Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PII: S0959-6526(19)31985-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.032
Please cite this article as: Fabíola Negreiros de Oliveira, Adriana Leiras, Paula Ceryno,
Environmental risk management in supply chains: a taxonomy, a framework and future research
avenues, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.032
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
b Industrial Engineering Department, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil;
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
[88887091739/2014-01, Finance Code 001]; and Foundation for Support of Research in the State of
1. Introduction
Several risks emanate from supply chains, and managers have to be aware of these risks
(Hofmann et al., 2014). According to Bode et al. (2011), the risks materialise due to an
interruption somewhere in the chain, which subsequently clogs the flow of materials,
funds or information between the tiers of the supply chain. Ferreira et al. (2018) state
that companies must have a proper Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) to survive
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
in a risky business environment. Thus, understanding how to mitigate these risks and
manage supply chain risk has become a priority issue to prevent potential losses (Manuj
and Mentzer, 2008a,b; Trkman and McCormack, 2009; Merz et al., 2013; Hofmann et
al., 2014; Zimmer et al., 2017); poor relationships with other members of the supply
chain, and conflict between stakeholders (Cousins et al., 2004; Cunha et al., 2019).
Some global events such as the Kodaikanal mercury poisoning in India (2001),
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (2010), the explosions from hazardous chemicals at
(2015), and the Brazilian damming ruptures (2015 and 2019), highlight some
environmental damages in the supply chains of large firms. The negligence on the
environmental risks that arise due to companies’ operations and their interactions with
The risks related to the environmental dimension of the Triple Bottom Line,
initially proposed by Elkington (1994), are part of what researchers call sustainability-
related risks (Hofmann et al., 2014; Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016), where
sustainable development means achieving a more equal usage of natural resources that
paper, environmental risks are defined as ecological risks that represent the threats of
adverse effects on living organisms and the environment from emissions, effluents,
wastes and resource depletion arising from supply chain activities (Levner and Ptuskin,
2018).
In this sense, it is not a surprise that, due to increasing diversity and the growing
size of supply chains, environmental issues have today become a challenging research
topic in supply chain risk management (Levner and Puskin, 2018). Driven by increasing
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
organisations (Marconi et al., 2017), environmental practices are gaining attention from
both academia and industry. However, much still needs to be done concerning this
Ravindran, 2018).
Hofmann et al. (2014) acknowledge that supply chain risk management has
largely overlooked ecological issues in supply chain operations. Freise and Seuring
(2015) indicate that many studies in supply chain risk management do not incorporate
ecological issues and focus on risk management in a purely economic way. Rebs et al.
(2019) also highlight that in supply chain management studies there is no explicit focus
important trend includes the need to address stakeholder effects on the supply chain risk
(2018), the risks caused by supplier irresponsibility due to the lack of ethical and
environmental standards have only recently become a noticeable topic within the field
In light of the above, the present research aims to explore the environmental
risks in supply chains, addressing the consequences that these risks may generate for a
company and the strategies to mitigate them. More specifically, this paper aims to
strategies addressed by the academic literature and how often do they appear?
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RQ2: How do the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies relate to one
with these risks. This paper also provides an environmental risk management
This paper endorses the supply chain risk management discussion since it
introduces the environmental perspective and addresses the stakeholder effects, through
the consequences that can be felt by companies. As a theoretical contribution, this study
presents a systematic literature review, which has the ability to be replicated in the
future and allows to avoid biases through more rigorous and objective criteria
(Evangelista et al., 2018). The critical analysis and synthesis provided by this paper
also may generate insights for practitioners on how to manage environmental supply
chain risks. The proposed taxonomies can be used as a guide to identify the relevant
environmental risks for their supply chains, as well as the related consequences and
The following section describes the methodology adopted for this study. The
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2. Research Methodology
The present section describes the methodology adopted in conducting the systematic
literature review (SLR) in the field of environmental risks in supply chains. According
to Berends and Van der Bij (2006), systematic reviews increase the chance of finding
much of the relevant literature on the subject, reducing the likelihood of a partial
review, and thus increase the reliability of the research. Parahoo (2006) points out that
SLRs detail the timeframe within which the literature was selected, as well as the
methods used to evaluate and synthesise the findings of the studies in question. To
conduct the SLR, we adapted the review processes proposed by Thomé et al. (2016) and
Evangelista et al. (2018). The work of Thomé et al. (2016), which describes the SLR as
a method composed by eight steps, has been used to identify the different steps in each
of the three main phases adapted from Evangelista et al. (2018). Figure 1 presents the
SLR process:
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
literature to ensure replicability of the method. The approach follows the principles of
relevant papers in the analysis - where the steps are standardised and replicable, and
Having delineated the aims of the review, the main issues regarding the
investigated topic and the formulation of research questions in the introductory section,
the second phase details how the review process has been implemented. Firstly, the
Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected as per Mongeon and Paul-Hus
(2016), who indicate that the use of both databases for research evaluation favour
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Natural Sciences and Engineering and, when used together, broaden the research and
reduce the possibility of bias related to journals indexed exclusively in one of the
databases. Moreover, this searching procedure is broadly accepted and has been adopted
in previous literature reviews (e.g. Marchet et al., 2014; Ellram and Murfield, 2017;
Regarding keywords search, the study considered the two following groups of
keywords, which were defined based on previous research. The keywords were strictly
defined, enough to exclude undesirable results but also sufficiently broad to avoid any
artificial limitation on the retrieved papers (Cooper 2010; Thomé et al. 2012):
• The keywords of group 1 were defined to address the field of risk management
in the supply chain following previous papers on the topic (Ho et al., 2015):
and “green”.
