, more traditional view of SCM was that it could be

used to leverage suppliers to achieve lowest purchase prices and/or to assure supplies. However, the paradigm that has evolvedviews it as a process for designing, developing, optimising andmanaging internal and external components of the supply chain(Spekman et al., 1998). Despite this, some authors see atendency for SCM to be framed in terms of processes and hard,quantifiable elements (Burgess et al., 2006). Consequently

Table IV Occurrences of environmental and social dimensions in thereviewed literature

Environmental Social Both

Number of articles 52 20 34

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

502

SCM can be seen as “a corporate function of increasing

economic importance, but one that is not pulling its weight in

environmental protection” (Preuss, 2005b, p. 133).While definitions of SCM may vary the key commonalities

represented in the literature are co-operation, coordination,

integration and collaboration together with a recognition of its

cross-disciplinary nature (Frankel et al., 2008) – these

features were referred to in 42 separate papers (see Table V).

Spekman et al. (1998) consider co-operation as the threshold

level of interaction where firms exchange some essential

information and engage some suppliers in long-term

relationships, while in coordination workflow and

information is exchanged to allow more seamless linkages.

The latter stage of collaboration represents the optimum level

and occurs when two or more independent firms work

together in partnership to plan and execute supply chain

operations with greater success than if they acted in isolation

(Nyaga et al., 2010).There is significant recognition in the reviewed literature

that supply chain integration extends beyond traditionally

defined functional boundaries (Frankel et al., 2008). SCM is

considered a boundary-spanning activity (Fawcett et al.,

2008) and there is growing acceptance that a firm’s impact

extends beyond any single, core process to the complete

product life cycle (Sharfman et al., 2009) with focal firms

being responsible for their products “from cradle to grave”

(Lippman, 2001, Kleindorfer et al., 2005) i.e. from productdesign to product disposal.Reverse logistics (RL), where a manufacturer accepts

previously shipped products or parts for recycling,remanufacturing or disposal (Varma et al., 2006) extendsthis responsibility from “cradle to cradle” and underpins theconcept of SSCM which recognises sustainability at all supplychain stages. Acknowledging the end of the product lifecycleis increasingly seen as a competitive necessity (Varma et al.,2006) and has significant relevance to addressing theenvironmental dimension successfully (Crandall, 2006;Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002). Waste and emissionscaused by supply chains are considered the main sources ofserious environmental problems and a focus on wasteprevention/control is one of the most effective ways to tacklethese problems (Min and Galle, 1997). Resource reductionthrough recycling, re-use and waste elimination is the goal ofRL (Carter and Ellram, 1998) and can lead to cost savingsand enhanced competitiveness (Rao and Holt, 2005).Specific issues that need to be addressed in SSCM include

co-operation and communication between supply chainmembers to achieve a proactive sustainability approach; riskmanagement to identify environmental and social problemsbefore they are exposed publicly; and the total life cycle of aproduct (Seuring, 2008; Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002).This extends to the re-conceptualisation of the supply chainby changing what it does, moving toward the closed loop

Table V Referenced papers for each theme

Theme Papers reference numbers (see Appendix for bibliographic details) Count

Recycling 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 49, 50, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65,

69, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122,

124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134 53

Cooperation/coordination/collaboration 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 23, 24, 26, 31, 41, 52, 53, 61, 62, 71, 76, 79, 81, 84, 90, 100, 101, 103,

104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 114, 116, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131,132, 133,

134 42

“Greening” 3, 5, 11, 20, 23, 24, 32, 33, 35, 41, 47, 48, 52, 54, 58, 61, 65, 70, 77, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94,

96, 98, 107, 108, 111, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 130, 131, 132, 134 40

Supply chain management (SCM) 8, 11, 12, 18, 22, 31, 34, 36, 43, 51, 56, 63, 65, 66, 67,71, 76, 77, 78, 85, 86, 92, 101, 102,

109, 110, 116, 125, 126 29

Social dimension 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 38, 40, 55, 59, 73, 75, 86, 95, 97, 103, 104, 106, 113,

118, 125, 126, 127 27

Reverse logistics 4, 5, 12, 15, 26, 32, 49, 54, 60, 62, 64, 67, 78, 81, 89, 93, 94, 95, 103, 104, 111, 120, 129,

131, 134 25

Green purchasing 5, 10, 20, 41, 49, 54, 68, 77, 82, 88, 89, 93, 104, 111, 115, 116, 123, 124, 125, 130, 131,

132, 133, 134 24

Product stewardship 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 23, 24, 30, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 80, 87, 93, 123, 124, 125, 131, 133 23

Reuse 5, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 30, 44, 49, 60, 77, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 101, 120, 122, 130, 131, 133 23

Green supply chain management (GSCM) 11, 24, 54, 58, 85, 89, 91, 94, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 19

Remanufacturing 4, 5, 9, 15, 26, 32, 42, 49, 60, 69, 78,88,93, 95, 111,120 16

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) 1, 14, 15, 29, 38, 64, 69, 72, 81, 103, 104, 115, 127, 129 14

Fairtrade 14, 21, 38, 40, 55, 59, 86, 103, 104, 113, 125, 126, 127 13

Environmental management (EM) 3, 9, 20, 24, 30, 32, 44, 50, 80, 88, 105, 106 12

Social equity 3, 6, 37, 46, 53, 64, 70, 83, 97, 106, 125, 129 12

Social capital 2, 6, 8, 13, 15, 23, 28, 74, 79, 90, 126 11

Design for the environment (DfE) 3, 5, 10, 24, 30, 52, 93, 112, 131 9

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) 2, 4, 13, 25, 75, 97, 118 7

Socially responsible purchasing (SRP) 16, 27, 68, 73, 82, 114 6

Environmental supply chain management (ESCM) 45, 47,48, 50, 122 5

Life cycle analysis (LCA) 59, 100, 101 3

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

503

systems created through the use of RL and reconceptualisingwho is in the supply chain (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Forwardand reverse supply chains form a “closed loop” whenmanaged in a coordinated way and can foster sustainability(Kleindorfer et al., 2005). However Svensson (2007) arguesthat this still restricts SCM to point of origin and endboundaries and needs to recognise the inherent horizontalinterconnections in and between supply chains.

The environmental dimensionThe “green” or environmental dimension was wellrepresented in the literature as evidenced in Table IV andthe search term of “green supply chains” returned the highestnumber of papers for this review, suggesting this is currentlythe most developed interaction between supply chainmanagement (SCM) and sustainability. “Green” was thedominant term used in discussion of this dimension, featuringin 40 papers with almost 50 per cent of these explicitlyrelating to the field of green supply chain management(GSCM) – see Table V.A “green” supply chain is where a focal firm works with

their suppliers to improve the environmental performance ofproducts and manufacturing processes (Simpson and Power,2005; Zhu et al., 2005). It requires a paradigm shift from theconventional association of success around financialparameters, and a holistic environment concern (Varmaet al., 2006). Supply chain relationships have traditionallybeen dominated by cost, quality and delivery, and theenvironment is rarely seen as critical when compared withthese objectives (Simpson and Power, 2005). The reviewedliterature acknowledged that supply chain relationships can bea key avenue for firms to influence their environmentalperformance, but as highlighted the current focus of SCMand sustainability research is on the more tangible elements ofproduct, process and performance.Green supply chain management (GSCM) integrates

environmental issues into SCM processes by identifyingcosts, benefits and risks, along with opportunities (Zhu et al.,2008) to manage and reduce waste with the ultimate aim ofwaste elimination (Handfield et al., 2005). It also has thepotential to reduce the direct and indirect environmentalimpacts of an organisation’s final product (Darnall et al.,2008). However the reviewed literature recognises that firmsadopting GSCM may only evaluate first tier suppliers (Darnallet al., 2008), whereas the SCM function has an impact faralong the supply chain to second and third tier suppliers, andpotentially beyond (Preuss, 2005b; Pagell and Wu, 2009).The term environmental supply chain management

(ESCM) is also utilised to describe the set of supply chainmanagement policies held, actions taken, and relationshipsformed in response to concerns related to the naturalenvironment (Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002). Incomparison to GSCM it is the lesser used term with onlyfive instances in the reviewed papers against 19 of GSCM (seeTable V). Despite this difference in terminology the literatureemphasises the growing attention to this specific field, whichhas largely developed in the last ten years.All the reviewed papers relating to these specific themes were

published between 2001 and present, and the field’s importanceis further evidenced in Table II by the number of papersfocusing on green, or environmental, supply chains. Researchmethods used in the papers had a qualitative emphasis and themost common data collection method was surveys orquestionnaires followed by case studies/interviews. Only threepapers offered practical outputs in the form of models for

strategic decision-making and measurement in GSCM andways to integrate the environment into SCM (50, 94, 134).

