-
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest14 March 2014
03:56_______________________________________________________________
-
Document 1 of 1 Making connections: a review of supply chain
management and sustainability literature Author: Ashby, Alison;
Leat, Mike; Hudson-Smith, Melanie ProQuest document link Abstract:
Purpose - The objective of this paper is to investigate
systematically the discipline of supply chainmanagement (SCM)
within the context of sustainability. The two concepts are
increasingly aligned, andsustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
represents an evolving field where they explicitly interact.
Giventheir complex and holistic nature, breaking down the
literature to understand its structures, processes,connections and
limitations can provide an objective view of the status of research
in these highly importantfields, identifying key areas for future
research/theory development. Design/methodology/approach -
Asystematic 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 asignificant but evolving
field evidenced by a current bias in the literature towards theory
development and highlyqualitative 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 receivesless
emphasis than expected given SCM's focus on interaction,
relationships and communication. These twodimensions are treated
separately in the literature with limited insight on how to
integrate them and current SCMand sustainability research provides
limited practical outputs. Research limitations/implications - The
reviewfocuses on environmental and social sustainability within
supply chains without explicit consideration of theeconomic
dimension. Practical implications - The review highlights the key
themes and issues for supply chainmanagers faced with implementing
sustainability. It also illustrates a number of areas for future
research, alongwith 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 currentlylies. The environmental
dimension is significantly more defined and developed in the
literature. SCM literatureemphasises the importance of long-term
supplier relationships, but this "people-focused" approach does
notappear to translate into socially responsible supply chains. It
suggests that the more process-driven nature ofenvironmental
sustainability makes it easier to put into supply chain practice.
There is also limited research orevidence on how the two dimensions
can be integrated despite recognition of their inter-relationship.
Full text: Building theory in supply chain management through
"systematic reviews" of the literature part 2 Edited by Richard
Wilding and Beverly Wagner Introduction There is increasing
consumer and stakeholder expectation for firms to be fully
responsible for their businessoperations, and to clearly
demonstrate their environmental and ethical behaviour. Most
organisations are a partof at least one supply chain ([74]
Samaranayake, 2005) and in today's global market competition is
increasinglybased on "supply chain vs supply chain" ([47] Gold et
al. , 2009; [83] Soler et al. , 2010). Therefore, theexpected line
of responsibility needs to extend along the full extent of a firm's
supply chains into its products,processes and relationships.
Globalisation and recent economic trends have created highly
complex supply chains ([26] Varma et al. , 2006)and the design,
organisation, interactions, competences, capabilities and
management of these supply chainshave become key issues ([47] Gold
et al. , 2009). Supply chain management (SCM) is therefore highly
relevantboth to successfully competing in today's market and in
addressing responsible behaviour at all stages of thesupply chain.
It represents a potentially important discipline for establishing
how to integrate environmental andsocial considerations and
practices, to achieve the goal of sustainability. The development
of SCM has been largely practitioner-led ([35] Burgess et al. ,
2006) and represents an
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1352727740?accountid=46437
-
evolutionary step beyond logistics ([74] Samaranayake, 2005). It
extends logistics thought by integrating themanagement of
co-operations with that of material and information flows ([13]
Handfield and Nichols, 1999).The prime driver for the rapid
development of SCM has been economic sustainability, based on the
premisethat an integrated and efficient supply chain helps to
minimise monetary risks and increase profits ([44] Fawcettet al. ,
2008). However in 1983 the World Commission on the Environment and
Development (WCED) was established andthe result of their work
formalised in the 1987 Brundtland Report "Our Common Future". It
defined sustainabilityas "development which meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations
tomeet their own needs" ([27] 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: "the concept of 'needs', in
particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which
overriding priority shouldbe given;" and "the idea of limitations
imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the
environment's ability tomeet present and future needs" ([27] WCED,
1987, p. 43). This has led, slowly, to social and environmental
sustainability becoming additional drivers for SCM, withsustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) now a rapidly evolving field that
requires a broadened approachto SCM, incorporating the ecological
and social aspects of business, as well as economic sustainability,
in linewith the Brundtland definition ([87] Svensson, 2007). It is,
therefore, "the strategic, transparent integration andachievement
of an organisation's social, environmental and economic goals in
the systemic coordination of keyinter-organisational business
processes for improving the long term economic performance of the
individualcompany and its supply chains" ([38] Carter and Rogers,
2008, p. 368). While there is clearly academic recognition of the
need to integrate economic, environmental and socialsustainability,
given the broad nature of these fields there is a tangible need to
develop a better and morefocused understanding of sustainability
specifically in relation to supply chains. How sustainable supply
chainsare defined, interpreted, researched and practiced are key to
this improved understanding and a review ofrelevant literature
provides the most appropriate means to achieve this and guide
future research in SSCM.Sustainability and SCM represent growing
and highly important areas for research, but there have been
fewliterature reviews to date that examine the two fields together
and even fewer systematic reviews. Given thecomplexity of both
research areas the process of breaking down the literature
systematically and understandingits structures, processes,
connections and limitations can provide a more objective view of
the status ofresearch in these two important fields. Through the
use of a systematic review this paper will address the following
research questions: 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 literature to be identified and
directions and approaches forfuture research/theory development to
be proposed. The following section will detail the methodology used
forthe systematic review and is followed by a presentation of the
findings. The findings are structured to discussthe broad
discipline of Supply Chain Management in relation to sustainability
and then focus more specificallyon how the environmental and social
dimensions are represented in the literature to date. These
findings arethen compared against other relevant structured
literature reviews and the contribution of this paper
detailed.Identified gaps in SCM and sustainability research are
discussed and finally the impact of these findings onfuture
Sustainable Supply Chain Management research is considered.
Methodology For a systematic literature review it is important to
define clear boundaries to delimitate the research ([78]Seuring and
Muller, 2008a) and establish a protocol for identifying, selecting
and reviewing literature relevant to
-
the specific question ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). This form of
review typically has the three defined stages ofPlanning, where the
research need and question is identified; conducting which includes
the search for relevantliterature and its analysis; and reporting
where the findings are formalised and recommendations made
([23]Tranfield et al. , 2003). Structured literature reviews within
the Operations Management discipline ([79] Seuring and Muller,
2008b; [35]Burgess et al. , 2006) illustrate the objective nature
of this approach in establishing key themes or dimensions,and the
benefits that can be provided to improve future research ([35]
Burgess et al. , 2006). As well asreviewing content as in a
standard literature review process, this approach investigates the
underlying structureof the selected papers to identify differences
and similarities in methods used and potential issues that
resultfrom each. Through this process methodological strengths are
tested 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 search criteria was applied to identify the most
relevantpapers. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed
journals produced in English and for quality purposesthe initial
proposal was to limit searches to journals rated from 2-4* in the
ABS journal rankings (2010).However, recognising the
interdisciplinary nature of the subject areas, along with the fact
that sustainability andSCM are both rapidly evolving concepts, it
was deemed important to include relevant journals which fell
outsidethis scope, to ensure that all the most current and relevant
research was included. Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]
indicates the ABS ranking for each of the accessed
journals.Important publications that did not fit within the
specified range include the Journal of Cleaner Production
andGreener Management International . These journals are not
currently ABS ranked but are explicitly focused oncutting edge
research in the field of sustainability with a strong emphasis on
the operational context, andrespectively contributed 10 and 12
relevant papers for review. As the subject of sustainability is
expansive, the search was focused on sustainability in relation to
supplychains and SCM. Sustainability is considered "an important
conceptual framework" for aligning economic,environmental and
social dimensions ([10] Dempsey et al. , 2009) and these three
"pillars" are pervasive withinsustainability literature ([21]
Springett, 2003; [91] Vachon and Mao, 2008; [56] Hutchins and
Sutherland, 2008).However, while the importance of the economic
dimension is recognised it was considered to be outside thescope of
this review and therefore excluded from the literature search as a
keyword/phrase. Search criteria The idea of sustainability was
verbalised by Schumacher as early as 1972, as "permanence", where
"nothingmakes 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 ofsustainability were more
explicitly formalised. Therefore only publications from 1983 to
present day wereincluded in the literature search to ensure these
two key dimensions were represented. It also indicates howrecent
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 ([88]
Svensson and Baath, 2008).Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article
Image.] shows the spread of the reviewed papers from 1983 and
illustratesthe growing research interest in the fields of
sustainability and SCM, with the most substantial growth
occurringfrom 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
thechosen search databases, recognising the cross-disciplinary
nature of both fields. The literature searchsimultaneously employed
the three databases of Science Direct, EBSCO and Emerald Fulltext.