The keywords of group 1 and group 2 were combined and searched in title,
abstract and keywords in Scopus and Web of Science databases. The query used on the
environmental risks in supply chains. The terms “sustainab*” and “environment*” were
used with an asterisk, referring to the keywords that consider combination of the radicle
and any suffix. The term “sustainab*” was used to cover all documents related to
risks. The term “green” is closely related to environmental issues. Finally, the term
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
“ecological” was also used to cover papers on risks related to the ecological
environment.
The database search for papers was conducted in May 2018 and resulted in 648
documents from the Scopus database and 360 documents from the Web of Science
database with no initial exclusions. Two hundred and six of the 360 documents present
in Web of Science were also found in the Scopus database, and after the removal of
The first exclusion criterion was to retain only the papers classified as Articles,
Reviews, Articles in Press and Conference papers, thus resulting in 767 papers that were
selected for the title and abstract review. With the reading of the titles and abstracts, the
second exclusion criterion was to retain only articles related to environmental risks and
their management. For research purposes, the word “environment” considers a “green”
proceeded to reading the remaining articles in full. During the full text review, a third
exclusion criterion was defined inductively - where it was derived from the material
under analysis itself - as proposed by Seuring and Gold (2012). Thus, we consider only
documents related to the environmental risks that supply chains can generate to the
environment and/or documents related to how the environment can affect supply chains,
including risk types, factors and drivers, environmental risk management methods and
documents.
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The reference lists of the shortlisted articles were also meticulously evaluated to
guarantee that there were no other publications of relevance omitted in the search. Thus,
to complete the SLR, ‘snowball’ backward and forward searches were performed. The
backward search reviews the literature cited in the papers that were generated from the
keyword search, whereas the forward search reviews the extra sources that have been
papers were selected based on their number of citations, and the content of each
document was carefully reviewed by the three authors of this paper to ensure that the
article fits into the paper’s context. Therefore, seventy (70) documents were eligible for
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Data gathering considered of a concept matrix which listed the unit of analysis
in lines (articles) and categories in columns. Thus, it was possible to validate the
suitability of the documents selected by the authors for the literature review process.
papers, which reinforces the quality of the works that are included in the present
research and minimises the chances of including poor-quality works. Both peer-
reviewed and conference papers (grey literature) are considered for the study to reduce
In the analysis, results and updating phase, descriptive analysis considered the
by journal and the number of citations of each paper to highlight the publication trends
(Section 3.1). Regarding data analysis, each document from the selected literature was
critically evaluated by the authors in order to build the following taxonomies: (a)
The categories proposed for the taxonomies were defined based on the content
analysis that represents an effective tool for analysing a sample of research documents
in a systematic way (Seuring and Gold, 2012). The definition of these categories
followed an inductive approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Mayring, 2000) derived from the
material examination and had an iterative process of category building, testing, revising,
and constantly comparing categories and data. Regarding the scope of content analysis,
the present study adopted the latent content of the text and documents, which require
interpretation of the underlying meaning of terms and arguments, i.e. the mental
Hence, the latent content approach involved the three authors of this paper to
define the categories and validate the analysis, since the conclusions of the content
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
analysis are contestable if they are based only on the judgements of a single researcher
(Brewerton and Millward, 2001; Duriau et al., 2007). A discursive alignment of the
interpretation was performed between the authors in order to deliberate the potential
discrepancies in the content analyses and the categories building. Data synthesis, the
interpretation and the presentation of results are presented through the taxonomies and
the framework presented in Section 3 and 4, respectively. The final step, updating the
directions.
This section presents the study descriptors and the data analysis including the proposed
Figure 3 illustrates the number of papers (out of the 70 that were selected) published by
year. After 2008, the topic gained more relevance and more papers were published. The
increasing interest of researchers in the topic. More than half of the papers (67%) were
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Seventy percent of the articles adopt a case study methodology, design science
or a dual approach including mathematical models and case studies. The remaining
papers. Most of the articles presenting case studies specified the country in which the
study was developed. China and India were the most frequent common countries in the
case studies with nine and seven case studies for China and India, respectively. There
were four case studies from each of the United Kingdom and Germany; three case
studies from each of the USA and Iran; two from each of Taiwan, Mexico, Canada,
Sweden, Switzerland, Poland and Turkey; and finally one from Portugal, Korea,
Finland, Romania, Serbia, Austria, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Brazil.
