Carter 2011

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions

Craig R. Carter, P. Liane Easton,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Craig R. Carter, P. Liane Easton, (2011) "Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future
directions", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41 Issue: 1,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 21:15 18 April 2018 (PT)
pp.46-62, https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420
Downloaded on: 18 April 2018, At: 21:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 34597 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 Iss 12 pp. 1246-1268 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011094253">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011094253</a>
(1999),"Power, value and supply chain management", Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 167-175 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13598549910284480">https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598549910284480</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
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 at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
IJPDLM
41,1 Sustainable supply chain
management: evolution and
future directions
46
Craig R. Carter
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, and
P. Liane Easton
Center for Logistics Management, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) literature in the principal logistics and supply chain management journals,
across a 20-year time frame.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors use a systematic literature review methodology.
This methodology allows for the minimization of researcher bias and the maximization of reliability
and replicability. The study’s empirical validity is further enhanced by demonstrating high levels of
inter-coder reliability across families of codes.
Findings – The field of SSCM has evolved from a perspective and investigation of standalone
research in social and environmental areas; through a corporate social responsibility perspective; to
the beginnings of the convergence of perspectives of sustainability as the triple bottom line and the
emergence of SSCM as a theoretical framework. While the SSCM research has become more
theoretically rich and methodologically rigorous, there are numerous opportunities for further
advancing theory, methodology, and the managerial relevance of future inquiries.
Research limitations/implications – The trends and gaps identified through our analysis allow
us to develop a cogent agenda to guide future SSCM research.
Practical implications – The current perspectives of SSCM hold important implications for
managers, by directing limited resources toward projects which intersect environmental and/or social
performance, and economic performance.
Originality/value – The paper provides a systematic, rigorous, and methodologically valid review
of the evolution of empirical SSCM research across a 20-year time period.
Keywords Supply chain management, Economic sustainability, Social responsibility,
Environmental management, Economic performance
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Sustainability has become a huge buzzword, both in today’s business world and
within the broader facets of society. It is difficult, for example, to walk by a newsstand
without seeing at least one magazine cover featuring alternative sources of energy,
climate change issues, or the iconic polar bear floating on a thin sheet of ice. There are a
number of drivers for this rising prominence of sustainability, including supply and
International Journal of Physical demand characteristics surrounding energy consumption, an increased understanding
Distribution & Logistics Management of the science relating to climate change, and greater transparency concerning both the
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2011
pp. 46-62 environmental and the social actions of organizations.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited These issues are relevant to managers, because their stakeholders – customers,
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600031111101420 regulatory bodies, non-governmental organizations, and even their own employees – are
increasingly demanding that organizations address and manage the environmental SSCM
and social issues which are impacted by their operations. Supply chain managers
are in a particularly advantageous position to impact – positively or negatively –
environmental and social performance, through for example supplier selection and
supplier development, modal and carrier selection, vehicle routing, location decisions,
and packaging choices.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the evolution of 47
sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) over the past 20 years, with the goal of
identifying trends, potential consensus in findings and approaches across studies, and
gaps, all of which can help to guide future research and improve the management of
sustainable supply chain initiatives. In addition, we will take this opportunity to share
our own perspectives regarding the current state of the field and where we believe
research should be heading.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the
evolution of the research in, and management of, SSCM. We then describe the systematic
literature review methodology and our specific application of this methodology.
We present our findings in the final section of the paper, and we discuss the research
opportunities and managerial implications associated with each set of findings.
Summary of the literature

The conceptualization and management of social and environmental issues has
evolved from what we term “standalone,” through the notion of social responsibility,
and finally to the concept of sustainability. We describe this evolution next.
Much of the supply chain research that many would consider to be a part of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability has occurred in a standalone
fashion, in which there has been little or no recognition of the interrelationships among
topics such as the environment, diversity, human rights, philanthropy, and safety, and
the fact that these are really components of the larger, more holistic concepts of CSR, and
sustainability as they apply to supply chain management (Carter and Jennings, 2002).
Similarly, supply chain managers often initiated and managed past projects
in a standalone fashion, without a clear, holistic, and more strategic understanding
of how these pieces of the puzzle fit together to create their organization’s overall
sustainability position. Managers also often overlooked opportunities to learn from the
successes and failures of one type of initiative – say in the environmental arena – and
apply this knowledge to future projects in other parts of their organization and in other
areas of sustainability, such as diversity and safety issues (Carter, 2005).
The works of Carter and Jennings (2002) and Murphy and Poist (2002) were among
the earlier papers to view these standalone activities within a broader conceptualization
of CSR. Carter and Jennings (2002) incorporate the social responsibility literature from
the management field and utilize Carroll’s (1979, 1991) hierarchy of economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary responsibility to place the standalone supply chain
management activities within the context of discretionary activities and thus social
responsibility. Murphy and Poist (2002, p. 23) also position the standalone activities
within the rubric of social responsibility and note the need to “seek socially beneficial
results along with economically beneficial ones.” Both of these papers placed
environmental as well as social (e.g. diversity, philanthropy, human rights, and safety)
activities within the rubric of social responsibility.
IJPDLM Despite the incorporation of economic responsibility by these and other
researchers who adopt a social responsibility paradigm, much of the extant literature
41,1 in the area of “logistics social responsibility” has operationalized the environmental
and/or social dimensions of CSR, without explicitly accounting for economic
performance. Within industry, managers have often viewed social responsibility as
just that – a responsibility – which did not necessarily yield financial rewards (Walley
48 and Whitehead, 1994). While it is somewhat speculative on our part, possible reasons for
these misperceptions include the lack of a more explicit incorporation of economic
performance into social responsibility frameworks, lack of transparency (e.g. managing
corporations during the pre-internet or early-internet time periods), and/or simply the
use of the term “responsibility” and how this was presented to and perceived by
managers and academics alike.

Carter and Rogers (2008) use a conceptual theory building approach to synthesize
the literature at the time and incorporate complementary theoretical bases to introduce
a theoretical framework of sustainability as it is applied to the supply chain – a
concept which they refer to as SSCM (Figure 1). At the core of this conceptualization
is Elkington’s (1998) triple bottom line: the intersection of environmental, social,
and economic performance. This is a parsimonious and potentially powerful means
of conveying what sustainability means for an organization. Rather than suggesting
that firms identify and engage in social and environmental activities which will
hopefully help, or at least not harm, economic performance, the triple bottom line
explicitly directs managers to identify those activities which improve economic
performance and dictate the avoidance of social and environmental activities which fall
Strategy Good? Organizational

culture
• Sustainability as part • Deeply ingrained
of an integrated • Organizational
strategy citizenship
Environmental Social • Values and ethics
performance performance
Sustainability
Best
Better Better
Risk management Transparency

Figure 1.
Sustainable supply chain • Contingency planning Economic • Stakeholder engagement
management • Supply disruptions performance • Supplier operations
• Outbound supply chains
outside of this intersection. Carter and Rogers (2008) suggest that engaging in SSCM
sustainability, and SSCM in particular, is not discretionary, but rather a requirement.
SSCM involves the long-run improvement of an organization’s economic bottom line
and helps managers to answer the question of, “What is it that we need to do, not just
to survive, but to thrive, and not just one year, three years, or five years from now, but
in ten years, 20 years, and beyond?” Again, this is a salient conceptualization that can
begin to allow managers to take tangible actions. 49
Examples of the activities that fall within the triple bottom line include cost savings
associated with reduced packaging and more effective design for reuse and recycling;
lower health and safety costs, as well as reduced turnover and recruitment costs due
to safer warehousing and transport and improved working conditions; reduced labor
costs in the form of higher levels of motivation and productivity and less absenteeism
resulting from improved working conditions; lower costs, shorter lead-times, improved
product quality, and lower disposal costs resulting from the implementation of ISO
14000 standards and the use of design for disassembly and reuse; and an enhanced
organizational reputation, which can make a firm more attractive to both customers
and suppliers (Carter and Rogers, 2008, pp. 370-1).
Carter and Rogers identify four supporting facets, or facilitators of SSCM, which are
also shown in Figure 1:
(1) strategy – holistically and purposefully identifying individual SSCM initiatives
which align with and support the organization’s overall sustainability strategy;
(2) risk management, including contingency planning for both the upstream and
the downstream supply chain;
(3) an organizational culture which is deeply ingrained and encompasses
organizational citizenship, and which includes high ethical standards and
expectations (a building block for SSCM) along with a respect for society (both
within and outside of the organization) and the natural environment; and
(4) transparency in terms of proactively engaging and communicating with key
stakeholders and having traceability and visibility into upstream and
downstream supply chain operations.
We use this conceptualization of sustainability, which Carter and Rogers (2008, p. 368)
define as, “the strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an
organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals in the systemic coordination
of key interorganizational business processes for improving the long-term economic
performance of the individual company and its supply chains,” in the systematic literature
review which we describe next.
Methodology
We used a systematic review methodology to create a dataset of articles and to analyze
those articles. This approach was initially employed largely by medical researchers
and has more recently been adopted in the field of management (Tranfield et al., 2003).
In contrast to a traditional narrative literature review, a systematic review of the
literature reduces researcher bias concerning the inclusion or exclusion of studies, and
clearly communicates how the review was performed (Denyer and Neely, 2004).
IJPDLM In particular, a systematic review allows for a high level of transparency, with the goal
41,1 of maximizing replicability (Crowther and Cook, 2007).
To narrow the scope to a manageable number of articles, the following seven
logistics and supply chain management journals were selected:
(1) International Journal of Logistics Management.
50 (2) International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
(3) Journal of Business Logistics.
(4) Journal of Operations Management.
(5) Journal of Supply Chain Management.
(6) Transportation Journal.