Environmental managementA total of 12 of the reviewed papers dealt explicitly with thethemes of environmental management (EM) andenvironmental management systems (EMS) (see Table V).Five of these reviewed specific literature from the field whilethe remaining papers evenly employed case study, interviewand survey research methods. Eight of the papers (24, 30, 35,45, 47, 50, 100, 105) looked at the interaction of EM withSCM or sustainability with 50 per cent positioning EM withinthe context of supply chains. One paper (41) discussed EMSspecifically in relation to purchasing and another focused onthe relationship between EM and the social dimension ofsustainability (106).Three defined approaches to environmental management

were represented in the reviewed literature. Reactivecharacterised by “end of pipe” pollution control; proactivewhere firms recycle and re-use products/materials within theirsupply chains and pre-empt new environmental legislation; andvalue-seeking where environmental behaviour is integrated intothe business strategy with a supply network wide responsibility(van Hoek, 1999). Most current EM investment tends to be in“end-of-pipe” technologies, i.e. a reactive approach (Vachonand Klassen, 2006) as this means that production processesand products can remain unchanged.Environmental management systems are often limited to

organisational boundaries rather than greening the entiresupply chain, and firms can market themselves as beingenvironmentally proactive simply by having an EMS (Darnallet al., 2008). An EMS can provide the means to measureenvironmental performance (New and Westbrook, 2004) andallow external stakeholders to verify whether environmentalimprovements actually occur at firm and supply chain level(Darnall et al., 2008). However the literature largelyconsidered compliance as a sub-optimal approach (Preuss,2005b), with attainment of regulated standards easilydetermined, while life cycle oriented approaches requiremore unstructured and non-routine processes than aregenerally the norm (Sharfman et al., 2009).Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a means to evaluate

environmental impacts at every supply chain stage, but onlythree of the reviewed papers (59, 100, 101) dealt with thismore holistic approach. The environmental effects of aproduct during its lifecycle can be integrally assessed, butthere are questions in the literature over its usefulness,representativeness and legitimacy which Hagelaar and van derVorst (2001) try to explicitly address. To truly gain from LCAstrong supply chain partnerships are needed (Kjaerheim,2005), but despite SCM’s expected emphasis on relationshipsthe literature focuses more on the “greening” of specificsupply chain processes. This may explain the current lack ofLCA literature, highlighting this as a potential gap as well as aneed for a more holistic, relational view to be applied tosustainable supply chain management (SSCM) research.

Design for the environment. Design for the environment(DfE) represents both the design and development of newproducts and processes (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006). Itprovides an avenue for the firm to address the naturalenvironment (Preuss, 2005b), and to design and developrecoverable products which are durable, repeatedly usable,harmlessly recoverable and environmentally compatible indisposal (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006). Environmental

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

504

innovation can be realised as a new product, process, ortechnology which reduces environmental impact (Hall, 2001).Nine papers referred to DfE (see Table V) with life cycle

analysis (LCA) recognised as a planning tool that contributedto this practice, and the majority of the reviewed literaturediscussed DfE in relation to the physical product. A numberof difficulties were associated with DfE, namely designers’unfamiliarity with the process and its lack of integration withother design tools (Albino et al., 2009) which in turn lead toissues in coordinating the process with manufacturing. It wasseen as an emerging tool which requires refinement to beeffective and none of the papers explicitly dealt with how DfEcan be used in practice.Further recognised dimensions of integrating environmental

concern include design for recycling (DfR) and design fordisassembly (DfD) (Gupta, 1995). These approaches arecomplementary allowing for more efficient and profitablereuse/disposal of product components, and can extend todesigning for easier remanufacturing and reuse of a wholeproduct. However these tools were significantlyunderrepresented in the literature with one reference made toDfR (44) and one paper discussing the features of DfD (93).

Product stewardship. Product stewardship is representative ofthe cradle to grave (or cradle) responsibility for the lifecycle ofa product (Angell and Klassen, 1999). It is focused on“product-based green supply” (Seuring, 2008) and istherefore linked to DfE, which draws on data to designproducts with a reduced impact in the environment (Angelland Klassen, 1999). The goal is to keep all materials withinthe life cycle and therefore minimise any flow into the externalenvironment (Sarkis, 1995).The principle of product stewardship is to extend the

environmental perspective to the entire value chain to includeother internal and external stakeholders such as R&D,designers and suppliers (Rusinko, 2007). Examples includeredesigning products and processes, using renewableresources and working with suppliers to prevent pollution(Rusinko, 2007). The key advantage to be gained from thisapproach is competitive pre-emption through establishing areputation as a “green” company (Hart, 1995).Product stewardship was better represented in the literature

than other components of environmental management (EM)with 23 papers (see Table V) referring to this principle,perhaps due to the opportunities it offers in different supplychain areas rather than just the design stage. Eight of thesepapers recognised product stewardship as a component ofgreen supply chain management (GSCM) or EM (3, 24, 30,54, 80, 123, 124, 133) and discussed it in relation to othergreen supply chain practices, and four papers (5, 47, 60, 93)explicitly referred to this principle as a key factor in closedloop supply chains.Only four of the 23 papers (3, 24, 52, 93) discussed product

stewardship in any detail and there was an emphasis on itsstrategic role and the benefits it can provide, as well asrecognition for the need to integrate LCA. One paperprovided industry examples of product stewardship and adiagnostic tool (3), while Hart (1995) tested a series ofhypotheses to produce suggestions for how to successfullybuild this approach into operational strategies.

Green purchasing. Purchasing is considered to have the mostpotential to address sustainability within supply chainmanagement (SCM) because it is grounded in non-altruisticmarket principles (Hall, 2000), i.e. innovating SCM andpurchasing in the context of the environment makes goodbusiness sense and is more readily practicable than other

approaches. A total of 24 of the reviewed papers (see Table V)discussed green purchasing to different extents andrecognised authors in this field are Zhu and Sarkis. In theirfive reviewed papers they position purchasing as one of aseries of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices(130, 131, 132, 133, 134) and the literature as a whole sawgreen purchasing as a growing practice. Zhu and Sarkis’research is quantitative, testing propositions and statisticallyanalysing green purchasing practice in different industries andcountries. This suggests that this area is currently moredeveloped than some other aspects of environmentalsustainability, perhaps because of its focus on a single process.The role of strategic purchasing is to direct activities

towards opportunities that will enable a firm to achieve itslong-term goals (Carr and Smeltzer, 1999) and achieve anoptimal purchasing strategy in a supply network environment(Svahn and Westerlund, 2009). In addition it emphasises theimportance of building relationships with suppliers and can bepositively linked to greening the supply process (Gold et al.,2009). A total of 50 per cent of the 24 papers emphasised theimportance of green purchasing as a means to meet thestrategic needs of an organisation and discussed the benefits,barriers and drivers for this practice (5, 20, 41, 77, 88, 89,94,104, 115, 116, 123, 124).

Reverse logistics. Traditional logistics manages the supply ofgoods from the producer to the end consumer (Lippman,2001), while reverse logistics (RL) relates to productsreturned by the customer to the focal company. It has thepurpose of recovering and potentially generating value(Blumberg, 2005) or properly disposing of these products(Lippman, 2001), and increasingly requires as much focus asforward chain processes (Crandall, 2006). It is a “processwhereby companies can become more environmentallyefficient through recycling, reusing and reducing the amountof materials used” (Carter and Ellram, 1998, p. 85).The typical industry practice of disposal of parts, materials

and assemblies can represent a major cost contributor(Blumberg, 2005), while RL provides the maximumutilisation of used products, where every output is returnedto natural systems or becomes an input for manufacturinganother product (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006). Products,parts, subassemblies and materials represent growing valuesand economic opportunities at the end of the direct supplychain (Blumberg, 2005), and reverse distribution activelyaims to reduce materials/resources in the forward system sothat fewer materials flow back, reuse is possible and recyclingfacilitated (Carter and Ellram, 1998).The 25 papers (see Table V) that featured RL discussed it

in terms of existing practices and processes and were largelydescriptive in nature, outlining key issues and strategicbenefits. There were four literature reviews of the field (15,95, 96, 111), with one specifically focused on RL rather thanthe broader field of green supply chain management (GSCM)(15). A total of 12 papers positioned RL as a key part of greensupply chain practice/GSCM with eight recognising itsintrinsic role in closed loop supply chains (23, 26, 37, 78,81, 87, 94, 133) and 4 linking its practice to remanufacturingand waste management (49, 60, 111, 124).

