GSCM4

Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal
Sustainable supply chain management: A review of literature and implications for

future research
Swayam Sampurna Panigrahi, Bikram Bahinipati, Vipul Jain,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Swayam Sampurna Panigrahi, Bikram Bahinipati, Vipul Jain, (2018) "Sustainable supply chain
management: A review of literature and implications for future research", Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0003
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0003
Downloaded by Georgetown University At 23:21 09 June 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 09 June 2018, At: 23:21 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 376 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:264987 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm
Sustainable
Sustainable supply supply chain
chain management management
A review of literature and implications

for future research
Swayam Sampurna Panigrahi and Bikram Bahinipati Received 2 January 2018
Department of Operations Management, Xavier Institute of Management, Revised 11 February 2018
Accepted 3 March 2018
Bhubaneswar, India, and
Vipul Jain
School of Management, Victoria Business School,
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The business enterprises are increasingly focusing on buying and supplying of products and
services in a manner to reduce the adverse impacts on the environment, society, and economy. In view of the
above, the concept of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has received attention of the industry
and academia due to its importance on environmental, social and corporate responsibility through economic
performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – The structured literature review attempts to map the various theories in
the SSCM literature from the perspectives of economic performance, environmental dimensions, and social
values and ethics.
Findings – As supply management is vital for enhancing organizational competitiveness, the present work
attempts to investigate the theoretical perspectives in SSCM to develop an understanding of the current
research activities and future potentials.
Practical implications – This work aims to gain a number of valid insights for the practitioners and the
researchers. It also focuses on the perspectives of governance mechanisms for successful implementation
SSCM practices in the business enterprises.
Originality/value – As the theory building initiatives with implications on the conceptualization of SSCM
is limited in literature, this work has also been able to identify the trends and relevant research gaps to define
the potential areas for future research.
Keywords Social sustainability, Environmental sustainability, Sustainable supply chain management,
Economic performance, Sustainability
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Due to the present economic condition and globalization, the supply chains (SCs) are getting
more and more complex (Varma et al., 2006) and subsequently designing, organizing and
interacting within the SC has become a challenging task (Gold et al., 2010a, b). The need of a
change in focus from firm level to SC level and also aligning the organizational goals with the
sustainability goals is necessary owing to the rising environmental and social concerns
(Gold et al., 2010a, b). All the stakeholders in the SC must work together to achieve the
sustainability goals. Organizations will remain reluctant to commit to sustainability standards,
till the time specific laws have not been enforced. The measurement of the success of sustainable
initiatives differs from organization to organization (Searcy et al., 2009).
SC functions contribute significantly to the field of sustainability and when viewed from
a life cycle perspective, the sustainable initiatives are not possible without involving the SC
Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
The authors are greatly indebted to the panel of reviewers for their valuable comments and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-7835
suggestions which has helped to modify the paper to the present form. DOI 10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0003
MEQ management function (Preuss, 2005). The structural components in the supply chain
management (SCM) literature are identifiable and affect behavior which involves the
planning, monitoring, workflow design, organizational structure, knowledge management,
and communication structure. However, the behavioral components are less recognizable
and hence more challenging to synchronize across the SCs which are management
techniques, leadership, risk management, rewards and recognition, culture and attitude, and
trust and commitment (Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). In the recent literature available, the
principles of sustainability have become one of the major trends in SCM. The present review
of literature includes assessment of SCM policies with a triple bottom line orientation.
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has been the topic of interest for a number
of research papers both in qualitative and quantitative fields (Genovese et al., 2017). So, it is
quite necessary that sustainability concerns must be incorporated into the core functions of the
SC namely purchasing, manufacturing, distributing, storing, warehousing, usage, recycling
and disposal which have been depicted in Figure 1 (Linton et al., 2007). Business firms are
under tremendous pressure in order to able to sustain their existing SC due to recent trends of
globalization, market changes, demand uncertainty, and economic challenges. Focusing only
stressing on the internal efficiencies of SC will be insufficient to gain competitive advantage.
If sustainability concepts are integrated into core functions of a business firm’s SC, it achieves
a good market position in the global context (Khodakarami et al., 2015).
Transformation of the conventional SCM into SSCM generates tremendous pressure on
firms to bring changes to their existing SC in order to meet the current sustainability needs
(Busse et al., 2017). SSCM is management process which integrates environmental
considerations, social performance, and economic contribution. Varied customer demand
and complex product components gave rise to a strong internal competition between
businesses along with the global competition (Raut et al., 2015). SSCM generates the right
sets of abilities for the firms to be able to differentiate themselves from their contemporaries
(Khodakarami et al., 2015).
There are several instances of firms developing a commitment towards adopting
sustainability practices in order to make their SCs sustainable (Govindan et al., 2015).
Eco-friendly products and pollution free production practices are being encouraged for
sustainable development (Xie, 2016). The sustainability theory inspires firms to implement
practices such as return of products to manufacturer at the end-of-life cycle, environment
friendly management of returns (Zhu et al., 2005), while incorporating green strategies at each
level of SC, maintaining healthy working conditions, fair compensation practices, equal
human rights and cultural diversity (Rajak and Vinodh, 2015).
Customers
Value
and product
proposition
use
Sustainable
Distribution Supply Chain Reuse, Recycle,
Return
Management
Figure 1.
SSCM core functions Manufacturing Purchasing
In a challenging and competitive world like ours, SSCM is such a robust tool that could Sustainable
bring about revolution by enhancing corporate effectiveness in terms of social and supply chain
environmental performance thereby achieving profitability (Seuring and Muller, 2008; management
Tseng et al., 2015; Fahimnia et al., 2017). The academic research related to SSCM has been
given importance in recent times. But, there is a need for deep academic inquiry to help the
SC managers in their decision-making process without compromising the importance of
sustainability.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. A set of definitions for SSCM has
been presented in Section 2. The methodology adopted to conduct this study has been
presented in Section 3. A detailed review of literature including various aspects of SSCM is
presented in Sections 4 and 5. Some managerial insights have been provided based on the
study in Section 6. The potential gaps that have been identified from the literature and
relevant research recommendations have been presented in Section 7. The paper ends with
the concluding remarks in Section 7 followed by the references.
2. SSCM: definition and evolution of SSCM

The different definitions of SSCM in the literature prove that there exists a range of various
constructs that have been adopted by researchers in this field. It is only practical to
understand and accept multiple concepts in a relatively new field like SSCM (Touboulic and
Walker, 2015). Some of the important and landmark definitions are presented in Table I.
3. Detailed review of literature: context setting

The practioner-led or cross-functional characteristics of SCM includes planning, purchasing,
manufacturing, and distributing (Council, 2008) but does not solely focus on any one of these
processes (Cooper et al., 1997). When compared to conventional SCM that particularly
stresses on the economic perspectives, SSCM is associated with the integration of the
environmental and social objectives extending upto the economic dimension (Seuring and
Muller, 2008). The demand of this area is increasing, be it academically, socially, or
economically, which can be seen by the exponential growth of scientific publications in the
recent times and mostly some of the recent ones (Min and Kim, 2012; Seuring and Muller,
2008). Furthermore, a wide range of empirical research which utilizes field survey, case
study type research, and broad empirical studies, several other works use formal and
mathematical models for practice and theory-based research (Brandenburg et al., 2014).
Quantitative models are generally applicable for closed-loop SCM (Fleischmann et al.,
1997) whereas a majority of the models that are employed for SSCM are mostly conceptual.
Only a few papers in the field of SSCM, use of formal modeling approach (Seuring and
Muller, 2008). With the passage of time the formal modeling approaches have gained
importance. An eclectic review of these models is lacking in the context of SSCM.
In order to explore the vast opportunities to enhance organizational sustainability, a
deeper and more thorough understanding of the common and unique modeling features is
required. The existing SSCM studies in literature are mostly descriptive. Authors have
identified the areas which can integrate people and planet issues into the SC such as
eco-friendly product and process development, eco-friendly operations management,
remanufacturing, and closed-loop SCM. An overview on the applicability of operations
research (OR) activities have been presented for the management of natural resources, such
as water, solid wastes, and air pollution and rendered many formal models in the relevant
areas (ReVelle and Eiselt, 2005). Some authors have worked on the combined optimization
issues in the field of green logistics that includes reverse logistics, waste management, and
transportation scheduling (Sbihi and Eglese, 2007). These were some of the early research
done which made way for wide SSCM research.
MEQ Author Definitions
Shrivastava (1995) Reduction of risks occurring in long term that is associated with resource utilization,
energy utilization and associated costs, product design, pollution, and management of
waste in a supply chain
Beamon (1999) An extended supply chain that aims at minimizing environmental impacts of a product
throughout its entire life cycle, such as green design, resource saving, harmful material
reduction, and product recycle
Jørgensen and The means by which companies manage their social responsibilities across dislocated
Knudsen (2006) production processes spanning organizational and geographical boundaries
Linton et al. (2007) Integrate issues and flows that extend beyond the core of supply chain management,
including product design, manufacturing by-products, by-products produced during
product use, product life extension, product end-of-life, and recovery processes at
end-of-life
Seuring (2008) Integration of sustainable development and supply chain management (in which) by
merging these two concepts, environmental and social aspects along the supply chain
have to be taken into account, thereby avoiding related problems, but also looking at
more sustainable products and processes
Font et al. (2008) Adding sustainability to existing supply chain management processes, to consider
environmental, social and economic impacts of business activities
Ciliberti et al. The management of supply chains where all the three dimensions of sustainability,
(2008) namely the economic, environmental, and social ones, are taken into account
Carter and Rogers Integrating and attaining the organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals
(2008) in a systemic coordinated manner so that the inter-organizational business decisions
lead to improvement of the long-term economic performance of the organizations and
its supply chains
Seuring and The management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation
Muller (2008) among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions
of sustainability, such as, the economic, environmental and social, into account which
are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements
Pagell and Wu The specific managerial actions that are taken to make the supply chain more
(2009) sustainable with an end goal of creating a truly sustainable chain
Badurdeen et al. Involvement of the planning and management of sourcing, procurement, conversion
(2009) and logistics activities involved during pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use and
post-use stages in the life cycle in closed-loop through multiple life-cycles with
seamless information sharing about all product life cycle stages between companies by
explicitly considering the social and environmental implications to achieve a shared
vision
Haake and The set of supply chain management policies held, actions taken, and relationships
Seuring (2009) formed in response to concerns related to the natural environment and social issues
with regard to the design, acquisition, production, distribution, use, reuse, and disposal
of the firm’s goods and services
Wolf (2011) The degree to which a manufacturer strategically collaborates with its supply chain
partners and collaboratively manages intra- and inter-organization processes for
sustainability
Closs et al. (2011) Reflection of the firm’s ability to plan for, mitigate, detect, respond to, and recover from
potential global risks. Risks and supply chain considerations such as product
development, channel selection, market decisions, sourcing, manufacturing
complexity, transportation, government and industry regulation, resource availability,
talent management, Alternative energy platforms and security
Wittstruck and An extension to the traditional concept of supply chain management by adding
Teuteberg (2012) environmental and social/ethical aspects
Hassini et al. The management of supply chain operations, resources, information, and funds in
(2012) order to maximize the supply chain profitability, while minimizing the environmental
impacts and maximizing the social well-being
Table I.
SSCM definitions (continued )
Author Definitions
Sustainable
supply chain
Ahi and Searcy The creation of coordinated supply chains through the voluntary integration of management
(2013) economic, environmental, and social considerations with key inter-organizational
business systems designed to efficiently and effectively manage the material,
information, and capital flows associated with the procurement, production, and
distribution of products or services in order to meet stakeholder requirements and
improve the profitability, competitiveness, and resilience of the organization over the
short- and long-term
Pagell and Sustainable supply chain is the design, coordination, control and organization of a
Shevchenko (2014) supply chain to make it truly sustainable with minimum expectation being to achieve
economic viability, while ensuring no harm to environment and social systems over an
extended period of time
Raut et al. (2015) Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is management process which
integrates environmental considerations, social performance, and economic
contribution. Varied customer demand and complex product components gave rise to a
strong internal competition between businesses along with the global competition Table I.
A profound and thorough literature survey helped in understanding that sustainability is

affected mostly externally, i.e. government, customers, or stakeholders (Gold et al., 2010a, b).
The literature also suggests that a vertical collaboration and adoption of sustainable
practices in the entire SC is the call of the day (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Empirical research
on SSCM has mainly focused on single firms ignoring the inter-organizational factors
(Carter and Easton, 2011). This contrast in findings urges to explore further into the
literature to understand if intercompany perspectives and the influence of all the
stakeholders are included in the quantitative models on SSCM.
The primary focus of the research being done in SSCM considers the environmental
issues whereas the social aspects are ignored not only in empirical research (Gold et al.,
2010a, b) but also in the analytical modeling field as well (Tang and Zhou, 2012). There is a
paucity of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for green logistics (Dekker et al.,
2012). Authors have found that for remanufacturing and product recovery, solution
methods like discrete-event simulation, fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and mixed-integer
linear programming are identified as desired modeling approaches (Ilgin and Gupta, 2010).
Traditionally, the economic aspect of sustainability was mainly focused by firms and
businesses; however, lately the environmental and social aspects have gained impetus even
though it is extremely difficult to be able to measure them. Most organizations are adapting
to sustainable standards due to an increased stakeholder pressure, to focus on the
environment and the society (Seuring and Muller, 2008). It does not imply that the economic
aspect is to be completely neglected. It is clear that the companies who adopt sustainable
activities by considering the environment and society, have long-term economic benefits
and competitive advantage (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Markley and Davis, 2007).
The environmental aspect in the triple bottom line of sustainability involves the
objectives, plans, tools and techniques to encourage greater environmental responsibility
and promote eco-friendly and pollution free technologies (Klassen, 2001). The social aspects
of sustainability are for SSCM as organizations involve multiple stakeholders with varying
goals, objectives, and perspectives and managing this variation poses a challenge (Hall and
Matos, 2010). Considering the triple bottom line in a single analytical framework and
measuring them is a challenge (Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). Some authors attempted to
identify the reasons of success of the sustainability initiatives (Pagell and Wu, 2009). They
found that for a SC to be sustainable the best organizational practices of the traditional SC
along with new sustainable practices must be considered simultaneously. In a system with a
set of parameters, if one is altered then the other parameters are also affected. It is a
MEQ challenge to handle these uncertainties in the SC that typically occur at the interfaces
between the triple bottom line (Winter and Knemeyer, 2013).
Researchers have suggested facilitators for SSCM such as: strategy in line with the firm’s
overall strategy towards sustainability; risk management by incorporating emergency
plans for any kind of disruptions in the SC; a work culture to promote ownership and
willingness to adopt high ethical standards while focusing on the society and the natural
environment; and fair means of communication with stakeholders to monitor the various SC
operations (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Carter and Rogers (2008) stated that adoption of
environmental and social measures should be in line with economic goals of the
organization. This alignment of the company’s economic goals with sustainability
standards encourages the adoption of SSCM practices. It may not be that the environmental
performance has a positive impact on the organization’s economic performance (Seuring and
Muller, 2008) leading to competitive edge (Gold et al., 2010a, b).
The literature states that maximum effect is seen in the supplier’s concern for
sustainability when companies establish collaborative relationships with their suppliers
(Charter et al., 2001). But, the present-day suppliers do not have adequate financial
opportunities and information to enhance their firm’s sustainability performance.
South-East Asian firms have made product changes to be able to match the Western
buyer’s needs but have not really adopted the sustainable standards in their SC (Hamner,
2006). Hence, it is necessary that the green procurement strategies should be made robust
enough to be able to identify the reality rather than just sticking to the terms and conditions
over paper. Eco-labeling strategies have also come up to be able to track the extent of
sustainable initiatives involved in the manufacturing of a product (Ball, 2002).
4. Perspectives of SSCM
SSCM has emerged from the identification of the strategic importance of purchasing and
supply decisions to attain the organization’s long-term performance, and address the
sustainability issues. SSCM researchers need to understand the risk arising out of the lack of
a conceptual foundation in SSCM which can otherwise become a legitimate management
discipline (Carter, 2011). The descriptive nature of current SSCM research has been
elaborated which is useful in gathering knowledge on facts, however, these are unable to
significantly contribute to the SSCM theories and that is why this field was considered to be
conceptually immature and underdeveloped having a lot of scope for further research
(Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby, 2012). There are broadly three different perspectives of SSCM
that have been addressed by researchers over time, such as, environmental perspective,
social perspective and economic perspective. We have attempted to classify the available
literature by including two more perspective, i.e. the performance measurement perspective
and governance perspective. The various perspectives of SSCM have been categorically
represented in Figure 2.
4.1 Environmental perspectives of SSCM

The environmental perspective in SSCM is mostly about the conservation of the
environment that the SC is working in. It is imperative to run the SC processes and functions
in such a manner that the ecology remains undisturbed and unharmed. Industrialization is
the one of the major sources of environmental damage. Organizations today consider the
various environmental issues owing to the increased pressure from stakeholders about
environmental challenges; however, there exist firms that can adopt sustainable practices
due to the innate nature of processes involved. The firms should direct their suppliers to
adopt and adapt sustainable measures some of which are judicious utilization of natural
resources, ethical labor practices, lower greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The hazardous
wastes and their emissions generated by various SC are the chief sources of environmental
SSCM Classification Sustainable
supply chain
management
Environmental Governance
Social Perspectives Economic Perspectives Performance Metrics
Perspectives Perspectives
Green Packaging Code of Conduct Governance

Financial Performance Audit and
Distribution, structures,
and Competitive Assessment
Warehousing and mechanisms and
advantage
Transportation Employee Rights, linkages
welfare and Standardisation and
Conservation, GHG working conditions Traceability
Incentives, Low interest Collaboration and
emission and carbon loans, Quick Payback Formalisation
footprint reduction periods
Equity Certifications
Green Design and Life
Knowledge Sharing
cycle concept Business Transparency
Public awareness
and ethics Government
Reuse and Recycle Performance from
Logistics optimization Regulations

effective
Environmental Corporate Social governance
Standards (ISO 14000, Responsibility
Strategic collaboration Eco-innovation
14001)
and information Customer
Supplier support
sharing Involvement
Green Procurement and Fair trade
Strategies
Efficient Resource
Eco-friendly utilization
technologies
Reverse Logistics Profitability
Environmental
Management System
Product Stewardship Figure 2.