(7) Transportation Research Part E.
These journals are commonly recognized as the top-tier and primary outlets within the
broad field of empirical supply chain management research (Carter et al., 2009;
Giunipero et al., 2008) and they are often incorporated in similar systematic reviews
(Cantor, 2008).
In further narrowing the scope of the literature, the following subjects were
excluded from the review: supply chain security; technical issues surrounding life cycle
analysis, end-of-life, cost modeling, hazardous materials, etc. including the regulatory
issues surrounding these subjects; macro/policy issues (as compared to micro,
company, and supply chain-specific issues); reverse logistics and waste disposal;
consumer issues (e.g. automobile safety); and papers where sustainability was a very
ancillary part of the article’s focus.
In addition, only papers that were empirical in nature were included in the review.
Here, empirical approaches included the collection and analysis of primary or secondary
data and included the use of surveys, case studies, interviews, and laboratory
experiments, as well as conceptual theory building and systematic literature reviews.
Thus, papers that used non-empirical approaches such as mathematical modeling,
and manuscripts which expressed opinions but which relied on anecdotal evidence,
were excluded from the review.
Next, we conducted a manual review of all articles published in these seven
journals, from the period of 1991 through the most current issue that was available as
of June 2010. This period of approximately 20 years was chosen, because:
.
the majority of research which has examined standalone issues relating to SSCM
has been published after 1990 (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Müller,
2008); and
.
the empirical research which has examined these supply chain issues
from the more holistic perspectives of CSR and sustainability has been
published almost exclusively during this period (Linton et al., 2007).
This manual review of the literature resulted in the identification of 121 articles
for initial inclusion in the literature database and helped in further refining the
keywords used for the second phase of the search process. In this second phase of
the search process, the authors conducted an electronic review of the literature, using
the keywords listed in Table I. These keywords were also based on the input of four SSCM
industry professionals who participated in a conference call in early June 2010.
We used the EBSCO Business Source Complete database, with the keywords from
Table I in the All Text and Abstract fields and the seven journal titles in the
Publication Name field. The electronic search process resulted in the inclusion of an
additional 11 papers in the initial database, for a total of 130 papers.
Based on the above criteria, we eliminated 50 of these papers, leaving 80 papers for 51
our analysis. The most common reasons for the elimination of these papers were:
.
a focus on macro-economic/public policy issues (Saltzman and Belzer, 2002)
rather than the actual management of the supply chain;
.
a modeling (Sheu, 2008) as opposed to an empirical methodology; or
.
an article which was an editorial (Jayaraman et al., 2007) or was largely
descriptive in nature (Enarsson, 1998).
The basic bibliographic data (authors’ names, title of article, journal name, year of
publication, volume number, issue number, and pages) were then entered into a
database in Microsoft Excel. Next, the lead author coded each article, based on the
coding scheme displayed in Table II.
The second author independently check-coded a subsample of the study’s articles.
We calculated reliability based on the proportion of total pairwise agreements between
the coders. The advantages of this method are that it is easy to calculate and to
understand. In addition, capitalization on spurious agreement between coders should
be minimized given the relatively large number of classification categories (Rust and
Cooil, 1994), and accuracy tends be high due to the relatively large sample size
(Kraemer, 1979)[1].
Given the large number of classification categories, the initial inter-coder agreement
rate is comparable to Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha (Perreault and Leigh, 1989).
The overall inter-coder agreement rate across categories ranged from 93.64 to 100.00
percent, with an average of 97.27 percent. These rates far exceed the 0.70 recommended
minimum and suggest a very high level of reliability and thus replicability of our data
coding.
The results of our data coding are summarized in Table III. Rather than conducting
means test after means test (and suffering from high alpha inflation), we instead focus
on the most impactful and pragmatic differences within each of the categories
displayed in Table III. We discuss these results in the next section of the paper, and in
Carbon Human rights Social enterprise

Corporate social ISO 14000/1 Social responsibility
responsibility Labor Sustainable
Diversity Minority business enterprise/minority women Sustainability
business enterprise
Energy Minority Sweatshop
Environment(al) Philanthropy Triple bottom line
Fair trade Resource conservation Women/women owned
Green Safety Working conditions Table I.
Health Social Search terms
IJPDLM
Coding family Description of codes
41,1
Subject Standalone area(s): the article investigates a specific dimension(s) of
sustainability (e.g. the environment)
CSR: the article investigates CSR (both environmental and social issues), using
framework(s) from the CSR literature
52 Sustainability: the article investigates the triple bottom line and uses the triple
bottom line as a framework for the article’s conceptualization
Note: an article could be coded as both CSR and sustainability, if both literature
bases are used in developing the article’s conceptualization
Inferential Coded as inferential if the authors use inferential statistics to test hypotheses or
propositions that are stated a priori, or if the authors use an inductive approach
(e.g. grounded theory and rigorous analysis of qualitative data) to develop
explicitly stated propositions or similar, explicitly stated relationships among
variables
Coded as descriptive if the authors take a descriptive approach to their analyses
(e.g. present summary statistics; compare means; or even use inferential
statistics such as analysis of variance (ANOVA), but without testing
hypotheses or propositions which were developed and presented prior to the
statistical analysis of the data)
Coded as both if the authors take an exploratory approach, by, for example,
presenting a research objective(s)/research question(s), but they do not
explicitly present hypotheses or propositions which they then test. For example,
the authors may identify potential antecedents and use regression analysis to
see which independent variables “stick”
Moderation Coded as moderation if the authors test for moderation/interaction effects
Methodology and Methodology: this is the primary methodology used to collect the study’s data.
analysis Examples include case study, survey, archival data, literature review, depth
interviews, and focus group interviews
Analysis: the approach(es) used to analyze the study’s data. Examples include
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis, regression,
ANOVA, structural equation modeling, and qualitative data analysis
Validity: coded as yes if the authors address both reliability and other facets of
validity, somewhat if the authors assess reliability but not other facets of
validity, and no if the authors address neither reliability nor validity
Social desirability bias: coded as yes if the authors address this bias, and no if
they do not
Sample size 1: the number of organizations/firms from which data were
collected
Sample size 2: the total number of respondents/informants (this number is equal
to sample size 1 in the case of a single, key informant, or greater than sample
size 1 in the case of multiple informants)
Unit of analysis: generally, one of the following: the individual, the function or
group, the firm (includes a plant or strategic business unit (SBU)), or the supply
chain. Examples of other include projects and published articles as the unit of
analysis
Context Key informant: the functional affiliation of the key informant (e.g. procurement,
production, distribution, and marketing)
Industry: the investigated industry; coded as multiple in the case of multiple
industries
Theoretical lens(es) Assessed whether the authors use any of the following theories as lenses, or even
Table II. rationale in developing their models: transaction cost economics, the resource-
Coding scheme based view, the knowledge-based view, stakeholder theory, and/or other
Percenta Percenta Percenta
SSCM
(full time period) (2001-2010) (1991-2000)
(%) (%) (%)
Section A: subject
Environment 42.50 35.42 53.13
Diversity 15.00 4.17 31.25
Human rights/quality of life 6.25 4.17 9.38
53
Safety 21.25 27.08 12.50
Philanthropy 0.00 0.00 0.00
CSR 11.25 18.75 0.00
Sustainability 15.00 25.00 0.00
Section B: industry
Automotive 2.78 4.76 0.00
Consumer products 13.89 11.90 16.67
Food and beverage 2.78 2.38 3.33
Transportation 20.83 23.81 16.67
Multi-industry 48.61 47.62 50.00
Other 11.11 9.52 13.33
Section C: theoretical lens(es)
Transaction cost economics 6.25 8.33 3.13
Resource-based view 11.25 16.67 3.13
Knowledge-based view/organizational learning 2.50 4.17 0.00
Stakeholder theory 21.25 35.42 0.00
Other 31.25 45.83 9.38
Multiple lenses 21.25 33.33 3.13
None 55.00 33.33 87.50
Section D: validity
Addressed (reliability and multiple, additional facets
of validity) 45.45 64.44 18.75
Partially addressed (reliability, but no additional
facets of validity) 11.69 8.89 15.63
Not addressed 42.86 26.67 65.63
Section E: social desirability bias
Addressed 15.38 25.00 3.45
Not addressed 84.62 75.00 96.55
Section F: unit of analysis
Individual 20.78 17.78 25.00
Function or group 9.09 8.89 9.38
Firm (including plant or SBU) 62.34 60.00 65.63
Supply chain (at least at dyad) 3.90 6.67 0.00
Other 3.90 6.67 0.00
Section G: methodology
Survey 60.00 47.92 78.13
(Multiple) Case study 17.50 22.92 9.38
Archival data 8.75 10.42 6.25
Empirical/systematic literature review 5.00 8.33 0.00
Conceptual theory building 3.75 4.17 3.13
Focus group interviews 2.50 2.08 3.13
Individual interviews 2.50 4.17 0.00 Table III.
(continued) Results
IJPDLM Percenta Percenta Percenta
41,1 (full time period) (2001-2010) (1991-2000)
(%) (%) (%)
Section H: analysis
Descriptive statistics (summary statistics,
means testing, and rank analysis) 26.53 11.11 54.29
54 Regression analysis 16.33 19.05 11.43
Qualitative data analysis (data coding, matrix
analysis, content analysis) 15.31 17.46 11.43
CFA 12.24 15.87 5.71
Structural equation modeling, path analysis 9.18 12.70 2.86
EFA 8.16 11.11 2.86

Other 5.10 6.35 2.86
ANOVA 4.08 3.17 5.71
Conceptual theory building 3.06 3.17 2.86
Section I: moderation
Moderation/interaction effects 10.26 13.04 6.25
Table III. Note: aPercentages in some sections may not add to 100 percent, due to double coding
doing so, we outline what we believe to be the most pertinent areas of SSCM which
require new and/or additional research.
Discussion: evolution and future directions