Fifty-four articles also presented the type(s) of industry(ies) in which the study
was applied. In some articles, multiple case studies were developed, thus adding more
industries to the analysis. Figure 4 depicts the frequency of the industrial sectors
addressed in these articles. Case studies from the chemicals and metals industry were
the most frequent among all studies, followed by the automotive, textile, mechanical
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ls
ive
ile
od
ns
e
/
n
ga
ho
ac
ca cs
ica
io
tio
xt
Fo
ot
sp
ni ni
ct
rs
nd
Te
em
ica
m
ha tro
tru
ro
he
la
l
to
/
ch
un
Ae
ng
ec c
ns
at
oi
Au
M / Ele
m
nd
hi
Le
Co
e
m
d
ot
sa
ru
ch
nd
co
Cl
al
/c
Te
ga
le
et
um
Te
in
M
le
in
tro
M
Pe
Table 1 presents the most frequent journals in the sample of selected documents
and the number of papers published in each one. The “Journal of Cleaner Production”
was the journal with the most publications and was followed by the “International
Journal of Production Research” with four publications and the "International Journal of
Ecological Risk Assessment" had two publications each. Table 1 only lists the journals
Number of
Journals
publications
Journal of Cleaner Production 10
International Journal of Production Research 4
International Journal of Production Economics 3
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2
Sustainability 2
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2
TOTAL 23
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
December 2018, which is used to measure the impact of the papers in other peer-
reviewed articles that were indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Tang
(2006) is the most cited, followed by Zhu et al. (2008), Manuj and Mentzer (2008),
Angell and Klassen (1999), Lee (2011), Rao and Goldsby (2009) and Dües et al. (2013).
In more recent papers, after 2013, Govindan et al. (2014), Hofmann et al. (2014) and
Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) appear as the most cited articles. Figure 5 only
1100
965
1000
900
800
700
600
515
500
367
400
264
252
300
233
184
200
135
133
73
71
100
61
58
54
41
32
23
22
22
21
21
20
18
17
14
10
10
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
0
Cruz (2008)
Angell and Klassen (1999)
Kowalska (2014)
Lee (2011)
Hu (2011)
Manning (2008)
results. Based on Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016), during the full-text reading of
the documents, it was possible to identify two perspectives regarding the environmental
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
risks: the endogenous and exogenous. Endogenous risks are caused by companies’
activities along their supply chains and exogenous risks are brought to supply chains
due to their interaction with the external environment that they operate (Faisal 2009;
refers to the organisation’s impact on living and non-living natural systems, including
land, air, water and ecosystems. For Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018), endogenous
environmental risks evaluate the exposure related to climate change issues; resource use
including water, land, energy and materials; recycling and disposal. On the other hand,
Jüttner et al. (2003) affirm that exogenous environmental risks comprise any
disasters (e.g., extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes etc.) and man-made disasters
them related to endogenous environmental risks and one related to the exogenous
analysis through latent content approach. The categories, classified according to their
Waste: encompasses the inefficient use of resources (in terms of raw materials,
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
Table 2. Environmental Risks Taxonomy
Other significant air harmful 9 Liu et al. (2006); Glickman and White (2007); Manning (2008); Munguía et al.
emissions (persistent organic (2010); Ruifang (2010); Chen et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Freise and
pollutants, volatile organic Seuring (2015); Marconi et al. (2017)
compounds, hazardous air
pollutants and particulate
matter)
17
Chemicals and toxic effluents 24 Gupta et al. (2002); Oldham and Votta (2003); Liu et al. (2006); Levner et al.
released into water or (2008); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Dogaru et al. (2009); Ruifang,
groundwater (2010); Chen et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kowalska (2014); Kuo et al.
(2015); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Bai et al. (2017);
Karmakar et al. (2017); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Marconi et al. (2017);
Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
Chemicals and toxic effluents 15 Levner et al. (2008); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Ruifang (2010); Chen
released into the soil et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Karmakar et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al.
(2017); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
Waste Inefficient use of raw 7 Dües et al. (2013); Hofmann et al. (2014); Busse et al. (2017); Marconi et al.
materials (2017); Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran
(2018)
Inefficient use of water 12 Gupta et al. (2002); Levner et al. (2008); Manning (2008); Dües et al. (2013);
Kuo et al. (2015); Busse et al. (2017); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Song et al.
(2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al.
(2018); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)
18
Inefficient use of energy 16 Swarr et al. (2004); Manning (2008); Lee (2011); Dües et al. (2013); Hofmann
et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Busse et
al. (2017); Marconi et al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga (2018);
Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018); Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)
Excessive of hazardous or 22 Angell and Klassen (1999); Carley (2005); Cruz (2008); Munguía et al. (2010);
non-hazardous product waste Zhao et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2013); Dües et al. (2013); Kuo et al. (2015);
(including packaging) Dai (2016); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Busse et al.