Classification of SSCM
Information Sharing
literature
pollution and damage thereby an increased focus on various waste control measures are a
necessity. The environmental aspect of sustainability constitutes a critical research area
in SSCM.
The environmental focus generated more quantifiable benefits than the social focus
(Banerjee, 2003). Authors have conducted an analysis in SC to study the impact on
environment and found that the techniques for optimal use of energy in manufacturing
results in a substantial decrease of carbon emission by minimizing energy consumption to a
minimum (Bevilacqua et al., 2014). Researchers have included concepts of sustainability into
the field of logistics and SCM and suggested the use of high productivity freight vehicle for
transportation as it would minimize the cost of transportation by 33.5 percent and also its
impact on the environment (Lee and Wu, 2014).
It has been suggested that a few SSCM activities can be included in the business plans
for a sustainable future such as minimizing the cost of packaging by effective product
design, reuse and recycling, reduced turnover and recruitment costs by efficient storage,
warehousing and transportation facilities, proper working conditions (Carter and Rogers,
2008). This would lead to low labor cost because of high motivation, enhanced product
quality, and adoption of the ISO 14000 standards.
The environmental aspect in the triple bottom line of sustainability involves the objectives,
plans, tools and techniques to encourage greater environmental responsibility and promote
eco-friendly and pollution free technologies (Klassen, 2001). One of the major aspects of a
sustainable SC is the adoption of green procurement strategies (Varnäs et al., 2009).
MEQ The reverse logistics aspect is one of the most important processes in the green SCM
framework, which is connected to recycling. In the case of reverse logistics, a manufacturer is
ready to accept the products that had been shipped earlier for recycling, refurbishing or
disposal (Varma et al., 2006) which supports process from “cradle to cradle.” This also supports
the concept of SSCM which leads to the conclusion that sustainable initiatives need to be
incorporated at all SC stages. Effective use of scarce resources is possible through recycling,
reuse and waste reduction which is the entire motive of reverse logistics resulting in improved
competitiveness (Rao and Holt, 2005). Authors conclude that the product life cycle assessment
leads to environmental stability (Varma et al., 2006; Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002).
The enterprises need to work closely with their suppliers in order to improve the
environmental performance of their products and production processes. If an environmental
management system is incorporated in an organization, then it can portray itself as
environmentally proactive by providing a means to monitor the environmental
performance. The stakeholders can hence verify if the environmental improvements are a
reality or a marketing strategy (Darnall et al., 2008).
The life cycle analysis (LCA) has huge environmental benefits. In order to truly benefit
from LCA, intense SC partnerships are required (Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002),
however; regardless of several attempts of highlighting the importance of SC relationships,
the focus is mainly on greening the SC processes.
Design for the environment represents the design and development of new products and
processes that address issues of the natural environment. These products are not only
recoverable but also durable, repeatedly usable and eco-friendly. The aim of product
stewardship is to support the ecological perspective in the entire value chain including all
the stakeholders including R&D members, designers and suppliers (Rusinko, 2007). This
strategy establishes a reputation in the market as an environmentally responsible
organization. It may be noted that if a product is recalled from the market as it has not met
the environmental concerns, the economy of the organization is hampered.
Structural changes in the logistics system can foster environmental sustainability. Customers
prefer green packaged products in the recent times owing to the rising environmental concerns.
Authors have revealed that there is a need to implement energy-efficient logistics systems and
minimize the global carbon footprint (Halldórsson and Kovács, 2010). The importance of role of
retailers in minimizing carbon footprint in a SC has been felt by several researchers (Wiese et al.,
2012). Some of the measures for minimizing the carbon footprint are economy in energy usage,
use of cross-docking and third party logistics service providers, green packaging, and accuracy
in demand forecasting ( Ji et al., 2014).
SC managers take decisions pertaining to environment without adequate information
which gives rise to adoption of common assumptions and readily available rules for decision
making (Wu and Pagell, 2011). SSCM has been classified into 3R’s (reuse, recycle, and
remanufacture) for process improvement, and (reduce, recover, and redesign) for product
design (Kuik et al., 2011). However, the major challenges for environmental sustainability lie
in the uncertainties, complexities, organizational culture, cost and operationalization of the
sustainable initiatives. The details of the review papers on SSCM from environmental
perspective are presented in the Table II.
4.2 Social perspectives of SSCM

Sustainability has become a mandate for human survival and progress (Sharma and Ruud,
2003) and should be attained in “an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent and secure
manner” (Gladwin et al., 1995). The social perspective of SSCM is inclusive of the individuals
as well as the organization as a whole. Top professionals and SC managers across the globe
must understand that their decisions should not violate the fundamental humanitarian
values and ethics. They are responsible to maintain a healthy society in which their
Serial No. Factors Description References
Sustainable
supply chain
1. Green Green or eco-friendly packaging involves the usage of those Wu and Pagell management
packaging raw materials and manufacturing methods that have (2011), Wiese et al.
distribution, minimum or no adverse impact on the environment and also (2012), Chaabane
warehousing require low energy consumption. Green packaging reduces et al. (2012), Zailani
and the required storage space in the warehouse and also during et al. (2012),
transportation transportation Amemba et al.
(2013), Dubey et al.
(2013),
Zhu et al. (2013),
Ji et al. (2014)
2. Conservation, Conservation of natural resources like water, mineral Halldórsson and
GHG emission reserves etc. plays a vital role in creating a sustainable SC. Kovács (2010),
and carbon The carbon and GHG emissions that occur during the Despeisse et al.
footprint production stages i.e. manufacturing, commissioning, (2012), Wiese et al.
reduction maintenance, and decommissioning add up to pollution level (2012),

and must be kept under a check Zhu et al. (2013)
3. Green design Green design focuses on reduction of product’s operating Hagelaar and
and life cycle costs while enhancing the financial performance of the firms. van der Vorst
concept The life cycle assessment involves the analysis of the (2002), Varma et al.
product during creation, extraction, processing, (2006), Kuik et al.
transportation, use and disposal. Green design addresses the (2011), Amemba
issues such as environmental risk management, product et al.(2013)
safety, occupational health and safety, pollution prevention,
resource conservation and waste management
4. Reuse and It is an essential component of green operations. The process Carter and Rogers
recycle of remanufacture, reuse and recycle or in other words (2008), Amemba
repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing, cannibalizing and et al. (2013)
recycling of products by the manufacturers are crucial for
product recovery which in turn creates good will amongst
the customers
5. Environmental Firms should implement the green standards into all the core Carter and Rogers
Standards SC operations for instance, while purchasing it should be (2008), Amemba
(ISO 14000, ensured that deals are struck with environmentally certified et al. (2013)
14001) suppliers through ISO 14000 and 14004. Timely
environmental audits need to be conducted for supplier’s
internal management, and to ensure suppliers’ ISO 14001
certification
6. Green Green procuring consists of activities that include the Varnäs et al. (2009),
procurement reduction, reuse and recycling of materials during the Amemba et al.
strategies procurement of raw materials. In addition to this it is also a (2013)
solution for ecologically and financially concerned
enterprises. It also talks about identifying and dealing with
only the green suppliers
7. Eco-friendly Research on eco-friendly technologies is plenty. And the Klassen (2001),
technologies focus is more on the eco-friendly technologies that are also Amemba et al.
economically viable. The enterprises must develop their SC (2013)
strategies that involve environmental friendly technology,
equipment and other facilities to achieve a pollution free
production process. The government must also encourage
the innovation of eco-friendly technologies
8. Reverse Reverse logistics concepts are aligned to coordination of two Rao and Holt
logistics markets, the uncertain supply, decisions related to returns (2005), Varma et al.
disposition, and postponement. It includes servicing, (2006)
Table II.
Environmental
(continued ) perspectives
MEQ Serial No. Factors Description References
refurbishment remanufacturing and recycling, with the

intention for proper disposal by the manufacturer
9. Environmental EMS facilitates the implementation of SSCM. The Sroufe (2003),
management enterprises that have adopted EMS have a competitive Darnall et al. (2008)
system (EMS) advantage over others. It is basically a system or a database
that integrates processes and tools for the purpose of
training personnel to gather environment related
information which shall be useful in monitoring the SC in
future
10. Product Product stewardship is representative of the cradle to grave Rusinko (2007),
stewardship (or cradle) responsibility for the lifecycle of a product. It is a Ashby et al. (2012)
strategy that states that the concerned manufacturer will
take the full responsibility of the product including product
end-of-life
11. Information The implementation of green initiatives requires Wu and Pagell

sharing coordination of personnel that includes information sharing, (2011), Reefke et al.
Table II. which helps in the wise decision making in various SC issues (2014)
organization is functional. Authors have highlighted that the social aspect of sustainability
is one of the most important aspects in SSCM as organizations involve multiple stakeholders
with varying goals, objectives, and perspectives and managing this variation poses a
challenge (Hall and Matos, 2010).
Social responsibility concepts have used Carroll’s (1979, 1991) work of the hierarchy of
economic, legal, ethical, and other responsibilities to identify the SCM activities which can
cater to social responsibility. Social sustainability is related to poverty alleviation, ensuring
justice and human rights, and all round welfare of the employees (Krause et al., 2009).
The interrelation and prioritization of ecological, human, and economic aspects is difficult to
comprehend. Employment of socially sustainable practices into business enterprises is a
challenging task (van der Heijden et al., 2012).
A socially responsible enterprise must extend its values and standards to their suppliers
(Tate et al., 2010) and focus on maintaining long-term partnerships, proper communication
and supplier development (Leire and Mont, 2010). Fair trade is a social practice that aims at
attaining fairer partnerships with suppliers and it provides another alternative model for
international trade that involves better trade practices, fair pricing, and informing the
consumers about the adverse effects of traditional trade practices. The supplier
management strategies should focus on developing the suppliers and guiding them to
implement the sustainable supply chain (SSC) practices to attain competitive advantage
(Harms et al., 2013). Authors have stated that adding the stakeholder concerns into the
decision-making process would pave way for identification of necessary steps that are
a pre-requisite for designing, planning and operating a socially responsible SSC (Simões
et al., 2014).
Social sustainability is closely related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) that
includes activities for social good, beyond the obvious, economic interests of an organization
(Sarkis et al., 2010). Some authors have assessed the relationship between corporate social
decisions and social indicators of sustainability by incorporating life cycle assessment
model (Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008). They argue that every single corporate decision
affects national level measures of social sustainability of SSCM. The idea of CSR is that the
firms should meet the economic, legal, ethical, and other expectations of stakeholders and
also satisfy their economic needs keeping in mind the societal and the environmental needs
(Defee et al., 2009). Some researchers have indicated the social implications of SSCM as a
part of the CSR initiatives (Keating et al., 2008; Tencati et al., 2010). In order to facilitate Sustainable
proper coordination between various activities such as procuring, manufacturing, supply chain
distributing, and marketing, the promotion of CSR activities cannot be ignored (Keating management
et al., 2008) SC managers who take decisions regarding the operational, strategic, and design
aspects can play a major role in kick starting the adoption of sustainability practices. These
steps have a direct influence on the quality of living, safety, health concerns, and public
welfare (Sarkis et al., 2010). Hence, there is a requirement of systematic supportive
management structures and monetary investments into the SSCM field.
Few researchers have concluded that most organizations are adapting to sustainable
standards due to an increased stakeholder pressure to safeguard the environment and
the society (Seuring and Muller, 2008). It does not imply that the economic aspect is to be
completely neglected. There are instances of companies that have adopted sustainable
activities taking into account the environment and society have had long-term economic
benefits and a leading edge among the contemporaries (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Markley
and Davis, 2007).
While environmental sustainability is focused on conservation of natural resources,

social sustainability is about the management of social resources, involving people’s skills
and abilities, organizations, partnerships, and social values (Sarkis et al., 2010).
The concept of social equity explains that all the members of the society have an equal
right on the resources and opportunities, which also includes fair treatment to employees
(Krause et al., 2009).
The International Labour Organisation has issued a set of principles that protects the
labor’s rights, wages, and job security and also alleviates child and unethical labor practices
(Leire and Mont, 2010). The role of external legislation in protecting the workers’ job
security has been highlighted in the literature. So, there is a need to improve the social and
economic status of the weaker sections of the society by designing opportunities within
SSCM (Hall and Matos, 2010). The violations of human rights should become an integral
issue in social sustainability.
In order to achieve social sustainability, authors have proposed a six-level scanning
framework wherein the six levels are people level, functional level, firm level, chain level,
network level, and societal level (Fabbe-Costes et al., 2014). Some authors also reported from
an ethnographic study about the increase in demand for sustainable fashion, clothing and
tourism which are the result of knowledge diffusion and public awareness (Cervellon
and Wernerfelt, 2012). Some of the social initiatives for SSCM are ethical and value-based
collaboration among the SC actors and ethical purchasing (Roberts, 2003). Authors have
reported that the social perspective in TBL has been over shadowed by the environmental
and economic perspectives (Dubey et al., 2016). The details of the review papers on SSCM
from social perspective are presented in the Table III.
4.3 Economic perspectives of SSCM

The primary objective of every business, firm or organization is profit making. Hence, the
sustainability criteria should be incorporated in such a manner that profitability is ensured
with effective conservation of environment and society. In order to ensure improvement for
a longer term and maintain firm’s economic stability the SC managers must think about
adoption of SSCM activities which are profitable for a sustained period (Carter and Easton,
2011). It is seen that firms who readily want to adopt sustainable practices into their SC,
must be able to find a tradeoff between the contradictory objectives such as generation of
profits and simultaneously reducing the adverse environmental impacts while upholding
the various social responsibilities. Several authors have identified the importance of social
and environmental sustainability initiatives in SCs to achieve strategic economic benefits
(Zailani et al., 2012; Ortas et al., 2014). Along with environmental and social dimensions of
1. Code of Code of conduct is a set of rules that needs to be adopted Roberts (2003), Matos
conduct by all enterprises. It includes social responsibilities, and Hall (2007),
religious norms, moral values which is essential to build Keating et al. (2008)
a good reputation of the organization. Employees stay
motivated when their organization abides by an ethical
code of conduct
2. Employee The employees in an organization have some Carter and Rogers
rights, welfare fundamental rights such as, right to privacy, fair (2008), Leire and Mont
and working compensation and transparency, zero discrimination. (2010), Simões et al.
conditions Legislations that protect the employees rights exist, (2014)
however, implementing these in real terms is still a
challenge. The working condition is also a major
factor to keep the employees motivated. It is the
enterprise’s responsibility to take care of the employee
welfare at all times