Subject
Environmental aspects of supply chain management have been the leading focus
of research over the past 20 years (Section A of Table III). The environment is of
course a key component of the triple bottom line and has been in the media spotlight
concerning climate change and rising energy prices. To some degree as well, the
terms “sustainability” and “environment” have been used interchangeably, both
by researchers and by managers. This misunderstanding was particularly prevalent
during the early conceptualizations of sustainability. This is not an uncommon
phenomenon when a new paradigm emerges. However, as perspectives have begun to
converge, we are now seeing an increasingly uniform understanding and application of
the term sustainability as the triple bottom line.
Replacing this focus on standalone environmental issues have been articles which
take a more holistic approach, either by explicitly incorporating social responsibility
(the intersection of environmental and social performance) or sustainability – the triple
bottom line. While none of the articles in the 1991-2000 time period investigated their
topic of interest using these lenses, 18.75 percent of the articles in the 2001-2010 time
period used CSR and 25 percent of the articles in the 2001-2010 time period used
sustainability as the frameworks for their research.
Industry
Unlike our subject analysis, we do not find the dramatic trends and differences in the
industries which were selected for investigation in the first versus the second decades
of the 20-year time period. There has, however, been a large focus on consumer product
industries and the transportation industry (Section B of Table III). Consumer products SSCM
firms were often chosen because they have been closest to the consumer and have often
been earlier adopters of certain environmental and social initiatives (Carter and Carter,
1998). Transportation carriers have been chosen by researchers who have focused on
safety issues and because they have a large carbon footprint that is more obvious
to many of their stakeholders. The majority of the industries studied, however, fall
under the category of “multi-industry,” which could include consumer products and 55
transportation carriers, but more often included multiple industries in manufacturing
or manufacturing together with service. This focus by researchers is understandable,
given the need to generate adequate sample sizes and perhaps the desire to increase the
external validity and generalizability of their findings.
However, this decision by researchers to use multi-industry samples also presents

an opportunity for future research to take deeper dives into individual industries as
sampling frames. More importantly, researchers should carefully select individual
industries with the goals of identifying specific types of sustainability activities that
are germane to those industries, and industries in which the boundaries of specific
theories might be extended or shown not to apply. As one broad example, researchers
are just beginning to examine service supply chains (Sampson and Spring, 2011),
defined here as the procurement and distribution of services (whether by
manufacturing or service industries). The sustainability characteristics of service
supply chains likely differ from those of their manufacturing counterparts and will be
ripe grounds for future investigations.
Theoretical lenses
The most striking result that is displayed in Section C of Table III is the relative dearth
in the use of a theoretical lens(es) to examine problems of interest in the sustainability
arena. About 55 percent of articles over the full-time period failed to employ any sort of
theory. It is encouraging to note, however, that there is a very strong trend toward
integrating theory in SSCM research. While more than 87 percent of articles did not
employ a theoretical lens in the 1991-2000 time period, this omission dropped to just
over 33 percent in the 2001-2010 time frame.
Of the theories which have been used, stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) has been
the most prevalent, followed by the resource-based view, and the closely aligned
natural resource-based view (Hart, 1995). The other category includes a diverse set of
theories from multiple fields, such as examining the role of dynamic capabilities in
achieving competitive advantage in sustainable global supplier management (Reuter
et al., 2010), using brand equity theory to explain how competitive advantages are
derived from sustainability (Flint and Golicic, 2009) and employing self efficacy theory
to better predict safe employee behavior (Brown et al., 2000).
Another trend which is displayed in Section C of Table III is the increased use over
time of multiple theoretical lenses within the same study. When done well, such
blending of diverse, complementary, and even overlapping theories can help to better
develop hypotheses, add rich insights to the interpretation of findings, and help better
understand the boundaries of where these theories apply. As one example, Pagell et al.
(2010) show that the traditional purchasing portfolio matrix developed by Kraljic is not
effective within the realm of SSCM. The authors integrate transaction cost economics,
the resource-based view, and stakeholder theory to modify the traditional purchasing
IJPDLM portfolio matrix and create a theoretically derived purchasing portfolio matrix which
41,1 managers can use as a highly effective strategic tool.
Interestingly, transaction cost economics is one of the lesser used theories in the
SSCM literature that we reviewed. This suggests an opportunity for future research.
One particularly relevant facet of transaction cost economics is that of the bounded
rationality of actors, which occurs due to limits associated with communication and
56 information processing capabilities, and relatedly, the potential for opportunistic
behavior (Williamson, 1975, 1985). Bounded rationality also exists due to a lack of
transparency, and this can lead to both opportunistic behavior and perceptions of
opportunism (whether real or imagined). Such perceptions of opportunistic behavior
can be exacerbated as firms source from distant suppliers and as suppliers and other
members of the supply chain make claims regarding how their products are
manufactured (e.g. “organically certified,” “safe working conditions,” “low emissions,”
etc.). Future research might examine how bounded rationality and perceptions of
opportunism within the context of SSCM impact the decision to source domestically or
even locally, as opposed to internationally, and how supply chain governance
structures are affected – e.g. a muscular versus benign approach to hybrid contracting
(Williamson, 2008).
Methodology and analysis

Validity. Validity is considered to be the “sine qua none” of empirical research. Indeed,
without a rigorous examination of validity, the results of empirical studies are at best
suspect. Disturbingly, over 42 percent of the papers did not address validity and
another 11.7 percent only partially addressed empirical validity for the 1991-2010 time
period (Section D of Table III). However, similar to our other findings, we can see a
positive trend concerning methodical assessments of validity in the articles included in
our review. Over 64 percent of articles rigorously assessed validity in the 2001-2010
time period, versus fewer than 19 percent in the 1991-2000 time period. In the future,
authors must assess not only reliability but also the multiple facets of validity which
are relevant to their empirical methodology(ies), including content validity, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity.
Social desirability bias. Where applicable, articles were coded as either addressing or
not addressing social desirability bias[2]. This bias refers to the tendency of study
participants to provide answers and share perspectives that they believe will be viewed
favorably by the researcher (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960). Over the full-time period,
only 15.4 percent of the applicable articles addressed social desirability bias (Section E
of Table III). It is encouraging to note that this percentage increased from a scant
3.45 percent in the 1991-2000 time period to 25 percent in the 2001-2010 time period.
Still, a large majority of the papers did not assess social desirability bias, or even
discuss the potential limitations associated with this bias. While there may be
pragmatic limitations to assessing this sort of bias in some studies (ethnographies and
even certain case study designs come to mind), there are abbreviated versions of the
Crowne-Marlow social desirability bias scale which might be employed (Carter and
Jennings, 2004) for survey and laboratory study methodologies in future research.
Unit of analysis. The most common unit of analysis displayed in Section F of
Table III is the firm, followed by the individual, and the function or group (e.g. the
buying center). Unlike many of the other aspects of article methodology and analysis,
we did not find large trends or shifts in the unit of analysis across time periods. There SSCM
has, however, been an increased emphasis on the supply chain as the unit of analysis
(from no articles in the first time period to 6.67 percent in the second time period) and
other units of analysis such as a project or a published article (again an increase from 0
to 6.67 percent across the two time frames).
Given the relatively large emphasis on the firm as the unit of analysis, our
findings suggest at least three viable opportunities for future SSCM research. First, 57
there is an opportunity to use the individual as the unit of analysis. While we are
beginning to develop an understanding of what drives firm behavior, we have much less
of an understanding of the drivers of individual managers’ behavior and of their
decision-making processes (Gattiker and Carter, 2010; Kaufmann et al., 2011).
The concept of behavioral supply management, defined as, “the study of how judgment
in supply management decision-making deviates from the assumptions of homo
economicus” (Carter et al., 2007, p. 634), would be a very logical and fruitful intersection
with SSCM. Some sample research questions could include examining supply chain
management employees as internal stakeholders, and how employee attitudes and
commitment to organizations might differ based on differing levels of SSCM (see
Mowday (1998) for an excellent synthesis of the organizational commitment literature);
examination of the biases that can enter the individual decision-making process, and
how these biases can impact the efficacy of SSCM initiatives; and investigation of how
individual managers can influence and gain the commitment of key internal
stakeholders to bring SSCM projects to fruition.
Second, the supply chain, even at the dyadic level, is consistently underrepresented as
a unit of analysis. While the collection of even dyadic data (as opposed to data involving
three or more firms) is quite difficult using methodologies that we have traditionally
relied upon (e.g. surveys and case studies), there are certainly opportunities to use
archival and secondary data to investigate SSCM. Calantone and Vickery (2010) provide
a number of suggestions concerning archival data sources that might be applied to
supply chain problems in general. Some of these data sources, such as Compustat, might
be combined with other secondary data sources, such as the Wharton Research Data
Service, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes, and the Global Reporting Initiativee to
investigate, for example, the relationship between company environmental and social
performance versus economic performance, and the relationship between regulatory
compliance and economic performance across members of a supply chain. Further, most
of these databases allow researchers to employ “time series, longitudinal panels, or time
series cross-sectional designs,” (Calantone and Vickery, 2010, p. 5) to complement and
extend existing findings (Carter et al., 2000; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996).
Methodology. About 60 percent of the articles included in our systematic review of
the literature used a survey as the primary methodology to collect data (Section G of
Table III). There are, however, encouraging trends relating to the dominance of this
methodology: while almost 80 percent of the articles from the 1991 to 2000 time period
used a survey methodology, this percentage dropped to , 50 percent in the later,
2001-2010 time frame. Table III shows a sharp increase in the use of case studies,
archival data, and individual interviews during the second half of our 20-year period of
study. This is an encouraging sign, since the use of multiple methodologies allows for
triangulation and the maximization of internal validity, external validity, and realism
across studies (McGrath, 1982). In addition, we will probably see a further decline in
IJPDLM the use of survey methodologies in the future, due to the difficulty of collecting large
41,1 sample sizes from cross-sectional surveys and limitations associated with common
method variance. We will, however, likely see surveys used at least somewhat more
often within individual organizations or dyads.
One troubling gap in the data displayed in Table III is the lack of laboratory
and field (quasi) experiments. In addition, there are opportunities to use richer
58 qualitative approaches such as ethnographies (see the work of Belk et al. (1988, 1989)
for an example of an innovative approach to using ethnographies within the field of
marketing). Both of these approaches can help to better triangulate findings across
extant studies.
Analysis. The body of empirical SSCM research relied heavily on descriptive
statistics during the first half of the past 20 years (54.29 percent, as given in Section H
of Table III); this percentage dropped to below 12 during the 2001-2010 time period.
This progression appears to follow a similar movement across the broader body of
empirical research in supply chain management (Carter and Ellram, 2003). This is a
very encouraging trend for two reasons. First, these summary statistics often lack
richness in terms of both advancing theory and providing value-adding managerial
implications. Second, and somewhat ironically, while “unsophisticated” from a
statistical standpoint, many of the summary statistics which employed means testing
were incorrectly performed. In particular, many of these analyses involved a large
number of univariate means tests, which failed to adjust individual p-values and thus
suffered from alpha inflation. In other words, many of the early analyses which
involved means testing likely reported significant differences when in fact, some of
these significant differences did not exist.
Often replacing the use of summary statistics, papers published in the 2001-2010
time period utilized regression analysis, structural equation modeling, path analysis,
and rigorous qualitative data analysis to investigate inferential relationships, and
factor analysis to assess measurement validity. In addition, while only about 10 percent
of the articles during the full 20-year time period included moderating variables in their
models and/or tested for interaction effects (Section I of Table III), this percentage
increased from 6.25 percent during the first half of the time period to over 13 percent
during the 2001-2010 time frame.
We have also begun to see more innovative approaches to traditional analyses.
For example, one particularly innovative alternative to analyzing qualitative data using
content analysis was recently employed by Tate et al. (2010). Here, the authors used
center resonance analysis to examine the CSR reports of 100 leading sustainability
organizations. Their analysis allowed them to develop rich understandings of how
these companies integrate the triple bottom line into both their internal operations and
their broader supply chains. We have also begun to see the use of social network
analysis to analyze the relationships among actors as the unit of analysis, as opposed to
the actor as the more traditional unit of analysis (Carter et al., 2007). In addition, it is
likely that we will see the use of more advanced econometric analyses as researchers
begin to employ archival data to test theoretically derived models (Calantone and
Vickery, 2010).
Finally, , 4 percent of the articles in our study used conceptual theory building as a
methodology to develop or expand theoretical insights. The field of supply chain
management has generally relied upon theories developed in adjacent
fields (e.g. management – the resource-based view, institutional theory – and SSCM
economics – transaction cost economics). This is also true within the realm of SSCM.
Given the nascency of sustainability as a whole, along with the pivotal role that supply
chain management can play in an organization’s sustainability efforts, the area of
SSCM is ripe for such theory development. While Carter and Rogers (2008) provide an
initial theory development effort, much additional work is needed.
One likely reason for the lack of conceptual theory development in SSCM is a lack of 59
methodological training in the conceptual theory development methodology among the
broader community of supply chain management scholars. This lack of training likely
limits both motivations to use conceptual theory building and the effectiveness of
actual efforts. Further, when journal reviewers lack this training, this can act as an
additional barrier to publishing such research. We refer the reader to a forthcoming