(2017); Marconi et al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Levner and Ptuskin,
(2018); Reinerth et al. (2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and
Ravindran (2018); Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)
Non- Intensive or unaware use of 8 Swarr et al. (2004); Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007);
compliance chemicals Zhu et al. (2008); Munguía et al. (2010); Christopher et al. (2011); Boström
and Karlsson (2013); Levner and Ptuskin (2018)
Lack of health and safety 11 Munguía et al. (2010); Kowalska (2014); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al.
management (in terms of (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018); Gouda and
radiation, vibration, light, Saranga (2018); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Shankar et al. (2018); Valinejad
ventilation and noise) and Rahmani (2018)
19
Non-compliance with 5 Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Levner and Ptuskin
sustainable laws and (2018); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
regulations
Environmental Explosions, fires, chemical 12 Gupta et al. (2002); Liu et al. (2006); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008);
accidents accidents, etc. Dogaru et al. (2009); Ruifang (2010); Kowalska (2014); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Kwesi-Buor et al. (2016); Foroozesh et al. (2018);
Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
Natural and Natural disasters, extreme 28 Gupta et al. (2002); Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008b); Rao and
man-made weather, terrorist attacks, etc. Goldsby (2009b); Christopher et al. (2011); Hu (2011); Soni and Jain (2011);
hazards Hilgers et al. (2013); Merz et al. (2013); Qin and Zhang (2013); Peng et al.
(2014); Chand et al. (2015); Fazli et al. (2015); Huang et al. (2016); Mohapatra
et al. (2015); Prakash et al. (2017); Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast, (2016); Kwesi-Buor et
al. (2016); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Shenoi et al. (2016); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018);
Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Given the two perspectives of environmental risks found during the SLR, a
risks (represented by their categories), the environment, and the supply chain. The
endogenous environmental risks that emanate from supply chain activities impact the
environment, which, in turn, also present environmental risks that impact supply chain
activities.
Endogenous
environmnetal risks
Environmental Pollution
Supply Manufacturing Demand Waste
Non-Compliance
Environmental Accidents
SUPPLY CHAIN ACTIVITIES
Figure 7. Environmental risk interactions between the supply chain and the external
environment.
chain risks and concluded that the majority of the most eminent sustainability-related
risks originate from a company’s activities, the goods that it generates, or its supply
chain processes. Hence, Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) observed that endogenous
risks are perceived as being more relevant than exogenous risks since endogenous risks
originate from the actions, or lack of action thereof, of a company or its suppliers,
which/who have the direct responsibility of controlling or mitigating these risks. On the
other hand, exogenous risks are generally unpredictable and tougher to manage since it
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
environmental risks are directly controllable by supply chains, for example, the type of
others; while the exogenous environmental risks are non-directly controllable since they
occur suddenly. In their findings, Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) also argued that
natural disasters head the list of the most eminent perceived risks. According to Carter
and Jennings (2004), irresponsible supplier behaviour might cause adverse publicity,
reputational damage, and costly legal obligations. Thus, Hofmann et al. (2014) state that
companies may experience severe losses from social, ecological or ethical problems that
The similarity of subjects has also been adopted to define the categories of the
important asset (its reputation and brand) were classified in the Reputational category.
Papers related to the consequences which affected the company's profit directly were
clustered in the Financial category. Finally, those articles that addressed consequences
related to specific fines and sanctions applied from the government were grouped in the
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
consequences highlighted that the main and frequent losses perceived by the companies
and suppliers were financial losses. According to Chen et al. (2016), the losses caused
by natural catastrophes ranged from US$11.8 billion in 2006 to US$110 billion in 2011
Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016) point out that the disruptions caused by these
events can also result in the loss of reputation and even the loss of life. For endogenous
environmental risks, the media can disclose the environmental scandals and abuses of
the companies, exposing the supply chains to the reputational, financial and legal
penalties losses. Table 3 describes these consequences that may accrue to the company
23
Table 3. Consequences that companies may suffer
Financial Increased costs/ reduced 27 Glickman and White (2007); Rao and Goldsby (2009b); Christopher et al.
profits/ financial (2011); Soni and Jain (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Merz et al. (2013); Kowalska
consequences (2014); Chen et al. (2016); Connelly et al. (2016); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis
and Papadopoulos (2016); Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Kwesi-Buor
et al. (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016); Busse et al. (2017); Cuesta and Nakano
(2017); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga
(2018); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018);
Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)
Legal Government penalties and 6 Glickman and White (2007); Zhao et al. (2012); Ganguly (2016); Song et al.
legal actions (2017); Göçer et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Christopher et al. (2011) affirm that the losses will first affect the focal firm and,
subsequently, will have a negative impact on downstream and upstream parts of the
chain. As observed in Table 3, the most frequent consequences identified in the sample
of articles are reputational and financial losses. They are closely related, since damages
to a company's brand directly affect its profits. The legal consequences are also
associated with financial losses since fines and legal penalties minimise the company’s
profits. According to Cousins et al. (2004), high perceived losses can motivate
and strategies to control and mitigate environmental risks in order to avoid undesirable
the supply chains are tougher to identify and control through strategies (Giannakis and
Ravindran, 2018). Sinha et al. (2004) affirm that companies should mitigate endogenous
risks first, before making efforts to deal with exogenous risks, since these risks are out
As for risks and consequences, the categories for strategies are also based on the
documents related to the management of solid and liquid waste through various policies
strategies and management of chemical and toxic substances were grouped into the
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and ozone-depleting substances were incorporated into the GHG Management category.