While thisrelatively 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 asignificant hit
rate for relevant SCM and sustainability literature across multiple
disciplines, which was a keyconsideration for this review. However
it also created some duplication, so it was necessary to
cross-check thesearch results from each database to ensure that the
correct numbers of hits were recorded. An initial search was made
using the term sustainable supply chain management in all search
fields and thisproduced a combined results list of 11,020 hits. The
same term was then restricted to article title or keywordand
substantially reduced the number of hits to just 70. Allowing for
duplication of hits and calls for papersacross the three databases
and identifying those papers which specifically related to
sustainable supply chainmanagement this number was reduced to 14
articles from quality peer reviewed journals. A search
forsustainability and supply chain management in all fields
produced 8,156 results, while a focus on title and/orkeywords
reduced it to 35 hits. This smaller number allowed for the abstract
of each paper to be reviewed toestablish its relevance to the
research question and provided a further six papers to the overall
review. A standard approach to selecting papers for a literature
review is to apply a statistical sampling method to alarge number
of results ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006), but the above process
highlights how sustainability in SCMis a developing field with a
limited number of articles that deal explicitly with this subject.
Therefore the use oftitle and/or keywords as the search criteria
enabled the number of articles to be reduced to the extent that it
waspossible to evaluate the relevance of the papers individually.
However the 26 papers resulting from the aboveprocess were
considered insufficient for an effective review and a further set
of search terms were utilised tocapture papers that did not sit
explicitly within sustainable supply chain management, but that
were still relevantto sustainability in the context of supply
chains. Therefore this was not a random search process, but one
thatwas progressively refined by the use of specific search terms
and ensured that appropriate and high qualitypapers were retrieved
for review. Sustainability is an expansive, multi-faceted and
heavily debated concept ([92] Wilkinson et al. , 2001), and asearch
on this single term yielded 74,642 results in all fields and more
than 6,000 if restricted to a keyword, so itwas important to ensure
that the chosen literature dealt specifically with the concept in
relation to supply chainsand supply chain management. The terms of
Sustainability and Sustainable Development are frequently
usedinterchangeably ([1] Aras and Crowther, 2009), so the latter
term was added to the literature search and used inconjunction with
the keywords of supply chains and/or supply chain management. There
was significant overlapwith the prior search using the term
sustainability, but it did yield a further five papers for review.
"Green supply chains" as a search term used in both title and
keyword produced 122 combined results acrossthe three databases.
Using quality criteria of peer reviewed journals and key recognised
authors in the field,removing calls for papers and duplications
across the three databases plus papers that had already
beenidentified this number was reduced to 35 papers. This
represented the largest group of papers across all thesearch terms,
as indicated in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. This
process was repeated with other key search terms that related to
the whole supply chain and which alignwith sustainability (see
Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). All search terms
were used in conjunctionwith the additional terms of supply chains
and supply chain management for both title and keyword. Throughthis
process and the restricted search criteria a total of 134 articles
were selected for review. While thesearticles represent a
significant proportion of the relevant literature on sustainability
and SCM it was recognisedthat the chosen methodology and specific
search criteria would inevitably exclude some work in the field.
Analysis and findings Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]
lists the journals that were accessed for the review and the
numberof papers acquired from each. While there is a strong
emphasis on operations and supply chain managementjournals as would
be expected, it also illustrates the multi-disciplinary approach
required in a systematic review([35] Burgess et al. , 2006; [23]
Tranfield et al. , 2003) with journals crossing business
management, strategyand sustainability. This recognises the need
for considering cross-disciplinary perspectives in systematic
-
reviews and shows the different ways the research topic has been
approached ([23] Tranfield et al. , 2003; [35]Burgess et al. ,
2006). To minimise any potential bias the search process was
conducted using keywords across a series of researchdatabases and
not at individual journal level. However it is pertinent to note
how many of the accessed journalsin Table I [Figure omitted. See
Article Image.] relate specifically to the environmental dimension,
and the highproportion of papers which they provided. As previously
outlined ABS ranked 2-4* journals represented thelargest percentage
of reviewed publications. However given the growing importance and
contemporary natureof sustainability within the supply chain
management discipline, the most up to date material is often found
innewer and/or lower ranking journals as they typically have
shorter publication lead times. Therefore, journalsthat were deemed
highly relevant, but which fell outside the 2-4* scope were still
included to ensure the mostcurrent research was represented. The
range of papers reviewed illustrates the holistic nature of supply
chain management (SCM) andsustainability and highlights the need
for an inter-disciplinary approach to capture the most relevant
literature([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). Consequently a range of
research philosophies and methods were represented(see Table III
[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]), rather than a focus on one
type of study or form of data ([2]Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008).
Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] indicates how
substantial theresearch interest is in sustainability within supply
chains and the extent to which it is discussed in
academicliterature. However it also illustrates a lack of
systematic literature reviews (only 4 of the 17 literature
reviewsapply a systematic approach) in comparison to other methods
and emphasises the need for a systematic reviewof these fields. The
majority of the reviewed literature was academic research papers -
108 in total with four of these explicitlyreferenced as conceptual
papers. A total of 28 of the reviewed items were classified as
articles and these werelargely more report based rather than
dealing with an explicit research question. There were also
fourintroductions 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 broadlydiscussed and reported as well
being heavily researched across multiple areas of business and
management. Research methodologies Table III [Figure omitted. See
Article Image.] illustrates the highly qualitative nature of the
current literature asless than 25 per cent of the reviewed papers
used quantitative data collection methods or analysis. Casestudies
represented the dominant research methodology in relation to supply
chains and sustainability. Over 50per cent of the case studies were
conducted with just one or two firms with the greater proportion
being withsingle firms and investigating their whole supply chain.
Only one case study used more than five firms andfocused on ten
exemplar organisations that employ socially responsible buying
([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). Very few of the reviewed papers applied
a pure deductive approach to "test" pre-established theory,
indicatinghow new the integration of sustainability into SCM is,
and how the theory related to this area is still developing.This
may explain the dominance of inductive research methods such as
case studies, which are better atgaining insight and understanding
of complex, contemporary "real world" phenomena ([28] Yin, 2009) in
thisreview. There were ten instances of interviews being used as
the method of data collection and the majority of theseinterviews
were semi-structured where questions may be adjusted or adapted in
response to any new orinteresting facets that arise during the
interview process ([73] Reuter et al. , 2010). This indicates an
emphasisin current research on acquiring more qualitative, rich and
descriptive information. The survey and questionnairemethods also
focused on acquiring qualitative rather than quantitative data
although these methods lendthemselves to either form. Two Delphi
studies were undertaken with experts/practitioners in the supply
chainfield and were more quantitative in their approach ([77]
Seuring, 2008; [53] Handfield et al. , 2002). The formerapplied a
Likert scale and statistical analysis to inform understanding of
SSCM while the other applied a ranking
-
approach to key environmental criteria to develop 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 these frameworks
appearing in Supply Chain Management:an International Journal
(SCMIJ ). The largest number of models/frameworks focused on the
concept ofsustainable supply chain management, followed closely by
environmental management, and the emphasis forboth of these themes
was on supply chain strategy and decision making. Two socially
responsible purchasingmodels were developed ([62] Leire and Mont,
2010; [37] Carter and Jennings, 2002), perhaps reflecting themore
measurable nature of this supply chain stage as it deals with
tangible materials. Four models focused onsocial responsibility/CSR
([30] Aguilera et al. , 2007; [50] Hahn et al. , 2010; [64] McElroy
et al. , 2007; [65]McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) while only one
output explicitly addressed the more holistic concept of
"closedloop" supply chains ([41] Defee et al. , 2009). This lack of
outputs further highlights that current research is focused on
understanding the emergentphenomenon of sustainable supply chains
and developing theory. SCM is fundamentally a practical
disciplinewhich focuses on products and processes and the
links/relationships that facilitate these. While the
differentresearch methods exhibited in Table III [Figure omitted.