discussion forum in the Journal of Supply Chain Management (2011, Vol. 47 No. 2),
which will address these issues and offer guidance concerning both how to craft and
review conceptual theory development papers.
Conclusion
We must admit that many of the trends that appear in the individual analyses of our
data are probably signs of a broader trend toward performing more rigorous research
in the field of supply chain management as a whole. Still, we believe that these
individual analyses, and the trends which they reveal, help to further highlight the
many exciting research opportunities in the area of SSCM. As noted in the paper’s
introduction, there are several reasons why SSCM is enduring and not simply the
“flavor of the month.” The broad concept of sustainability, and the key interfaces that
sustainability has with supply chain management, strongly suggests that
sustainability is instead license to do business in the twenty-first century.
And supply chain management is an integral component of this license. Our hope is
that our systematic review of the literature, coupled with our own perspectives and
experiences, will help to meaningfully guide future research in this strategic and
imperative area of supply chain management.
Notes
1. n ¼ 80 is a relatively large number of units of analysis compared to most qualitative data,
which are analyzed in our field.
2. For certain methodologies and data sources, such as conceptual theory building and archival
data analysis, this field was coded as “not applicable”.
References
Belk, R.W., Sherry, J.F. Jr and Wallendorf, M. (1988), “A naturalistic inquiry into buyer and seller
behavior at a swap meet”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 449-70.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1989), “The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: theodicy on the odyssey”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-38.
Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G. and Prussia, G.E. (2000), “Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel
industry: development and test of a sociotechnial model”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 445-65.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
IJPDLM Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.
41,1
Cantor, D.E. (2008), “Workplace safety in the supply chain: a review of the literature and call for
research”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-83.
Calantone, R.J. and Vickery, S.K. (2010), “Introduction to the special topic forum: using archival
and secondary data sources in supply chain management research”, Journal of Supply
60 Chain Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 3-11.
Carter, C.R. (2005), “Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: the key mediating
roles of organizational learning and supplier performance”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 177-94.
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmental

purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 659-85.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “Thirty-five years of the Journal of Supply Chain
Management: where have we been and where are we going?”, Journal of Supply Chain
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Logistics social responsibility: an integrative
framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 145-80.
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2004), “The role of purchasing in the socially responsible
management of the supply chain: a structural equation analysis”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 145-86.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. and Tate, W.L. (2007), “Structure and influence: a logistics management
application of social network analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 137-68.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R. and Grimm, C. (2000), “Environmental purchasing and firm performance:
an empirical investigation”, Transportation Research E, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 219-28.
Carter, C.R., Easton, P.L., Vellenga, D. and Allen, B.J. (2009), “Affiliation of authors in
transportation and logistics academic journals: a reevaluation”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, D. (1960), “A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology”, Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-54.
Crowther, M.A. and Cook, D.J. (2007), “Trials and tribulations of systematic reviews and
meta-analysis”, Hematology, pp. 493-7.
Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity
performance in the UK”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5/6 Nos 3&4,
pp. 131-5.
Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century,
New Society, Stoney Creek, CT.
Enarsson, L. (1998), “Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Flint, D.J. and Golicic, S.L. (2009), “Searching for competitive advantage through sustainability: SSCM
a qualitative study in the New Zealand wine industry”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 841-60.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Gattiker, T.F. and Carter, C.R. (2010), “Understanding project champions’ ability to gain
intra-organizational commitment for environmental management projects”, Journal of 61
Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 72-85.
Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Joseph-Matthews, S., Yoon, T.E. and Brudvig, S. (2008), “A decade
of SCM literature: past, present and future implications”, Journal of Supply Chain