Recycling, reuse and remanufacturing. RL begins when acustomer returns the product and the company has recoveredthe maximum value (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Conveniencereturns are those where customers return an unwantedproduct, which can either be re-sold or used to replaceproducts returned under warranty; later in the lifecycleproduct returns can be remanufactured and remarketed

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

505

through secondary channels and at the end of the life cycleused as a source of spare parts (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Theminimal treatment of a material is more closely associatedwith product reuse, while a material that requires a largeamount is more associated with recycling (Sarkis, 1995).Waste products and emissions can be recycled as a raw

material for use in the same or different production process,processed to be reused, and used for a different usefulapplication (Gupta, 1995). Recycling requires thedisassembly of the waste or returned product, separation ofparts and then material reprocessing, while remanufacturingreplaces worn, broken or obsolete parts from a product,returning it to new or better than new condition (Pun, 2006).Of the different approaches outlined recycling was the moststrongly represented in the reviewed literature featuring in 53separate papers, followed by reuse (23 papers) and thenremanufacturing (16 papers) – see Table V.

The social dimensionThe environmental dimension was substantially representedin the reviewed literature (see Table IV) with the processesand practices within green supply chain management(GSCM) providing the key focus. While the Brundtlanddefinition specifies both environmental and socialsustainability, SCM literature specific to the latterdimension was more limited. Unlike the “green” dimensionwhich had many supply chain related terms there was noequivalent use of the social element, e.g. social supply chains,social management systems etc. despite the fact the “human”element in terms of labour, skills and the forming ofrelationships should represent a key element of SCM.Given the “human” nature of this dimension of

sustainability the research methods used in the reviewedpapers were understandably biased towards qualitative datacollection. Case studies were the dominant research methodfollowed by review and discussion of the literature in the field.The literature broke down into the 3 key themes of defining/understanding the social dimension, how it is practised andhow it should be integrated to achieve “true” sustainabilityand are discussed in the following sections.

Definitions and components of social sustainabilityWhile there was no single definition of social sustainabilityused in the reviewed literature it was recognised that profit isonly one element in the long-term success of companies, andthe future of people (internal and external) and the planet arenew legitimacy concerns (Kleindorfer et al., 2005).Sustainability should be an ethical code for human survivaland progress (Sharma and Ruud, 2003) and achieved in “aninclusive, connected, equitable, prudent and secure manner”(Gladwin et al., 1995, p. 878). The first three elements of thisdefinition link strongly with the social dimension (Schaefer,2004) and how it can be enacted through supply chains byreducing unemployment, protecting employee health andsafety, ensuring equal treatment and preventing socialexclusion (Leire and Mont, 2010).While environmental sustainability emphasises the

management of natural resources, social sustainability isconcerned with the management of social resources, includingpeople’s skills and abilities, institutions, relationships andsocial values (Sarkis et al., 2010). At the business level thisrequires companies and their suppliers to add value byincreasing the human capital of individuals, and the societalcapital of communities (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002).

Social sustainability can be formed into the four maincategories of internal human resources, which includespractices related to employment stability and health andsafety; external population which encompasses human,productive and community capital; stakeholder participationwhich includes information provision and stakeholderinfluence issues; and macro social performance issues ofsocio-economic and socio-environmental performance(Labuschagne et al. in (Sarkis et al., 2010)).Social equity is a key component of social sustainability and

requires that all members of society have equal access toresources and opportunities (Bansal, 2005), extending to thefair and equitable treatment of employees (Krause et al.,2009). It is concerned with poverty, injustice and humanrights, and from a supply chain perspective considers thewelfare of all employees globally (Krause et al., 2009).Socially, supply chain management (SCM) is expected toenforce a firm’s values and standards with its suppliers (Tateet al., 2010) and emphasises the importance of long-termrelationships, communication and supplier development(Leire and Mont, 2010). A total of 12 papers referred tothe issue of social equity (see Table V), but only four dealtwith it in any detail (6, 37, 53, 125) and only one used it as itsresearch focus (6), so while there may be an expectation forSCM to address this important component there is limitedacademic evidence to support this.

Corporate social responsibilitySocial sustainability is strongly linked to corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) which comprises actions not required bylaw, but furthering social good, beyond the explicit,transactional interests of a firm (Sarkis et al., 2010). CSRrequires firms to embrace economic, legal, ethical anddiscretionary expectations of stakeholders (Bansal, 2005), withthe understanding that avoidance of a firm’s social responsibilitywill lead to the erosion of social power (Davis, 1967).CSR represents how firms satisfy the needs of society and

the environment while meeting their economic goals (Defeeet al., 2009). SCM requires greater strategic elevation of CSRin order to facilitate coordination across purchasing,manufacturing, distribution and marketing functions(Keating et al., 2008). To this end, Handfield et al. (2005)suggest that firms with a formal system to monitor and reporton CSR issues in their supply chain will enjoy performanceadvantages and greater commitment from internal andexternal stakeholders (Keating et al., 2008). Closed-loopsupply chains may also provide firms with a means to leverageCSR (Defee et al., 2009).Of the 27 papers which explicitly discussed the social

dimension (see Table V) 30 per cent dealt with CSR, and themajority came from the British Journal of Management andBusiness Strategy and the Environment. Three of these paperspositioned CSR specifically within the context of SCM (4, 55,118) and the research methods used were evenly balancedacross case studies, modelling, reviews and theorydevelopment., This suggests that CSR is a more welldeveloped field – as a concept it has been in existence sincethe 1960s (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) – and it has receivedan increased interest and profile in the last decade. Itsrelevance to and overlap with social sustainability makes CSRa key means to develop this field of research further.

Social sustainability practiceIn contrast to the range of processes and practices discussedwithin the environmental dimension there were only a fewexplicitly defined social practices in the reviewed papers and

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

506

many of these practices have associated certifications andaccreditations, e.g. Fairtrade. Social sustainabilitycertifications and standards were discussed in over 30 percent of the papers that were related to the social dimension.The issue of fair and equitable treatment within supply

chains is largely addressed through common standardsapplied by NGOs. For example, the International LabourOrganisation (ILO) has a set of principles, which include theaspects of human rights, child and forced labour,employment, wages and training (Leire and Mont, 2010).Certification through such bodies is seen as one of the fewareas in research literature where social issues such as childlabour and unsafe working conditions are addressed explicitly(Pagell and Wu, 2009) and can be used to establish a set ofsocial criteria to be applied to the supply chain, with suppliersmonitored to ensure compliance (Leire and Mont, 2010).Fairtrade is a well-developed social practice that as well as

seeking fairer relationships with suppliers, aims to establishmore direct relationships between groups of producers andconsumers (Barratt Brown, 1993). It provides an alternativemodel of international trade based on better tradingconditions and price, as well as educating consumers aboutthe negative effects of traditional trade (Davies and Crane,2010). It has the underlying “people” principles of goodworking standards and conditions for workers at all stages ofthe supply chain, but also acknowledges the need to preserveresources, assess environmental impacts and co-operate whereresources are trans-boundary (Strong, 1997). A total of 13 ofthe papers (see Table V) that dealt with the social dimensiondiscussed Fairtrade with three using it as their research focus(25, 40, 113).Socially responsible purchasing (SRP) can be defined as the

inclusion in purchasing of social issues advocated byorganisational stakeholders (Maignan et al., 2002) and theutilisation of purchasing power to acquire products that have apositive social impact (Drumwright, 1994). SRP aligns with theprinciples of “green” purchasing, however, the latter iscurrently more developed in both research and practice(Leire and Mont, 2010). This was evidenced by just sixpapers (see Table V) referring to the practice in comparison to26 in green purchasing, and only two of these focusedspecifically on this aspect of the social dimension (16, 68) withthe latter providing a process model for implementing andmaintaining SRP.SRP attempts to bring about positive social change through

its purchasing behaviour (Drumwright, 1994) and canaddress a range of issues, mainly human rights, safety,diversity and community (Leire and Mont, 2010), which allrepresent non-economic buying criteria (Drumwright, 1994).However, while they recognise their relevance manypurchasing managers do not know how to concretely andsystematically integrate social issues into purchasing decisions(Maignan et al., 2002).