3. Equity The concept of equity balances the input and the output Keating et al. (2008),
of an enterprise while ensuring fairness and justice. Krause et al. (2009),
Any discrepancy in this fairness affect the decision Tencati et al. (2010),
making of employees. Homogeneity, equitable income, Mani et al. (2015)
access to goods and services and fair employment are
elements of equity
4. Public The firms that leverage “ethics” and form a social Roberts (2003),
awareness committee which addresses the issues pertaining to Matos and Hall (2007),
and ethics employee equity, sustainability and anti-corruption are Gold et al. (2010a, b),
the ones that attain true sustainability. Awareness Fabbe-Costes et al.
creation is the best form of communication to (2014), Cervellon and
educate the public to contribute towards Wernerfelt (2012),
sustainable development Mani et al. (2015)
5. Corporate CSR constitutes a set of policies, strategies, actions and Defee et al. (2009),
social initiatives to attain social sustainability. It is a mandate Angus-Leppan et al.
responsibility for firms is most countries which urges the firm to (2010)
(CSR) address the requirements and needs beyond its
stakeholders. It urges the firms to work in a more ethical,
fair, law-abiding and responsible manner towards the
stakeholders. It addresses on various areas such as,
human rights, employee rights, environmental
protection, community involvement, supplier relations,
ethics, legal issues, economic responsibilities, social
responsibility and corporate governance
6. Supplier With the demand of an sustainable SC there has been a Tate et al. (2010), Leire
support and remarkable philosophical shift concern the firm’s and Mont (2010),
fairtrade suppliers. Firms have realized that suppliers require Harms et al. (2013),
adequate time and support to understand the benefits of Simões et al. (2014)
SSCM. It is about time that we identify the ways of how
best to audit the performance of key suppliers against
their own written policies and management systems.
Social sustainability can be attained by selecting socially
Table III. responsible suppliers. Fair trade practices in the SC can
Social perspectives lead to social sustainability
sustainability, authors have also included the economic dimensions such as financial
performance, cost minimization, competitive advantage and profits (Winter and Knemeyer,
2013). In order to attain economic sustainability, some critical factors such as collaborative
relationships through information sharing, optimized logistics support and profitability
need to be addressed (Dubey et al., 2016). Many authors have also suggested that SC
partnerships and environment related programs have a positive effect on the perspectives of Sustainable
SSCM (Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Blome et al., 2014). The implementation of SSCM supply chain
energy-efficient practices are feasible through financial incentives, loans and low pay back management
periods (Dam and Petkova, 2014; Glover et al., 2014). A firm’s long run success and its
competitive advantage are the economic considerations. When compared to the social and
environmental aspects, the economic aspect is about the judicious utilization of the natural
resources and attaining a high return on investment (Rumelt, 1974). Traditionally, the
economic aspect of sustainability was mainly focused upon by firms and businesses;
however, lately the environmental and social aspects have gained impetus even though it is
challenge to be able to measure them.
It has been suggested in the literature that a collaborative planning, forecasting and
replenishment system to promote partnerships in the SCs, and ways to achieve collaboration
for sustainable competitive advantage in the SC (Attaran and Attaran, 2007). The benefits of
inter-organizational SC collaboration to support enterprises for initiatives to reduce
recycling and disposal costs through the creation of a common platform have been reported
time and again (Lee and Lee, 2010). Supplier selection is integral for SC collaboration,
profitability, and technology integration for which various multi-criteria decision-making
tools are used (Dubey et al., 2016). Researchers have revealed that future SCs need to develop
collaborative relationships with cost reduction measures by acquiring the technical,
communication, and financial skills (Giunipero et al., 2006).
The implementation of SSCM strategies through coordination of the organization’s
economic, environmental and social goals results in maintaining transparency of all their
business processes (Pagell and Wu, 2009). When cost was measured over the whole product
life cycle, sustainable strategies are cost effective for both in short term and long term, it led
to competitive advantage by identifying, drafting, and communicating the firm’s SC
strategies and goals in collaboration with their suppliers (Krause et al., 2009). Authors have
stated that the governments must promote procuring from small and local suppliers
through partnerships to enhance the local economic and social aspects of sustainability
(Walker and Preuss, 2008).
It is necessary to align marketing strategies with SSCM strategies to create a lean and
resource efficient SC (Brindley and Oxborrow, 2014). When compared to the social and
environmental aspects, the economic aspect is about the judicious utilization of the natural
resources and attaining a high return on investment (Rumelt, 1974). The details of the
review papers on SSCM from economic perspective are presented in the Table IV.
4.4 Governance perspectives of SSCM

It has been identified that “governance” as a structure which makes sure that the decisions
taken should define long-term and sustained value of an organization. The governance aspect
has been of great interest for scholars and practitioners across nations. The linkage between
corporate sustainability and governance mechanisms at the SC level is still unclear
(Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). Companies need to develop customized governance
mechanisms for improving their sustainability performance, maintaining the relationships
with the stakeholders and implementing sustainable strategies (Gimenez and Tachizawa,
2012). Inter-firm collaboration is considered as one of the three core governance structures that
define relationships between organizations (Williamson, 1996), the other two being markets
and hierarchies (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1998).
Authors have defined sustainable supply chain governance (SSCG) as a set of various
practices, initiatives and activities implemented to strengthen relationships with the
inter-organizational functions and departments and their SC actors and stakeholders with
due consideration to their sustainability goals (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). The field of SSCG
is relatively new and aims to examine the role of governance structures and mechanisms in
1. Financial Firm’s financial health over a specific time period is the Krause et al. (2009),
performance financial performance of the firm. It is measured in Winter and
and monetary terms by analyzing the firm’s policies and Knemeyer (2013)
competitive operations. Assets recovery, cost minimization, enhanced
advantage profitability, effective inventory management, adequate
environment regulations are the of the key performance
measures of SSCM that lead to competitive advantage
2. Incentives, The planning and price incentive decisions include low Dam and Petkova
low interest interest loans with quick payback period to stakeholders. (2014),
loans, quick The eco-friendly technologies have long and uncertain Glover et al. (2014)
payback payback periods whereas the cheaper technologies have
periods faster pay back periods or low interest rate loans. This
issue requires attention
3. Business Business transparency of product conformity is essential Pagell and Wu (2009),
transparency to create a transition towards a more sustainable supply. Brindley and

Transparency upstream is also crucial to attain Oxborrow (2014)
sustainability by promoting green products and processes
and endorsing the green way of manufacturing
4. Logistics Stock forecasting, continuous supply, quality García-Arca et al.
optimization management, returns management, and waste (2014)
management are some of the other problems faced by
retailers globally. The requirement of optimized means of
transportation of products along the SC is crucial.
Logistics optimization through concepts like reverse
logistics which not only concentrates on waste
management but also on significant cost reduction is the
answer to this problem
5. Strategic Sustainable practices require strategic collaboration in Attaran and Attaran
collaboration order to serve the market in a better way. High level of (2007), Vachon and
and collaboration amongst all the stakeholders will reduce Klassen (2006), Ashby
information costs which requires incentives and clear communication. et al. (2012), Gimenez
sharing Adoption of environment management systems that and Tachizawa (2012),
enables effective information sharing Liu et al. (2012), Bai
and Sarkis (2014),
Blome et al. (2014),
Brindley and
Oxborrow (2014),
Azadi et al. (2015)
6. Efficient A firm must be able to make the best possible use of the Rumelt (1974),
resource available resources. Since, the availability of natural Brindley and
utilization resources limited, optimized use of resources will create a Oxborrow (2014)
sustained supply of the same
7. Profitability The implementation of sustainable practices improves Krause et al. (2009),
the firm’s performance and boosts the brand image Wu and Pagell (2011),
leading to profitability. Sustainable practices are Zailani et al. (2012),
profitable because they reduce waste minimize Glover et al. (2014),
overhead cost and warehousing costs, contribute to Dam and Petkova
Table IV. energy reduction and defect minimization that directly (2014), Ali et al.
Economic perspectives impacts profitability
SSCM (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009). The role of collaborative approaches has been highlighted
in the field of SSCG (Vurro et al., 2009). Some authors have also revealed the importance of
formalization of governance mechanisms. It is suggested that the investigation of environmental
and social responsibilities beyond the organizational boundaries is vital to derive suitable
implications for upstream and downstream functions of a SC (Bassen and Kovacs, 2008).
There is a need to study how the SC governance mechanisms respond to sustainable Sustainable
strategies, stressing on contracting issues (Carter and Easton, 2011). There are several supply chain
papers that suggest frameworks to understand the linkage between the various governance management
mechanisms (Vurro et al., 2009); however, empirical validation of how the sustainable
business models come to practice and align with the governance structures is still missing
(Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). It is essential to study the governance of inter-firm
relationships and their influence from effective governance and the resulting firm
performance. Some researchers have also argued that formal and relational mechanisms
could be used to manage resources within partnerships, and these formal mechanisms are
more suitable for property-based assets than relational governance which is best suited for
knowledge-based assets (Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009). They also stated that the companies
that chose an effective governance mechanism would induce a positive impact in achieving
some alliance goals, namely financial access, new markets opportunities, cost reductions,
and risk minimization.
A set of new governance structures for SCs have been proposed which includes the
involvement of consumers was found to be instrumental (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017).

Authors presented the crucial role of consumers in green procuring and green innovation by
analyzing the various practices GSCM (Zhu et al., 2017). They argued that greening of SCs
remains unaffected by informal or casual consumer involvement rather require active and
more formal consumer contracts. They also stated that it is instrumental to consider the types
of governance structures that effectively manage relationships with the consumers, for
instance, the contract vs relational governance, as they affect environmental performance.
It has been noted that very few papers have discussed the commitment level within the
SC stakeholders and the types of governance mechanisms that needs to be embraced by the
organization and the SC as a whole (Fawcett et al., 2006). There is a clear opportunity for
researchers to conduct empirical works to simplify the relationships between supply
networks and governance techniques (Pilbeam et al., 2012). A thorough understanding of the
governance mechanisms from a SC viewpoint is imperative reckoning the sustainability
aspect. Some authors have argued that there is vast scope for emergence of knowledge in
the field of SSCM and SSCG with respect to firms like for instance, communication of the
ecological and social impacts to all the SC actors and development of appropriate strategies
to enhance them (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009). Authors have studied the impact of
environmental policy on decision making related to organizations’ governance (Antonietti
et al., 2017). This work reported that stricter environmental regulations increase the
probability of production being outsourced to international suppliers. They advocate the
fact that the firms engaging in environmental innovation adopt governance decisions
more readily that enable a stricter control over the SC.
The SSCM literature categorizes two distinct factors in the governance mechanisms:
collaboration and formalization. In relation with the collaboration aspect, it is seen that
organizations can achieve their sustainability goals by utilizing their market power without
collaboration, or in contrast through shared or collaborative governance structure
(Brockhaus et al., 2013). In a non-collaborative situation, the organization imposes its
decisions and sets the governance to the SC counterparts owing to its contractual power
(Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). However, authors have also revealed that collaborative and
shared governance techniques present a robust tool for the promotion of sustainable
approaches (Vurro et al., 2009; Gimenez and Sierra, 2013). Several authors define
formalization as the amount to which taking decisions is controlled by a set of well-defined
rules and regulations (Alvarez et al., 2010; Pilbeam et al., 2012). The formal routines or
mechanisms are responsible for regulating and reporting the systems through which
companies orient their dealings explicitly. The details of the review papers on SSCM from
governance perspective are presented in the Table V.
1. Governance In order to implement and control sustainability Gimenez and Tachizawa

structures, strategies and initiatives, with the ultimate (2012), Fawcett et al. (2006),
mechanisms goal of improving sustainability performance, Pilbeam et al. (2012),
and linkages companies need to establish governance Vermeulen and Seuring
mechanisms and structures to manage relationships (2009), Vurro et al. (2009),
with their SC actors Antonietti et al. (2017)
2. Collaboration The literature highlights two relevant factors that Brockhaus et al. (2013),
and characterise governance mechanisms, namely Formentini and Taticchi
formalisation collaboration and formalisation. Firms can (2016),
implement their sustainability strategies by utilizing Vurro et al. (2009)
their market power in a non-collaborative way, or by
adopting a shared/collaborative governance style.
However, in a non- collaborative setting, the firm
depends on its contractual power to determine
governance parameters and impose their decisions

on its SC counterparts
3. Knowledge Informal mechanisms like knowledge sharing Vermeulen and Seuring
sharing moderate the stakeholders’ relationships and also (2009)
affects the outcomes. When knowledge sharing is
incorporated in the suppliers’ development schemes,
it results building up an effective collaboration
4. Performance SSCM includes strategies like “supplier management Hoetker and Mellewigt
from effective for risk and performance.” It has been observed that (2009)
governance effective governance styles have a direct impact on the
environmental and socio-ethical performance of the SCs
5. Customer It is imperative to manage the firm’s interactions Aschemann-Witzel et al.
involvement with their customers. Thus, involving of customers (2017), Zhu et al. (2017)
Table V. into the governance structure is essential. One of the
Governance driving forces and the key performance indicators of
perspectives SSCM includes customer focus
4.5 Performance measurement perspectives of SSCM

In order to assess the level of sustainability that a firm or an SC as whole has reached, it is
crucial to set adequate performance metrics to measure their sustainability performance.
SSCM roots itself to the realization of the strategic importance of procurement and other SC
activities which leads to improved firm’s performance, and also addresses sustainability
issues (Hall and Matos, 2010). It is seen that companies adopt sustainable initiatives into their
business models in various ways and the approach to TBL also differs (Bocken et al., 2013).
They also emphasize on their short-term and long-term goals for performance measurement
and report it is various ways (Taticchi et al., 2013). Researchers stated that research on SC
metrics is inadequate (Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Authors have argued that there are
compatibility issues between the existing performance monitoring measures and the SC
dynamics (Lehtinen and Ahola, 2010). Therefore, adequate research is necessary to develop
performance measurement frameworks for SC.
There have been various studies which have found a relationship between the firm’s
performance and the aspects of SSCM (Krause et al., 2009), however, the direction of this
relationship has not been clear. There is still an uncertainty of whether firm’s economic
performance is a direct result of the adoption of sustainable practices or it is those forms
that are performing well have adopted these practices. Considering the triple bottom line in
a single analytical framework and measuring them is a challenge (Winter and Knemeyer,
2013). According to some authors, audit, assessment, and standardization are the key
players for performance assessment that help companies to measure and monitor their
performance and achieve sustainability (Dubey et al., 2016; Acquaye et al., 2017). Authors Sustainable
have argued that performance assessment of SC processes has a direct bearing on the supply chain
sustainability performance (Spence and Bourlakis, 2009; Foerstl et al., 2010). management
Research papers on SSCM have also highlighted that the environmental audit and
standardization management systems like ISO 14000 and Eco-Management help enterprises
in achieving process and product quality control (Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Curkovic and
Sroufe, 2011). Standardization and traceability should be considered along with lean and
green while designing the products and collaborating with supplier to practices to achieve
high sustainability performance (Ching and Moreira, 2014). Authors have presented a
framework of methods to achieve high sustainability performance with third party
certifications, supplier auditing, assessing and monitoring risk and supplier training
(Grosvold et al., 2014). Authors have argued that standardization and audit helps to reduce
risks and increase sustainability performance in real terms (Roehrich et al., 2014). It has been
found that compliance, monitoring, and auditing are the building blocks in SSCM for
performance improvement, risk avoidance and supplier selection by studying sustainability
reports of nine companies (Turker and Altuntas, 2014). It is revealed that sustainability
accounting and sustainability assessment can be utilized to assess the financial implications
and benefits of sustainable practices (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2010). Researchers conducted
a study in 86 Italian manufacturing firms to probe how they attain their environmental and
social practices and sustainability performance and found that with development in
SSCM the organization’s sustainability performance increases (Gualandris and
Kalchschmidt, 2016).
It has been stated in the literature that the stringent environmental regulations, which
define specific processes of SCs to attain a particular outcome, cripple the economic
performance of the organization (Ramanathan et al., 2010). The research focuses that
organizations can become instrumental to reverse the hindrance by innovative utilization of
resources and capabilities. Authors have evaluated that if various organizational factors such
as SC actors’ nationality and associated national risks affect the relationship between
sustainability governance and environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance
(Ramanathan et al., 2010). They stressed that collaborative governance mechanisms result in
high ESG performance. Authors have studied the direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation
on environmental performance of firms in terms of minimization of greenhouse gas (CO2 , NOx,
and SOx) emissions and stated that there is strong positive impact of eco- innovation on the
environmental performance of firms (Costantini et al., 2017). The details of the review papers on
SSCM from performance perspective are presented in the Table VI.
4.6 Modeling approaches in SSCM