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Jayaraman, V., Klassen, R. and Linton, J.D. (2007), “Supply chain management in a sustainable
environment”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1071-4.
Kaufmann, L., Carter, C.R. and Buhrmann, C. (2011), Contextual Variables Influencing Individual
Debiasing Efforts in Supplier Selection Decisions, working paper, WHU, Koblenz.
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1996), “The impact of environmental management on firm
performance”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1199-214.
Kraemer, H.C. (1979), “Ramifications of a population model for K as a coefficient of agreement”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 44, pp. 461-72.
Linton, J.D., Jayaraman, V. and Klassen, R. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.
McGrath, J.E. (1982), “Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas”, in McGrath, J.E.,
Martin, J. and Kulka, R.A. (Eds), Judgement Calls in Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,
pp. 69-102.
Mowday, R.T. (1998), “Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 387-401.
Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2002), “Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study”,
Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 23-35.
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. 53-73.
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989), “Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative
judgments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 135-48.
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), “Sustainable global supplier
management: the role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 45-63.
Rust, R.T. and Cooil, B. (1994), “Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and
implications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Saltzman, G.M. and Belzer, M.H. (2002), “The case for strengthened motor carrier hours of service
regulations”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 51-71.
Sampson, S. and Spring, M. (2011), “Special topic forum on service supply chains”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, p. 95, forthcoming.
IJPDLM Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
41,1 pp. 1699-710.
Sheu, J. (2008), “Green supply chain management, reverse logistics, and nuclear power
generation”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 19-46.
Tate, W., Ellram, L.M. and Kirchoff, J.F. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reports:
62 a thematic analysis related to supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smar, 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. 207-22.
Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. (1994), “It’s not easy being green”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 46-52.
Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational
Contracting, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Williamson, O.E. (2008), “Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chain
management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 5-16.
Further reading
Carter, C.R., Kaufmann, L. and Michel, A. (2007), “Behavioral supply management: an integration
of human judgment and decision making theory into the field of supply management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 631-69.
Corresponding author
Craig R. Carter can be contacted at: crcarter@asu.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, Cátia da Silva, Ana Carvalho. 2018. Opportunities and challenges in sustainable
supply chain: An operations research perspective. European Journal of Operational Research 268:2,
399-431. [Crossref]
2. Antonio K.W. Lau, Peter K.C. Lee, T.C.E. Cheng. 2018. An empirical taxonomy of corporate social
responsibility in China's manufacturing industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 188, 322-338. [Crossref]
3. Jerry Patchell. 2018. Can the implications of the GHG Protocol's scope 3 standard be realized?. Journal
of Cleaner Production 185, 941-958. [Crossref]
4. Miguel Afonso Sellitto. 2018. Reverse logistics activities in three companies of the process industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 923-931. [Crossref]
5. Cristino Alberto Gómez-Luciano, Félix Rafael Rondón Domínguez, Fernando González-Andrés, Beatriz
Urbano López De Meneses. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management: Contributions of supplies
markets. Journal of Cleaner Production 184, 311-320. [Crossref]
6. FayeziSajad, Sajad Fayezi, ZomorrodiMaryam, Maryam Zomorrodi, BalsLydia, Lydia Bals. Procurement
sustainability tensions: an integrative perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Seyed Mojib Zahraee, Fatemeh Mamizadeh, Seyyed Amir Vafaei. 2018. Greening Assessment of Suppliers
in Automotive Supply Chain: An Empirical Survey of the Automotive Industry in Iran. Global Journal
of Flexible Systems Management 47. . [Crossref]
8. C.Gahana Gopal, Gahana Gopal C., PatilYogesh B., Yogesh B. Patil, K.T.Shibin, Shibin K.T.,
PrakashAnand, Anand Prakash. 2018. Conceptual frameworks for the drivers and barriers of integrated
sustainable solid waste management. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 29:3,
516-546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. RoyVivek, Vivek Roy, SchoenherrTobias, Tobias Schoenherr, CharanParikshit, Parikshit Charan. 2018.
The thematic landscape of literature in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 38:4, 1091-1124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Md Abdul Moktadir, Syed Mithun Ali, R. Rajesh, Sanjoy Kumar Paul. 2018. Modeling the
interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production 181, 631-651. [Crossref]
11. Venkatesh Mani, Angappa Gunasekaran, Catarina Delgado. 2018. Supply chain social sustainability:
Standard adoption practices in Portuguese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production
Economics 198, 149-164. [Crossref]
12. Katri Kauppi, Asta Salmi, Weimu You. 2018. Sourcing from Africa: A Systematic Review and a Research
Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 20:2, 627-650. [Crossref]
13. Jury Gualandris, Robert D. Klassen. 2018. EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: Delivering
Transformational Change: Aligning Supply Chains and Stakeholders in Non-Governmental
Organizations. Journal of Supply Chain Management 54:2, 34-48. [Crossref]
14. Jonathan L. Johnson, Kevin J. Dooley, David G. Hyatt, Andrew M. Hutson. 2018. EMERGING
DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: Cross-Sector Relations in Global Supply Chains: A Social Capital
Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 54:2, 21-33. [Crossref]
15. Sebastian Kot. 2018. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Small and Medium Enterprises.
Sustainability 10:4, 1143. [Crossref]
16. Dermot O'Reilly, Stephen Allen, Patrick Reedy. 2018. Reimagining the Scales, Dimensions and Fields of
Socio-ecological Sustainability. British Journal of Management 29:2, 220-234. [Crossref]
17. Martin Geissdoerfer, Sandra Naomi Morioka, Marly Monteiro de Carvalho, Steve Evans. 2018. Business
models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
18. Sreejith Balasubramanian, Vinaya Shukla. 2018. Environmental supply chain management in the
construction sector: theoretical underpinnings. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
13, 1-27. [Crossref]
19. PakdeechohoNutcharee, Nutcharee Pakdeechoho, SukhotuVatcharapol, Vatcharapol Sukhotu. 2018.
Sustainable supply chain collaboration: incentives in emerging economies. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 29:2, 273-294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. MohantyMahamaya, Mahamaya Mohanty. 2018. Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using total
interpretive structural modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis. Management of Environmental