Documents related to policies and actions with the supplier (upstream side of the chain)
and customer (downstream side of the chain) were grouped in the Relationship with
suppliers and customers category. Those papers which addressed strategies related to
flexible responses and practices were clustered in the Contingency Plans category. Each
Waste Prevention and Management: waste of all types, including water and
ensure their safe handling, movement, storage, use, recycling or reuse and
tracked and documented at the facility and corporate level, and cost-effective
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
environmental objectives (Zhu et al., 2008) and also includes relationships with
Contingency plans: includes all the practices, including the contingency plans,
27
Table 4. Environmental strategies taxonomy for environmental risks
Introduction of eco-designed (products 5 Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007); Zhu
requiring less material/packaging) and et al. (2008); Dües et al. (2013); Giannakis and Papadopoulos
environmentally friendly products (2016)
Carbon and water footprint monitoring 5 Manning (2008); Lee (2011); Zhao et al. (2012); Giannakis
(including supplier monitoring) and Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017)
28
Focus on efficient natural resource 14 Glickman and White (2007); Levner et al. (2008); Manning
consumption (reduction programmes, use (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Lee (2011); Dües et al. (2013); Kuo
of energy efficient technology and green et al. (2015); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Cuesta and
technology, etc.) Nakano (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Vujović et al.
(2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018);
Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)
Hazardous Substitution, precaution, and reduction in 7 Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007); Zhu
Substance the consumption of chemicals and toxic et al. (2008); Munguía et al. (2010); Boström and Karlsson
Management waste (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015)
Greenhouse Gas Introduction of carbon emission 14 Lee (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Zhao et al. (2012); Dües et
(GHG) management reduction initiatives and practices (e.g., al. (2013); Kuo et al. (2015); Dai (2016); Giannakis and
use of renewable energy/alternative fuels, Papadopoulos (2016); Cuesta and Nakano (2017); Marconi et
filters, freight consolidation, driver al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017);
efficiency, reduce fuel consumption etc.) Xiaofeng (2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Shankar et al.
(2018)
Relationship with Audit and monitor suppliers and use 8 Carley (2005); Zhu et al. (2008); Zhao et al. (2012); Boström
suppliers and sustainable criteria for supplier selection and Karlsson (2013); Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and
customers Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017); Torres-Ruiz
and Ravindran (2018)
29
Encourage suppliers and partners to 2 Zhu et al. (2008); Gouda and Saranga (2018)
promote sound environmental policies
Encourage customers to make green and 5 Cruz (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Glickman and White (2007);
sustainable consumption choices Paksoy et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2014)
Compliance Compliance with sustainability 9 Cruz (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Boström and Karlsson (2013);
regulations and certifications (e.g., ISO Dües et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014); Giannakis and
14001, REACH, etc.) Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018)
Programmes and training focused on 5 Carley (2005); Cruz (2008); Liu et al. (2006); Munguía et al.
sustainability, health, and safety (2010); Vujović et al. (2017)
Contingency plans Build emergency and contingency plans 12 Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008b); Christopher et al.
(2011); Hu (2011); Chand et al. (2015); Fazli et al. (2015);
Connelly et al. (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016);
Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016);
30
Vujović et al. (2017); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)
Develop a flexible supply chain 9 Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008); Soni and Jain
(2011); Mickovski et al. (2013); Mohapatra et al. (2015);
Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016);
Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016)
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
found in our literature searchers and the environmental risks, consequences, and
The section also presents future research avenues to enhance the conceptual foundations
Figure 8 presents the framework we propose to synthesise the state of the art of
academic literature showing how the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Three frameworks serve as a basis for the construction of Figure 7. Freise and
Seuring (2015) was a starting point to the proposed framework of this study. The
authors explored why companies in the clothing industry managed environmental and
social risks in their supply chain. In this, they tested five hypotheses related to external
and internal drivers and related to the supply chains characteristics. Regarding external
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
drivers, they include (i) stakeholder pressure and (ii) legal requirements. The internal
drivers encompass (iii) corporate orientation and (iv) competitive differentiation. The
last driver, (v) risk exposure of the supply chain, can be used to analyse the supply
companies are operating. Thus, the drivers encompass both endogenous and exogenous
environmental risks.