In the present context, sustainability criteria, i.e. the environmental, social, and economic
considerations are addressed in an integrated manner with SCM. Modeling approaches that can
effectively handle this addition of sustainability concepts to the SCM functions requires focus.
SSCM models are basically the simplified version and presentation of reality (Brandenburg
et al., 2014). Research on SSCM modeling can be divided between conceptual models that are
defined as a set of concepts to represent without actually explaining the real-life scenarios and
quantitative models which employ a set of variables and analyze their causal relationships
(Bertrand and Fransoo, 2002). There is an involvement of a number of decision variables,
parameters, constraints, and cost criteria which makes the research problem in SSCM more
complex. So, there is a need to identify the existing methodologies and the associated tools and
techniques which can be used to formulate, evaluate and create potential solutions for the SSCM
(Tonelli et al., 2013). Authors have insisted over a period of time that MCDM methods are
most suitable to address the multifaceted issues of sustainability which involves complex
socio-economic systems (Wang et al., 2009).
1. Audit and To adopt and improve sustainability, tools such Hassini et al. (2012),
assessment as eco-labeling, environment management Taticchi et al. (2013),
systems, environmental and social audits are Grosvold et al. (2014),
necessary. A supplier assessment plan consists of Dubey et al. (2015),
monitoring, auditing and evaluating the SC Gunasekaran et al. (2015)
operations periodically. Frequent assessment and
auditing improve SC performance. Firms need to
impose these procedures on their suppliers to
promote sustainable behavior
2. Standardization Firms stress on the standardization of economic, Ching and Moreira (2014)
and traceability social and environmental working conditions of
their suppliers through compliance. A
standardized performance in the SC can be
attained by promoting product traceability
3. Certifications Environmental certification controls the impact Grosvold et al. (2014)

of a practice on the environment. Voluntary
adoption of environmental certifications by firms
promotes sustainability in production processes
4. Government Government regulations to reduce environmental Ramanathan et al. (2010)
regulations degradation are required. However, obsolete laws
and regulations that hinder the adoption of
sustainable practices in SCs need transformation
5. Eco-innovation Eco-innovation focuses on innovating newer Costantini et al. (2017)
technologies that are cost effective as well as
preserve the environment. Encouraging eco-
innovation leads to adoption of technologies that
Table VI. improve environmental performance which
Performance measures attains global competitiveness
Authors have concluded that research on SSCM is dominated by qualitative research

methods such as case study, interview and conceptual/theoretical model, i.e. 61.89 percent of
the study in comparison to the quantitative research (31.42 percent) (Ansari and Kant, 2017).
It is a fact that maximum studies in the literature have qualitative study (case study) in
comparison to quantitative study (Tajbakhsh and Hassini, 2015; Seuring and Muller, 2008).
A detailed description of the modeling trends in SSCM over the period has been represented
in the following Table VII.
4.6.1 Quantitative models in SSCM. It has been found from various reviews that there is
a dearth of theoretically grounded research in SSCM field (Carter and Easton, 2011; Carter
and Rogers, 2008). This can be concluded by observing the number of reviews on literature
published in this area by researchers. Some of the literature reviews are for example the
study of literature on quantitative models for SSCM (Brandenburg et al., 2014;
Eskandarpour et al., 2015); the study on theoretical dynamics in SSCM (Touboulic and
Walker, 2015) and the review on SSCM practices (Khalid et al., 2015).
MCDM and mathematical programming have often been chosen as the preferred
modeling techniques to investigate SSCM in order to optimize a single objective function
(Gunson et al., 2010; Yura, 1994). Literature has recommended that various tools
could be used to model the environmental factors in the processes and the implementation of
effective environmental measurement systems have also been suggested (Smith and Ball,
2012). Quantitative methods can be used to generate sustainability benefits of collaboration,
coordination, information sharing, and communication within an SC (Kainuma and
Tawara, 2006).
Sustainability
Sustainable
Focused Used modeling dimensions supply chain
References paradigm technique Focus addressed management
Acquaye et al. SSCM Multi-regional An environmental performance Economic,
(2017) input output measurement approach for economic environmental
(MRIO) modeling sectors. MRIO model used to calculate the
direct and indirect environmental effects
such as bio-diversity, water consumption,
pollution, etc.
Alinovi et al. GSCM Analytical model, Determination of optimal return policies in a Economic
(2012) economic order stochastic environment
quantity (EOQ)
Azadi et al. SSCM Data envelopment Sustainable supplier performance Economic,
(2015) analysis (DEA) evaluation and selection environmental,
Social
Balaman et al. SSCM Hybrid fuzzy set Developing a decision support system Economic,
(2018) theory comprising two multi-objective environmental
mathematical models to optimize the
configuration of multi-technology bio-
product SCs and design co-model
transportation networks
Battini et al. None Life cycle Integrated inventory management for SC Economic,
(2014) assessment (LCA) cost optimization by assessing the impact of Environmental
and analytical sustainability perspectives on procuring
model (EOQ) decisions
Besiou et al. CLSC Single objective Influence of scavenging on the operations of Economic,
(2012) simulation the formal recovery system of waste environmental,
electrical and electronic equipment with social
three regulatory measures applying the
system dynamics methodology
Borchardt None Ecological foot Eco-design implementation to reduce Economic,
et al. (2011) printing and environmental impact and cost of environmental
input-output production and assembly in footwear
analysis industry
Bouchery SSCM Carbon foot Sustainable order quantity model and its Economic,
et al. (2012) printing and multi echelon extension and effectiveness of environmental,
analytical model regulatory policies to control carbon social
(EOQ) emissions
Boukherroub SSCM Multi-objective Integrated approach for transposing Economic,
et al. (2015) linear sustainable development principles to SC environmental,
programming planning models by linking sustainability social
(MOLP) performance on SC decisions
Chaabane SSCM LCA and MOLP Evaluation of trade-offs between economic Economic,
et al. (2012) (Optimization) and environmental objectives under various environmental
cost and operating strategies in an
aluminum industry and highlights efficient
carbon management strategies
Choi and Chiu SSCM Single objective Understanding the mean downside-risk Economic,
(2012) analytical model (MDR) and mean-variance (MV ) environmental
(Newsvendor) newsvendor models under both the
exogenous and endogenous retail price
decision cases; comparison of levels of
sustainability of retailers that employ mean- Table VII.
risk and risk-neutral models Modeling techniques
in SSCM and
sustainability
(continued ) dimensions addressed
MEQ Sustainability
Focused Used modeling dimensions
References paradigm technique Focus addressed
Devika et al. SSCM MOLP Quantitative modeling of social impacts Economic,

(2014) (Optimization) combined with environmental and economic environmental,
impacts in a network design problem social
Diabat and SSCM Single objective Addressing joint location inventory Economic,
Al-Salem linear problem with focus on reduction of carbon environmental
(2015) programming emissions
(SOLP); genetic
algorithm(GA)
Geldermann SSCM Pinch analysis Consistent assessment method in a Economic,
et al. (2007) and multi-criteria comprehensive manner to optimize the environmental
decision making system’s performance
(MCDM)
Govindan, SSCM MCDM technique Sustainable SC initiatives for evaluation of Economic,

Khodaverdi for order of supplier performance considering the triple environmental,
and Jafarian preference by bottom line social
(2013) similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS)
Hsueh (2015) SSCM MOLP Optimal performance levels of corporate Economic,
(variational social responsibility (CSR) and environmental,
inequality) compensation for all SC actors to enhance social
SC profitability
Jakhar (2015) SSCM Carbon Attaining economic stability, social and Economic,
footprinting and ecological protection by developing environmental,
AHP and MOLP sustainable SC performance measures for social
(optimization) partner selection through flow allocation
decision-making model
Ji et al. (2015) GSCM Single objective Supplier relationship management to Economic,
analytical model formulate trade strategies and payoff environmental
(Game theory) functions of the suppliers and manufacturers
and assess their recycling capacity for
estimation of sustainability level
Kostin et al. SSCM LCA and MOLP Optimization of logistics task and Economic,
(2015) (optimization) identification of redundant objectives that environmental
can be omitted without affecting the
problem structure
Kuo et al. GSCM Artificial neural Developing a green supplier selection model Economic,
(2010) network (ANN) integrating ANN and MADA to overcome environmental,
and Multi the limitations of data accuracy and social
attribute decision evaluation of the supplier’s green
analysis (MADA) performance
(DEA and ANP)
Li (2013) SSCM MOLP Production evaluation model to evaluate Economic,
(Optimization) product reliability and time utility value and environmental
extension of the same to sustainable
purchasing while considering the trade-offs
between cost, environment and quality
Li and Li SSCM Analytical model Derivation of equilibrium structures for two Economic,
(2016) (game theory) supply chain competing for product environmental
sustainability; analyzing sustainability
degrees, demands and profits under three
structures of this two-chain system
Table VII. (continued )

Sustainability
Sustainable
Focused Used modeling dimensions supply chain
References paradigm technique Focus addressed management
Mazhar et al. SSCM ANN; reliability End-of-life treatment of products by Economic
(2007) assessment assessing their reliability; understanding
method the product’s service requirements and its
ability to be reused and remanufactured
Mirkouei et al. SSCM LCA, MCDM Developing a mixed SC for enhancing Economic,
(2017) sustainable benefits of bio-energy. A environmental
stochastic optimization model to explore the
effects of uncertainty
Moktadir et al. SSCM Blended gray- Identification of barriers to SSCM in context Economic,
(2018) based DEMATEL of leather industry and analyze the environmental,
interactions among them social
Mota et al. SSCM LCA and MOLP Design and planning of SCs by integrating Economic,
(2015) the three dimensions of sustainability; environmental,

ReCiPe: an environmental assessment social
method is employed for SC design
optimization; a social indicator to assess the
impact strategic decisions and political
concerns
Nagurney and SSCM Analytical model Development of a model of oligopolistic Economic,
Yu (2012) (game theory) competition for fashion supply chains in the environmental
case of differentiated products with the
inclusion of environmental concerns and its
effects of changes in the demand functions;
in the total cost and total emission
functions, and also in the weights
Neumüller SSCM MCDM; analytic A combined methodology for selection of Economic,
et al. (2015) network process distribution centers (DCs) by integrating environmental,
(ANP) and balancing the triple bottom line. social
Evaluation of possible DCs on the basis of a
situation-specific decision structure
Pishvaee et al. SSCM LCA and MOLP Designing a sustainable medical SC Economic,
(2014) (optimization) network under uncertainty considering environmental,
conflicting economic, environmental and social
social goals
Rager et al. SSCM MOLP, GA Energy-oriented scheduling approach for a Economic,
(2015) parallel machine environment with the environmental
objective to minimize the demand of final
energy sources using resource levelling for
optimization
Rybicka et al. None Material flow Understanding the scale of scrap created in Economic,
(2015) analysis (MFA) individual composites manufacturing environmental
processes to assess its potential value in
terms of reuse/recycle capabilities by
bridging of the gap between manufacturers
and waste processors in composites to
address the lack of infrastructure and lack
of waste material specification barriers
Sitek and SSCM SOLP A robust and effective hybrid approach to Economic,
Wikarek modeling and optimization of SSCM and Environmental
(2015) GSCM problems, implemented with the HSF
which considers two environments. There is
(continued ) Table VII.

MEQ Sustainability
Focused Used modeling dimensions
References paradigm technique Focus addressed
a substantial reduction in number of

decision variables, number of constraints,
computing time (up to ten times)
Soysal et al. SSCM SOLP Enhancing the traditional models for the Economic,
(2015) inventory routing problem to boost their environmental
usefulness in food logistics management by
involving truck load dependent distribution
costs for a comprehensive evaluation of CO2
emission and fuel consumption,
perishability, and a service level constraint
for meeting uncertain demand
Su et al. (2016) SSCM AI (Grey theory) Identification and evaluation of criteria and Economic,
and MCDM alternatives in case of incomplete environmental,

decision-making information situations in supplier social
trial and prioritization which includes criteria like
evaluation aspects as a sustainable plan, communities
laboratory for sustainability, sustainable operational
(DEMATEL) process control and sustainable certification
and growth
Tajbakhsh SSCM MCDM (DEA) Developing a multi-stage framework to Economic,
and Hassini +SOLP assess a general performance of a SC and environmental,
(2015) (optimization) evaluating the overall efficiency and the social
individual efficiencies at the same time
Tseng and SSCM SOLP Developing a strategic decision-making Economic,
Hung (2014) model considering both the operational environmental,
costs and social costs caused by the carbon social
dioxide emissions from operating a SC
network for SSCM in apparel
manufacturing
Tsao et al. SSCM Fuzzy Designing of a sustainable SC network under Economic,
(2018) probabilistic uncertain conditions. Its objective is to make environmental,
multi-objective decisions for selection of production social
programming technologies, raw materials, number of
(two phase locations, distribution centers etc.
stochastic
programming)
Validi et al. SSCM MOLP Prioritization of the realistic solutions, while Economic,
(2015) (optimization) and focusing on alternate transportation scenarios environmental
Table VII. MCDM (TOPSIS) of a NP hard SSCM distribution model
It has been found that quantitative research is required to justify the decision-making
process while integrating sustainability and SCM (Seuring, 2013). Authors have advised
that it is vital to identify the current status of the field to be researched upon if it is driven by
qualitative or quantitative process (Ansari and Kant, 2017). Some of the modeling
approaches for SSCM in literature are presented in Table VIII.
4.7 Enablers and barriers

The SSCM is affected by a number of factors. Some of them help in achieving the
sustainability goals which are called as the drivers or the enablers of SSCM. The factors that
critically hinder the adoption of SSC practices into the core SC functions are called as
Modeling Typical approach/
Sustainable
approaches Model description components addressed References supply chain
management
Life cycle Systematic methods for Evaluating environmental Cholette and Venkat
assessment investigating the potential issues and attempting to (2009), Ferretti et al.
(LCA) based environmental impacts associated minimize their impacts along (2007), Sonneson and
models with a product, process, or activity, a supply chain Berlin (2003),
by identifying and quantifying Abdallah et al. (2012),
materials used, energy consumed, Pishvaee and
and wastes discharged to the Razmi (2012)
environment
Applications of A structured technique for Evaluating complex decision Faisal (2010a),
the analytic simplifying, organizing, and situations where Saaty (1990)
hierarchy analyzing complex and multi- environmental and economic
process (AHP) objective decisions goals are assessed
simultaneously
Equilibrium Standard and well established Balancing of environmental Corbett and De Croix
models methodologies on evaluating and and economic issues by (2001), Kainuma and
assessing sustainability issues in utilizing relevant equilibrium Tawara (2006),
supply chains or optimum solution(s) Nagurney and
Toyasaki (2003),
Saint Jean (2008),
Seuring (2013)
Multi-criteria Disciplines that explicitly deliberate Optimizing environmental Geldermann et al.
decision-making multiple conflicting criteria, which and economic criteria (2007)
(MCDM) models require to be evaluated in decision- by balancing trade-offs
making processes or proposing optimal
solutions
Input-output Techniques in which relationships Evaluating outputs of Bonney and Jaber
analysis (IOA) between outputs of some environmental capital (2013)
based models performance measures and the (e.g. renewable and
supply chain’s input parameters non-renewable ecological
alongside their related decision goods, material use, and
factors can be analyzed impact of emissions on
human health) and economic
goals (i.e. lowering costs and/
or maximizing profits) along
supply chain networks
Table VIII.
Composite Practical tools in focusing attention Policy prioritization, decision- Hassini et al. (2012),
Quantitative analytical
metrics through their abilities to summarize making, and communication Singh et al. (2009) modeling approaches
complex and multifaceted problems with respect to various levels for assessing
into single metrics of system performance sustainability issues
Source: Ahi et al. (2016) in the SC
inhibitors or barriers of SSCM. In order to successfully implement the SSC practices, it is

necessary to understand and evaluate the enablers and barriers of SSCM (Moktadir et al.,
2018). A list of enablers and barriers of SSCM that have been identified from literature are
represented in the Tables IX and X.
4.8 Integrated approaches in SSCM