Quality: An International Journal 29:2, 216-239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. VildåsenSigurd Sagen, Sigurd Sagen Vildåsen, HavenvidMalena Ingemansson, Malena Ingemansson
Havenvid. 2018. The role of interaction for corporate sustainability. IMP Journal 12:1, 148-170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. MorganTyler R., Tyler R. Morgan, TokmanMert, Mert Tokman, RicheyRobert Glenn, Robert Glenn
Richey, DefeeCliff, Cliff Defee. 2018. Resource commitment and sustainability: a reverse logistics
performance process model. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 48:2,
23. SenDilip Kumar, Dilip Kumar Sen, DattaSaurav, Saurav Datta, MahapatraS.S., S.S. Mahapatra. 2018.
Sustainable supplier selection in intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a decision-making perspective.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 25:2, 545-574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Xiaohong Liu. 2018. LRN 2016 SPECIAL – the antecedents and consequences of reduction within a
supply chain collaboration orientation of CO 2 emissions: evidence from China. International Journal of
Logistics Research and Applications 21:2, 160-175. [Crossref]
25. Giana de Vargas Mores, Caroline Pauletto Spanhol Finocchio, Rodrigo Barichello, Eugenio Avila Pedrozo.
2018. Sustainability and innovation in the Brazilian supply chain of green plastic. Journal of Cleaner
Production 177, 12-18. [Crossref]
26. Wei Shan, Jingyi Wang. 2018. Mapping the Landscape and Evolutions of Green Supply Chain
Management. Sustainability 10:3, 597. [Crossref]
27. Kai Foerstl, Jan Meinlschmidt, Christian Busse. 2018. It's a match! Choosing information processing
mechanisms to address sustainability-related uncertainty in sustainable supply management. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management . [Crossref]
28. André Tchokogué, Jean Nollet, Nathalie Merminod, Gilles Paché, Véronique Goupil. 2018. Is Supply's
Actual Contribution to Sustainable Development Strategic and Operational?. Business Strategy and the
Environment 27:3, 336-358. [Crossref]
29. Sadaat Ali Yawar, Katri Kauppi. 2018. Understanding the adoption of socially responsible supplier
development practices using institutional theory: Dairy supply chains in India. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 24:2, 164-176. [Crossref]
30. Dayal S. Prasad, Rudra P. Pradhan, Kunal Gaurav, Partha P. Chatterjee, Inderpal Kaur, Saurav Dash,
Sagar Nayak. 2018. Analysing the critical success factors for implementation of sustainable supply chain
management: an Indian case study. DECISION 45:1, 3-25. [Crossref]
31. Qi Zhou, Xiangfeng Chen, Shuting Li. 2018. Innovative Financial Approach for Agricultural
Sustainability: A Case Study of Alibaba. Sustainability 10:3, 891. [Crossref]
32. Christoph Kolotzek, Christoph Helbig, Andrea Thorenz, Armin Reller, Axel Tuma. 2018. A company-
oriented model for the assessment of raw material supply risks, environmental impact and social
implications. Journal of Cleaner Production 176, 566-580. [Crossref]
33. Lydia Bals, Wendy L. Tate. 2018. Sustainable Supply Chain Design in Social Businesses: Advancing the
Theory of Supply Chain. Journal of Business Logistics 39:1, 57-79. [Crossref]
34. Vincent E. Castillo, Diane A. Mollenkopf, John E. Bell, Hamparsum Bozdogan. 2018. Supply Chain
Integrity: A Key to Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics 39:1, 38-56.
[Crossref]
35. Sidhartha S. Padhi, Rupesh K. Pati, A. Rajeev. 2018. Framework for selecting sustainable supply chain
processes and industries using an integrated approach. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
36. MeinlschmidtJan, Jan Meinlschmidt, SchleperMartin C., Martin C. Schleper, FoerstlKai, Kai Foerstl.
Tackling the sustainability iceberg. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, ahead
of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Editinete André da Rocha Garcia, José Milton de Sousa-Filho, João Maurício Gama Boaventura. 2018.
The influence of social disclosure on the relationship between Corporate Financial Performance and
Corporate Social Performance*. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 21:0. . [Crossref]
38. ZhuSuning, Suning Zhu, SongJiahe, Jiahe Song, HazenBenjamin T., Benjamin T. Hazen, LeeKang,
Kang Lee, CegielskiCasey, Casey Cegielski. 2018. How supply chain analytics enables operational supply
chain transparency. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 48:1, 47-68.
39. KnollHedda Ofoole, Hedda Ofoole Knoll, JastramSarah Margaretha, Sarah Margaretha Jastram. A
pragmatist perspective on sustainable global value chain governance – the case of Dr. Bronner’s. Society
and Business Review, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. , , , . 2018. Impacts of Power Structure on Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Sustainability 10:2,
55. [Crossref]
41. Aijun Liu, Haiyang Liu, Yaxuan Xiao, Sang-Bing Tsai, Hui Lu. 2018. An Empirical Study on Design
Partner Selection in Green Product Collaboration Design. Sustainability 10:2, 133. [Crossref]
42. M. Ricardo Saavedra M., Cristiano Hora de O. Fontes, Francisco Gaudêncio M. Freires. 2018. Sustainable
and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
82, 247-259. [Crossref]
43. Matthias Klumpp. 2018. How to Achieve Supply Chain Sustainability Efficiently? Taming the Triple
Bottom Line Split Business Cycle. Sustainability 10:2, 397. [Crossref]
44. Zabihollah Rezaee. 2018. Supply Chain Management and Business Sustainability Synergy: A Theoretical
and Integrated Perspective. Sustainability 10:2, 275. [Crossref]
45. Piera Centobelli, Roberto Cerchione, Emilio Esposito. 2018. Environmental Sustainability and Energy-
Efficient Supply Chain Management: A Review of Research Trends and Proposed Guidelines. Energies
11:2, 275. [Crossref]
46. Blanka Tundys, Tomasz Wiśniewski. 2018. The Selected Method and Tools for Performance
Measurement in the Green Supply Chain—Survey Analysis in Poland. Sustainability 10:2, 549. [Crossref]
47. El BazJamal, Jamal El Baz, FreiRegina, Regina Frei, LaguirIssam, Issam Laguir. 2018. Reverse supply
chain practices in developing countries: the case of Morocco. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 29:1, 198-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Ehsan KhanMohammadi, HamidReza Talaie, Hossein Safari, Reza Salehzadeh. 2018. Supplier evaluation
and selection for sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty conditions. International Journal
of Sustainable Engineering 2, 1-15. [Crossref]
49. Petri Helo, Hanne Ala-Harja. 2018. Green logistics in food distribution – a case study. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 21, 1-16. [Crossref]
50. Debadyuti Das. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management in Indian organisations: an empirical
investigation. International Journal of Production Research 12, 1-19. [Crossref]
51. Laura Macchion, Alessandro Da Giau, Federico Caniato, Maria Caridi, Pamela Danese, Rinaldo Rinaldi,
Andrea Vinelli. 2018. Strategic approaches to sustainability in fashion supply chain management.
Production Planning & Control 29:1, 9-28. [Crossref]
52. Harald Gmelin, Stefan Seuring. Sustainability and New Product Development: Five Exploratory Case
Studies in the Automotive Industry 211-232. [Crossref]
53. Deepak Mathivathanan, Devika Kannan, A. Noorul Haq. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management
practices in Indian automotive industry: A multi-stakeholder view. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
128, 284-305. [Crossref]
54. Joshin John, Rajiv Kumar Srivastava. 2018. Decision Insights for Shipbreaking using Environmental
Impact Assessment. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 9:1, 45-62. [Crossref]
55. Tobias Rebs. Quantitative Modeling of Sustainability in Interorganizational Supply Chains 119-134.
[Crossref]
56. Jingchen Zhao. Regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility Through the Lens of Board Accountability
and the Case of China 121-153. [Crossref]
57. Wai Peng Wong, Keng Lin Soh, Chandra Mohan Sinnandavar, Naveed Mushtaq. 2018. Could the
service consumption-production interface lift national logistics performance?. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 128, 222-239. [Crossref]
58. Marcus Brandenburg, Gerd J. Hahn, Tobias Rebs. Sustainable Supply Chains: Recent Developments and
Future Trends 1-10. [Crossref]
59. Daiane Mülling Neutzling, Anna Land, Stefan Seuring, Luis Felipe Machado do Nascimento. 2018.
Linking sustainability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. Journal of Cleaner
60. Ralph I. Williams, Torsten M. Pieper, Franz W. Kellermanns, Joseph H. Astrachan. 2018. Family Firm
Goals and their Effects on Strategy, Family and Organization Behavior: A Review and Research Agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews 20, S63. [Crossref]
61. Margarita Stohler, Tobias Rebs, Marcus Brandenburg. Toward the Integration of Sustainability Metrics
into the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model 49-60. [Crossref]
62. Kannan Govindan. 2018. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Production Economics 195, 419-431. [Crossref]
63. Giang N. T. Nguyen, Tapan Sarker. 2018. Sustainable coffee supply chain management: a case study
in Buon Me Thuot City, Daklak, Vietnam. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 3:1. .
[Crossref]
64. Venkatesh Mani, Angappa Gunasekaran, Catarina Delgado. 2018. Enhancing supply chain performance
through supplier social sustainability: An emerging economy perspective. International Journal of
Production Economics 195, 259-272. [Crossref]
65. Jyoti Dhingra Darbari, Vernika Agarwal, Rashi Sharma, P. C. Jha. Analysis of Impediments to
Sustainability in the Food Supply Chain: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach 57-68. [Crossref]
66. Minhao Zhang, Ying Kei Tse, Bob Doherty, Si Li, Pervaiz Akhtar. 2018. Sustainable supply chain
management: Confirmation of a higher-order model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128, 206-221.
[Crossref]
67. Dimitar Zvezdov, Roya Manuela Akhavan. Interactions Along the Supply Chain for Building Dynamic
Capabilities for Sustainable Supply Chain Management 35-48. [Crossref]
68. Zainab Alansari, Safeeullah Soomro, Mohammad Riyaz Belgaum, Shahaboddin Shamshirband. The Rise
of Internet of Things (IoT) in Big Healthcare Data: Review and Open Research Issues 675-685. [Crossref]
69. Arezoo Azimifard, Seyed Hamed Moosavirad, Shahram Ariafar. 2018. Selecting sustainable supplier
countries for Iran's steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy
. [Crossref]
70. Christopher S. Tang. 2018. Socially responsible supply chains in emerging markets: Some research
opportunities. Journal of Operations Management 57, 1-10. [Crossref]
71. Carlos Montenegro, Edison Loza-Aguirre, Marco Segura-Morales. Using Probabilistic Topic Models to
Study Orientation of Sustainable Supply Chain Research 576-586. [Crossref]
72. Edison Loza-Aguirre, Marco Segura Morales, Henry N. Roa, Carlos Montenegro Armas. Unveiling
Unbalance on Sustainable Supply Chain Research: Did We Forget Something? 264-274. [Crossref]
73. Matloub Hussain, Raid Al-Aomar. 2017. A model for assessing the impact of sustainable supplier selection
on the performance of service supply chains. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 13, 1-16.
[Crossref]
74. Manish Shukla, Manoj Kumar Tiwari. 2017. Big-data analytics framework for incorporating smallholders
in sustainable palm oil production. Production Planning & Control 28:16, 1365-1377. [Crossref]
75. Stephanie Graham, Byron Graham, Diane Holt. 2017. The relationship between downstream
environmental logistics practices and performance. International Journal of Production Economics .
[Crossref]
76. NARAYANASWAMY VENKATARAMAN, KANESAN MUTHUSAMY. 2017. Development of a
multidisciplinary approach to compute sustainability index for manufacturing plants - Singapore
perspective. Energy Procedia 143, 327-335. [Crossref]
77. Elisabete Correia, Helena Carvalho, Susana Azevedo, Kannan Govindan. 2017. Maturity Models in Supply
Chain Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 9:12, 64. [Crossref]
78. Rakhi Das, Krishnendu Shaw. 2017. Uncertain supply chain network design considering carbon footprint
and social factors using two-stage approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 19:10,
2491-2519. [Crossref]
79. Raed Jaradat, Frank Adams, Sawsan Abutabenjeh, Charles Keating. 2017. The Complementary
Perspective of System of Systems in Collaboration, Integration, and Logistics: A Value-Chain Based
Paradigm of Supply Chain Management. Systems 5:4, 50. [Crossref]
80. Catherine A. Nguegan Nguegan, Chengedzai Mafini. 2017. Supply chain management problems in the
food processing industry: Implications for business performance. Acta Commercii 17:1. . [Crossref]
81. Tobias Rebs, Marcus Brandenburg, Stefan Seuring, Margarita Stohler. 2017. Stakeholder influences and
risks in sustainable supply chain management: a comparison of qualitative and quantitative studies. Business
Research 15. . [Crossref]
82. ChenInjazz J., Injazz J. Chen, KitsisAleksandr M., Aleksandr M. Kitsis. 2017. A research framework of
sustainable supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:4, 1454-1478.
83. K. T. Shibin, Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Benjamin Hazen, David Roubaud, Shivam
Gupta, Cyril Foropon. 2017. Examining sustainable supply chain management of SMEs using resource
based view and institutional theory. Annals of Operations Research 35. . [Crossref]
84. Derek Baker, Kanar Dizyee, Warren Parker, Frank Scrimgeour, Garry Griffith. 2017. Primary Industry
Chains and Networks: Analysis for Public and Private Interests. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
34:6, 699-709. [Crossref]

85. Zulfiquar N. Ansari, Ravi Kant. 2017. Exploring the Framework Development Status for Sustainability in
Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Synthesis and Future Research Directions. Business
Strategy and the Environment 26:7, 873-892. [Crossref]
86. María del Mar Alonso-Almeida, Marian Buil-Fabregà, Llorenç Bagur-Femenías, Juan Pedro Aznar-
Alarcón. 2017. Shedding Light on Sustainable Development and Stakeholder Engagement: The Role of
Individual Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainable Development 25:6, 625-638. [Crossref]
87. Wenyan Song, Zhitao Xu, Hu-Chen Liu. 2017. Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for
solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79,
1461-1471. [Crossref]
88. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. Tang. 2017. Corporate social sustainability in supply chains: a
thematic analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Research 24, 1-20. [Crossref]
89. Tommi Suominen, Janni Kunttu, Gediminas Jasinevičius, Diana Tuomasjukka, Marcus Lindner. 2017.
Trade-offs in sustainability impacts of introducing cascade use of wood. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research 32:7, 588-597. [Crossref]
90. Rika Ampuh Hadiguna, Benny Tjahjono. 2017. A framework for managing sustainable palm oil supply
chain operations: a case of Indonesia. Production Planning & Control 28:13, 1093-1106. [Crossref]
91. El BazJamal, Jamal El Baz, LaguirIssam, Issam Laguir. 2017. Third-party logistics providers (TPLs)
and environmental sustainability practices in developing countries. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 37:10, 1451-1474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. GiuffridaMaria, Maria Giuffrida, MangiaracinaRiccardo, Riccardo Mangiaracina, PeregoAlessandro,
Alessandro Perego, TuminoAngela, Angela Tumino. 2017. Cross-border B2C e-commerce to Greater
China and the role of logistics: a literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
93. Antony Paulraj, Injazz J. Chen, Constantin Blome. 2017. Motives and Performance Outcomes of
Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices: A Multi-theoretical Perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics 145:2, 239-258. [Crossref]
94. Markus Vejvar, Kee-hung Lai, Chris K.Y. Lo, Elmar W.M. Fürst. 2017. Strategic responses to
institutional forces pressuring sustainability practice adoption: Case-based evidence from inland port
operations. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . [Crossref]
95. K.T. Shibin, Angappa Gunasekaran, Rameshwar Dubey. 2017. Explaining sustainable supply chain
performance using a total interpretive structural modeling approach. Sustainable Production and
Consumption 12, 104-118. [Crossref]
96. Chunguang Bai, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Joseph Sarkis. 2017. An implementation path for green
information technology systems in the Ghanaian mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 164,
1105-1123. [Crossref]
97. K.T. Shibin, Angappa Gunasekaran, Rameshwar Dubey. 2017. Flexible sustainable manufacturing via
decision support simulation: A case study approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 206-220.
[Crossref]
98. Keun Hyo Yook, Jeong Hoon Choi, Nallan C. Suresh. 2017. Linking green purchasing capabilities to
environmental and economic performance: The moderating role of firm size. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management . [Crossref]