Busse et al. (2017) highlight that drivers lead the companies to identify their
external and internal expectations. According to Thöni et al. (2013), the external drivers
society, the media, and governmental regulatory requirements lead companies to adopt
the company and its reputation. Regarding the internal drivers, companies proactively
increase corporate sustainability in their operations due to driving factors that represent
to reduce costs (Thöni et al., 2013). The last driver, risk exposure, can motivate
chain and the sustainable supply chain based on the diagram presented by Hofmann et
al. (2014). Given the environmental risks in the supply chain, discussed in Section 3.2,
if the companies do not react to the drivers, automatically they will not identify its
expectations and, consequently, they will not manage their environmental risks,
neglecting them. This will prompt a stakeholder reaction, and consequences will be felt
by the organisation and consequently by the supply chain. The consequences were
broadly discussed in the previous section and referenced in their categories in the
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
framework. If the company reacts positively to the drivers, consequently the company
will identify the expectations and an environmental supply chain risk management will
risk management (ESCRM), the work of Ceryno et al. (2013) has been adopted.
Ceryno et al. (2013) discuss and analyse SCRM based on the main pillars that
can be grouped into three different phases: Risk identification, Risk Assessment, and
Instruments for SCRM. Risk identification characterises the risk. Risk assessment
identifies the probability of the occurrence of the event, the risk level, and the risk
impact. The third phase considers the instruments of SCRM that compose risk
mitigation strategies.
ESCRM is developed based on these three phases of the SCRM and based on
the taxonomies of environmental risks and strategies presented in Section 3.2, also
referenced in their categories in the framework. In the first phase, Risk identification, the
endogenous and exogenous environmental risks are characterised, and in the third
phase, the environmental strategies are listed. The second phase, Risk Assessment,
identifies the risk impact and probability, but this aspect remains beyond the scope of
this work. However, this phase has been added to the framework because it constitutes
an important part of the SCRM process. Nevertheless, future studies may be needed to
The proposed framework raises some relevant insights into what happens when
supply chain environmental risks. Thus, managers should consider the stakeholder's
expectations, companies’ internal expectations and also the vulnerability of the supply
chain to develop an environmental supply chain risk management, otherwise, there will
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
be a stakeholder effect/reaction and severe consequences will affect the companies. The
should consider the interactions of the risks, consequences, and strategies to be aware of
the environmental risks that emanate from their supply chains as well as the
Based on our analysis, two perspectives of the environmental risks were identified and
insight, this study revealed the interaction that exists between the endogenous and
exogenous environmental risks and highlighted the features of them. According to the
Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit Report (2017), natural disasters, for example, are
increasingly linked to environmental pollution and climate change which made extreme
events more frequent, longer-lasting and more intense. Thus, there is a clear interaction
between these risks, which leads to the conclusion that future research efforts are
the framework, which relates the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies. The
proposed framework composes a basis of the academy view, allowing new researches to
validate, add or contrast the existing literature. Hence, as for future research avenues,
this study proposes the validation of the framework under different scenarios, contexts,
and industries. The environmental risks can be distinguished according to the type of
industry. In this sense, Levner and Ptuskin (2018) point out that although the types of
adverse environmental impacts are universal, the risk types should be specified for
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
al. (2017) attach the relevance of carrying out empirical studies. The authors point out
the importance of the analyses of large samples to identify more potential risks and
interactions in different case studies. Thus, to strengthen the field and build a basis for a
comparison between academia and practice, case studies should be conducted across
various industries and companies with different supplier profiles. Case studies should
also consider different country perspectives to yield interesting insights from other
cultures, mainly due to the high frequency of research addressing the view of Asian
countries.
may result in different perceptions and effects of environmental risks. The region in
which the company is located, the exposure to the risk, the intensity of stakeholder
pressure and the legal requirements of the region will certainly influence the
environmental supply chain risk management. Besides, case studies may also reveal
other types of environmental risks or strategies that can be added to these taxonomies.
sustainability risks, and particularly on how several suppliers can be managed towards
reactions, losses, and consequences, future research may address companies that have
neglected their environmental risks and suffered severe losses. In addition to case
studies, other methods may also be used to validate the proposed framework, such as
the three pillars of the triple bottom line, which may generate academic and practical
gains in this emergent area of sustainable risks in supply chains. To continue the review,
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the eighth step of the SLR - proposed by Thomé et al. (2016) - is further suggested as an
5. Conclusion
This paper explored the research field of environmental supply chain risk management
research questions with the definition of taxonomies for the environmental risks,
The main criteria for this review, which are (a) quality and content of the
research; (b) quality, brevity and clarity of presentation; (c) significance, relevance and
timeliness of the topic, were contemplated, where the literature review process was
presented in detail and the studied topic and its relevance were presented through a
coherent and clear manner in the introductory section. As this study covered the
relevant literature in the studied field, the findings from the paper can be useful as input
This study also has the potential to inspire future research in the area, as the
method adopted here is replicable, and the proposed taxonomies allow new studies to
validate, add, or contrast what already exists. Moreover, this review also contributes to
supply chains. The findings of our study reveal that the consequences for business
Companies may also face severe reputational consequences, boycotts from customers,
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
finding of the systematic literature review is that two perspectives of the environmental
risks were identified: the endogenous and exogenous perspectives. Some studies pointed
out that the endogenous environmental risks are perceived to be more directly
controllable by supply chains since the actions to manage them are the responsibility of
the companies. Conversely, the exogenous risks are not directly controllable since they
occur unexpectedly, and contingency plans and flexible responses constitute the main
management” and the use of different keywords could lead to generate different results.