Due to multiple types of pressures, be it from the competitive or legislative angle or due to
customer pressure, SC managers are forced to comply with sustainability standards for
value creation which poses a challenge in the decision-making process. Unfortunately,
guidelines for a comprehensive or integrative analysis for the evaluation of environmental
and social performance of decision alternatives in SSCM are lacking. Therefore, it is
MEQ Enablers References
1. Top management support Cetinkaya et al. (2011), Govindan et al. (2014),

Chkanikova and Mont (2015), Dubey et al.
(2015), Zhu and Geng (2013), Lorek and
Spangenberg (2014)
2. Standards, collaborations and supply base Lee and Klassen (2008), Blome et al. (2014)
rationalizations
3. Supplier evaluation and process improvement Igarashi et al. (2013)
4. Supplier assessment for improved environmental Genovese et al. (2013), Govindan et al. (2015)
performance
5. Corporate environmental activity and strategic level of Ahi and Searcy (2013)
purchasing
6. Trust and close relationship with supplier Tejpal et al. (2013)
7. Organizations environmental missions and internal Dubey et al. (2015)
multinational policies
8. Technological integrations with suppliers and customers Beamon (1999), AlKhidir and Zailani (2009)
9. Role played by project leaders and value champions Vachon and Klassen (2007), Vachon and
Klassen (2008)
10. Organizational contingencies such as size and nationality Min and Galle (2001)
11. Customer interest and stake holder pressure Hervani et al. (2005), Seuring and Muller
(2008)
12. IT infrastructure and knowledge enhancing mechanisms Walker and Jones (2012)
13. Employee and stakeholder orientation and support
14. Supplier certification and non-traditional supplier Revell and Rutherfoord (2003)
development (sustainability, orientation, innovation
capability, measurement systems)
15. Government support and Government regulations Mudgal et al. (2009), Paulraj (2009), Bai and
Sarkis (2010)
16. Performance measurement system Walker et al. (2008)
17. Community development and social welfare Zhu et al. (2013), Ortas et al. (2014)
18. Employee training, health, safety, compensation Hutchins and Sutherland (2008), Matos and
Table IX. Hall (2007)
List of enablers 19. Social value and ethics Carter and Jennings (2002)
imperative to derive a predictive and holistic approach for promoting sustainability along
SCs. It has been seen that the integration of sustainability is one of the most crucial topics in
the field of operations management ( Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016).
The literature review conducted by some authors focused on generating integrated
sustainability concept (Carter and Rogers, 2008). A theoretical framework was devised by
the authors about the future SSCM research directions. The review work done by some
authors extended this work in greater details by adding recent research articles
(Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). Researchers have provided a systematic literature review
considering 80 top tier SCM journals which mostly described methodological and
analytical portions of SSCM and omitted the managerial insights (Carter and Easton,
2011). The integration of sustainability concepts with SCM processes is not limited to
the activities within a single firm rather it should occur across the entire SC involving
all the stakeholders.
A review done by some authors has reported the benefits of integration of sustainability
with SCM (Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). In another review work, authors have classified the
literature into four categories, i.e. time period and journal wise distribution, types of research
methodologies employed and the extent of incorporating sustainable practices (Seuring and
Muller, 2008). Quite a few publications have been reviewed by some authors that were based
on case studies and quantitative analysis (Gold et al., 2010a, b). Authors have presented a
Barriers References
Sustainable
supply chain
1. Lack of job stability Kuik et al. (2011), Gabzdylova et al. (2009), management
Bhaskaran et al. (2006)
2. Lack of healthcare and work safety measures Carter and Rogers (2008)
3. Inadequate community welfare measures Gabzdylova et al. (2009)
4. High environmental cost Carter and Rogers (2008)
5. Lack of implementation of green practices Govindan, Popiuc and Diabat (2013)
6. Lack of adoption of eco-purchasing Mudgal et al. (2009)
7. Lack of eco-design strategies Zhu et al. (2005), Vojdani and Lootz (2012)
8. Lack of stricter government rules and regulations Zhu et al. (2005)
9. Lack of disaster management approaches Waheed et al. (2009)
10. Lack of consumer satisfaction Hussain (2011), Faisal (2010b)
11. Lack of enhancement of product features Hussain (2011)
12. Inadequate infrastructural support Kleindorfer et al. (2005), Elkington (1994)
13. Complex to measure environmental standards Faisal et al. (2007), Mudgal et al. (2009)
adopted by suppliers
14. Fear of failure and monetary losses Rao and Holt (2005), Revell and Rutherfoord
(2003)
15. Lack of skilled human resource Hillary (2000)
16. Lack of proper technical expertise Van Hemel and Cramer (2002), Hillary (2000),
Revell and Rutherfoord (2003)
17. Lack of awareness about reverse logistics adoption Ravi and Shankar (2005)
18. Skeptic about environmental benefits Revell and Rutherfoord (2003)
19. Perception of “out of responsibility” zone Hillary (2000)
20. Lack of green system exposure professionals Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)
21. Lack of environmental knowledge Bowen et al. (2001), Hillary (2000)
22. High investment and less return on investments Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)
23. Non availability of bank loans to encourage green Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)
products/ processes
24. High cost for disposing hazardous wastes Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)
25. Lack of training courses to train and guide the Bowen et al. (2001), Carter and Dresner (2001) Table X.
progress of each enterprise List of barriers
structured literature review focusing on three categories, i.e. research methodology,

dimensions of sustainability and common factors (Ashby et al., 2012).
In a study carried out in 14 anchor companies and 177 small- and medium-sized
suppliers, authors observed that anchor companies’ have an inclination towards initiatives
for a cleaner production process (van Hoof and Thiell, 2014). They concluded that
integration of anchor companies to environmental initiatives will result in enhancing
supplier performance, cost minimization, environmental leadership, and good reputation.
An author has conducted an integrated method of SEM, fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOLP to an
apparel industry and observed that decrease in the total cost can be attained when a firm
adopts cost reducing strategies like sustainable purchasing, sustainable production,
sustainable delivery and logistics ( Jakhar, 2015).
4.9 Extending the SSC practices to suppliers

The success mantra for a successful sustainable SC lies in effective supplier relationships and
proper collaboration. It is found that the quality and depth of relationship between an
organization and its suppliers was the most frequently occurring factor in SSCM literature
(Brammer and Walker, 2011). And supplier cooperation was seen as the best practice and a
crucial component of SSCM implementation (Pagell and Wu, 2009). The collaboration within the
members of the SC is essential in order to execute the business processes. Some supplier
development initiatives are joint waste minimization approaches (Simpson and Power, 2005),
MEQ innovative environmental design (Verghese and Lewis, 2007), development of eco-friendly
technologies (Vachon and Klassen, 2007), minimization of hazardous wastes (Pagell et al., 2007),
and collaborative efforts for recyclable products. The concept of collaboration that existed in the
conventional SCM theory (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Vachon and Klassen, 2006) is now a
prerogative practice in SSCM theory. Authors have also highlighted the difference between the
traditional supply management and the necessity of partnerships in the modern day
(Nassimbeni, 2004) Researchers have conducted a case study analysis on a bag manufacturing
company and found that applying reverse logistics or recycling techniques in the entire SC
process can result in minimizing the product lead-time and supplier collaboration can boost
sales and production efficiency (Ramanathan et al., 2014).
The trust among the SC actors is a must for supplier collaboration, in contrast to
compliance based partnerships which rely on power (Simpson and Power, 2005). In the past,
authors have concluded that complying with strong forms of collaboration like partnerships
results in effective SSCM implementation (Blome et al., 2014). Nevertheless, compliance is also
understood as negatively associated approach in relationship management.
For extending sustainability to suppliers, supplier development initiatives can be

developed which are mentioned in the management literature as the practices which
aim at increasing performance of the suppliers (Krause et al., 2009). Some of these
initiatives include supplier evaluation, supplier collaboration, supplier training, etc.
For successful implementation of SSCM, suppliers must become environmentally and
socially responsible (Zhu et al., 2005). Several researchers have identified the need to
evaluate the depth of collaborative relationships in SSCM context (Matopoulos
et al., 2007). However, it has been found that there is very little research done that
analyzes the depth of collaboration like understanding power imbalances in the SC
(Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby, 2012; Walker and Jones, 2012). Authors believe that
sustainable procuring plays a major role in company’s all around success and it should
not only be incorporated within the organization but also extended to all the stakeholders
(Pagell et al., 2010).
True supplier collaboration has been considered as the best way forward in literature;
however, practicality to this is inadequate. The reason being, most research in this field has
considered the sustainable practices of the larger corporations for whom small and medium
enterprises (SME) are the suppliers (Lee and Klassen, 2008; Walker and Preuss, 2008).
Hence, it is necessary to consider the sustainable practices of both large and small
companies to achieve true collaboration (Touboulic and Walker, 2015).
Several traditional papers have addressed SC collaboration. Few authors have
enlisted factors that strenghten collaborative spirit among SC members namely supplier
coordination and associated benefits (Lehoux et al., 2014), information sharing (Kache and
Seuring, 2014), collaborative investments in technologies and performance audit systems
(Nyaga et al., 2010). “People issues” are inherent to SC collaboration such as culture, trust,
willingness to change, and willingness to collaborate which are difficult to forecast and
manage (Fawcett et al., 2006). Between all the benefits from collaboration, some authors
also warned that collaboration measures are vulnerable to fail owing to the wide ranging
organizational culture and behavioral aspects (Emberson and Storey, 2006). Therefore, it
is suggested that organizations must focus on inducing and sustaining a collaborative
culture. Authors have argued that an organization’s reputation is dependent on its
suppliers’ behavior towards environment and society (Foerstl et al., 2010).
5. Managerial insights
This paper employs a systematic process to review the SSCM literature from the perspectives of
environment sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability. This has also
addressed the perspective of performance metrics and the governance aspects for a sustainable Sustainable
SC. The major contribution of this paper lies in identifying the successful SC practices in the supply chain
context of organizational culture, policies and regulations, supplier evaluation and relationships, management
green SC practices, economic efficiency, and social sustainability. The managerial insights from
the literature review have been presented in the Table XI.
6. Gaps in literature and future directions

The research on SSCM is still at preliminary stage and major research works have not
been supported by quantitative findings. The theories that are being utilized in SSCM fail
to take into account all aspects of practices in the field. The firm’s performance is
associated more with the environmental and economic approaches and there is a lacuna on
the social and human aspect of sustainability. As the research on SSCM mostly focuses on
economic and environmental dimensions and there is lack of systemic sustainability
research, the social and human aspect of sustainability can be addressed by borrowing
theories from organizational behavior. There are not enough works which addresses the
triple bottom line in an integrated manner. The SSCM research must move from the
exploratory, atheoretical and descriptive research toward theory testing and
implementing the conceptual frameworks to organizations. Research must be done to
find technical management variables to quantify the impact of the sustainable initiatives
on the economic performance.
There is a need for more SSCM research based on formulation of policy frameworks
that can align the firms towards sustainability. The SC researchers must develop
practical SSCM tools and techniques along with a guide for SC practices through
various strategic models and frameworks. SSCM research should be aligned to develop
constructs and metrics to examine the concepts SSCM. As most works are based on
qualitative studies, collecting relevant data to substantiate the concepts is also an
opportunity. Secondary data sources can be used to examine the relationship between the
firm’s environmental and social performance vs the economic performance and
the relationship between regulatory compliance and economic performance across the
SC members.
Research can be done to understand the outsourcing or purchasing decisions involved
in SSCM and how the SC governance structures affect this decision-making process.
Research focused on analyzing the decision-making process on how the supplier
relationships are affected considering one stakeholder in the SC with the others in the
network. Sustainability and behavioral management concepts could be studied conjointly
like the trust building between all the stakeholders in the SC network beginning from the
first supplier to the end customer. Issues in SSCM like cooperation and effective
communication between the SC members can be addressed to attain the pre-determined
sustainable goals. Association of managerial implications with sustainability concepts
could be studied in a way to analyze how the managerial decisions affect the execution of
the SSCM practices.
Based on the detailed review of literature, a number of potential research avenues in the
area of SSCM have been identified. These gaps are summarized below which would lead to a
number of research directions for the future:
• the integration of social issues into the environmental and economic aspect of SSCM;
• lifecycle analysis and the concept of closed-loop SCs for a connected view of
sustainability in SCs;
• addressing the issues of inventory management within sustainable SCs (as the
traditional inventory models focus on economic aspects);
MEQ A. Organizational culture References
The critical aspect for the SC to be sustainable is the top management Bhool and Narwal (2013), Olugu
support for the SCCM programs by allocating funds for sustainable et al. (2011), Mudgal et al. (2009),
practices and technologies. Each and every member of the enterprise Simpson and Samson (2008)
must be encouraged and supported for innovative ideas for successful
implementation of the sustainable practices. The implementation of SSC
practices can be successfully realised by considering it as a ongoing and
continuously evolving process, preferably within the framework of total
quality management (TQM) and lean management
B. Policy/regulations
The enterprises need to have a structured SC policy and regulations Luthra et al. (2011), Bhool and
followed by the awareness by each and every member. The government Narwal (2013), Rao and Holt (2005),
policies and regulations must be robust, which should provide Zhu et al. (2005)
guidelines for eliminating or controlling the environmental pollution.
The government agencies through pollution control board should
strictly monitor the pollution level of the enterprises on a regular basis
and must impose penalties on the enterprises for violating the pollution
norms even if the sustainable practices have been adopted. Stringent
SSC practices should be reinforced if the enterprises are dealing with
international customers
C. Supplier evaluation and relationships
The enterprises must consider the sustainability criteria during supplier Bhool and Narwal (2013), Wang
selection process. For successful relationship, these enterprises should et al. (2011), Agarwal and
collaborate with the suppliers including technological collaboration for Vijayvargy (2012)
compatibility. These enterprises must engage in training and educating
the suppliers for implementing the environmental guidelines including
the social sustainability. These enterprises need to monitor review and
audit the suppliers on a regular basis
D. Green SC practices
The enterprises along with their suppliers must take adequate measures Zhu et al. (2005), Deshmukh and
for the implementation of green practices such as the minimization of Sunnapwar (2013)
the cost and usage of virgin raw materials, inventory level, energy and
water usage. These enterprises must also focus on the minimization or
elimination of the environmental accidents, health hazards and
generation of solid wastes
E. Economic efficiency
It is critical for the enterprises to minimize the utilization of the Attaran and Attaran (2007), Vachon
resources and optimize the overall logistics cost for high financial and Klassen (2006), Ashby et al.
performance and profitability through strategic collaboration and (2012), Gimenez and Tachizawa
information sharing (2012), Liu et al. (2012), Bai and
Sarkis (2014), Blome et al. (2014),
Brindley and Oxborrow (2014),
Azadi et al. (2015)
F. Social sustainability
The enterprises should engage themselves for maintaining social equity Keating et al. (2008), Krause et al.
through proper code of conduct, protection of employee rights, (2009), Tencati et al. (2010), Mani
developing suitable working conditions and employee welfare schemes. et al. (2015)
Table XI. These enterprises should gain trust and confidence of their suppliers
Managerial insights and customers through fair trade practices and CSR activities
• collaborative relationships between suppliers and customers for better