See Article Image.] are largely grounded inunderstanding "real
world" situations current sustainable supply chain research is not
informing practicesignificantly. This supports a recognised lack of
impact of research on management practice ([11] Ghoshal,2005), and
the difficulties in addressing the more "human" elements of
sustainability. While the reviewed literature may not currently
provide a significant number of tangible outputs it does reveal
aresearch bias toward operational processes, assessments and
procedures, i.e. practical measures as themeans to address
sustainability in supply chains. A total of 46 per cent of the
reviewed papers focused on the"greening" of products, processes and
performance and yet both SCM and sustainability are concepts
thatimplicitly require an integrated, holistic approach. This could
be considered a key limitation of currentsustainability and SCM
research and highlights the highly complex and challenging nature
of these fields. Sustainability dimensions Table IV [Figure
omitted. See Article Image.] illustrates the high proportion of
articles relating specifically to theenvironmental dimension of
sustainability, with "green" supply chains representing a
particularly strong area ofresearch. This aligns with the higher
number of articles coming from environmentally focused journals
(seeTable I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). To examine this
observed difference in emphasis, during thereview process it was
recorded whether an article referred to the key dimensions of
society and environmentindividually and/or collectively. A total of
106 papers in total explicitly discussed one or more of the
dimensionswhile the remaining 28 papers made no substantial
reference to either dimension, discussing SCM andsustainability in
a broader context. This process enabled the current research status
of each aspect to beestablished and to gain an indication of how
integrated 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 on environmental, rather than social
practices/principles.Papers that dealt specifically with the social
dimension tended to focus on one specific area or practice,
forexample Fairtrade rather than taking a fully holistic view. The
environment seemed more fully aligned withsupply chain performance
as it can provide measurable benefits, whereas social
sustainability was consideredmore ambiguous ([3] Banerjee, 2010).
In addition, its inter-relationship with the environmental
dimensionreceived limited explicit discussion within the
literature, and those papers that referred to both
dimensionstreated them as separate entities. Key themes Having
systematically identified the most relevant literature the process
of research synthesis was undertaken,which collectively relates to
the summarizing and integrating of different studies on the chosen
topic ([23]Tranfield et al. , 2003). As well as identifying key
similarities it was important to apply a critical approach when
-
reviewing the text to identify and assess both heterogeneity
between the papers and their individual quality ([2]Armitage and
Keeble-Allen, 2008). This interpretative, "meta-synthesis" approach
allows the importantsimilarities and differences to be considered
([23] Tranfield et al. , 2003; [35] Burgess et al. , 2006) and
looks forexplanations to gain a deep understanding of the studied
area ([22] Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The use ofcoding schemes
([22] Strauss and Corbin, 1998; [16] Miles, 1979; [7] Charmaz,
2006) and cross-comparisonwith the other papers enabled the
identification of a series of key themes and categories within
sustainabilityand Supply Chain Management literature to date. Table
V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the key themes that
were identified through the aboveanalysis process and lists all the
papers that had content associated with each theme, together with
an overallcount which is ranked to indicate the themes that have
received the most research attention to date. Thereference numbers
cross reference to those allocated to each of the reviewed papers
in the Appendix. Thesekey themes are discussed and reported in the
following sections, firstly in relation to the discipline of
sustainablesupply chain management (SSCM) and then specifically to
the environmental and social dimensions ofsustainability. Where
appropriate the reference numbers for specific papers within a
theme are cited. (Sustainable) supply chain management There were
29 papers relating to supply chain management (SCM) as evidenced in
Table V [Figure omitted.See Article Image.] and while sustainable
supply chain 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
[Figureomitted. See Article Image.]) dealing explicitly with this
subject. The earliest publication date on SSCM was2003, compared to
the reviewed SCM papers which started in 1996. While this shows
that SSCM is anemergent field the majority of SCM papers featured
in the review were published after 2005 and showed agrowth in line
with the SSCM literature. The dominant research method utilised in
both fields is the literaturereview, followed by case studies. Four
of the literature reviews employed a systematic method (12, 14,
109,129) with three being published in 2011 and only 1 paper in
either of the studied fields used astatistical/quantitative
research method (89). The initial, more traditional view of SCM was
that it could be used to leverage suppliers to achieve
lowestpurchase prices and/or to assure supplies. However, the
paradigm that has evolved views it as a process fordesigning,
developing, optimising and managing internal and external
components of the supply chain ([20]Spekman et al. , 1998). Despite
this, some authors see a tendency for SCM to be framed in terms of
processesand hard, quantifiable elements ([35] Burgess et al. ,
2006). Consequently SCM can be seen as "a corporatefunction of
increasing economic importance, but one that is not pulling its
weight in environmental protection"([69] 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 ([45]Frankel et al. , 2008) - these features were referred
to in 42 separate papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. SeeArticle
Image.]). [20] Spekman et al. (1998) consider co-operation as the
threshold level of interaction wherefirms exchange some essential
information and engage some suppliers in long-term relationships,
while incoordination workflow and information is exchanged to allow
more seamless linkages. The latter stage ofcollaboration represents
the optimum level and occurs when two or more independent firms
work together inpartnership to plan and execute supply chain
operations with greater success than if they acted in isolation
([67]Nyaga et al. , 2010). There is significant recognition in the
reviewed literature that supply chain integration extends
beyondtraditionally defined functional boundaries ([45] Frankel et
al. , 2008). SCM is considered a boundary-spanningactivity ([44]
Fawcett et al. , 2008) and there is growing acceptance that a
firm's impact extends beyond anysingle, core process to the
complete product life cycle ([80] Sharfman et al. , 2009) with
focal firms beingresponsible for their products "from cradle to
grave" ([15] Lippman, 2001, [59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005) i.e.
from
-
product design to product disposal. Reverse logistics (RL),
where a manufacturer accepts previously shipped products or parts
for recycling,remanufacturing or disposal ([26] Varma et al. ,
2006) extends this responsibility from "cradle to cradle"
andunderpins the concept of SSCM which recognises sustainability at
all supply chain stages. Acknowledging theend of the product
lifecycle is increasingly seen as a competitive necessity ([26]
Varma et al. , 2006) and hassignificant relevance to addressing the
environmental dimension successfully ([8] Crandall, 2006; [49]
Hagelaarand van der Vorst, 2002). Waste and emissions caused by
supply chains are considered the main sources ofserious
environmental problems and a focus on waste prevention/control is
one of the most effective ways totackle these problems ([66] Min
and Galle, 1997). Resource reduction through recycling, re-use and
wasteelimination is the goal of RL ([95] Carter and Ellram, 1998)
and can lead to cost savings and enhancedcompetitiveness ([72] Rao
and Holt, 2005). Specific issues that need to be addressed in SSCM
include co-operation and communication between supplychain members
to achieve a proactive sustainability approach; risk management to
identify environmental andsocial problems before they are exposed
publicly; and the total life cycle of a product ([77] Seuring,
2008; [49]Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002). This extends to the
re-conceptualisation of the supply chain by changingwhat it does,
moving toward the closed loop systems created through the use of RL
and reconceptualising whois in the supply chain ([68] Pagell and
Wu, 2009). Forward and reverse supply chains form a "closed loop"
whenmanaged in a coordinated way and can foster sustainability
([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). However [87]Svensson (2007)
argues that this still restricts SCM to point of origin and end
boundaries and needs torecognise the inherent horizontal
interconnections in and between supply chains. The environmental
dimension The "green" or environmental dimension was well
represented in the literature as evidenced in Table IV
[Figureomitted. See Article Image.] and the search term of "green
supply chains" returned the highest number ofpapers for this
review, suggesting this is currently the most developed interaction
between supply chainmanagement (SCM) and sustainability. "Green"
was the dominant term used in discussion of this
dimension,featuring in 40 papers with almost 50 per cent of these
explicitly relating to the field of green supply chainmanagement
(GSCM) - see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. A
"green" supply chain is where a focal firm works with their
suppliers to improve the environmentalperformance of products and
manufacturing processes ([82] Simpson and Power, 2005; [93] Zhu et
al. , 2005).It requires a paradigm shift from the conventional