Integrating social sustainabilityThe “people” element of “people, profit, planet” (Pullmanet al., 2009) can align sustainability goals with employees andcommunity pressure for firms to improve environmentalperformance (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Product stewardshipwhich featured heavily within the review of the environmentaldimension can have the benefit of training employees insustainability (Rusinko, 2007), and products can beconsidered socially responsible on a number of dimensionsincluding what they are made from, where they come from orwho supplies them (Drumwright, 1994). Reverse logistics

(RL), through its promotion of recycling, reuse and resourceconservation, addresses various aspects of social sustainabilityand could provide a means for promoting socially responsiblebehaviour in supply chains (Sarkis et al., 2010).These implied overlaps between environmental and social

sustainability practices and the close alignment of SRP withgreen purchasing highlighted above hints at some of thepotential for interaction between these two importantdimensions of sustainability. However such references werelimited in the reviewed literature, and while they indicatedthat environmentally motivated behaviour could inform andpotentially synergise with social sustainability there was noexplicit discussion on how this could be achieved at key areasof the supply chain, e.g. manufacturing where social issues areof greater importance.An appreciation of the “local” level of sustainability extends

to achieving balanced social development within local eco-systems. It requires the integration of a firm’s environmentaland social efforts in co-operation with suppliers and other socialactors to create regional and local sustainability (Schaefer,2004). This emphasises the role of relationships andcommunication within supply chains, as well asacknowledging the impact of external stakeholders (Maignanet al., 2002). It could take the form of integrating environmentaland social policies which would apply across the supply chain,and result in joint environmental and social reports tocommunicate progress to stakeholders (Schaefer, 2004).The supply management function can play an important

role in the creation of social capital (Spekman et al., 1998).Social capital comprises of human capital in terms of people’sskills, motivation and loyalty, and societal capital whichincludes education and culture (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002).The relational embeddedness of social capital derived throughon-going interactions with suppliers could be a criticalantecedent to firm performance (Bernardes, 2010).Sustainable supply chains can invest in human capital,e.g. through HR practices which seek to improve employeewell-being and commitment and build a culture that valuespeople and the environment (Pagell and Wu, 2009).A total of 11 of the reviewed papers (see Table V) referred

to social capital with just three discussing this component ofsocial sustainability in any detail (8, 28, 74). It is seen as oneof three different types of capital, the others being economicand natural capital (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) which alignwith the three recognised dimensions or pillars ofsustainability. However while there appears to be anunderstanding in the literature as to what social capital isthere was limited explanation of how to address it in practiceand only 1 of the papers discussed social capital in relation tosupply chains and relationships (8).

Comparison with other structured literaturereviews

This paper is intended to contribute to the evolving field ofsustainable supply chain management (SSCM) by aligningsustainability literature with supply chain and SCM literature.It therefore takes a broad, holistic and multi-disciplinaryapproach and reviews the relevant literature in both fields.Other literature reviews have applied a systematic process tothe more specific areas of SCM (Burgess et al., 2006) andSSCM (Carter and Easton, 2011). Both of these papers focustheir review to conventional operations managementliterature, with the latter narrowing its search to sevenlogistics and SCM journals. In contrast this paper recognises

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

507

that sustainability is an evolving concept that is researchedand discussed in many relevant journals and disciplines thatmay fall outside but still legitimately inform SCM andoperations management (OM) research.Burgess et al.’s (2006) structured review focuses on SCM

literature and was part of the literature reviewed, but it alsoinformed this paper’s methodology which builds on theirsystematic framework and integrates relevant sustainabilityresearch. These authors recognise that while SCM is a newbut growing field there have been few structured reviews todate and that the OM discipline is too narrow and functionalto address the emergent issues in SCM, emphasising the needfor a broader, more holistic view. There was a lack ofdefinitional consensus, which echoes the many varieddefinitions of sustainability that currently exist and suggeststhat SCM and sustainability are both in “development mode”and have not yet reached maturity. This paper has indicatedthe highly qualitative nature of SCM and sustainabilityliterature and the dominance of inductive rather thandeductive “theory testing” methodologies, which supportsthe view of a developing field. It also updates Burgess at al’sreview with the considerable number of developments andnew papers in this field since 2006.While Carter and Easton’s (2011) findings result from a

narrower review and are presented in a more statistical formtheir analysis by subject supports a key finding from thispaper. They recognise that the environmental dimension hasdominated in sustainable supply chain research – 42.5 percent of the reviewed articles focused on this in the last 20years with the more social focused subjects of CSR andHuman Rights receiving 11.25 per cent and 6.25 per centrespectively. Case studies were also seen as a commonmethodology in SSCM research, but at 60 per cent the use ofsurveys was much higher in their review than this paper’sfindings (15 per cent), perhaps reflecting the more operationalnature of the reviewed literature. Both papers recognised thelimited numbers of structured or systematic literature reviewsin this field.Soni and Kodali (2011) undertake a systematic review of

empirical research in SCM, searching the exact phrase of“supply chain” in four management science databases andthen classifying the resulting papers under nine classes. Againthe review focuses specifically on SCM with no review ofsustainability literature, but their findings support thesignificant growth in SCM research in recent years and thatthere has been an emphasis on theory building, in line withthe findings of this paper. While SCM in principle shouldapply a network approach both Soni and Kodali (2011) andBurgess et al. (2006) show that research has tended to focuson one part of the system or specific processes and emphasisesthe need for a more holistic approach. Through its broaderreview of relevant SCM and sustainability literature this paperintends to address this key gap and inform future research sothat it can apply a more integrated view.

Discussion

The significant growth in the number of papers on supplychain management (SCM) and sustainability indicates theimportance and contemporaneous nature of these two fieldsfor further, informed research. While SCM literature ispotentially better developed due to its evolvement fromestablished operations research and supply chain practice it isclear from the reviewed literature that environmental and

social sustainability have both relevance and a growingpresence within the SCM field.The review has indicated that SCM and sustainability are

evolving and developing fields of research, evidenced by thelack of any universally accepted definition for either. Thisextended to the components of each field, especially in relationto the environment where a multitude of terms were used todescribe identical or similar concepts/practices, e.g. greensupply chain management (GSCM) and environmental supplychain management (ESCM). sustainable supply chainmanagement (SSCM) which incorporates both social andenvironmental sustainability into supply chain practice andmanagement is the newest field of all with the reviewedliterature commencing in 2003. While only 14 papers dealtexplicitly with SSCM it is clear that this is a key area for futureresearch and a means to progress GSCM beyond its currentenvironmental focus. It has the potential to encapsulate andconsolidate the environmental and social supply chainliterature, and provide an integrated approach tosustainability, but this potential is still to be realised.The qualitative and theory developing nature of the

research to date emphasises how these research fields are atan early stage, with case studies and qualitative surveys/questionnaires forming the primary methods of datacollection. While practice and especially environmentalpractices are discussed heavily in the reviewed literaturethere are few explicit practical outputs from the research suchas models or tools that would indicate a more mature field.While the nature of sustainability strongly supports aninductive methodology it is important to recognise thatSCM is fundamentally a practical discipline and while most ofthe research methods are based around “real world” supplychain situations, this is a field where research explicitly needsto inform practice.The research bias towards the “hard” quantifiable practices

and processes of SCM identified in the review suggests thatthere is uncertainty on how to address the more holisticaspects of SCM and sustainability, and yet these areconsidered key to achieving a fully integrated approach inSSCM. The relationship element of SCM and its potentialimpact on sustainability is underexplored in the reviewedliterature and yet could hold the key to moving beyond thecurrent reactive approach (Vachon and Klassen, 2006) andjoin isolated processes into a “closed loop”. There was limitedresearch into how supply chain relationships can be harnessedto achieve sustainability, especially within the environmentaldomain. While social sustainability literature was morelimited greater reference was made to relationships, perhapsdue to the more “human” focused nature of this field.The relative wealth of literature on “green” supply chains

(see Table II) indicates the extent to which the environmentaldimension has been incorporated into SCM research to date.There is recognition that firms have made strong progress inthe environmental dimension of sustainability (Krause et al.,2009; Sarkis et al., 2010) and the literature review hasillustrated a range of environmental practices within supplychains. However, significant development in societal andcultural issues is considered lacking (Krause et al., 2009) andresearch literature to date has been limited in the socialcomponent of sustainability (Pagell and Wu, 2009; Schaefer,2004; Sharma and Ruud, 2003).This oversight may be because the social elements of

sustainability are particularly difficult to attain or lesstangible/measurable than environmental sustainability, orthey may not even represent an appropriate goal for

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

508

business (Schaefer, 2004; Lamming and Hampson, 1996).Sharma and Ruud (2003) also suggest that addressing thesocial dimension and achieving “true” sustainability is onlypossible in supply chains that operate within definablegeographic regions and are not “globally fragmented”,therefore challenging the role that SCM can play inachieving social sustainability across the highly globalisedsupply chains that currently dominate in practice.The literature agrees that a supply chain’s performance

should be measured not just by profits, but also by its impacton environmental and social systems (Pagell and Wu, 2009).If a sustainable supply chain is one that performs well acrossall three dimensions then the field of SSCM needs torepresent the actions taken to achieve this goal (Pagell andWu, 2009) and involve the inter-connection and interactionbetween components and interfaces across supply chains(Svensson, 2007). While the small body of SSCM literaturerecognises these three dimensions there is limited explicitresearch into how they can be integrated.