understanding and implementation of SSC initiatives and practices;
• linkage between sustainability initiatives and managerial practices for success or
failure of SSC practices;
• guidelines, evaluation tools and techniques for SMEs and large enterprises to justify Sustainable
investment for SSC practices; and supply chain
• industry specific research on SSCM. management
These distinctive features together would place SCM within the purview of the overall
research area on sustainability.
7. Concluding remarks
The concept of sustainability is quite broad, and understanding its interactions with SCM
has been critical for the business enterprises. SSCM encompasses the integrated
perspectives of economic, environmental and social considerations in the SC along with the
governance structures in a dynamic business environment. For the successful
implementation of SSC practices, the business enterprises should collaborate with all its
stakeholders while optimally utilizing the resources, information and funds to maximize
the value propositions to the customers and SC profitability. In the process, it minimizes
the environmental impacts and enhances the social equity and well-being on all the
stakeholders. Owing to the dynamic nature of SSCM, the researchers in this field should
dive into the literature periodically and identify the research opportunities (Winter and
Knemeyer, 2013).
The current research has focused on a detailed and structured review of literature on
various perspectives of SSCM such as the environmental, social, economic, governance and
performance measurement. It has also focused on the various quantitative and empirical
modeling approaches in literature including the dynamic capabilities of SSCM. This has
resulted in identifying the parameters which enable and inhibit the implementation of SSC
practices in bigger enterprises. This structured review has resulted in a number of key
managerial insights for the practitioners and future researchers.
The study has identified a number of research gaps in the existing literature
which provides enough scope for future investigations. More and more research needs to
be conducted to accommodate the social perspectives to enhance the scope of triple bottom
line in a SC context. The modeling approaches need to done across industries and in a more
realistic uncertain decision environment to fully understand and integrate the SSCM
practices across industries.
References
Abdallah, T., Farhat, A., Diabat, A. and Kennedy, S. (2012), “Green supply chains with carbon trading
and environmental sourcing: formulation and life cycle assessment”, Applied Mathematical
Modelling, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 4271-4285.
Acquaye, A., Feng, K., Oppon, E., Salhi, S., Ibn-Mohammed, T., Genovese, A. and Hubacek, K. (2017),
“Measuring the environmental sustainability performance of global supply chains:
a multi-regional input-output analysis for carbon, sulphur oxide and water footprints”,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 187, February, pp. 571-585.
Agarwal, G. and Vijayvargy, L. (2012), “Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive
supply chains through analytical network process”, Proceedings of International Multi
Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 14-16.
Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 52, August, pp. 329-341.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C. and Jaber, M.Y. (2016), “Energy-related performance measures employed in
sustainable supply chains: a bibliometric analysis”, Sustainable Production and Consumption,
Vol. 7, pp. 1-15.
MEQ Alinovi, A., Bottani, E. and Montanari, R. (2012), “Reverse logistics: a stochastic EOQ based inventory
control model for mixed manufacturing/remanufacturing systems with return policies”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1243-1264.
AlKhidir, T. and Zailani, S. (2009), “Going green in supply chain towards environmental
sustainability”, Global Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 246-251.
Alvarez, G., Pilbeam, C. and Wilding, R. (2010), “Nestlé Nespresso AAA sustainable quality program:
an investigation into the governance dynamics in a multi-stakeholder supply chain network”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 165-182.
Amemba, C.S., Nyaboke, P.G., Osoro, A. and Mburu, N. (2013), “Elements of green supply chain
management”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 12, pp. 51-61.
Angus-Leppan, T., Benn, S. and Young, L. (2010), “A sensemaking approach to trade-offs and
synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 230-244.
Ansari, Z.N. and Kant, R. (2017), “A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, January,
pp. 2524-2543.
Antonietti, R., De Marchi, V. and Di Maria, E. (2017), “Governing offshoring in a stringent
environmental policy setting: evidence from Italian manufacturing firms”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 155, pp. 103-113.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I.E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grønhøj, A. and Oostindjer, M.
(2017), “Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related
food waste–a multiple case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 155 No. 2016, pp. 33-45.
Ashby, A., Leat, M. and Hudson-Smith, M. (2012), “Making connections: a review of supply chain
management and sustainability literature”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-516.
Attaran, M. and Attaran, S. (2007), “Collaborative supply chain management: the most promising
practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 390-404.
Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R.F. and Mirhedayatian, S.M. (2015), “A new fuzzy DEA model for
evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management
context”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 54, August, pp. 274-285.
Badurdeen, F., Iyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H., Gupta, S. and Jawahir, I.S. (2009), “Extending total
life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Management, Vol. 4 Nos 1-3, pp. 49-67.
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2010), “Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set
theory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 1200-1210.
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2014), “Determining and applying sustainable supplier key performance
indicators”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 275-291.
Balaman, Ş.Y., Matopoulos, A., Wright, D.G. and Scott, J. (2018), “Integrated optimization of sustainable
supply chains and transportation networks for multi technology bio-based production:
a decision support system based on fuzzy ε-constraint method”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 172, January, pp. 2594-2617.
Ball, J. (2002), “Can ISO 14000 and eco-labelling turn the construction industry green?”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 421-428.
Banerjee, S. (2003), “Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention
of nature”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 143-180.
Bassen, A. and Kovacs, A.M.M. (2008), “Environmental, social and governance key performance
indicators from a capital market perspective”.
Battini, D., Persona, A. and Sgarbossa, F. (2014), “A sustainable EOQ model: theoretical formulation
and applications”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 149 No. C, pp. 145-153.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Designing the green supply chain”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12 Sustainable
No. 4, pp. 332-342. supply chain
Bertrand, J.W.M. and Fransoo, J.C. (2002), “Operations management research methodologies using management
quantitative modeling”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 241-264.
Besiou, M., Georgiadis, P. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2012), “Official recycling and scavengers:
symbolic or conflicting?”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 218 No. 2, pp. 563-576.
Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E., Mazzuto, G. and Paciarotti, C. (2014), “Environmental analysis of a
cotton yarn supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 82, November, pp. 154-165.
Bhaskaran, S., Polonsky, M., Cary, J. and Fernandez, S. (2006), “Environmentally sustainable
food production and marketing: opportunity or hype?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 8,
pp. 677-690.
Bhool, R. and Narwal, M.S. (2013), “An analysis of drivers affecting the implementation of green supply
chain management for the Indian manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Research
in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 2319-1163.

Blome, C., Paulraj, A. and Schuetz, K. (2014), “Supply chain collaboration and sustainability: a profile
deviation analysis”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp. 639-663.
Bocken, N., Morgan, D. and Evans, S. (2013), “Understanding environmental performance variation in
manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 856-870.
Bonney, M. and Jaber, M.Y. (2013), “Deriving research agendas for manufacturing and logistics
systems: a methodology”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 157, Special Issue,
pp. 49-61.
Borchardt, M., Wendt, M.H., Pereira, G.M. and Sellitto, M.A. (2011), “Redesign of a component based on
ecodesign practices: environmental impact and cost reduction achievements”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 49-57.
Bouchery, Y., Ghaffari, A., Jemai, Z. and Dallery, Y. (2012), “Including sustainability criteria into
inventory models”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 222 No. 2, pp. 229-240.
Boukherroub, T., Ruiz, A., Guinet, A. and Fondrevelle, J. (2015), “An integrated approach for
sustainable supply chain planning”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 54, February,
pp. 180-194.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Farukt, A.C. (2001), “The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 174-189.
Brammer, S. and Walker, H. (2011), “Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international
comparative study”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 452-476.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Quantitative models for sustainable
supply chain management: developments and directions”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 233 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Brindley, C. and Oxborrow, L. (2014), “Aligning the sustainable supply chain to green marketing needs:
a case study”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 45-55.
Brockhaus, S., Kersten, W. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2013), “Where do we go from here? Progressing
sustainability implementation efforts across supply chains”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J. and Wagner, S.M. (2017), “Extending the supply chain
visibility boundary: utilizing stakeholders for identifying supply chain sustainability risks”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 18-40.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
MEQ Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organisational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.
Carter, C.R. (2011), “A call for theory: the maturation of the supply chain management discipline”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 3-7.
Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasing’s role in environmental management:
cross-functional development of grounded theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 12-27.
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 No. 1,
pp. 46-62.
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Social responsibility and supply chain relationships”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, 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 and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.

Cervellon, M.C. and Wernerfelt, A.S. (2012), “Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities
online: lessons for the sustainable supply chain”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Cetinkaya, B., Cuthbertson, R., Ewer, G., Klaas-Wissing, T., Piotrowicz, W. and Tyssen, C. (2011),
Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Practical Ideas for Moving Towards Best Practice,
Springer Science and Business Media, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A. and Paquet, M. (2012), “Design of sustainable supply chains
under the emission trading scheme”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135
No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Charter, M., Kielkiewicz-Young, A., Young, A. and Hughes, A. (2001), “Supply chain strategy and
evaluation”, Centre for Sustainable Design, University College, London.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-150.
Ching, H.Y. and Moreira, M.A. (2014), “Management systems and good practices related to the
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 34-45.
Chkanikova, O. and Mont, O. (2015), “Corporate supply chain responsibility: drivers and barriers for
sustainable food retailing”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 65-82.
Choi, T. and Chiu, C. (2012), “Mean-downside-risk and mean-variance newsvendor models: implications
for sustainable fashion retailing”, International Journal of Produciton Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2,
pp. 552-560.
Cholette, S. and Venkat, K. (2009), “The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: a study of
logistical options for delivering wine to consumers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, No. 17 No. 16,
pp. 1401-1413.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2008), “Logistics social responsibility: standard adoption
and practices in Italian companies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113
No. 1, pp. 88-106.
Closs, D.J., Speier, C. and Meacham, N. (2011), “Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: the
role of supply chain management”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 101-116.
Coase, R.H. (1937), “The nature of the firm”, Economica, Vol. 4 No. 16, pp. 386-405.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management: more than a new name
for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Corbett, C.J. and De Croix, C.A. (2001), “Shared-savings contracts for indirect materials in Sustainable
supply chains: channel profits and environmental impacts”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 7, supply chain
pp. 881-893.
management
Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G. and Paglialunga, E. (2017), “Eco-innovation, sustainable supply
chains and environmental performance in European industries1”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 155, pp. 141-154.
Council, S.C. (2008), “Supply-chain operations reference-model”, Overview of SCOR Version, Vol. 5.
Curkovic, S. and Sroufe, R. (2011), “Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chain strategy”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 71-93.
Dam, L. and Petkova, B.N. (2014), “The impact of environmental supply chain sustainability programs
on shareholder wealth”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 586-609.
Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R. (2008), “Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability?”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-45.

Defee, C.C., Stank, T.P., Esper, T.L. and Mentzer, J.T. (2009), “The role of followers in supply chains”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 65-84.
Dekker, R., Bloemhof, J. and Mallidis, I. (2012), “Operations Research for green logistics–an overview of
aspects, issues, contributions and challenges”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 219 No. 3, pp. 671-679.
Deshmukh, S.P. and Sunnapwar, V.K. (2013), “Validation of performance measures for green supplier
selection in Indian industries”, International Journal of Modeling and Engineering Resources,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1617-1622.
Despeisse, M., Ball, P.D., Evans, S. and Levers, A. (2012), “Industrial ecology at factory level – a
conceptual model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 31, August, pp. 30-39.
Devika, K., Jafarian, A. and Nourbakhsh, V. (2014), “Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain
network based on triple bottom line approach: a comparison of meta-heuristics hybridization
techniques”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 235 No. 3, pp. 594-615.
Diabat, A. and Al-Salem, A.M. (2015), “An integrated supply chain problem with environmental
considerations”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 164, June, pp. 330-338.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Ali, S.S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between
leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance:
a framework for green supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160,
February, pp. 120-132.
Dubey, R., Bag, S., Ali, S.S. and Venkatesh, V.G. (2013), “Green purchasing is key to superior
performance: an empirical study”, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 187-210.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T. and Childe, S.J. (2015), “Green supply chain
management enablers: mixed methods research”, Sustainable Production and Consumption,
Vol. 4, October, pp. 72-88.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Wamba, S.F. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016), “The impact of big
data on world-class sustainable manufacturing”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 84 Nos 1-4, pp. 631-645.
Elkington, J. (1994), “Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable development”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Emberson, C. and Storey, J. (2006), “Buyer–supplier collaborative relationships: beyond the normative
accounts”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 236-245.
Eskandarpour, M., Dejax, P., Miemczyk, J. and Péton, O. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain network
design: an optimization-oriented review”, Omega, Vol. 54, July, pp. 11-32.
MEQ Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C., Taylor, M. and Taylor, A. (2014), “Sustainable supply chains: a
framework for environmental scanning practices”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 664-694.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Gunasekaran, A. and Farahani, R. (2017), “Decision models for sustainable supply
chain design and management”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 250 No. 2, pp. 277-278.
Faisal, M.N. (2010a), “Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 508-529.
Faisal, M.N. (2010b), “Analysing the barriers to corporate social responsibility in supply chains: an
interpretive structural modelling approach”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 179-195.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2007), “Supply chain risk management in SMEs: analysing
the barriers”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 4 No. 5,
pp. 588-607.
Fawcett, S.E., Ogden, J.A., Magnan, G.M. and Bixby Cooper, M. (2006), “Organisational commitment
and governance for supply chain success”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 22-35.
Ferretti, I., Zavanella Zanoni, S. and Diana, A.L. (2007), “Greening the aluminium supply chain”,
International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 108 Nos 1-2, pp. 236-245.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Dekker, R., Van der Laan, E., Van Nunen, J.A. and
Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1997), “Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), “Managing supplier sustainability risks in a
dynamically changing environment-sustainable supplier management in the chemical
industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K. and Kornilaki, M. (2008), “Sustainable supply chain management in
tourism”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 260-271.
Formentini, M. and Taticchi, P. (2016), “Corporate sustainability approaches and governance
mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112,
January, pp. 1920-1933.
Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F. and Castka, P. (2009), “Sustainability in the New Zealand wine
industry: drivers, stakeholders and practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 11,
pp. 992-998.
García-Arca, J., Prado-Prado, J.C. and Gonzalez-Portela Garrido, A.T. (2014), “ ‘Packaging logistics’:
promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Geldermann, J., Treitz, M. and Rentz, O. (2007), “Towards sustainable production networks”,
International Journal Production Research, Vol. 45 Nos 18-19, pp. 4207-4224.
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S.L. (2017), “Sustainable supply chain
management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications”,
Omega, Vol. 66, Special Issue, pp. 344-357.
Genovese, A., Lenny Koh, S.C., Bruno, G. and Esposito, E. (2013), “Greener supplier selection: state of
the art and some empirical evidence”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51
No. 10, pp. 2868-2886.
Gimenez, C. and Sierra, V. (2013), “Sustainable supply chains: governance mechanisms to greening
suppliers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 189-203.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 531-543.
Giunipero, L., Handfield, R. B. and Eltantawy, R. (2006), “Supply management’s evolution: key skill sets
for the supply manager of the future”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.S. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Sustainable
implications for management theory and research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 supply chain
No. 4, pp. 874-907.
Glover, J.L., Champion, D., Daniels, K.J. and Dainty, A.J.D. (2014), “An institutional theory perspective
management
on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 152, Special Issue, pp. 102-111.
Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2010a), “The constructs of sustainable supply chain management: a
content analysis based on published case studies”, Progress in Industrial Ecology, An
International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 114-137.
Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2010b), “Sustainable supply chain management and inter-
organisational resources: a literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Jabbour, C.J.C., Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2014), “Eco-efficiency based green supply
chain management: current status and opportunities”, European Journal Operations Research,
Vol. 2, Special Issue, pp. 293-298.
Govindan, K., Jafarian, A. and Nourbakhsh, V. (2015), “Bi-objective integrating sustainable order
allocation and sustainable supply chain network strategic design with stochastic demand using
a novel robust hybrid multi-objective metaheuristic”, Computational Operations Research,
Vol. 62, October, pp. 112-130.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D. and Haq, A.N. (2014), “Barriers analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, Special issue, pp. 555-568.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R. and Jafarian, A. (2013), “A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring
sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 47, Special Issue, pp. 345-354.
Govindan, K., Popiuc, M.N. and Diabat, A. (2013), “Overview of coordination contracts within forward
and reverse supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 47, Special Issue, pp. 319-334.
Grosvold, J., Hoejmose, S.U. and Roehrich, J.K. (2014), “Squaring the circle: management, measurement
and performance of sustainability in supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An
Gualandris, J. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2016), “Developing environmental and social performance: the
role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–supplier trust”, International Journal of Production
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain performance
measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Rahman, S. (2015), “Green supply chain collaboration and
incentives: current trends and future directions”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 74
No. 2015, pp. 1-10.
Gunson, A.J., Klein, B., Veiga, M. and Dunbar, S. (2010), “Reducing mine water network energy
requirements”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 13, pp. 1328-1338.
Haake, H. and Seuring, S. (2009), “Sustainable procurement of minor items–exploring limits to
sustainability”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 284-294.
Hagelaar, G.J. and van der Vorst, J.G. (2001), “Environmental supply chain management: using life
cycle assessment to structure supply chains”, The International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 399-412.
Hall, J. and Matos, S. (2010), “Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainable supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 1-2,
pp. 124-147.
Halldórsson, Á. and Kovács, G. (2010), “The sustainable agenda and energy efficiency: logistics
solutions and supply chains in times of climate change”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-13.
MEQ Hamner, B. (2006), “Effects of green purchasing strategies on supplier behaviour”, in Sarkis, J. (Ed.),
Greening the Supply Chain, Springer Publishing, London, pp. 25-37.
Harms, D., Hansen, E.G. and Schaltegger, S. (2013), “Strategies in sustainable supply chain
management: an empirical investigation of large German companies”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 205-218.
Hassini, E., Surti, C. and Searcy, C. (2012), “A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply
chains with a focus on metrics”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 69-82.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply chain
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-353.
Hillary, R. (Ed.) (2000), “Introduction”, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment:
Business Imperatives, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 11-22.
Hoejmose, S.U. and Adrien-Kirby, A.J. (2012), “Socially and environmentally responsible procurement:
a literature review and future research agenda of a managerial issue in the 21st century”, Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 232-242.