association of success around financial parameters, and aholistic
environment concern ([26] Varma et al. , 2006). Supply chain
relationships have traditionally beendominated by cost, quality and
delivery, and the environment is rarely seen as critical when
compared withthese objectives ([82] Simpson and Power, 2005). The
reviewed literature acknowledged that supply chainrelationships can
be a key avenue for firms to influence their environmental
performance, but as highlighted thecurrent focus of SCM and
sustainability research is on the more tangible elements of
product, process andperformance. Green supply chain management
(GSCM) integrates environmental issues into SCM processes by
identifyingcosts, benefits and risks, along with opportunities
([94] Zhu et al. , 2008) to manage and reduce waste with
theultimate aim of waste elimination ([54] Handfield et al. ,
2005). It also has the potential to reduce the direct andindirect
environmental impacts of an organisation's final product ([39]
Darnall et al. , 2008). However thereviewed literature recognises
that firms adopting GSCM may only evaluate first tier suppliers
([39] Darnall et al., 2008), whereas the SCM function has an impact
far along the supply chain to second and third tier suppliers,and
potentially beyond ([69] Preuss, 2005b; [68] 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 relationships formed in response to
concerns related to thenatural environment ([49] Hagelaar and van
der Vorst, 2002). In comparison to GSCM it is the lesser used
term
-
with only five instances in the reviewed papers against 19 of
GSCM (see Table V [Figure omitted. See ArticleImage.]). Despite
this difference in terminology the literature emphasises the
growing attention to this specificfield, which has largely
developed in the last ten years. All the reviewed papers relating
to these specific themes were published between 2001 and present,
and thefield's importance is further evidenced in Table II [Figure
omitted. See Article Image.] by the number of papersfocusing on
green, or environmental, supply chains. Research methods used in
the papers had a qualitativeemphasis and the most common data
collection method was surveys or questionnaires followed by
casestudies/interviews. Only three papers offered practical outputs
in the form of models for strategic decision-making and measurement
in GSCM and ways to integrate the environment into SCM (50, 94,
134). Environmental management A total of 12 of the reviewed papers
dealt explicitly with the themes of environmental management (EM)
andenvironmental management systems (EMS) (see Table V [Figure
omitted. See Article Image.]). Five of thesereviewed specific
literature from the field while the remaining papers evenly
employed case study, interview andsurvey research methods. Eight of
the papers (24, 30, 35, 45, 47, 50, 100, 105) looked at the
interaction of EMwith SCM or sustainability with 50 per cent
positioning EM within the context of supply chains. One paper
(41)discussed EMS specifically in relation to purchasing and
another focused on the relationship between EM andthe social
dimension of sustainability (106). Three defined approaches to
environmental management were represented in the reviewed
literature. Reactivecharacterised by "end of pipe" pollution
control; proactive where firms recycle and re-use
products/materialswithin their supply chains and pre-empt new
environmental legislation; and value-seeking where
environmentalbehaviour is integrated into the business strategy
with a supply network wide responsibility ([25] van Hoek,1999).
Most current EM investment tends to be in "end-of-pipe"
technologies, i.e. a reactive approach ([24]Vachon and Klassen,
2006) as this means that production processes and products can
remain unchanged. Environmental management systems are often
limited to organisational boundaries rather than greening theentire
supply chain, and firms can market themselves as being
environmentally proactive simply by having anEMS ([39] Darnall et
al. , 2008). An EMS can provide the means to measure environmental
performance ([17]New and Westbrook, 2004) and allow external
stakeholders to verify whether environmental improvementsactually
occur at firm and supply chain level ([39] Darnall et al. , 2008).
However the literature largelyconsidered compliance as a
sub-optimal approach ([69] Preuss, 2005b), with attainment of
regulated standardseasily determined, while life cycle oriented
approaches require more unstructured and non-routine processesthan
are generally the norm ([80] 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 this more holistic approach. The environmental
effects ofa product during its lifecycle can be integrally
assessed, but there are questions in the literature over
itsusefulness, representativeness and legitimacy which [49]
Hagelaar and van der Vorst (2001) try to explicitlyaddress. To
truly gain from LCA strong supply chain partnerships are needed
([58] Kjaerheim, 2005), butdespite SCM's expected emphasis on
relationships the literature focuses more on the "greening" of
specificsupply chain processes. This may explain the current lack
of LCA literature, highlighting this as a potential gapas well as a
need for a more holistic, relational view to be applied to
sustainable supply chain management(SSCM) research. Design for the
environment . Design for the environment (DfE) represents both the
design and development ofnew products and processes ([89] Tsoulfas
and Pappis, 2006). It provides an avenue for the firm to address
thenatural environment ([69] Preuss, 2005b), and to design and
develop recoverable products which are durable,repeatedly usable,
harmlessly recoverable and environmentally compatible in disposal
([89] Tsoulfas andPappis, 2006). Environmental innovation can be
realised as a new product, process, or technology whichreduces
environmental impact ([52] Hall, 2001).
-
Nine papers referred to DfE (see Table V [Figure omitted. See
Article Image.]) with life cycle analysis (LCA)recognised as a
planning tool that contributed to this practice, and the majority
of the reviewed literaturediscussed DfE in relation to the physical
product. A number of difficulties were associated with DfE,
namelydesigners' unfamiliarity with the process and its lack of
integration with other design tools ([31] Albino et al. ,2009)
which in turn lead to issues in coordinating the process with
manufacturing. It was seen as an emergingtool which requires
refinement to be effective and none of the papers explicitly dealt
with how DfE can be usedin practice. Further recognised dimensions
of integrating environmental concern include design for recycling
(DfR) anddesign for disassembly (DfD) ([48] Gupta, 1995). These
approaches are complementary allowing for moreefficient and
profitable reuse/disposal of product components, and can extend to
designing for easierremanufacturing and reuse of a whole product.
However these tools were significantly underrepresented in
theliterature with one reference made to DfR (44) and one paper
discussing the features of DfD (93). Product stewardship . Product
stewardship is representative of the cradle to grave (or cradle)
responsibility forthe lifecycle of a product ([32] Angell and
Klassen, 1999). It is focused on "product-based green supply"
([77]Seuring, 2008) and is therefore linked to DfE, which draws on
data to design products with a reduced impact inthe environment
([32] Angell and Klassen, 1999). The goal is to keep all materials
within the life cycle andtherefore minimise any flow into the
external environment (Sarkis, 1995). The principle of product
stewardship is to extend the environmental perspective to the
entire value chain toinclude other internal and external
stakeholders such as R&D, designers and suppliers ([19]
Rusinko, 2007).Examples include redesigning products and processes,
using renewable resources and working with suppliersto prevent
pollution ([19] Rusinko, 2007). The key advantage to be gained from
this approach is competitive pre-emption through establishing a
reputation as a "green" company ([55] Hart, 1995). Product
stewardship was better represented in the literature than other
components of environmentalmanagement (EM) with 23 papers (see
Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) referring to this
principle,perhaps due to the opportunities it offers in different
supply chain areas rather than just the design stage. Eightof these
papers recognised product stewardship as a component of green
supply chain management (GSCM)or EM (3, 24, 30, 54, 80, 123, 124,
133) and discussed it in relation to other green supply chain
practices, andfour papers (5, 47, 60, 93) explicitly referred to
this principle as a key factor in closed loop supply chains. Only
four of the 23 papers (3, 24, 52, 93) discussed product stewardship
in any detail and there was anemphasis on its strategic role and
the benefits it can provide, as well as recognition for the need to
integrateLCA. One paper provided industry examples of product
stewardship and a diagnostic tool (3), while [55] Hart(1995) tested
a series of hypotheses to produce suggestions for how to
successfully build this approach intooperational strategies. Green
purchasing . Purchasing is considered to have the most potential to
address sustainability within supplychain management (SCM) because
it is grounded in non-altruistic market principles ([51] Hall,
2000), i.e.innovating SCM and purchasing in the context of the
environment makes good business sense and is morereadily
practicable than other approaches. A total of 24 of the reviewed
papers (see Table V [Figure omitted.See Article Image.]) discussed
green purchasing to different extents and recognised authors in
this field are Zhuand Sarkis. In their five reviewed papers they
position purchasing as one of a series of green supply
chainmanagement (GSCM) practices (130, 131, 132, 133, 134) and the
literature as a whole saw green purchasingas a growing practice.
Zhu and Sarkis' research is quantitative, testing propositions and
statistically analysinggreen purchasing practice in different
industries and countries. This suggests that this area is currently
moredeveloped than some other aspects of environmental
sustainability, perhaps because of its focus on a singleprocess.