99. Mieneke Koster, Bart Vos, Roger Schroeder. 2017. Management innovation driving sustainable supply
management. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 20:4, 240-257. [Crossref]
100. Debadyuti Das. 2017. Development and validation of a scale for measuring Sustainable Supply Chain
Management practices and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 1344-1362. [Crossref]
101. Patrick Dallasega, Erwin Rauch. 2017. Sustainable Construction Supply Chains through Synchronized
Production Planning and Control in Engineer-to-Order Enterprises. Sustainability 9:10, 1888. [Crossref]
102. A. Rajeev, Rupesh K. Pati, Sidhartha S. Padhi, Kannan Govindan. 2017. Evolution of sustainability in
supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 299-314. [Crossref]
103. Chih-Hung Hsu, An-Yuan Chang, Wei Luo. 2017. Identifying key performance factors for sustainability
development of SMEs – integrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. Journal of Cleaner Production 161,
629-645. [Crossref]
104. BaskAnu, Anu Bask, RajahonkaMervi, Mervi Rajahonka. 2017. The role of environmental sustainability
in the freight transport mode choice. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
47:7, 560-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Dennis Stindt, Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto, Christian Nuss, Martin Dirr, Marta Jakowczyk, Andrew
Gibson, Axel Tuma. 2017. On the Attractiveness of Product Recovery: The Forces that Shape Reverse
Markets. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21:4, 980-994. [Crossref]
106. BusseChristian, Christian Busse, RegelmannAlexander, Alexander Regelmann,
ChithambaramHariganesh, Hariganesh Chithambaram, WagnerStephan M., Stephan M. Wagner. 2017.
Managerial perceptions of energy in logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
107. Andreas Thöni, A Min Tjoa. 2017. Information technology for sustainable supply chain management: a
literature survey. Enterprise Information Systems 11:6, 828-858. [Crossref]
108. Anne van Lakerveld, Rob van Tulder. 2017. Managing the transition to sustainable supply chain
management practices: Evidence from Dutch leader firms in Sub-Saharan Africa. Review of Social Economy
75:3, 255-279. [Crossref]
109. Kenneth W. Green, Pamela J. Zelbst, Victor E. Sower, Jeremy C. Bellah. 2017. Impact of Radio Frequency
Identification Technology on Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Computer Information Systems 57:3,
269-277. [Crossref]
110. Moritz Petersen, Sebastian Brockhaus, Stanley E. Fawcett, A. Michael Knemeyer. 2017. The ties that
bind: how a collaboration deficit impedes the development of sustainable products. Supply Chain Forum:
An International Journal 18:3, 166-176. [Crossref]
111. Marcus Brandenburg. 2017. A hybrid approach to configure eco-efficient supply chains under
consideration of performance and risk aspects. Omega 70, 58-76. [Crossref]
112. Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, Dong Qianli. 2017. Impact of green supply chain management practices
on firms’ performance: an empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 24:20, 16829-16844. [Crossref]
113. VarseiMohsen, Mohsen Varsei, ChristKatherine, Katherine Christ, BurrittRoger, Roger Burritt. 2017.
Distributing wine globally: financial and environmental trade-offs. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 47:5, 410-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. NormannUlla, Ulla Normann, EllegaardChris, Chris Ellegaard, MøllerMorten Munkgaard, Morten
Munkgaard Møller. 2017. Supplier perceptions of distributive justice in sustainable apparel sourcing.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:5, 368-386. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
115. TimmerStephane, Stephane Timmer, KaufmannLutz, Lutz Kaufmann. 2017. Conflict minerals
traceability – a fuzzy set analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
116. BusseChristian, Christian Busse, MollenkopfDiane A., Diane A. Mollenkopf. 2017. Under the umbrella
of sustainable supply chain management: emergent solutions to real-world problems. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:5, 342-343. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. CanzanielloAngelo, Angelo Canzaniello, HartmannEvi, Evi Hartmann, FifkaMatthias S., Matthias
S. Fifka. 2017. Intra-industry strategic alliances for managing sustainability-related supplier risks.
[PDF]
118. Piera Centobelli, Roberto Cerchione, Emilio Esposito. 2017. Environmental sustainability in the service
industry of transportation and logistics service providers: Systematic literature review and research
directions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 53, 454-470. [Crossref]
119. Thomas Clarke, Martijn Boersma. 2017. The Governance of Global Value Chains: Unresolved Human
Rights, Environmental and Ethical Dilemmas in the Apple Supply Chain. Journal of Business Ethics 143:1,
111-131. [Crossref]
120. Dennis Stindt. 2017. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management - How to
integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability?. Journal of Cleaner Production 153,
146-163. [Crossref]
121. Holger Görg, Aoife Hanley, Stefan Hoffmann, Adnan Seric. 2017. When Do Multinational Companies
Consider Corporate Social Responsibility? A Multi-country Study in Sub-Saharan Africa. Business and
Society Review 122:2, 191-220. [Crossref]
122. Yu Hang Zhang, Ying Wang. 2017. The impact of government incentive on the two competing supply
chains under the perspective of Corporation Social Responsibility: A case study of Photovoltaic industry.
123. Qingyu Zhang, Lily Weng, Helin Ma. Multi-objective optimization for a sustainable closed-loop supply
chain network 1-6. [Crossref]
124. Ozden Tozanli, Gazi Duman, Elif Kongar, Surendra Gupta. 2017. Environmentally Concerned Logistics
Operations in Fuzzy Environment: A Literature Survey. Logistics 1:1, 4. [Crossref]
125. Dongwook Kim, Sungbum Kim. 2017. Sustainable Supply Chain Based on News Articles and
Sustainability Reports: Text Mining with Leximancer and DICTION. Sustainability 9:6, 1008. [Crossref]
126. Marco Bertoni. 2017. Introducing Sustainability in Value Models to Support Design Decision Making:
A Systematic Review. Sustainability 9:6, 994. [Crossref]
127. ErikssonDavid, David Eriksson, HilletofthPer, Per Hilletofth. 2017. Foliated networks to analyze moral
responsibility: a conceptual model. European Business Review 29:3, 360-371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
128. DubeyRameshwar, Rameshwar Dubey, GunasekaranAngappa, Angappa Gunasekaran, ChildeStephen J.,
Stephen J. Childe, PapadopoulosThanos, Thanos Papadopoulos, Fosso WambaSamuel, Samuel Fosso
Wamba. 2017. World class sustainable supply chain management: critical review and further research
directions. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:2, 332-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Madjid Tavana, Morteza Yazdani, Debora Di Caprio. 2017. An application of an integrated ANP–QFD
framework for sustainable supplier selection. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
20:3, 254-275. [Crossref]
130. ChiariniAndrea, Andrea Chiarini, VagnoniEmidia, Emidia Vagnoni. 2017. Strategies for modern
operations management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:4, 1065-1081. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
131. Philipp C. Sauer, Stefan Seuring. 2017. Sustainable supply chain management for minerals. Journal of
Cleaner Production 151, 235-249. [Crossref]
132. Abdelkader Daghfous, Taisier Zoubi. 2017. An Auditing Framework for Knowledge-Enabled Supply
Chain Management: Implications for Sustainability. Sustainability 9:5, 791. [Crossref]
133. Zongwei Luo, Rameshwar Dubey, Thanos Papadopoulos, Benjamin Hazen, David Roubaud. 2017.
Explaining Environmental Sustainability in Supply Chains Using Graph Theory. Computational
Economics 16. . [Crossref]
134. AmarahBurhan, Burhan Amarah, LangstonCraig, Craig Langston. 2017. Development of a triple bottom
line stakeholder satisfaction model. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 19:1, 17-35. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
135. B. K. Bala, M. G. K. Bhuiyan, M. M. Alam, Fatimah Mohamed Arshad, Shaufique F. Sidique, E. F. Alias.
2017. Modelling of supply chain of rice in Bangladesh. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations
& Logistics 4:2, 181-197. [Crossref]
136. Paola Signori, Daniel J. Flint, Susan L. Golicic. 2017. Constrained innovation on sustainability in the
global wine industry. Journal of Wine Research 28:2, 71-90. [Crossref]
137. Stefan Gold, Nathan Kunz, Gerald Reiner. 2017. Sustainable Global Agrifood Supply Chains: Exploring
the Barriers. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21:2, 249-260. [Crossref]
138. Richard L. Gruner, Damien Power. 2017. Mimicking natural ecosystems to develop sustainable supply
chains: A theory of socio-ecological intergradation. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 251-264. [Crossref]
139. Deepa Mishra, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Benjamin Hazen. 2017. Green supply chain
performance measures: A review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 10,
85-99. [Crossref]
140. GolicicSusan L., Susan L. Golicic, FlintDaniel J., Daniel J. Flint, SignoriPaola, Paola Signori. 2017.
Building business sustainability through resilience in the wine industry. International Journal of Wine
Business Research 29:1, 74-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Martin Spring, Alan Hughes, Katy Mason, Paul McCaffrey. 2017. Creating the competitive edge: A new
relationship between operations management and industrial policy. Journal of Operations Management
49-51, 6-19. [Crossref]
142. Deepak Mathivathanan, Kannan Govindan, A. Noorul Haq. 2017. Exploring the impact of dynamic
capabilities on sustainable supply chain firm's performance using Grey-Analytical Hierarchy Process.
143. Chengedzai Mafini, Asphat Muposhi. 2017. The impact of green supply chain management in small to
medium enterprises: Cross-sectional evidence. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management 11:0. .
[Crossref]
144. Felix T.S. Chan, Nan Li, S.H. Chung, Mozafar Saadat. 2017. Management of sustainable manufacturing
systems-a review on mathematical problems. International Journal of Production Research 55:4, 1210-1225.
[Crossref]
145. BusseChristian, Christian Busse, SchleperMartin C., Martin C. Schleper, WeilenmannJenny, Jenny
Weilenmann, WagnerStephan M., Stephan M. Wagner. 2017. Extending the supply chain visibility