Hoetker, G. and Mellewigt, T. (2009), “Choice and performance of governance mechanisms:
matching alliance governance to asset type”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 10,
pp. 1025-1044.
Hsueh, C.F. (2015), “A bi-level programming model for corporate social responsibility collaboration
in sustainable supply chain management”, Transportation Research, Vol. 73, January,
pp. 84-95.
Hussain, M. (2011), “Modelling the enablers and alternatives for sustainable supply chain
management”, MS thesis, Department of Information Systems Engineering, Concordia
University, Montreal.
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 No. 15,
pp. 1688-1698.
Igarashi, M., de Boer, L. and Fet, A.M. (2013), “What is required for greener supplier selection? A
literature review and conceptual model development”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Ilgin, M.A. and Gupta, S.M. (2010), “Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery
(ECMPRO): a review of the state of the art”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91
No. 3, pp. 563-591.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. (2016), “Green human resource management and green
supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Jakhar, S.K. (2015), “Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision model for a sustainable
supply chain of an apparel industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87, January,
pp. 391-413.
Ji, G., Gunasekaran, A. and Yang, G. (2014), “Constructing sustainable supply chain under double
environmental medium regulations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147,
Special Issue, pp. 211-219.
Ji, P., Ma, X. and Li, G. (2015), “Developing green purchasing relationships for the manufacturing
industry: an evolutionary game theory perspective”, International Journal Production
Economics, Vol. 166, August, pp. 155-162.
Jørgensen, I.L. and Knudsen, J.S. (2006), Sustainable Competitiveness in Global Value Chains: How do
Danish Small Firms Behave, The Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen.
Kache, F. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance in
supply chains via a review of literature reviews”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5-6, pp. 664-682.
Kainuma, Y. and Tawara, N. (2006), “A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green Sustainable
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 101 No. 1, supply chain
pp. 99-108.
management
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 No. 3, pp. 175-179.
Khalid, R.U., Seuring, S., Beske, P., Land, A., Yawar, S.A. and Wagner, R. (2015), “Putting sustainable
supply chain management into base of the pyramid research”, Supply Chain Management: An
Khodakarami, M., Shabani, A., Saen, R.F. and Azadi, M. (2015), “Developing distinctive two-stage data
envelopment analysis models: an application in evaluating the sustainability of supply chain
management”, Measurement, Vol. 70, June, pp. 62-74.
Klassen, R.D. (2001), “Plant-level environmental management orientation: the influence of management
views and plant characteristics”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 257-275.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operations management”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Kostin, A., Guillen-Gosalbez, G. and Jimenez, L. (2015), “Dimensionality reduction applie to the
simultaneous optimization of the economic and life cycle environment performance of supply
chains”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 159, January, pp. 223-232.
Krause, D.R., Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2009), “Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain
management: introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing management”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 18-25.
Kuik, S.S., Verl Nagalingam, S. and Amer, Y. (2011), “Sustainable supply chain for collaborative
manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 984-1001.
Kuo, R.J., Wang, Y.C. and Tien, F.C. (2010), “Integration of artificial neural network and MADA
methods for green supplier selection”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 12,
pp. 1161-1170.
Lee, I. and Lee, B.C. (2010), “An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technologies:
a normative modeling approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 125 No. 2,
pp. 313-323.
Lee, K.H. and Wu, Y. (2014), “Integrating sustainability performance measurement into logistics and
supply networks: a multi-methodological approach”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 361-378.
Lee, S.Y. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management
capabilities in small‐and medium‐sized suppliers in supply chains”, Production and Operations
Leire, C. and Mont, O. (2010), “The implementation of socially responsible purchasing”, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S. and Langevin, A. (2014), “Inter-firm collaborations and supply chain
coordination: review of key elements and case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25
No. 10, pp. 858-872.
Lehtinen, J. and Ahola, T. (2010), “Is performance measurement suitable for an extended enterprise?”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 181-204.
Li, C. (2013), “An integrated approach to evaluating the production system in closed-loop supply
chains”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 13, pp. 4045-4069.
Li, X. and Li, Y. (2016), “Chain-to-chain competition on product sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082.
MEQ Liu, S., Kasturiratne, D. and Moizer, J. (2012), “A hub-and-spoke model for multi-dimensional
integration of green marketing and sustainable supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 581-588.
Lorek, S. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2014), “Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – beyond
green growth and green economies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 63, Special Issue, pp. 33-44.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2011), “Barriers to implement green supply chain
management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: an Indian
perspective”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 231-257.
Mani, V., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2015), “Supply chain social sustainability: a comparative case
analysis in indian manufacturing industries”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 189,
Markley, M.J. and Davis, L. (2007), “Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable
supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 37
No. 9, pp. 763-774.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A. and Geng, Y. (2013), “An ISM approach for the barrier
analysis in implementing green supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Matopoulos, A., Manthou, V. and Vlachopoulou, M. (2007), “Integrating supply chain operations
in the internet era”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 305-314.
Matos, S. and Hall, J. (2007), “Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life
cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology”, Journal of Operations
Mazhar, M.I., Kara, S. and Kaebernick, H. (2007), “Remaining life estimation of used components in
consumer products: life cycle data analysis by Weibull and artificial neural networks”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1184-1193.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-1238.
Min, H. and Kim, I. (2012), “Green supply chain research: past, present, and future”, Logistics Research,
Vol. 4 Nos 1-2, pp. 39-47.
Mirkouei, A., Haapala, K.R., Sessions, J. and Murthy, G.S. (2017), “A mixed biomass-based energy
supply chain for enhancing economic and environmental sustainability benefits: a multi-criteria
decision making framework”, Applied Energy, Vol. 206, November, pp. 1088-1101.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Rajesh, R. and Paul, S.K. (2018), “Modeling the interrelationships among
barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 181, pp. 631-651.
Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A. and Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. (2015), “Towards supply chain
sustainability: environmental and social design and planning”, Journal Cleaner Production,
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2009), “Greening the supply chain practices: an Indian
perspective of enablers’ relationships”, International Journal of Advanced Operations
Management, Vol. 1 Nos 2-3, pp. 151-176.
Nagurney, A. and Toyasaki, F. (2003), “Supply chain super-networks and environmental criteria”,
Transportation Research: Part D, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 185-213.
Nagurney, A. and Yu, M. (2012), “Sustainable fashion supply chain management under oligopolistic
competition and brand differentiation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135
No. 2, pp. 532-540.
Nassimbeni, G. (2004), “Supply chains: a network perspective”, in New, S. and Westbrook, R. (Eds),
Understanding Supply Chains: Concepts, Critiques and Futures, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 43-68.
Neumüller, K., Kellner, F., Gupta, J.N.D. and Lasch, R. (2015), “Integrating three-dimensional Sustainable
sustainability in distribution centre selection: the process analysis method-based analytic supply chain
network process”, International Journal Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 409-434.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010), “Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer
management
and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”, Journal of Operations
Olugu, E.U., Wong, K.Y. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2011), “Development of key performance measures for
the automobile green supply chain”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 567-579.
Ortas, E., M. Moneva, J. and Álvarez, I. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain and company performance:
a global examination”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 332-350.
Pagell, M. and Shevchenko, A. (2014), “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain
management using case studies of 10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 37-56.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z. and Murthy, N.N. (2007), “The supply chain implications of recycling”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z. and Wasserman, M.E. (2010), “Thinking differently about purchasing portfolios:
an assessment of sustainable sourcing”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 57-73.
Paulraj, A. (2009), “Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact on
environmental strategies and practices”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18
No. 7, pp. 453-468.
Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G. and Wilson, H. (2012), “The governance of supply networks: a systematic
literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 358-376.
Pishvaee, M.S. and Razmi, J. (2012), “Environmental supply chain network design using
multi-objective fuzzy mathematical programming”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36
No. 8, pp. 3433-3446.
Pishvaee, M.S., Razmi, J. and Torabi, S.A. (2014), “An accelerated Benders decomposition
algorithm for sustainable supply chain network design under uncertainty: a case study of
medical needle and syringe supply chain”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 67, July,
pp. 14-38.
Preuss, L. (2005), “Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain
management function”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 123-139.
Rager, M., Gahm, C. and Denz, F. (2015), “Energy-oriented scheduling based on evolutionary
algorithms”, Computational Operations Research, Vol. 54, February, pp. 218-231.
Rajak, S. and Vinodh, S. (2015), “Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance
evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 108, December, pp. 1184-1192.
Ramanathan, R., Black, A., Nath, P. and Muyldermans, L. (2010), “Impact of environmental regulations
on innovation and performance in the UK industrial sector”, Management Decision, Vol. 48
No. 10, pp. 1493-1513.
Ramanathan, U., Bentley, Y. and Pang, G. (2014), “The role of collaboration in the UK green supply
chains: an exploratory study of the perspectives of suppliers, logistics and retailers”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 70, pp. 231-241.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,
pp. 898-916.
MEQ Raut, R.D., Kamble, S.S., Kharat, M.G. and Kamble, S.J. (2015), “Decision support system framework for
performance based evaluation and ranking system of carry and forward agents”, Strategic
Outsourcing: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-52.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
Reefke, H., Ahmed, M.D. and Sundaram, D. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management—decision
making and support: the SSCM maturity model and system”, Global Business Review, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 1-12.
ReVelle, C.S. and Eiselt, H.A. (2005), “Location analysis: a synthesis and survey”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 165 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Revell, A. and Rutherfoord, R. (2003), “UK environmental policy and the small firm: broadening the
focus”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 26-35.
Roberts, S. (2003), “Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing
initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Roehrich, J.K., Lewis, M.A. and George, G. (2014), “Are public–private partnerships a healthy option? A
systematic literature review”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 113, July, pp. 110-119.
Rumelt, R.P. (1974), “Strategy, structure, and economic performance”.
Rusinko, C. (2007), “Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally sustainable
manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 445-454.
Rybicka, J., Tiwari, A., Del Campo, P.A. and Howarth, J. (2015), “Capturing composites manufacturing
waste flows through process mapping”, Journal Cleaner Production, Vol. 91, March , pp. 251-261.
Saaty, T.L. (1990), “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Saint Jean, M. (2008), “Polluting emissions standards and clean technology trajectories
under competitive selection and supply chain pressure”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 113-123.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Sbihi, A. and Eglese, R.W. (2007), “The relationship between vehicle routing & scheduling and green
logistics - a literature survey.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.L. (2010), “Sustainability accounting for companies: catchphrase
or decision support for business leaders?”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 375-384.
Searcy, C., Karapetrovic, S. and McCartney, D. (2009), “Designing corporate sustainable
development indicators: reflections on a process”, Environmental Quality Management,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
Seuring, S. (2013), “A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 1513-1520.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.
Seuring, S.A. (2008), “Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 128-137.
Sharma, S. and Ruud, A. (2003), “On the path to sustainability: integrating social dimensions into the
research and practice of environmental management”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 205-214.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Ecocentric management for a risk society”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 118-137.
Simões, M., Carvalho, A., de Freitas, C.L. and Barbósa-Póvoa, A. (2014), “How to assess social Sustainable
aspects in supply chains?”, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Vol. 34, Elsevier, supply chain
pp. 801-806.
management
Simpson, D. and Samson, D. (2008), “Developing strategies for green supply chain management”,
Decision Line, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 12-15.
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. and Dikshit, A.K. (2009), “An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 189-212.
Sitek, P. and Wikarek, J. (2015), “A hybrid framework for the modelling and optimisation of decision
problems in sustainable supply chain management”, International Journal of Production
Smith, L. and Ball, P. (2012), “Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modelling
material, energy and waste flows”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 227-238.
Sonneson, U. and Berlin, J. (2003), “Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in Sweden: a
scenario study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Soysal, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Haijema, R. and van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2015), “Modeling an
inventory routing problem for perishable products with environmental considerations and
demand uncertainty”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 164, June, pp. 366-378.
Spence, L. and Bourlakis, M. (2009), “The evolution from corporate social responsibility to supply chain
responsibility: the case of Waitrose”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 291-302.
Sroufe, R. (2003), “Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management
practices and operations”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 416-431.
Su, C., Horng, D., Tseng, M., Chiu, A.S.F. and Wu, K. (2016), “Improving sustainable supply chain
management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 134 No. Part B, pp. 469-481.
Tajbakhsh, A. and Hassini, E. (2015), “A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate
sustainability in supply chain networks”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 105, Special
Issue, pp. 74-85.
Tang, C.S. and Zhou, S. (2012), “Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable
operations”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 223 No. 3, pp. 585-594.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M. and Kirchoff, J.F. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reports: a thematic
analysis related to supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Pasqualino, R. (2013), “Performance measurement of sustainable supply
chains: a literature review and a research agenda”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 782-804.
Tejpal, G., Garg, R.K. and Sachdeva, A. (2013), “Trust among supply chain partners: a review”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Tencati, A., Russo, A. and Quaglia, V. (2010), “Sustainability along the global supply chain: the case of
Vietnam”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 91-107.
Tonelli, F., Evans, S. and Taticchi, P. (2013), “Industrial sustainability: challenges,
perspectives, actions”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 143-163.
Touboulic, A. and Walker, H. (2015), “Theories in sustainable supply chain management: a structured
literature review”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 45 Nos 1-2, pp. 16-42.
MEQ Tsao, Y.C., Thanh, V.V., Lu, J.C. and Yu, V. (2018), “Designing sustainable supply chain networks under
uncertain environments: fuzzy multi-objective programming”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 174, February, pp. 1550-1565.
Tseng, M., Lim, M. and Wong, W.P. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop
network hierarchical approach”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 3,
pp. 436-461.
Tseng, S.C. and Hung, S.W. (2014), “A strategic decision-making model considering the social costs of
carbon dioxide emissions for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 133, January, pp. 315-322.
Turker, D. and Altuntas, C. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion
industry: an analysis of corporate reports”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 837-849.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of
upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2007), “Supply chain management and environmental technologies: the
role of integration”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 401-423.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing performance:
the role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
Validi, S., Bhattacharya, A. and Byrne, P.J. (2015), “A solution method for a two-layer sustainable
supply chain distribution model”, Computational Operations Research, Vol. 54, February,
pp. 204-217.
van der Heijden, A., Cramer, J.M. and Driessen, P.P. (2012), “Change agent sensemaking for
sustainability in a multinational subsidiary”, Journal of Organisational Change Management,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 535-559.
Van Hemel, C. and Cramer, J. (2002), “Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs”, Journal of Cleaner
van Hoof, B. and Thiell, M. (2014), “Collaboration capacity for sustainable supply chain
management: small and medium-sized enterprises in Mexico”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 67, March, pp. 239-248.
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 No. 3,
pp. 223-243.
Varnäs, A., Balfors, B. and Faith-Ell, C. (2009), “Environmental consideration in procurement of
construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in green procurement in the
Swedish construction industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 13,
pp. 1214-1222.
Verghese, K. and Lewis, H. (2007), “Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain
approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 Nos 18-19, pp. 4381-4401.
Vermeulen, W.J. and Seuring, S. (2009), “Sustainability through the market–the impacts of
sustainable supply chain management: introduction”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 269-273.
Vojdani, N. and Lootz, F. (2012), “Designing supply chain networks for the offshore wind energy
industry”, International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, Vol. 4
Nos 3-4, pp. 271-284.
Vurro, C., Russo, A. and Perrini, F. (2009), “Shaping sustainable value chains: network determinants of
supply chain governance models”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 607-621.
Waheed, B., Khan, F. and Veitch, B. (2009), “Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment:
making a case for driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks”,
Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 441-463.
Walker, H. and Jones, N. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector”, Sustainable
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 15-28. supply chain
Walker, H. and Preuss, L. (2008), “Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses: management
public sector perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1600-1609.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain
management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Wang, F., Lai, X. and Shi, N. (2011), “A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain network
design”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 262-269.
Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F. and Zhao, J.H. (2009), “Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid
in sustainable energy decision-making”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13
No. 9, pp. 2263-2278.
Wiese, A., Kellner, J., Lietke, B., Toporowski, W. and Zielke, S. (2012), “Sustainability in retailing–a
summative content analysis”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 318-335.