The role of strategic purchasing is to direct activities towards
opportunities that will enable a firm to achieve itslong-term goals
([6] Carr and Smeltzer, 1999) and achieve an optimal purchasing
strategy in a supply network
-
environment ([86] Svahn and Westerlund, 2009). In addition it
emphasises the importance of buildingrelationships with suppliers
and can be positively linked to greening the supply process ([47]
Gold et al. , 2009).A total of 50 per cent of the 24 papers
emphasised the importance 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 of goods from the producer to the end
consumer([15] Lippman, 2001), while reverse logistics (RL) relates
to products returned by the customer to the focalcompany. It has
the purpose of recovering and potentially generating value ([5]
Blumberg, 2005) or properlydisposing of these products ([15]
Lippman, 2001), and increasingly requires as much focus as forward
chainprocesses ([8] Crandall, 2006). It is a "process whereby
companies can become more environmentally efficientthrough
recycling, reusing and reducing the amount of materials used" ([95]
Carter and Ellram, 1998, p. 85). The typical industry practice of
disposal of parts, materials and assemblies can represent a major
costcontributor ([5] Blumberg, 2005), while RL provides the maximum
utilisation of used products, where everyoutput is returned to
natural systems or becomes an input for manufacturing another
product ([89] Tsoulfas andPappis, 2006). Products, parts,
subassemblies and materials represent growing values and
economicopportunities at the end of the direct supply chain ([5]
Blumberg, 2005), and reverse distribution actively aims toreduce
materials/resources in the forward system so that fewer materials
flow back, reuse is possible andrecycling facilitated ([95] Carter
and Ellram, 1998). The 25 papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See
Article Image.]) that featured RL discussed it in terms ofexisting
practices and processes and were largely descriptive in nature,
outlining key issues and strategicbenefits. There were four
literature reviews of the field (15, 95, 96, 111), with one
specifically focused on RLrather than the broader field of green
supply chain management (GSCM) (15). A total of 12 papers
positionedRL as a key part of green supply chain practice/GSCM with
eight recognising its intrinsic role in closed loopsupply chains
(23, 26, 37, 78, 81, 87, 94, 133) and 4 linking its practice to
remanufacturing and wastemanagement (49, 60, 111, 124). Recycling,
reuse and remanufacturing . RL begins when a customer returns the
product and the company hasrecovered the maximum value ([59]
Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). Convenience returns are those where
customersreturn an unwanted product, which can either be re-sold or
used to replace products returned under warranty;later in the
lifecycle product returns can be remanufactured and remarketed
through secondary channels and atthe end of the life cycle used as
a source of spare parts ([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). The
minimal treatment ofa material is more closely associated with
product reuse, while a material that requires a large amount is
moreassociated with recycling (Sarkis, 1995). Waste products and
emissions can be recycled as a raw material for use in the same or
different productionprocess, processed to be reused, and used for a
different useful application ([48] Gupta, 1995). Recyclingrequires
the disassembly of the waste or returned product, separation of
parts and then material reprocessing,while remanufacturing replaces
worn, broken or obsolete parts from a product, returning it to new
or better thannew condition ([71] Pun, 2006). Of the different
approaches outlined recycling was the most stronglyrepresented in
the reviewed literature featuring in 53 separate papers, followed
by reuse (23 papers) and thenremanufacturing (16 papers) - see
Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The social dimension
The environmental dimension was substantially represented in the
reviewed literature (see Table IV [Figureomitted. See Article
Image.]) with the processes and practices within green supply chain
management (GSCM)providing the key focus. While the Brundtland
definition specifies both environmental and social
sustainability,SCM literature specific to the latter dimension was
more limited. Unlike the "green" dimension which had manysupply
chain related terms there was no equivalent use of the social
element, e.g. social supply chains, socialmanagement systems etc.
despite the fact the "human" element in terms of labour, skills and
the forming of
-
relationships should represent a key element of SCM. Given the
"human" nature of this dimension of sustainability the research
methods used in the reviewed paperswere understandably biased
towards qualitative data collection. Case studies were the dominant
researchmethod followed by review and discussion of the literature
in the field. The literature broke down into the 3 keythemes of
defining/understanding the social dimension, how it is practised
and how it should be integrated toachieve "true" sustainability and
are discussed in the following sections. Definitions and components
of social sustainability While there was no single definition of
social sustainability used in the reviewed literature it was
recognised thatprofit is only one element in the long-term success
of companies, and the future of people (internal andexternal) and
the planet are new legitimacy concerns ([59] Kleindorfer et al. ,
2005). Sustainability should be anethical code for human survival
and progress ([81] Sharma and Ruud, 2003) and achieved in "an
inclusive,connected, equitable, prudent and secure manner" ([46]
Gladwin et al. , 1995, p. 878). The first three elementsof this
definition link strongly with the social dimension ([76] Schaefer,
2004) and how it can be enacted throughsupply chains by reducing
unemployment, protecting employee health and safety, ensuring equal
treatment andpreventing social exclusion ([62] Leire and Mont,
2010). While environmental sustainability emphasises the management
of natural resources, social sustainability isconcerned with the
management of social resources, including people's skills and
abilities, institutions,relationships and social values ([75]
Sarkis et al. , 2010). At the business level this requires
companies and theirsuppliers to add value by increasing the human
capital of individuals, and the societal capital of
communities([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Social sustainability
can be formed into the four main categories of internal human
resources, which includespractices related to employment stability
and health and safety; external population which encompasses
human,productive and community capital; stakeholder participation
which includes information provision andstakeholder influence
issues; and macro social performance issues of socio-economic and
socio-environmentalperformance (Labuschagne et al. in ([75] Sarkis
et al. , 2010)). Social equity is a key component of social
sustainability and requires that all members of society have
equalaccess to resources and opportunities ([33] Bansal, 2005),
extending to the fair and equitable treatment ofemployees ([60]
Krause et al. , 2009). It is concerned with poverty, injustice and
human rights, and from asupply chain perspective considers the
welfare of all employees globally ([60] Krause et al. , 2009).
Socially,supply chain management (SCM) is expected to enforce a
firm's values and standards with its suppliers (Tateet al. , 2010)
and emphasises the importance of long-term relationships,
communication and supplierdevelopment ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010).
A total of 12 papers referred to the issue of social equity (see
Table V[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]), but only four dealt
with it in any detail (6, 37, 53, 125) and only one used itas its
research focus (6), so while there may be an expectation for SCM to
address this important componentthere is limited academic evidence
to support this. Corporate social responsibility Social
sustainability is strongly linked to corporate social
responsibility (CSR) which comprises actions notrequired by law,
but furthering social good, beyond the explicit, transactional
interests of a firm ([75] Sarkis et al., 2010). CSR requires firms
to embrace economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations
of stakeholders([33] Bansal, 2005), with the understanding that
avoidance of a firm's social responsibility will lead to the
erosionof social power ([9] Davis, 1967). CSR represents how firms
satisfy the needs of society and the environment while meeting
their economic goals([41] Defee et al. , 2009). SCM requires
greater strategic elevation of CSR in order to facilitate
coordinationacross purchasing, manufacturing, distribution and
marketing functions ([57] Keating et al. , 2008). To this end,[54]
Handfield et al. (2005) suggest that firms with a formal system to
monitor and report on CSR issues in theirsupply chain will enjoy
performance advantages and greater commitment from internal and
external
-
stakeholders ([57] Keating et al. , 2008). Closed-loop supply
chains may also provide firms with a means toleverage CSR ([41]
Defee et al. , 2009). Of the 27 papers which explicitly discussed
the social dimension (see Table V [Figure omitted. See
ArticleImage.]) 30 per cent dealt with CSR, and the majority came
from the British Journal of Management andBusiness Strategy and the
Environment . Three of these papers positioned CSR specifically
within the contextof SCM (4, 55, 118) and the research methods used
were evenly balanced across case studies, modelling,reviews and
theory development., This suggests that CSR is a more well
developed field - as a concept it hasbeen in existence since the
1960s ([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) - and it has received an
increased interestand profile in the last decade. Its relevance to
and overlap with social sustainability makes CSR a key means
todevelop this field of research further. Social sustainability
practice In contrast to the range of processes and practices
discussed within the environmental dimension there wereonly a few
explicitly defined social practices in the reviewed papers and many
of these practices haveassociated certifications and
accreditations, e.g. Fairtrade. Social sustainability
certifications and standardswere discussed in over 30 per cent 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 Labour Organisation (ILO) has a set of principles,
whichinclude the aspects of human rights, child and forced labour,
employment, wages and training ([62] Leire andMont, 2010).