Conclusions and implications for future research

This systematic review of supply chain management (SCM)and sustainability literature has identified key themes andissues, and outlined the role that this discipline could play inthe achievement of sustainability in supply chains. In today’sglobal marketplace if a firm is part of a supply chain it cannotignore its suppliers’ practices and needs to be acutely aware ofstakeholder expectations and pressures (Handfield et al., 2005;Sharfman et al., 2009; Lippman, 2001; Bansal, 2005). Suchexpectations are increasingly focused on environmentally andsocially responsible principles and practice, and thesedimensions represented a key focus of the review.SCM has been largely practitioner-led (Burgess et al.,

2006), and offers substantial potential for translatingsustainability theory into practice. The literature reviewrevealed a significant and persistent gap between the diffusionof sustainability discourse and its practical application(Hamdouch and Zuindeau, 2010), as well as anacknowledged lack of impact of management research onmanagement practice (Ghoshal, 2005). However, while theSCM literature advocates the importance and benefits of co-operation and sharing of information, it still has had atendency to focus on supply chain processes and hard,quantifiable elements.The systematic review of the literature has provided a

number of useful insights into the current status of researchinto SCM and sustainability, how it is defined andconceptualised and the key research methodologiesemployed to date. The emphasis on qualitative data/methods and theory development across the literatureillustrates the new, evolving nature of this field and the needfor it to be developed further in a focused way. Greater andmore practical insights into sustainability in supply chainscould be gained by using the findings of this review to informand direct research from the current narrow, somewhatdisconnected approaches towards a more “rounded” andholistic view of the field.A challenge for researchers is to develop appropriate

methods and tools to capture the evolving field of sustainablesupply chain management (SSCM) and move from thecurrent dominance of case studies and surveys. A key researchdirection for progressing SSCM would be the role of supplychain relationships in achieving sustainability. This couldmove the environmental dimension beyond just the

“greening” of supply chain processes, which received themost emphasis in the reviewed literature. Life cycle analysis(LCA) and closed loop concepts could also provide a muchmore appropriate focus for environmental sustainabilityresearch as they apply a more connected and holistic viewof supply chains, especially as the literature review has shownthat these approaches have been underexplored to date.SCM extends organisational boundaries (Frankel et al.,

2008), and the “cradle to grave” concept (Kleindorfer et al.,2005; Lippman, 2001) that evolves from this aligns stronglywith the key principles of sustainability. It requiresresponsibility for the full life cycle of a product, and closedloop supply chains should enable this concept to be realised.They are recognised as a key means to address theenvironmental dimension (Crandall, 2006), and yet theclosed loop literature was extremely limited with only fourpapers explicitly dealing with this approach. In comparison“green” supply chains featured in more than 30 papers and“greening” was a prevailing metaphor (Preuss, 2005a),implying this is currently the accepted face of environmentalsustainability within supply chains.While the research of closed loop and LCA could provide a

more connected view of sustainability in supply chains there isstill a bias towards the environment in these research areas. Tofully understand sustainable supply chains there also needs tobe closer analysis of the relational aspects of SCM and howthey can be used to address both environmental and socialsustainability. SCM literature places emphasis on supplierrelationships, but there was limited discussion in the reviewedpapers on how these can be harnessed to achievesustainability. This represents a key area for future research– its lack of focus to date suggests the challenge of researchingthe field from a more holistic and relational viewpoint, but italso offers the greatest potential for progressing SSCM from“greening” to a “virtuous circle” that addresses sustainabilityat all stages and interactions.Finally, very few of the reviewed papers provided tangible

outputs such as an explicit framework or model to inform theimplementation of sustainability and sustainable supplychains were discussed largely in theoretical terms. This maybe due to the new and evolving nature of the research field,but does represent a significant gap. The reviewed literatureexplains in part why collaboration and relationships arestrategically important to SCM, but it offers limited “real life”insights or guidance into how they can be achieved and theircontribution to sustainability. Given the inherently “practical”nature of the SCM discipline translating the theory developedthrough more focused approaches into actual supply chainpractice should be a key priority.

References

Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J.

(2007), “Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility:

a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 836-63.Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R.M. (2009),

“Environmental strategies and green product development:

an overview on sustainability-driven companies”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 83-96.

Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999), “Integrating

environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda for

research in operations management”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 17, pp. 575-98.

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

509

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), “Making sustainable

development sustainable”, Management Decision, Vol. 47,

pp. 975-88.Armitage, A. and Keeble-Allen, D. (2008), “Undertaking a

structured literature review or structuring a literature

review: tales from the field”, Electronic Journal of Business

Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp. 103-14.Banerjee, S.B. (2010), “Who sustains whose development?

Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature”,

Organization Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 143-80.Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal

study of corporate sustainable development”, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 197-218.Barratt Brown, M. (1993), Fair Trade, Zed Books, London.Bernardes, E.S. (2010), “The effect of supply management

on aspects of social capital and the impact on performance:

a social network perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain

Management, Vol. 46, pp. 45-56.Blumberg, D.F. (2005), Introduction to Management of Reverse

Logistics and Closed Loop Supply Chain Processes, Taylor

& Francis, London.Burgess, K., Singh, P.J. and Koroglu, R. (2006), “Supply

chain management: a structured literature review and

implications for future research”, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26, pp. 703-29.Carr, A.S. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1999), “The relationship of

strategic purchasing to supply chain management”,

European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,

Vol. 5, pp. 43-51.Carter, C.R. and Easton, P.L. (2011), “Sustainable supply

chain management: evolution and future directions”,

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, Vol. 41, pp. 46-62.Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics:

a review of the literature and framework for future

investigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19, pp. 85-102.Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Social

responsibility and supply chain relationships”,

Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 38, pp. 37-52.Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of

sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new

theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution

& Logistics Management, Vol. 38, pp. 360-87.Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory, Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Crandall, R.E. (2006), “How green are your supply chains?”,

Industrial Management, Vol. 48, pp. 6-11.Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R.B. (2008),

“Environmental management systems and green supply

chain management: complements for sustainability?”,

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 30-45.Davies, I.A. and Crane, A. (2010), “Corporate social

responsibility in small- and medium-sized enterprises:

investigating employee engagement in fair trade

companies”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 19,

pp. 126-39.Davis, K. (1967), “Understanding the social responsibility

puzzle”, Business Horizons, Vol. 10, p. 45.Defee, C.C., Esper, T. and Mollenkopf, D. (2009),

“Leveraging closed-loop orientation and leadership for

environmental sustainability”, Supply Chain Management:

An International Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 87-98.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2009),

“The social dimension of sustainable development: defining

urban sustainability”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 19

No. 5, pp. 289-300.Drumwright, M.E. (1994), “Socially responsible

organizational buying: environmental concern as a

noneconomic buying criterion”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 1-19.

Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the business

case for sustainability”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-41.

Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M. and McCarter, M.W. (2008),“Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain

management”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 13, pp. 35-48.

Frankel, R., Bolumole, Y.A., Eltantawy, R.A., Paulraj, A. and

Gundlach, G.T. (2008), “The domain and scope of SCM’s

foundational disciplines – insights and issues to advance

research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, pp. 1-30.Ghoshal, S. (2005), “Bad management theories are

destroying good management practices”, Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, Vol. 4, pp. 75-91.

Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.-S. (1995),

“Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:

implications for management theory and research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 874-907.

Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2009), “Sustainable supply

chain management and inter-organisational resources: aliterature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 230-45.

Gupta, M.C. (1995), “Environmental management and its

impact on the operations function”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 15, pp. 34-51.

Hagelaar, G.J.L.F. and van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2002),

“Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle

assessment to structure supply chains”, International Foodand Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 399-412.

Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2010), “Trade-

offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake

and eat it”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19,pp. 217-29.

Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chain dynamics”,

Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, pp. 455-71.Hall, J. (2001), “Environmental supply-chain innovation”,

Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 105-19.Hamdouch, A. and Zuindeau, B. (2010), “Sustainable

development, 20 years on: methodological innovations,

practices and open issues”, Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, Vol. 53, pp. 427-38.

Handfield, R. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to SupplyChain Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R.P. and Melnyk, S.A.

(2002), “Applying environmental criteria to supplier

assessment: a study in the application of the analyticalhierarchy process”, European Journal of OperationalResearch, Vol. 141, pp. 70-87.

Handfield, R.B., Sroufe, R.P. and Walton, S. (2005),“Integrating environmental management and supply chain

strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14,pp. 1-19.

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the

firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20,

pp. 986-1014.

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

510

Hutchins, M.J. and Sutherland, J.W. (2008), “An exploration

of measures of social sustainability and their application to

supply chain decisions”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 16, pp. 1688-98.

Keating, B., Quazi, A., Kriz, A. and Coltman, T. (2008),

“In pursuit of a sustainable supply chain: insights from

Westpac Banking Corporation”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 175-9.

Kjaerheim, R. (2005), “Cleaner production and

sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13,pp. 329-39.

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

Krause, D.R., Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2009), “Specialtopic forum on sustainable supply chain management:

introduction and reflection on the role of purchasing

management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45,pp. 18-25.

Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as

a supply chain management issue”, British Journal ofManagement, Vol. 7, pp. S45-S52.

Leire, C. and Mont, O. (2010), “The implementation of socially

responsible purchasing”, Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, Vol. 17, pp. 27-39.

Lippman, S. (2001), “Supply chain environmental

management”, Environmental Quality Management, Winter,

pp. 11-14.McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R. and van Engelen, J. (2007),

“Sustainability quotients and the social footprint”,Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 15, pp. 223-34.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate socialresponsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117-27.

Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. and McAlister, D. (2002),“Managing socially responsible buying: how to integrate

non-economic criteria into the purchasing process”,

European Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 641-8.Miles, M.B. (1979), “Qualitative data as an attractive

nuisance: the problem of analysis”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 590-601.

Min, H. and Galle, W. (1997), “Green purchasing strategies:

trends and implications”, International Journal of Purchasingand Materials, Summer, pp. 10-17.

New, S. and Westbrook, R. (2004), Understanding SupplyChains: Concepts, Critiques and Future, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010),

“Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and

supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, pp. 101-14.

Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete

theory of sustainable supply chain management using casestudies of 10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 45, pp. 37-56.

Preuss, L. (2005a), The Green Multiplier: A Study ofEnvironmental Protection and the Supply Chain, Palgrave

Macmillan, New York, NY.Preuss, L. (2005b), “Rhetoric and reality of corporategreening: a view from the supply chain management

function”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14,

pp. 123-39.

Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. (2009), “Food

for thought: social versus environmental sustainability

practices and performance outcomes”, Journal of SupplyChain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 38-54.

Pun, K.F. (2006), “Determinants of environmentally

responsible operations: a review”, International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23, pp. 279-97.

Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to

competitiveness and economic performance?”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25,

pp. 898-916.Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010),“Sustainable global supplier management: the role of

dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage”,

Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 45-63.Rusinko, C.A. (2007), “Green manufacturing: an evaluation of

envrironmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and

their impact on competitive outcomes”, IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, Vol. 54, pp. 445-54.

Samaranayake, P. (2005), “A conceptual framework for

supply chain management: a structural integration”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10,

pp. 47-59.Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M. and Hervani, A.A. (2010), “Reverse

logistics and social sustainability”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17,

pp. 337-54.Schaefer, A. (2004), “Corporate sustainability – integrating

environmental and social concerns?”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 11,

pp. 179-87.Seuring, S. (2008), “Assessing the rigor of case study researchin supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 128-37.

Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008a), “Core issues insustainable supply chain management: a Delphi study”,

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17, pp. 455-66.Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008b), “From a literature

review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply

chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16,pp. 1699-710.

Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M. and Anex, R.P. Jr (2009),

“The road to co-operative supply-chain environmentalmanagement: trust and uncertainty among pro-active

firms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 1-13.Sharma, S. and Ruud, A. (2003), “On the path tosustainability: integrating social dimensions into the

research and practice of environmental management”,

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 205-14.Simpson, D.F. and Power, D. (2005), “Use the supply

relationship to develop lean and green suppliers”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 60-8.

Soler, C., Bergstrom, K. and Shanahan, H. (2010), “Green

supply chains and the missing link between environmental

information and practice”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 19, pp. 14-25.

Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2011), “A critical analysis of supply

chain management content in empirical research”, BusinessProcess Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 238-66.

Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr and Myhr, N. (1998),“An empirical investigation into supply chain management:

a perspective on partnerships”, Supply Chain Management,Vol. 3, pp. 53-67.

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

511

Springett, D. (2003), “Business conceptions of sustainable

development: a perspective from critical theory”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 71-86.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of QualitativeResearch, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Strong, C. (1997), “The role of fair trade principles within

sustainable development”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 5,pp. 1-10.

Svahn, S. and Westerlund, M. (2009), “Purchasing strategies

in supply relationships”, Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, Vol. 24, pp. 173-81.

Svensson, G. (2007), “Aspects of sustainable supply chain

management (SSCM): conceptual framework and

empirical example”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 262-6.

Svensson, G. and Baath, H. (2008), “Supply chain

management ethics: conceptual framework and

illustration”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 13, pp. 398-405.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a

methodology for developing evidence-informed

management knowledge by means of systematic review”,

British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 207-22.Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P. (2006), “Environmental

principles applicable to supply chains design and

operation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14,

pp. 1593-602.Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Green project

partnership in the supply chain: the case of the package

printing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14,

pp. 661-71.Vachon, S. and Mao, Z. (2008), “Linking supply chain

strength to sustainable development: a country level

analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1552-60.van Hoek, R.I. (1999), “From reversed logistics to green supply

chains”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4, pp. 129-34.Varma, S., Wadhwa, S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2006),

“Implementing supply chain management in a firm: issues

and remedies”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogistics, Vol. 18, pp. 223-43.

Wilkinson, A., Hill, M. and Gollan, P. (2001),

“The sustainability debate”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1492-502.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987),

Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain

management: pressures, practices and performance”,

International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 25, pp. 449-68.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.-H. (2008), “Confirmation of a

measurement model for green supply chain management

practices implementation”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 111, pp. 261-73.

Appendix. Reviewed papers

1 Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A. (2011),“Sustainable supply management: an empirical study”,International Journal of Production Economics, DOI:www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092552731100171X

2 Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A.,Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back incorporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory ofsocial change in organizations”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 32, pp. 836-863.

3 Albino, V., Balice, A., Dangelico, R.M. (2009),“Environmental strategies and green productdevelopment: an overview on sustainability-drivencompanies”, Business Strategy and the Environment,Vol. 18, pp. 83-96.

4 Andersen, M., Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), “Corporatesocial responsibility in global supply chains”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14,pp. 75-86.

5 Angell, L.C., Klassen, R.D. (1999), “Integratingenvironmental issues into the mainstream: an agendafor research in operations management”, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 575-598.

6 Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainability:a longitudinal study of corporate sustainabledevelopment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26,pp. 197-218.

7 Bansal, P., Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies gogreen: a model of ecological responsiveness”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 717-736.

8 Bernardes, E.S. (2010), “The effect of supplymanagement on aspects of social capital and theimpact on performance: a social network perspective”,Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 45-56.

9 Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Beek, P., Hordijk, L.,van Wassenhove, L.N. (1995), “Interactions betweenoperational research and environmental management”,European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 85,pp. 229-243.

10 Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R., Faruk,A.C. (2001), “The role of supply managementcapabilities in green supply”, Production andOperations Management, Vol. 10, pp. 174-189.

11 Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk,A.C. (2001), “Horses for courses: explaining the gapbetween the theory and practice of green supply”,Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 41-60.

12 Burgess, K., Singh, P.J., Koroglu, R. (2006), “Supplychain management: a structured literature review andimplications for future research”, International Journalof Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26,pp. 703-729.

13 Campbell, J.L. (2007), “Why would corporationsbehave in socially responsible ways? An institutionaltheory of corporate social responsibility”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 32, pp. 946-967.