Williamson, O.E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford University Press.
Williamson, O.E. (1998), “The institutions of governance”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 88
No. 2, pp. 75-79.
Winter, M. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2013), “Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain
management: Current state and opportunities for future inquiry”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 18-38.
Wittstruck, D. and Teuteberg, F. (2012), “Understanding the success factors of sustainable
supply chain management: empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics
industry”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 141-158.
Wolf, J. (2011), “Sustainable supply chain management integration: a qualitative analysis of the
German manufacturing industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 221-235.
Wu, Z. and Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: decision-making in sustainable supply chain
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 577-590.
Xie, G. (2016), “Cooperative strategies for sustainability in a decentralized supply chain with competing
suppliers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 113, February, pp. 807-821.
Yura, K. (1994), “Production scheduling to satisfy worker’s preferences for days off and
overtime under due-date constraints”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 265-270.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 330-340.
Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2013), “Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving
and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40,
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y. and Choi, S.B. (2017), “The role of customer relational governance in environmental
and economic performance improvement through green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 155, pp. 46-53.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: drivers, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 449-468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2013), “Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of
internal and external green supply chain management practices”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
MEQ Further reading
Acquaye, A., Genovese, A., Barrett, J. and Lenny Koh, S.C. (2014), “Benchmarking carbon emissions
performance in supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 306-321.
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012), “Sustainable supply management: an empirical
study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 168-182.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J. and Wei, X. (2010), “Addressing key sustainable supply chain management
issues using rough set methodology”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 12,
pp. 1113-1127.
Beamon, B.M. (2005), “Environmental and sustainability ethics in supply chain management”, Science
and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 221-234.
Benn, S., Edwards, M. and Angus-Leppan, T. (2013), “Organisational learning and the sustainability
community of practice: the role of boundary objects”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 184-202.
Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P.K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M.K. and Nudurupati, S.S.
(2014), “Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced
scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25
No. 8, pp. 698-714.
Burritt, R. and Schaltegger, S. (2014), “Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply
chains”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 327-343.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A. and Paquet, M. (2010), “A two-phase multi-criteria decision support
system for supply chain management”, International Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 372-390.
Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T. and Huang, S.F. (2006), “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102 No. 2,
pp. 289-301.
Cheng, J.H. and Fu, Y.C. (2013), “Inter-organisational relationships and knowledge sharing through the
relationship and institutional orientations in supply chains”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 473-484.
Choon Tan, K., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D. (2002), “Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 614-631.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, The International Journal of
Clifford Defee, C. and Fugate, B.S. (2010), “Changing perspective of capabilities in the dynamic
supply chain era”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 180-206.
Colicchia, C., Melacini, M. and Perotti, S. (2011), “Benchmarking supply chain sustainability: insights
from a field study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 705-732.
Cote, R.P., Lopez, J., Marche, S., Perron, G.M. and Wright, R. (2008), “Influences, practices and
opportunities for environmental supply chain management in Nova Scotia SMEs”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1561-1570.
Croom, S., Romano, P. and Giannakis, M. (2000), “Supply chain management: an analytical framework
for critical literature review”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Croxton, K.L., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J., Lambert, D.M. and Rogers, D.S. (2001), “The supply chain management
processes”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 13-36.
Darlington, R. and Rahimifard, S. (2007), “Hybrid two-stage planning for food industry
overproduction waste minimization”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45
Nos 18-19, pp. 4273-4288.
Davies, I.A. and Crane, A. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility in small-and medium-size enterprises: Sustainable
investigating employee engagement in fair trade companies”, Business Ethics: A European supply chain
Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 126-139.
management
Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011), “An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation
of green supply chain management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 659-667.
Dong, Y., Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M.E. (2001), “JIT purchasing and performance: an exploratory
analysis of buyer and supplier perspectives”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 471-483.
Dos Santos, B.L. and Smith, L.S. (2008), “RFID in the supply chain: panacea or Pandora’s box?”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 127-131.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management: theoretical
framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 184-218.
Elgazzar, S.H., Tipi, N.S., Hubbard, N.J. and Leach, D.Z. (2012), “Linking supply chain processes’
performance to a company’s financial strategic objectives”, European Journal of Operational
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S. and Ramayah, T. (2011), “Green supply chain initiatives among certified
companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the outcomes”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 495-506.
Feng, S., Li, L.X., Duan, Z.G. and Zhang, J.L. (2007), “Assessing the impacts of south-to-north water transfer
project with decision support systems”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 1989-2003.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2012), “Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between
economic and environmental aspects”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 92-102.
Fink, A. (1998), Conducting Research Literature Review: From Paper to Internet, SagePublications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fransoo, J.C. and Wouters, M.J. (2000), “Measuring the bullwhip effect in the supply chain”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain
strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Glenn Richey, R. Jr, Chen, H., Upreti, R., Fawcett, S.E. and Adams, F.G. (2009), “The moderating
role of barriers on the relationship between drivers to supply chain integration and firm
performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39
No. 10, pp. 826-840.
Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T. and Ambursa, H.M. (2012), “Sustainable
supply chain management: a case study of british aerospace (BAe) systems”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 193-203.
Griffiths, A. and Petrick, J.A. (2001), “Corporate architectures for sustainability”, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1573-1585.
Grinde, J. and Khare, A. (2008), “The ant, the grasshopper Or schrödinger’s cat: an exploration of
concepts of sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 115-141.
Guang Shi, V., Lenny Koh, S.C., Baldwin, J. and Cucchiella, F. (2012), “Natural resource based green
supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 54-67.
Gungor, A. and Gupta, S.M. (1999), “Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product
recovery: a survey”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 811-853.
Harland, C. (1997), “Supply chain operational performance roles”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 70-78.
MEQ Harris, I., Naim, M., Palmer, A., Potter, A. and Mumford, C. (2011), “Assessing the impact of cost
optimization based on infrastructure modelling on CO 2 emissions”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 313-321.
Huang, X.Y., Yan, N.N. and Qui, R.Z. (2009), “Dynamic models of closed-loop supply chain and robust
H∞ control strategies”, International Journal Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 227-300.
Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Melis, M. and Frey, M. (2011), “A literature review on the links between
environmental regulation and competitiveness”, Environmental Policy and Governance, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 210-222.
Jahre, M. and Heigh, I. (2008), “Does the current constraints in funding promote failure in humanitarian
supply chains?”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 44-54.
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R. and Boyd, C. (2007), “A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service
provision”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 618-644.
Kapur, K.C. and Lamberson, L.R. (1997), Reliability in Engineering Design, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Kim, I. and Min, H. (2011), “Measuring supply chain efficiency from a green perspective”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1169-1189.
Kjaerheim, G. (2005), “Cleaner production and sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 329-339.
Kleber, R., Zanoni, S. and Zavanella, L. (2011), “On how buyback and remanufacturing strategies affect
the profitability of spare parts supply chains”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 135-142.
Koh, S.L., Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Barratt, P., Rana, N., Kuylenstierna, J. and Gibbs, D. (2013),
“Decarbonising product supply chains: design and development of an integrated evidence-based
decision support system–the supply chain environmental analysis tool (SCEnAT)”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 2092-2109.
Kumar, R., Singh, R.K. and Shankar, R. (2015), “Critical success factors for implementation of supply
chain management in Indian small and medium enterprises and their impact on performance”,
IIMB Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 92-104.
Laeequddin, M., Sahay, B.S., Sahay, V. and Abdul Waheed, K. (2010), “Measuring trust in supply chain
partners’ relationships”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 53-69.
Laeequddin, M., Sahay, B.S., Sahay, V. and Abdul Waheed, K. (2012), “Trust building in supply chain
partners relationship: an integrated conceptual model”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 550-564.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Lazzarini, S., Chaddad, F. and Cook, M. (2001), “Integrating supply chain and network analyses: the
study of net-chains”, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Lehtonen, M. (2004), “The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities,
social capital, institutions”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 199-214.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2008), “An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt
green innovations”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2009), “RFID technology adoption and supply chain performance: an empirical
study in China’s logistics industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 369-378.
Mangla, S., Kumar, P. and Barua, M.K. (2014), “An evaluation of attribute for improving the green
supply chain performance via DEMATEL method”, International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering & Robotics Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-35.
Marra, M., Ho, W. and Edwards, J.S. (2012), “Supply chain knowledge management: a literature
review”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 6103-6110.
Meade, L. and Sarkis, J. (1998), “Strategic analysis of logistics and supply chain management systems Sustainable
using the analytical network process”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and supply chain
Transportation Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 201-215.
management
Melnyk, S.A., Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J., Burns, L.J. and Sandor, J. (2009), “Mapping the future of
supply chain management: a Delphi study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47
No. 16, pp. 4629-4653.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 1-2,
pp. 14-41.
Montoya-Torres, J.R. and Ortiz-Vargas, D.A. (2014), “Collaboration and information sharing in dyadic
supply chains: a literature review over the period 2000-2012”, Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 30
No. 133, pp. 343-354.
Mouzon, G., Yildirim, M.B. and Twomey, J. (2007), “Operational methods for minimization of energy
consumption of manufacturing equipment”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45 Nos 18-19, pp. 4247-4271.
Narasimhan, R. and Kim, S.W. (2002), “Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship between
diversification and performance: evidence from Japanese and Korean firms”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 303-323.
Naslund, D. and Williamson, S. (2010), “What is management in supply chain management?-a critical
review of definitions, frameworks and terminology”, Journal of Management Policy and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 11-28.
Neto, J.Q.F., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Nunen, J.A. and van Heck, E. (2008), “Designing and
evaluating sustainable logistics networks”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Nishat Faisal, M. (2010), “Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 508-529.
Nishat Faisal, M., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2007), “Information risks management in supply
chains: an assessment and mitigation framework”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Ocampo, L.A. and Clark, E.E. (2014), “Developing a framework for sustainable manufacturing
strategies selection”, DLSU Business and Economics Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Oke, A. and Gopalakrishnan, M. (2009), “Managing disruptions in supply chains: a case study of a retail
supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 168-174.
Olga, C.H.K.A.N.I.K.O.V.A. (2012), Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Theoretical Literature
Overview, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University.
Oxborrow, L. and Brindley, C. (2014), “Disintermediation in the apparel supply chain”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 252-268.
Panayides, P.M. and Lun, Y.V. (2009), “The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Papageorgiou, L.G. (2009), “Supply chain optimisation for the process industries: advances and
opportunities”, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 1931-1938.
Perrini, F., Castaldo, S., Misani, N. and Tencati, A. (2010), “The impact of corporate social responsibility
associations on trust in organic products marketed by mainstream retailers: a study of Italian
consumers”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 512-526.
Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term
relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration”, International
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. (2009), “Food for thought: social versus environmental
sustainability practices and performance outcomes”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 38-54.
MEQ Rajaguru, R. and Matanda, M.J. (2013), “Effects of inter-organizational compatibility on supply chain
capabilities: exploring the mediating role of inter-organisational information systems (IOIS)
integration”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 620-632.
Samaranayake, P. (2005), “A conceptual framework for supply chain management: a structural
integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Sambasivan, M. and Nget Yen, C. (2010), “Strategic alliances in a manufacturing supply chain:
Influence of organizational culture from the manufacturer’s perspective”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 456-474.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organisational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Seuring, S. (2004), “Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative analysis
and illustrative cases”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 1059-1071.
Seuring, S. and Gold, S. (2012), “Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 544-555.
Shanks, G., Sharma, R., Seddon, P. and Reynolds, P. (2010), “The impact of strategy and maturity on
business analytics and firm performance: a review and research agenda”.
Shepherd, C. and Günter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future
directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Nos 3-4,
pp. 242-258.
Singh, R.K. (2015), “Modeling of critical factors for responsiveness in supply chain”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 868-888.
Solér, C., Bergström, K. and Shanahan, H. (2010), “Green supply chains and the missing link between
environmental information and practice”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Souza, G.C. (2013), “Closed-loop supply chains: a critical review, and future research”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 7-38.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chain management: a state-of‐the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Sundarakani, B., De Souza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, S.M. and Manikandan, S. (2010), “Modeling carbon
footprints across the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 128
No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Tan, K.C. (2001), “A framework of supply chain management literature”, European Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011), “Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain
risk management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Towill, D.R. (2005), “The impact of business policy on bullwhip induced risk in supply chain
management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 35
No. 8, pp. 555-575.
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 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P. (2006), “Environmental principles applicable to supply chains design
and operation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 18, pp. 1593-1602.
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273-315.
Vilko, J.P. and Hallikas, J.M. (2012), “Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains”, International
Walsh, W.E., Wellman, M.P. and Ygge, F. (2000), “Combinatorial auctions for supply chain formation”,
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 260-269.
Wolf, J. (2014), “The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder Sustainable
pressure and corporate sustainability performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 3, supply chain
pp. 317-328.
Wynarczyk, P. and Watson, R. (2005), “Firm growth and supply chain partnerships: an empirical
management
analysis of UK SME subcontractors”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Xiao, T., Shi, K. and Yang, D. (2010), “Coordination of a supply chain with consumer return under
demand uncertainty”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 171-180.
Yalabik, B. and Fairchild, R.J. (2011), “Customer, regulatory, and competitive pressure as drivers of
environmental innovation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 2,
pp. 519-527.
Yang, G.F., Wang, Z.P. and Li, X.Q. (2009), “The optimization of the closed-loop supply chain network”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 16-28.
Yung, W.K.C., Chan, H.K., Wong, D.W.C., So, J.H.T., Choi, A.C.K. and Yue, T.M. (2012), “Eco-redesign of
a personal electronic product subject to the energy-using product directive”, International
Journal Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1411-1423.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., El-Berishy, N.M., Abubakar, T. and Ambursa, H.M. (2013),
“The UK oil and gas supply chains: An empirical analysis of adoption of sustainable measures
and performance outcomes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 146 No. 2,
pp. 501-514.
Zhou, H. and Benton, W.C. (2007), “Supply chain practice and information sharing”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1348-1365.
Zhou, Y.W., Min, J. and Goyal, S.K. (2008), “Supply-chain coordination under an inventory-level-dependent
demand rate”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 518-527.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T. and Hashimoto, S. (2010), “Green supply chain management in leading
manufacturers: case studies in Japanese large companies”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380-392.
Corresponding author
Vipul Jain can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

GSCM4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSCM4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSCM4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

Sustainable supply chain management: A review of literature and implications for

Downloaded on: 09 June 2018, At: 23:21 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A review of literature and implications

2. SSCM: definition and evolution of SSCM

3. Detailed review of literature: context setting

A profound and thorough literature survey helped in understanding that sustainability is

4.1 Environmental perspectives of SSCM

Green Packaging Code of Conduct Governance

Logistics optimization Regulations

Reverse Logistics Profitability

Product Stewardship Figure 2.

4.2 Social perspectives of SSCM

reduction maintenance, and decommissioning add up to pollution level (2012),

refurbishment remanufacturing and recycling, with the

11. Information The implementation of green initiatives requires Wu and Pagell

While environmental sustainability is focused on conservation of natural resources,

4.3 Economic perspectives of SSCM

welfare at all times

4.4 Governance perspectives of SSCM

transparency to create a transition towards a more sustainable supply. Brindley and

involvement of consumers was found to be instrumental (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017).

1. Governance In order to implement and control sustainability Gimenez and Tachizawa

governance parameters and impose their decisions

4.5 Performance measurement perspectives of SSCM

4.6 Modeling approaches in SSCM

3. Certifications Environmental certification controls the impact Grosvold et al. (2014)

Authors have concluded that research on SSCM is dominated by qualitative research

Devika et al. SSCM MOLP Quantitative modeling of social impacts Economic,

Govindan, SSCM MCDM technique Sustainable SC initiatives for evaluation of Economic,

Table VII. (continued )

(2015) the three dimensions of sustainability; environmental,

(continued ) Table VII.

a substantial reduction in number of

and MCDM alternatives in case of incomplete environmental,

4.7 Enablers and barriers

inhibitors or barriers of SSCM. In order to successfully implement the SSC practices, it is

4.8 Integrated approaches in SSCM

1. Top management support Cetinkaya et al. (2011), Govindan et al. (2014),

structured literature review focusing on three categories, i.e. research methodology,

4.9 Extending the SSC practices to suppliers

For extending sustainability to suppliers, supplier development initiatives can be

6. Gaps in literature and future directions

• collaborative relationships between suppliers and customers for better

in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 2319-1163.

Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.

Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-45.

of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 232-242.

Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 318-335.

You might also like