For example, this paper considers GHG emissions as an environmental risk factor. In
this sense, a considerable amount of papers in Green and Sustainable supply chain
addresses the same topic. However, they might not be found because of the keywords
limitation. The research is also limited to the Scopus and Web of Science databases,
which offer a comprehensive coverage of the academic literature but may not cover all
(theses, reports etc.). However, even if the list of documents included in this study may
research process, involving judgments from the three authors in the content analysis
step, the identification of different categories could provide opportunities for additional
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
environmental risks present in their supply chain, to be aware of the consequences that
the company may suffer and to manage environmental risks through effective strategies.
Building on the research findings presented in this literature review, this study
References
issues into the mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management." Journal
Bai, Libiao, Yi Li, Qiang Du, and Yadan Xu. 2017. “A Fuzzy Comprehensive
9(1):1890.
complex product chains and the integration of vertical and horizontal governance."
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
methods: A guide for students and researchers.” London: Sage Publications, 2001 Sage.
Wagner. 2017. "Extending the supply chain visibility boundary: utilizing stakeholders
Carter, Craig R., and Marianne M. Jennings. 2004. "The role of purchasing in
Logistics 25(1):145-186.
Ceryno, Paula Santos, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Katja Klingebiel, and Gökhan
Chand, Mahesh, Tilak Raj, and Ravi Shankar. 2015. "Risk mitigations strategy
Chen, Amy, Chih-Ying Hsieh, and H. M. Wee. 2016. "A resilient global
Ma. 2014. "Identifying the drivers of environmental risk through a model integrating
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Christopher, Martin, Carlos Mena, Omera Khan, and Oznur Yurt. 2011.
Connelly, Elizabeth B., James H. Lambert, and Shital A. Thekdi. 2016. "Robust
investments in humanitarian logistics and supply chains for disaster resilience and
Cooper, H., 2010. Fourth ed. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-
Cousins, Paul D., Richard C. Lamming, and Frances Bowen. 2004. "The role of
Cruz, Jose M. 2008. "Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social
Technology 11 (4):552-562.
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cunha, L., Ceryno, P., & Leiras, A. 2019. “Social Supply Chain Risk
Production.
network considering risks and environmental impact." Human and Ecological Risk
Dogaru, D., Zobrist, J., Balteanu, D., Popescu, C., Sima, M., Amini, M., &
Case Study for the Certej Catchment in the Apuseni Mountains in Romania.”
Dües, Christina Maria, Kim Hua Tan, and Ming Lim. 2013. "Green as the new
Lean: how to use Lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain." Journal of
Duriau, Vincent J., Rhonda K. Reger, and Michael D. Pfarrer. 2007. "A content
analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data
34.
Elkington, J. 1994.” Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the third
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Economics 162:101-114.
66. Springer.
Fazli, Safar, Reza Kiani Mavi, and Mohammadali Vosooghidizaji. 2015. "Crude
15(3):453-480.
Ferreira, F. D. A. L., Scavarda, L. F., Ceryno, P. S., & Leiras, A. 2018. “Supply
Freise, Matthias, and Stefan Seuring. 2015 "Social and environmental risk
Research 8(1):2.
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
206-216.
Gao, Yue, Zhiwei Li, Fangming Wang, Fang Wang, Raymond R. Tan, Jun Bi,
and Xiaoping Jia. 2018. "A game theory approach for corporate environmental risk
Economics 171:455–70.
Glickman, Theodore S., and Susan C. White. 2007. "Safety at the source: green
Göçer, Aysu, Stanley Fawcett, and Okan Tuna. 2018. "What Does the
Gouda, Sirish Kumar, and Haritha Saranga. 2018. "Sustainable supply chains for
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/grig4-part1-reporting-principles-and-
standard-disclosures.pdf.
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Gupta, Anil K., Inakollu V. Suresh, Jyoti Misra, and Mohammad Yunus. 2002.
271-281.
Herold, D.M.; Lee, K.-H. 2017. “Carbon management in the logistics and
8(1) 79-97.
Ho, William, Tian Zheng, Hakan Yildiz, and Srinivas Talluri. 2015. “Supply
Hofmann, Hannes, Christian Busse, Christoph Bode, and Michael Henke. 2014.
based on immune affinity model for emergency relief.” Expert Systems with
Applications 38(3):2632-2639.