Certification through such bodies is seen as one of the few areas
in research literature wheresocial issues such as child labour and
unsafe working conditions are addressed explicitly ([68] Pagell and
Wu,2009) and can be used to establish a set of social criteria to
be applied to the supply chain, with suppliersmonitored to ensure
compliance ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010). Fairtrade is a
well-developed social practice that as well as seeking fairer
relationships with suppliers, aims toestablish more direct
relationships between groups of producers and consumers ([4]
Barratt Brown, 1993). Itprovides an alternative model of
international trade based on better trading conditions and price,
as well aseducating consumers about the negative effects of
traditional trade ([40] Davies and Crane, 2010). It has
theunderlying "people" principles of good working standards and
conditions for workers at all stages of the supplychain, but also
acknowledges the need to preserve resources, assess environmental
impacts and co-operatewhere resources are trans-boundary ([85]
Strong, 1997). A total of 13 of the papers (see Table V
[Figureomitted. See Article Image.]) that dealt with the social
dimension discussed Fairtrade with three using it as theirresearch
focus (25, 40, 113). Socially responsible purchasing (SRP) can be
defined as the inclusion in purchasing of social issues advocatedby
organisational stakeholders ([63] Maignan et al. , 2002) and the
utilisation of purchasing power to acquireproducts that have a
positive social impact ([42] Drumwright, 1994). SRP aligns with the
principles of "green"purchasing, however, the latter is currently
more developed in both research and practice ([62] Leire and
Mont,2010). This was evidenced by just six papers (see Table V
[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) referring to thepractice in
comparison to 26 in green purchasing, and only two of these focused
specifically on this aspect ofthe social dimension (16, 68) with
the latter providing a process model for implementing and
maintaining SRP. SRP attempts to bring about positive social change
through its purchasing behaviour ([42] Drumwright, 1994)and can
address a range of issues, mainly human rights, safety, diversity
and community ([62] Leire and Mont,2010), which all represent
non-economic buying criteria ([42] Drumwright, 1994). However,
while they recognisetheir relevance many purchasing managers do not
know how to concretely and systematically integrate socialissues
into purchasing decisions ([63] Maignan et al. , 2002). Integrating
social sustainability The "people" element of "people, profit,
planet" ([70] Pullman et al. , 2009) can align sustainability goals
withemployees and community pressure for firms to improve
environmental performance ([59] Kleindorfer et al. ,
-
2005). Product stewardship which featured heavily within the
review of the environmental dimension can havethe benefit of
training employees in sustainability ([19] Rusinko, 2007), and
products can be considered sociallyresponsible on a number of
dimensions including what they are made from, where they come from
or whosupplies them ([42] Drumwright, 1994). Reverse logistics
(RL), through its promotion of recycling, reuse andresource
conservation, addresses various aspects of social sustainability
and could provide a means forpromoting socially responsible
behaviour in supply chains ([75] Sarkis et al. , 2010). These
implied overlaps between environmental and social sustainability
practices and the close alignment ofSRP with green purchasing
highlighted above hints at some of the potential for interaction
between these twoimportant dimensions of sustainability. However
such references were limited in the reviewed literature, andwhile
they indicated that environmentally motivated behaviour could
inform and potentially synergise with socialsustainability there
was no explicit discussion on how this could be achieved at key
areas of the supply chain,e.g. manufacturing where social issues
are of greater importance. An appreciation of the "local" level of
sustainability extends to achieving balanced social development
withinlocal eco-systems. It requires the integration of a firm's
environmental and social efforts in co-operation withsuppliers and
other social actors to create regional and local sustainability
([76] Schaefer, 2004). Thisemphasises the role of relationships and
communication within supply chains, as well as acknowledging
theimpact of external stakeholders ([63] Maignan et 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 socialreports to communicate progress to
stakeholders ([76] Schaefer, 2004). The supply management function
can play an important role in the creation of social capital ([20]
Spekman et al., 1998). Social capital comprises of human capital in
terms of people's skills, motivation and loyalty, and
societalcapital which includes education and culture ([43] Dyllick
and Hockerts, 2002). The relational embeddedness ofsocial capital
derived through on-going interactions with suppliers could be a
critical antecedent to firmperformance ([34] Bernardes, 2010).
Sustainable supply chains can invest in human capital, e.g. through
HRpractices which seek to improve employee well-being and
commitment and build a culture that values peopleand the
environment ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). A total of 11 of the
reviewed papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.])
referred to social capitalwith just three discussing this component
of social sustainability in any detail (8, 28, 74). It is seen as
one ofthree different types of capital, the others being economic
and natural capital ([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002)which align
with the three recognised dimensions or pillars of sustainability.
However while there appears to bean understanding in the literature
as to what social capital is there was limited explanation of how
to address itin practice and only 1 of the papers discussed social
capital in relation to supply chains and relationships (8).
Comparison with other structured literature reviews This paper is
intended to contribute to the evolving field of sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) byaligning sustainability literature with
supply chain and SCM literature. It therefore takes a broad,
holistic andmulti-disciplinary approach and reviews the relevant
literature in both fields. Other literature reviews haveapplied a
systematic process to the more specific areas of SCM ([35] Burgess
et al. , 2006) and SSCM ([36]Carter and Easton, 2011). Both of
these papers focus their review to conventional operations
managementliterature, with the latter narrowing its search to seven
logistics and SCM journals. In contrast this paperrecognises that
sustainability is an evolving concept that is researched and
discussed in many relevant journalsand disciplines that may fall
outside but still legitimately inform SCM and operations management
(OM)research. [35] Burgess et al. 's (2006) structured review
focuses on SCM literature and was part of the literature
reviewed,but it also informed this paper's methodology which builds
on their systematic framework and integratesrelevant sustainability
research. These authors recognise that while SCM is a new but
growing field there havebeen few structured reviews to date and
that the OM discipline is too narrow and functional to address
the
-
emergent issues in SCM, emphasising the need for a broader, more
holistic view. There was a lack ofdefinitional consensus, which
echoes the many varied definitions of sustainability that currently
exist andsuggests that SCM and sustainability are both in
"development mode" and have not yet reached maturity. Thispaper has
indicated the highly qualitative nature of SCM and sustainability
literature and the dominance ofinductive rather than deductive
"theory testing" methodologies, which supports the view of a
developing field. Italso updates Burgess at al's review with the
considerable number of developments and new papers in this
fieldsince 2006. While [36] Carter and Easton's (2011) findings
result from a narrower review and are presented in a
morestatistical form their analysis by subject supports a key
finding from this paper. They recognise that theenvironmental
dimension has dominated in sustainable supply chain research - 42.5
per cent of the reviewedarticles focused on this in the last 20
years with the more social focused subjects of CSR and Human
Rightsreceiving 11.25 per cent and 6.25 per cent respectively. Case
studies were also seen as a commonmethodology in SSCM research, but
at 60 per cent the use of surveys was much higher in their review
than thispaper's findings (15 per cent), perhaps reflecting the
more operational nature of the reviewed literature. Bothpapers
recognised the limited numbers of structured or systematic
literature reviews in this field. [84] Soni and Kodali (2011)
undertake a systematic review of empirical research in SCM,
searching the exactphrase of "supply chain" in four management
science databases and then classifying the resulting papers
undernine classes. Again the review focuses specifically on SCM
with no review of sustainability literature, but theirfindings
support the significant growth in SCM research in recent years and
that there has been an emphasis ontheory building, in line with the
findings of this paper. While SCM in principle should apply a
network approachboth [84] Soni and Kodali (2011) and [35] Burgess
et al. (2006) show that research has tended to focus on onepart of
the system or specific processes and emphasises the need for a more
holistic approach. Through itsbroader review of relevant SCM and
sustainability literature this paper intends to address this key
gap andinform future research so that it can apply a more
integrated view. Discussion The significant growth in the number of
papers on supply chain management (SCM) and sustainability
indicatesthe importance and contemporaneous nature of these two
fields for further, informed research. While SCMliterature is
potentially better developed due to its evolvement from established
operations research and supplychain practice it is clear from the
reviewed literature that environmental and social sustainability
have bothrelevance and a growing presence within the SCM field. The
review has indicated that SCM and sustainability are evolving and
developing fields of research, evidencedby the lack of any
universally accepted definition for either. This extended to the
components of each field,especially in relation to the environment