14 Carter, C.R., Easton, P.L. (2011), “Sustainable supplychain management: evolution and future directions”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 41, pp. 46-62.

15 Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics:a review of the literature and framework for futureinvestigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19,pp. 85-102.

16 Carter, C.R., Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Socialresponsibility and supply chain relationships”,Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 38, pp. 37-52.

17 Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework ofsustainable supply chain management: moving toward

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

512

new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management, Vol. 38, pp. 360-387.

18 Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory ofsupply chain management: the constructs andmeasurements”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 22, pp. 119-150.

19 Clarkson, M.E. (1995), “A stakeholder framework foranalyzing and evaluating corporate socialperformance”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20, pp. 92-117.

20 Corbett, C.J., Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending thehorizons: environmental excellence as key to improvingoperations”, Manufacturing & Service OperationsManagement, Vol. 8, pp. 5-22.

21 Courville, S. (2003), “Use of indicators to comparesupply chains in the coffee industry”, GreenerManagement International, Vol. 43, pp. 93-105.

22 Cox, A. (2004), “Power, value and supply chainmanagement”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 167-175.

23 Dao, V., Langella, I., Carbo, J. (2011), “From green tosustainability: information technology and anintegrated sustainability framework”, Journal ofStrategic Information Systems, Vol. 20, pp. 63-79.

24 Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J., Handfield, R.B. (2008),“Environmental management systems and greensupply chain management: complements forsustainability?”, Business Strategy and the Environment,Vol. 18, pp. 30-45.

25 Davies, I.A., Crane, A. (2010), “Corporate socialresponsibility in small- and medium-sized enterprises:investigating employee engagement in fair tradecompanies”, Business Ethics: A European Review,Vol. 19, pp. 126-139.

26 Defee, C.C., Esper, T., Mollenkopf, D. (2009),“Leveraging closed-loop orientation and leadership forenvironmental sustainability”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 87-98.

27 Drumwright, M.E. (1994), “Socially responsibleorganizational buying: environmental concern as anoneconomic buying criterion”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 58(3, pp. 1-19.

28 Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the businesscase for sustainability”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-141.

29 Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C., Colin, J. (2011), “Futuresustainable supply chains: what should companiesscan?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management, Vol. 41, pp. 228-252.

30 Faruk, A.C., Lamming, R., Cousins, P.D., Bowen,F.E. (2002), “Analyzing, mapping, and managingenvironmental impacts along supply chains”, Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, Vol. 5, pp. 13-36.

31 Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., McCarter, M.W.(2008), “Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effectivesupply chain management”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 35-48.

32 Field, J.M., Sroufe, R.P. (2007), “The use of recycledmaterials in manufacturing: implications for supplychain management and operations strategy”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45,pp. 4439-4463.

33 Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move toenvironmentally conscious manufacturing”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 39, pp. 80-105.

34 Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C.(2010), “Managing supplier sustainability risks in adynamically changing environment – sustainablesupplier management in the chemical industry”,Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 16,pp. 118-130.

35 Forman, M., Sogaard Jorgensen, M. (2004),“Organising environmental supply chainmanagement”, Greener Management International,Vol. 45, pp. 43-62.

36 Frankel, R., Bolumole, Y.A., Eltantawy, R.A., Paulraj,A., Gundlach, G.T. (2008), “The domain and scope ofSCM’s foundational disciplines – insights and issues toadvance research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29,pp. 1-30.

37 Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T.-S. (1995),“Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:Implications for management theory and research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 874-907.

38 Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P. (2009), “Sustainablesupply chain management and inter-organisationalresources: a literature review”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17No. 4, pp. 230-245.

39 Goldbach, M., Back, S., Seuring, S. (2003),“Co-ordinating sustainable cotton chains for the massmarket: the case of the German mail-order businessOTTO”, Greener Management International, Vol. 43,pp. 65-78.

40 Goworek, H. (2011), “Social and environmentalsustainability in the clothing industry: a case study ofa fair trade retailer”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7,pp. 74-86.

41 Green, K., Morton, B., New, S. (1996), “Purchasingand environmental management: interactions, policiesand opportunities”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 5, pp. 188-197.

42 Guide, V.D.R. Jr, van Wassenhove, L.N. (2002),“The reverse supply chain”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 80, pp. 25-26.

43 Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T. (2005), “Build-to-order supply chain management: a literature reviewand framework for development”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 23, pp. 423-451.

44 Gupta, M.C. (1995), “Environmental managementand its impact on the operations function”,International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 15, pp. 34-51.

45 Hagelaar, G.J.L.F., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2002),“Environmental supply chain management: using lifecycle assessment to structure supply chains”,International Food and Agribusiness ManagementReview, Vol. 4, pp. 399-412.

46 Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. (2010),“Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t haveyour cake and eat it”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 19, pp. 217-229.

47 Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chaindynamics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8,pp. 455-471.

48 Hall, J. (2001), “Environmental supply-chaininnovation”, Greener Management International,Vol. 35, pp. 105-119.

49 Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R.P., Melnyk, S.A.(2002), “Applying environmental criteria to supplier

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

513

assessment: a study in the application of the analyticalhierarchy process”, European Journal of OperationalResearch, Vol. 141, pp. 70-87.

50 Handfield, R.B., Sroufe, R.P., Walton, S. (2005),“Integrating environmental management and supplychain strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment,Vol. 14, pp. 1-19.

51 Harland, C.M. (1996), “Supply chain management:relationships, chains and networks”, British Journal ofManagement, Vol. 7, pp. S63-S80.

52 Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view ofthe firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20,pp. 986-1014.

53 Hartman, C.L., Hofman, P.S., Stafford, E.R. (1999),“Partnerships: a path to sustainability”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 8, pp. 255-266.

54 Holt, D., Ghobadian, A. (2009), “An empirical studyof green supply chain management practices amongstUK manufacturers”, Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management, Vol. 20, pp. 933-956.

55 Hutchins, M.J., Sutherland, J.W. (2008),“An exploration of measures of social sustainabilityand their application to supply chain decisions”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1688-1698.

56 Kauffman, R.G. (2002), “Supply management – what’sin a name? Or do we know who we are?”, The Journal ofSupply Chain Management, Fall, pp. 46-50.

57 Keating, B., Quazi, A., Kriz, A., Coltman, T. (2008),“In pursuit of a sustainable supply chain: insights fromWestpac Banking Corporation”, Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 13,pp. 175-179.

58 Khoo, H.H., Bainbridge, I., Spedding, T.A., Taplin,D.M.R. (2001), “Creating a green supply chain”,Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 71-88.

59 Kjaerheim, R. (2005), “Cleaner production andsustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13,pp. 329-339.

60 Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., van Wassenhove, L.N.(2005), “Sustainable operations management”,Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14,pp. 482-492.

61 Kogg, B. (2003), “Greening a cotton-textile supplychain”, Greener Management International, Vol. 43,pp. 53-64.

62 Korhonen, J. (2004), “Industrial ecology in thestrategic sustainable development model: strategicapplications of industrial ecology”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 12, pp. 809-823.

63 Kraljic, P. (1983), “Purchasing must become supplymanagement”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61,pp. 109-117.

64 Krause, D.R., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. (2009),“Special topic forum on sustainable supply chainmanagement: introduction and reflection on the role ofpurchasing management”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 45, pp. 18-25.

65 Lamming, R., Hampson, J. (1996), “The environmentas a supply chain management issue”, British Journal ofManagement, Vol. 7, pp. S45-S52.

66 Landry, J.T. (1998), “Supply chain management”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, pp. 18-19.

67 Larson, P.D., Halldorsson, A. (2002), “What is SCM?And, where is It?”, The Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Fall, pp. 36-44.

68 Leire, C., Mont, O. (2010), “The implementation ofsocially responsible purchasing”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17,pp. 27-39.

69 Linton, J.D., Klassen, R.D., Jayaraman, V. (2007),“Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journalof Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1075-1082.

70 Liyanage, J. (2007), “Operations and maintenanceperformance in production and manufacturing assets:the sustainability perspective”, Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management, Vol. 18, pp. 304-314.

71 Lo, S.M., Power, D. (2010), “An empirical investigationof the relationship between product nature and supplychain strategy”, Supply Chain Management: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 139-153.

72 Mahler, D. (2007), “The sustainable supply chain”,Supply Chain Management Review, 11, pp. 59-60.

73 Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B., McAlister, D. (2002),“Managing socially responsible buying: how to integratenon-economic criteria into the purchasing process”,European Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 641-648.

74 McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R., van Engelen, J. (2007),“Sustainability quotients and the social footprint”,Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 15, pp. 223-234.