Huang, Lu, Jing-Sheng Song, and Jordan Tong. 2016. "Supply chain planning
for random demand surges: Reactive capacity and safety stock." Manufacturing &
J.E. Van Aken, H. Berends, H. Van Der Bij. 2007. “Problem Solving in
46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Jüttner, Uta, Helen Peck, and Martin Christopher. 2003. "Supply chain risk
Karmakar, Snigdha, Sujit Kumar De, and A. Goswami. 2017. "A pollution
sensitive dense fuzzy economic production quantity model with cycle time dependent
Kowalska, Izabela Jonek. 2014. “Risk Management in the Hard Coal Mining
Policy 41(1):124–34.
Kuo, Tsai Chi, Chia-Wei Hsu, and Jie-Ying Li. 2015. "Developing a green
supplier selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR." Sustainability 7(2):1661-
1689.
analysis and disaster preparedness for port and maritime logistics risk
management: the case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry.".
Levner, Eugene, and Alexander Ptuskin. 2018. "Entropy-based model for the
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Levner, Eugene, David Alcaide Lopez de Pablo, and Jacques Ganoulis. 2008.
"Risk management of transboundary water resources using the green supply chain
Liu, Liping, Jianhua Ji, Tijun Fan, Lili Qi, and Zhe Wu. 2006. "Risk
Manning, Louise. 2008. "The impact of water quality and availability on food
Manuj, I. and John T. Mentzer. 2008b. “Global Supply Chain Risk Management
38(3):192–223.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. 2008b, “Global supply chain risk management”,
logistics and freight transportation: A literature review and research agenda”. Journal of
2017. "Traceability as a means to investigate supply chain sustainability: the real case of
6652.
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Meinel, Ulrike, and Bruno Abegg. 2017. "A multi-level perspective on climate
Merz, Mirjam, Michael Hiete, Tina Comes, and Frank Schultmann. 2013. “A
composite indicator model to assess natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level.”
projects with limited funding: Bervie Braes case study." Proceedings 29th Annual
Mongeon, Philippe and Adèle Paul-Hus. 2016. “The Journal Coverage of Web of
Management 28 (4):1351-1367.
Munguía, Nora, Andrea Zavala, Amina Marin, Rafael Moure-Eraso, and Luis
21(3):324-335.
Greening the Supply Chain”. Greener Management International (41), pp. 89-100.
49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Paksoy, Turan, Nimet Yapici Pehlivan, and Eren Özceylan. 2012. "Fuzzy multi-
objective optimization of a green supply chain network with risk management that
Parahoo, Kader. 2006. “Nursing Research – principles, process and issues”. 2nd
Peng, Min, Yi Peng, and Hong Chen. 2014. "Post-seismic supply chain risk
pp.799-808.
Prakash, Surya, Gunjan Soni, Ajay Pal Singh Rathore, and Shubhender Singh.
2017. "Risk analysis and mitigation for perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy
Qin, Jin, and Lu Zhang. 2013. "Risk analysis of E-tourism service supply chain."
Rao, Shashank, and Thomas J. Goldsby. 2009. "Supply chain risks: a review and
dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and
Reefke, Hendrik, and David Sundaram. 2017. "Key themes and research
50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Esmaeili, and Hossein Bodaghi Khajeh Nobar. 2018. "Evaluation of sustainable supply
Engineering 5681668.
Samvedi, Avinash, Vipul Jain, and Felix TS Chan. 2013. "Quantifying risks in a
supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS." International
Production 16(15):1699-1710.
51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Shankar, Ravi, Divya Choudhary, and Sanjay Jharkharia. 2018. "An integrated
2016. "Supply chain risk management in the Indian manufacturing context: a conceptual
335.
Sinha, Pankaj, Raj, Larry E. Whitman, and Don Malzahn. 2004. "Methodology
Song, Wenyan, Xinguo Ming, and Hu-Chen Liu. 2017. "Identifying critical risk
Soni, Umang, and Vipul Jain. 2011. "Minimizing the vulnerabilities of supply
chain: A new framework for enhancing the resilience." In Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 933-
939.
Swarr, Thomas E., H. James Cline, Soontae Jeong, David A. Dickinson, and
52
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Thomé, Antônio Márcio Tavares, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, and Annibal José
Management System.” Proc. of the 6th Int. Workshop on SAME 2013 – Workshop
Defining the Research Agenda for Inf. Management and Systems Supporting
Production 172:4478-4493.
2017. "ABC Classification of Risk Factors in Production Supply Chains with Uncertain
53
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Yu, T., Shen, G. Q., Shi, Q., Lai, X., Li, C. Z., & Xu, K. 2017. “Managing
Zhao, Rui, Gareth Neighbour, Jiaojie Han, Michael McGuire, and Pauline
Deutz. 2012. "Using game theory to describe strategy selection for environmental risk
and carbon emissions reduction in the green supply chain." Journal of Loss Prevention
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Breun, P., & Schultmann, F. 2017. “Assessing social
risks of global supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to
54