where a multitude of terms were used to describe identical or
similarconcepts/practices, e.g. green supply chain management
(GSCM) and environmental supply chainmanagement (ESCM). sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) which incorporates both social
andenvironmental sustainability into supply chain practice and
management is the newest field of all with thereviewed literature
commencing in 2003. While only 14 papers dealt explicitly with SSCM
it is clear that this is akey area for future research and a means
to progress GSCM beyond its current environmental focus. It has
thepotential to encapsulate and consolidate the environmental and
social supply chain literature, and provide anintegrated approach
to sustainability, but this potential is still to be realised. The
qualitative and theory developing nature of the research to date
emphasises how these research fields areat an early stage, with
case studies and qualitative surveys/questionnaires forming the
primary methods of datacollection. While practice and especially
environmental practices are discussed heavily in the reviewed
literaturethere are few explicit practical outputs from the
research such as models or tools that would indicate a moremature
field. While the nature of sustainability strongly supports an
inductive methodology it is important torecognise that SCM is
fundamentally a practical discipline and while most of the research
methods are based
-
around "real world" supply chain situations, this is a field
where research explicitly needs to inform practice. The research
bias towards the "hard" quantifiable practices and processes of SCM
identified in the reviewsuggests that there is uncertainty on how
to address the more holistic aspects of SCM and sustainability,
andyet these are considered key to achieving a fully integrated
approach in SSCM. The relationship element ofSCM and its potential
impact on sustainability is underexplored in the reviewed
literature and yet could hold thekey to moving beyond the current
reactive approach ([24] Vachon and Klassen, 2006) and join
isolatedprocesses into a "closed loop". There was limited research
into how supply chain relationships can beharnessed to achieve
sustainability, especially within the environmental domain. While
social sustainabilityliterature was more limited greater reference
was made to relationships, perhaps due to the more "human"focused
nature of this field. The relative wealth of literature on "green"
supply chains (see Table II [Figure omitted. See Article
Image.])indicates the extent to which the environmental dimension
has been incorporated into SCM research to date.There is
recognition that firms have made strong progress in the
environmental dimension of sustainability ([60]Krause et al. ,
2009; [75] Sarkis et al. , 2010) and the literature review has
illustrated a range of environmentalpractices within supply chains.
However, significant development in societal and cultural issues is
consideredlacking ([60] Krause et al. , 2009) and research
literature to date has been limited in the social component
ofsustainability ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009; [76] Schaefer, 2004;
[81] 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, or they may not even represent an appropriate goal
forbusiness ([76] Schaefer, 2004; [61] Lamming and Hampson, 1996).
[81] Sharma and Ruud (2003) also suggestthat addressing the social
dimension and achieving "true" sustainability is only possible in
supply chains thatoperate within definable geographic regions and
are not "globally fragmented", therefore challenging the rolethat
SCM can play in achieving social sustainability across the highly
globalised supply chains that currentlydominate in practice. The
literature agrees that a supply chain's performance should be
measured not just by profits, but also by itsimpact on
environmental and social systems ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). If a
sustainable supply chain is onethat performs well across all three
dimensions then the field of SSCM needs to represent the actions
taken toachieve this goal ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009) and involve
the inter-connection and interaction betweencomponents and
interfaces across supply chains ([87] Svensson, 2007). While the
small body of SSCMliterature recognises these three dimensions
there is limited explicit research 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 keythemes and issues, and outlined the
role that this discipline could play in the achievement of
sustainability insupply chains. In today's global marketplace if a
firm is part of a supply chain it cannot ignore its
suppliers'practices and needs to be acutely aware of stakeholder
expectations and pressures ([54] Handfield et al. , 2005;[80]
Sharfman et al. , 2009; [15] Lippman, 2001; [33] Bansal, 2005).
Such expectations are increasingly focusedon environmentally and
socially responsible principles and practice, and these dimensions
represented a keyfocus of the review. SCM has been largely
practitioner-led ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006), and offers
substantial potential for translatingsustainability theory into
practice. The literature review revealed a significant and
persistent gap between thediffusion of sustainability discourse and
its practical application ([12] Hamdouch and Zuindeau, 2010), as
well asan acknowledged lack of impact of management research on
management practice ([11] Ghoshal, 2005).However, while the SCM
literature advocates the importance and benefits of co-operation
and sharing ofinformation, it still has had a tendency 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 ofresearch into SCM and
sustainability, how it is defined and conceptualised and the key
research methodologies
-
employed to date. The emphasis on qualitative data/methods and
theory development across the literatureillustrates the new,
evolving nature of this field and the need for it to be developed
further in a focused way.Greater and more practical insights into
sustainability in supply chains could be gained by using the
findings ofthis review to inform and direct research from the
current narrow, somewhat disconnected approaches towardsa more
"rounded" and holistic view of the field. A challenge for
researchers is to develop appropriate methods and tools to capture
the evolving field ofsustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and
move from the current dominance of case studies andsurveys. A key
research direction for progressing SSCM would be the role of supply
chain relationships inachieving sustainability. This could move the
environmental dimension beyond just the "greening" of supplychain
processes, which received the most emphasis in the reviewed
literature. Life cycle analysis (LCA) andclosed loop concepts could
also provide a much more appropriate focus for environmental
sustainabilityresearch as they apply a more connected and holistic
view of supply chains, especially as the literature reviewhas shown
that these approaches have been underexplored to date. SCM extends
organisational boundaries ([45] Frankel et al. , 2008), and the
"cradle to grave" concept ([59]Kleindorfer et al. , 2005; [15]
Lippman, 2001) that evolves from this aligns strongly with the key
principles ofsustainability. It requires responsibility for the
full life cycle of a product, and closed loop supply chains
shouldenable this concept to be realised. They are recognised as a
key means to address the environmentaldimension ([8] Crandall,
2006), and yet the closed loop literature was extremely limited
with only four papersexplicitly dealing with this approach. In
comparison "green" supply chains featured in more than 30 papers
and"greening" was a prevailing metaphor ([18] Preuss, 2005a),
implying this is currently the accepted face ofenvironmental
sustainability within supply chains. While the research of closed
loop and LCA could provide a more connected view of sustainability
in supplychains there is still a bias towards the environment in
these research areas. To fully understand sustainablesupply chains
there also needs to be closer analysis of the relational aspects of
SCM and how they can be usedto address both environmental and
social sustainability. SCM literature places emphasis on
supplierrelationships, but there was limited discussion in the
reviewed papers on how these can be harnessed toachieve
sustainability. This represents a key area for future research -
its lack of focus to date suggests thechallenge of researching the
field from a more holistic and relational viewpoint, but it also
offers the greatestpotential for progressing SSCM from "greening"
to a "virtuous circle" that addresses sustainability at all
stagesand interactions. Finally, very few of the reviewed papers
provided tangible outputs such as an explicit framework or model
toinform the implementation of sustainability and sustainable
supply chains were discussed largely in theoreticalterms. This may
be due to the new and evolving nature of the research field, but
does represent a significantgap. The reviewed literature explains
in part why collaboration and relationships are strategically
important toSCM, but it offers limited "real life" insights or
guidance into how they can be achieved and their contribution
tosustainability. Given the inherently "practical" nature of the
SCM discipline translating the theory developedthrough more focused
approaches into actual supply chain practice should be a key
priority. Received 28 August 2010Revised 16 March 201130 June 20118
October 201121 December 2011Accepted 23December 2011 References 1.
Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), "Making sustainable development
sustainable", Management Decision,Vol. 47, pp. 975-88. 2. Armitage,
A. and Keeble-Allen, D. (2008), "Undertaking a structured
literature review or structuring aliterature review: tales from the
field", Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6,
pp. 103-14. 3. Banerjee, S.B. (2010), "Who sustains whose
development? Sustainable development and the reinvention ofnature",
Organization Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 143-80.
-
4. Barratt Brown, M. (1993), Fair Trade, Zed Books, London. 5.
Blumberg, D.F. (2005), Introduction to Management of Reverse
Logistics and Closed Loop Supply ChainProcesses, Taylor
&Francis, London. 6. 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. 7. Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded
Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 8. Crandall, R.E.