75 McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate socialresponsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117-127.

76 Mentzer, J.T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Soonhoong,M., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),“Defining supply chain management”, Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 22, pp. 1-25.

77 Min, H., Galle, W. (1997), “Green purchasingstrategies: trends and implications”, InternationalJournal of Purchasing and Materials, Summer, pp. 10-17.

78 Mondragon, A.E.C., Lalwani, C. (2011), “Measuresfor auditing performance and integration in closed-loop supply chains”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 43-56.

79 Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F. (2010),“Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer andsupplier perspectives on collaborative relationshipsdiffer?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28,pp. 101-114.

80 Oktem, U., Lewis, P., Donovan, D., Hagan, J.R., Pace,T. (2004), “EMS and sustainable development”,Greener Management International, Vol. 46, pp. 11-28.

81 Pagell, M., Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more completetheory of sustainable supply chain management usingcase studies of 10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 45, pp. 37-56.

82 Pagell, M., Wu, Z., Wasserman, M.E. (2010),“Thinking differently about purchasing portfolios: anassessment of sustainable sourcing”, Journal of SupplyChain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 57-73.

83 Pedersen, A.K. (2009), “A more sustainable globalsupply chain”, Supply Chain Management Review,Vol. 13, pp. 6-7.

84 Power, D. (2005), “Supply chain managementintegration and implementation: a literature review”,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 10, pp. 252-263.

85 Preuss, L. (2005), “Rhetoric and reality of corporategreening: a view from the supply chain management

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

514

function”, Business Strategy and the Environment,Vol. 14, pp. 123-139.

86 Pullman, M.E., Dillard, J. (2010), “Values basedsupply chain management and emergent organizationalstructures”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 30, pp. 744-771.

87 Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J., Carter, C.R. (2009),“Food for thought: social versus environmentalsustainability practices and performance outcomes”,Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 38-54.

88 Pun, K.F. (2006), “Determinants of environmentallyresponsible operations: a review”, International Journalof Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23,pp. 279-297.

89 Rao, P., Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains leadto competitiveness and economic performance?”,International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 25, pp. 898-916.

90 Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., Blome, C.(2010), “Sustainable global supplier management: therole of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitiveadvantage”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,Vol. 46, pp. 45-63.

91 Robinson, D.R., Wilcox, S. (2008), “The greening ofsupply chains”, Supply Chain Management Review,Vol. 12, pp. S61-S66.

92 Samaranayake, P. (2005), “A conceptual framework forsupply chain management: a structural integration”,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 10, pp. 47-59.

93 Sarkis, J. (2001), “Manufacturing’s role in corporateenvironmental sustainability”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 21, p. 666.

94 Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework forgreen supply chain management”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 11, pp. 397-409.

95 Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A. (2010),“Reverse logistics and social sustainability”, CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management,Vol. 17, pp. 337-354.

96 Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-H. (2011),“An organizational theoretic review of green supplychain management literature”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 130, pp. 1-15.

97 Schaefer, A. (2004), “Corporate sustainability –integrating environmental and social concerns?”,Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 11, pp. 179-187.

98 Seuring, S. (2001), “Green supply chain costing: jointcost management in the polyester linings supply chain”,Greener Management International, Vol. 33, pp. 71-80.

99 Seuring, S. (2004), “Emerging issues in life-cyclemanagement”, Greener Management International,Vol. 45, pp. 3-8.

100 Seuring, S. (2004), “Industrial ecology, life cycles,supply chains: differences and interrelations”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 306-319.

101 Seuring, S. (2004), “Integrated chain management andsupply chain management: comparative analysis andillustrative cases”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12,pp. 1059-1071.

102 Seuring, S. (2008), “Assessing the rigor of case studyresearch in supply chain management”, Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 13,pp. 128-137.

103 Seuring, S., Muller, M. (2008a), “Core issues insustainable supply chain management: a Delphistudy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17,pp. 455-466.

104 Seuring, S., Muller, M. (2008b), “From a literaturereview to a conceptual framework for sustainablesupply chain management”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 16, pp. 1699-1710.

105 Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M., Anex, R.P. Jr (2009),“The road to co-operative supply-chain environmentalmanagement: trust and uncertainty among pro-activefirms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18,pp. 1-13.

106 Sharma, S., Ruud, A. (2003), “On the path tosustainability: integrating social dimensions into theresearch and practice of environmental management”,Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, pp. 205-214.

107 Simpson, D.F., Power, D. (2005), “Use the supplyrelationship to develop lean and green suppliers”,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 10, pp. 60-68.

108 Soler, C., Bergstrom, K., Shanahan, H. (2010),“Green supply chains and the missing link betweenenvironmental information and practice”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, pp. 14-25.

109 Soni, G., Kodali, R. (2011), “A critical analysis ofsupply chain management content in empiricalresearch”, Business Process Management Journal,Vol. 17, pp. 238-266.

110 Sridharan, U.V., Caines, W.R., Patterson, C.C. (2005),“Implementation of supply chain management and itsimpact on the value of firms”, Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 10,pp. 313-318.

111 Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chainmanagement: a state-of-the-art literature review”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9,pp. 53-80.

112 Stokes, S., Tohamy, N. (2009), “7 traits of a greensupply chain”, Supply Chain Management Review,October.

113 Strong, C. (1997), “The role of fair trade principleswithin sustainable development”, SustainableDevelopment, Vol. 5, pp. 1-10.

114 Svahn, S., Westerlund, M. (2009), “Purchasingstrategies in supply relationships”, Journal of Business& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24, pp. 173-181.

115 Svensson, G. (2007), “Aspects of sustainable supplychain management (SSCM): conceptual frameworkand empirical example”, Supply Chain Management: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 262-266.

116 Svensson, G. (2009), “The transparency of SCMethics: conceptual framework and empiricalillustrations”, Supply Chain Management: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 259-269.

117 Svensson, G., Baath, H. (2008), “Supply chainmanagement ethics: conceptual framework andillustration”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 398-405.

118 Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Kirchoff, J.F. (2010),“Corporate social responsibility reports: a thematicanalysis related to supply chain management”, Journalof Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 19-44.

119 Testa, F., Iraldo, F. (2010), “Shadows and lights ofGSCM: determinants and effects of these practices

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

515

based on a multi-national study”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 18, pp. 953-962.

120 Thun, J.-H., Muller, A. (2010), “An empirical analysisof green supply chain management in the Germanautomotive industry”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 19, pp. 119-132.

121 Tohamy, N. (2009), “Green journey needs aroadmap”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 13,pp. 10-11.

122 Tsoulfas, G.T., Pappis, C.P. (2006), “Environmentalprinciples applicable to supply chains design andoperation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14,pp. 1593-1602.

123 Vachon, S. (2007), “Green supply chain practices andthe selection of environmental technologies”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45,pp. 4357-4379.

124 Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending greenpractices across the supply chain: the impact ofupstream and downstream integration”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26,pp. 795-821.

125 Vachon, S., Mao, Z. (2008), “Linking supply chainstrength to sustainable development: a country levelanalysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16,pp. 1552-1560.

126 van Bommel, H.W.M. (2011), “A conceptualframework for analyzing sustainability strategies inindustrial supply networks from an innovationperspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19,pp. 895-904.

127 Vermeulen, W.J.V., Seuring, S. (2009), “Sustainabilitythrough the market – the impacts of sustainable supplychain management”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17,pp. 269-273.

128 Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., Gollan, P. (2001), “Thesustainability debate”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 21,pp. 1492-1502.

129 Wittstruck, D., Teuteberg, F. (2011), “Understandingthe success factors of sustainable supply chainmanagement: empirical evidence from the electrics andelectronics industry”, Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 141-158.

130 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships betweenoperational practices and performance among earlyadopters of green supply chain management practicesin Chinese manufacturing enterprises”, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 22, pp. 265-289.

131 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. (2006), “An inter-sectoralcomparison of green supply chain management inChina: drivers and practice”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 14, pp. 472-486.

132 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. (2007), “The moderating effects ofinstitutional pressures on emergent green supply chainpractices and performance”, International Journal ofProduction Research, Vol. 45, pp. 4333-4355.

133 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supplychain management: pressures, practices andperformance”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 449-468.

134 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H. (2008), “Confirmationof a measurement model for green supply chainmanagement practices implementation”, InternationalJournal of Production Economics, Vol. 111, pp. 261-273.

Corresponding author

Alison Ashby can be contacted at: [email protected]

Making connections



Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2012 · 497–516

516

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature

Documents