(2006), "How green are your supply chains?", Industrial Management,
Vol. 48, pp. 6-11. 9. Davis, K. (1967), "Understanding the social
responsibility puzzle", Business Horizons, Vol. 10, p. 45. 10.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2009), "The
social dimension of sustainabledevelopment: defining urban
sustainability", Sustainable Development, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp.
289-300. 11. Ghoshal, S. (2005), "Bad management theories are
destroying good management practices", Academy ofManagement
Learning &Education, Vol. 4, pp. 75-91. 12. Hamdouch, A. and
Zuindeau, B. (2010), "Sustainable development, 20 years on:
methodologicalinnovations, practices and open issues", Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 53, pp. 427-38. 13.
Handfield, R. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to Supply
Chain Management, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ. 15. Lippman,
S. (2001), "Supply chain environmental management", Environmental
Quality Management,Winter, pp. 11-14. 16. Miles, M.B. (1979),
"Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of
analysis", AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 590-601.
17. New, S. and Westbrook, R. (2004), Understanding Supply Chains:
Concepts, Critiques and Future, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford. 18.
Preuss, L. (2005a), The Green Multiplier: A Study of Environmental
Protection and the Supply Chain,Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
19. Rusinko, C.A. (2007), "Green manufacturing: an evaluation of
envrironmentally sustainable manufacturingpractices and their
impact on competitive outcomes", IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 54,pp. 445-54. 20. Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr
and Myhr, N. (1998), "An empirical investigation into supply
chainmanagement: a perspective on partnerships", Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 3, pp. 53-67. 21. Springett, D. (2003), "Business
conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical
theory",Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 71-86.
22. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 23. Tranfield, D.,
Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), "Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informedmanagement knowledge by means of
systematic review", British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp.
207-22. 24. Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), "Green project
partnership in the supply chain: the case of thepackage printing
industry", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 661-71. 25.
van Hoek, R.I. (1999), "From reversed logistics to green supply
chains", Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4,pp. 129-34. 26. Varma, S.,
Wadhwa, S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2006), "Implementing supply chain
management in a firm:issues and remedies", Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18, pp. 223-43. 27. World Commission
on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
UniversityPress, Oxford. 28. Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research:
Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 30.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J.
(2007), "Putting the S back in corporate socialresponsibility: a
multilevel theory of social change in organizations", Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32,
-
pp. 836-63. 31. Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R.M.
(2009), "Environmental strategies and green productdevelopment: an
overview on sustainability-driven companies", Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol.18, pp. 83-96. 32. Angell, L.C. and Klassen,
R.D. (1999), "Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream:
an agenda forresearch in operations management", Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 575-98. 33. Bansal, P. (2005),
"Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate
sustainable development",Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp.
197-218. 34. Bernardes, E.S. (2010), "The effect of supply
management on aspects of social capital and the impact
onperformance: a social network perspective", Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 45-56. 35. Burgess, K., Singh, P.J.
and Koroglu, R. (2006), "Supply chain management: a structured
literature reviewand implications for future research",
International Journal of Operations &Production Management,
Vol. 26, pp.703-29. 36. Carter, C.R. and Easton, P.L. (2011),
"Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and
futuredirections", International Journal of Physical Distribution
&Logistics Management, Vol. 41, pp. 46-62. 37. Carter, C.R. and
Jennings, M.M. (2002), "Social responsibility and supply chain
relationships",Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 38, pp. 37-52.
38. Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), "A framework of
sustainable supply chain management: movingtoward new theory",
International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics
Management, Vol. 38, pp. 360-87. 39. Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and
Handfield, R.B. (2008), "Environmental management systems and green
supplychain management: complements for sustainability?", Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 30-45. 40. 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. 41. Defee, C.C., Esper, T. and Mollenkopf, D. (2009),
"Leveraging closed-loop orientation and leadership forenvironmental
sustainability", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14, pp. 87-98. 42. Drumwright, M.E. (1994), "Socially
responsible organizational buying: environmental concern as
anoneconomic buying criterion", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No.
3, pp. 1-19. 43. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), "Beyond the
business case for sustainability", Business Strategy and
theEnvironment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-41. 44. Fawcett, S.E., Magnan,
G.M. and McCarter, M.W. (2008), "Benefits, barriers, and bridges to
effective supplychain management", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 35-48. 45. Frankel, R.,
Bolumole, Y.A., Eltantawy, R.A., Paulraj, A. and Gundlach, G.T.
(2008), "The domain and scopeof SCM's foundational disciplines -
insights and issues to advance research", Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol.29, pp. 1-30. 46. 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. 47. Gold, S.,
Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2009), "Sustainable supply chain
management and inter-organisationalresources: a literature review",
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol.
17 No. 4,pp. 230-45. 48. Gupta, M.C. (1995), "Environmental
management and its impact on the operations function",
InternationalJournal of Operations &Production Management, Vol.
15, pp. 34-51. 49. Hagelaar, G.J.L.F. and van der Vorst, J.G.A.J.
(2002), "Environmental supply chain management: using lifecycle
assessment to structure supply chains", International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 4,pp. 399-412.
-
50. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2010),
"Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can't haveyour cake
and eat it", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, pp.
217-29. 51. Hall, J. (2000), "Environmental supply chain dynamics",
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, pp. 455-71. 52. Hall, J.
(2001), "Environmental supply-chain innovation", Greener Management
International, Vol. 35, pp.105-19. 53. Handfield, R., Walton, S.,
Sroufe, R.P. and Melnyk, S.A. (2002), "Applying environmental
criteria to supplierassessment: a study in the application of the
analytical hierarchy process", European Journal of
OperationalResearch, Vol. 141, pp. 70-87. 54. Handfield, R.B.,
Sroufe, R.P. and Walton, S. (2005), "Integrating environmental
management and supplychain strategies", Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 14, pp. 1-19. 55. Hart, S.L. (1995), "A
natural-resource-based view of the firm", Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 20,pp. 986-1014. 56. Hutchins, M.J. and Sutherland,
J.W. (2008), "An exploration of measures of social sustainability
and theirapplication to supply chain decisions", Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1688-98. 57. Keating, B., Quazi, A., Kriz,
A. and Coltman, T. (2008), "In pursuit of a sustainable supply
chain: insightsfrom Westpac Banking Corporation", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 175-9. 58.
Kjaerheim, R. (2005), "Cleaner production and sustainability",
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp.329-39. 59. Kleindorfer,
P.R., Singhal, K. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), "Sustainable
operations management",Production and Operations Management, Vol.
14, pp. 482-92. 60. Krause, D.R., Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D.
(2009), "Special topic forum on sustainable supply chainmanagement:
introduction and reflection on the role of purchasing management",
Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 45, pp. 18-25. 61. Lamming,
R. and Hampson, J. (1996), "The environment as a supply chain
management issue", BritishJournal of Management, Vol. 7, pp.
S45-S52. 62. Leire, C. and Mont, O. (2010), "The implementation of
socially responsible purchasing", Corporate SocialResponsibility
and Environmental Management, Vol. 17, pp. 27-39. 63. Maignan, I.,
Hillebrand, B. and McAlister, D. (2002), "Managing socially
responsible buying: how to integratenon-economic criteria into the
purchasing process", European Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp.
641-8. 64. McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R. and van Engelen, J. (2007),
"Sustainability quotients and the social footprint",Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15, pp.
223-34. 65. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), "Corporate social
responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective",Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117-27. 66. Min, H. and Galle, W.
(1997), "Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications",
International Journalof Purchasing and Materials, Summer, pp.
10-17. 67. Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010),
"Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer andsupplier
perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?", Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 28, pp.101-14. 68. Pagell, M. and Wu,
Z. (2009), "Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain managementusing case studies of 10 exemplars", Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 37-56. 69. Preuss, L.
(2005b), "Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from
the supply chain managementfunction", Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 14, pp. 123-39. 70. Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J.
and Carter, C.R. (2009), "Food for thought: social versus
environmentalsustainability practices and performance outcomes",
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 38-54. 71. Pun,
K.F. (2006), "Determinants of environmentally responsible
operations: a review", International Journalof Quality
&Reliability Management, Vol. 23, pp. 279-97.
-
72. Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), "Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance?",International Journal of
Operations &Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 898-916. 73.
Reu