boundary. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:1, 18-40. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
146. DubeyRameshwar, Rameshwar Dubey, GunasekaranAngappa, Angappa Gunasekaran,
PapadopoulosThanos, Thanos Papadopoulos. 2017. Green supply chain management: theoretical
framework and further research directions. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:1, 184-218.
147. Wenyan Song, Xinguo Ming, Hu-Chen Liu. 2017. Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable supply
chain management: A rough strength-relation analysis method. Journal of Cleaner Production 143,
100-115. [Crossref]
148. Sebastian Brockhaus, Stanley E. Fawcett, A. Michael Knemeyer, Amydee M. Fawcett. 2017. Motivations
for environmental and social consciousness: Reevaluating the sustainability-based view. Journal of Cleaner
149. Adolf Acquaye, Kuishuang Feng, Eunice Oppon, Said Salhi, Taofeeq Ibn-Mohammed, Andrea Genovese,
Klaus Hubacek. 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 187, 571-585. [Crossref]
150. BalasubramanianSreejith, Sreejith Balasubramanian, ShuklaVinaya, Vinaya Shukla. 2017. Green supply
chain management: an empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 22:1, 58-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
151. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. Tang. Social Responsibility in Supply Chains 465-483. [Crossref]
152. Christian Busse, Jan Meinlschmidt, Kai Foerstl. 2017. Managing Information Processing Needs in
Global Supply Chains: A Prerequisite to Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management 53:1, 87-113. [Crossref]
153. Zulfiquar N. Ansari, Ravi Kant. 2017. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 2524-2543. [Crossref]
154. Martin Spring, Luis Araujo. 2017. Product biographies in servitization and the circular economy.
Industrial Marketing Management 60, 126-137. [Crossref]
155. Sini Laari, Juuso Töyli, Lauri Ojala. 2017. Supply chain perspective on competitive strategies and green
supply chain management strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production 141, 1303-1315. [Crossref]
156. Garth Hickle. 2017. Extending the Boundaries: An Assessment of the Integration of Extended Producer
Responsibility Within Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:1,
112-124. [Crossref]
157. Bilash Kanti Bala, Fatimah Mohamed Arshad, Kusairi Mohd Noh. Modelling of Supply Chain of Rice
Milling Systems in Bangladesh 217-247. [Crossref]
158. Andrea Genovese, Adolf A. Acquaye, Alejandro Figueroa, S.C. Lenny Koh. 2017. Sustainable supply
chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega
66, 344-357. [Crossref]
159. Hendrik Reefke, David Sundaram. 2017. Key themes and research opportunities in sustainable supply
chain management – identification and evaluation. Omega 66, 195-211. [Crossref]
160. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Stephen J. Childe, K.T. Shibin,
Samuel Fosso Wamba. 2017. Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research
directions. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 1119-1130. [Crossref]
161. Christian Busse, Andrew P. Kach, Christoph Bode. 2016. Sustainability and the False Sense of Legitimacy:
How Institutional Distance Augments Risk in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Business Logistics 37:4,
312-328. [Crossref]
162. Huiping Ding, Qian Liu, Lucy Zheng. 2016. Assessing the economic performance of an environmental
sustainable supply chain in reducing environmental externalities. European Journal of Operational Research
255:2, 463-480. [Crossref]
163. Stefan Winter, Rainer Lasch. 2016. Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation – Lessons
from the fashion and apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 175-190. [Crossref]
164. V. Mani, Rajat Agarwal, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Rameshwar Dubey, Stephen
J. Childe. 2016. Social sustainability in the supply chain: Construct development and measurement
validation. Ecological Indicators 71, 270-279. [Crossref]
165. Lisa M. Ellram, Wendy L. Tate. 2016. The use of secondary data in purchasing and supply management
(P/SM) research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 22:4, 250-254. [Crossref]
166. Donna Marshall, Lucy McCarthy, Marius Claudy, Paul McGrath. 2016. Piggy in the Middle: How Direct
Customer Power Affects First-Tier Suppliers’ Adoption of Socially Responsible Procurement Practices
and Performance. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
167. Usama Awan. 2016. Mediation analysis of environmental training: Perceived stakeholder pressure
and environmental supply chain management practices. International Journal of Research Studies in
Management 6:1. . [Crossref]
168. AgrawalSaurabh, Saurabh Agrawal, SinghRajesh K., Rajesh K. Singh, MurtazaQasim, Qasim Murtaza.
2016. Disposition decisions in reverse logistics by using AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of
Modelling in Management 11:4, 932-948. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
169. François Fulconis, Gilles Paché, Emmanuelle Reynaud. 2016. Vers une nouvelle forme de croissance
économique. Revue Française de Gestion 42:261, 127-149. [Crossref]
170. Arindam Ghosh, J. K. Jha, S. P. Sarmah. 2016. Optimizing a two-echelon serial supply chain with different
carbon policies. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 9:6, 363-377. [Crossref]
171. Shashi, Sri Yogi Kottala, Rajwinder Singh. 2016. A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values,
attitudes and purchase intentions in the organic food supply chain. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities
and Social Sciences . [Crossref]
172. Mehmood Khan, Matloub Hussain, Hussein M. Saber. 2016. Information sharing in a sustainable supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics 181, 208-214. [Crossref]
173. Johann Meckenstock, Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, Ana Carvalho. 2016. The Wicked Character of
Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Evidence from Sustainability Reports. Business Strategy and the
Environment 25:7, 449-477. [Crossref]
174. Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Joseph Sarkis, Xuping Wang. 2016. Assessing green supply chain practices in the
Ghanaian mining industry: A framework and evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics
181, 325-341. [Crossref]
175. Ali Esfahbodi, Yufeng Zhang, Glyn Watson. 2016. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging
economies: Trade-offs between environmental and cost performance. International Journal of Production
Economics 181, 350-366. [Crossref]
176. SimangunsongElliot, Elliot Simangunsong, HendryLinda C., Linda C. Hendry, StevensonMark, Mark
Stevenson. 2016. Managing supply chain uncertainty with emerging ethical issues. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 36:10, 1272-1307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
177. Rajesh K. Singh, Hari Om Sharma, Suresh K. Garg. 2016. Study on Supply Chain Issues in an Auto
Component Manufacturing Organization: Case Study. Global Business Review 17:5, 1196-1210. [Crossref]
178. Aurélie Kessous, Anne-Laure Boncori, Gilles Paché. 2016. Are consumers sensitive to large retailers'
sustainable practices? A semiotic analysis in the French context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
32, 117-130. [Crossref]
179. Hamid Moradlou, Chris J Backhouse. 2016. A review of manufacturing re-shoring in the context of
customer-focused postponement strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 230:9, 1561-1571. [Crossref]
180. Luís Miguel D. F. Ferreira, Cristóvão Silva, Susana Garrido Azevedo. 2016. An environmental
balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmarking: An
181. Venkatesh Mani, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Benjamin Hazen, Rameshwar Dubey.
2016. Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 111, 42-52. [Crossref]
182. Seongtae Kim, Claudia Colicchia, David Menachof. 2016. Ethical Sourcing: An Analysis of the Literature
and Implications for Future Research. Journal of Business Ethics 56. . [Crossref]
183. Pantelitsa P. Eteokleous, Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantine S. Katsikeas. 2016. Corporate social
responsibility in international marketing: review, assessment, and future research. International Marketing
Review 33:4, 580-624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
184. Trond Hammervoll. 2016. Expanding the Unit of Analysis from Firms to Supply Networks. Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing 23:3, 193-205. [Crossref]
185. Nasrin Asgari, Ehsan Nikbakhsh, Alex Hill, Reza Zanjirani Farahani. 2016. Supply chain management
1982–2015: a review. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 27:3, 353-379. [Crossref]
186. Nicole Luisa Schnittfeld, Timo Busch. 2016. Sustainability Management within Supply Chains - A
Resource Dependence View. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:5, 337-354. [Crossref]
187. Rodney W. Thomas, Brian S. Fugate, Jessica L Robinson, Mertcan Tasçioglu. 2016. The impact of
environmental and social sustainability practices on sourcing behavior. International Journal of Physical
188. Zabihollah Rezaee. 2016. Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal
of Accounting Literature 36, 48-64. [Crossref]
189. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. 2016. Impediments to Social Sustainability Adoption in the
Supply Chain: An ISM and MICMAC Analysis in Indian Manufacturing Industries. Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management 17:2, 135-156. [Crossref]
190. Harpreet Kaur, Surya Prakash Singh, Rémy Glardon. 2016. An Integer Linear Program for Integrated
Supplier Selection: A Sustainable Flexible Framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
17:2, 113-134. [Crossref]
191. Anne M. Quarshie, Asta Salmi, Rudolf Leuschner. 2016. Sustainability and corporate social responsibility
in supply chains: The state of research in supply chain management and business ethics journals. Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management 22:2, 82-97. [Crossref]
192. Bradley Ridoutt, Peerasak Sanguansri, Lawrence Bonney, Steven Crimp, Gemma Lewis, Lilly Lim-
Camacho. 2016. Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in the Food Industry—Insights from Product
Carbon and Water Footprints. Climate 4:2, 26. [Crossref]
193. Longfei He, Chenglin Hu, Daozhi Zhao, Haili Lu, Xiaoxi Fu, Yiyu Li. 2016. Carbon emission mitigation
through regulatory policies and operations adaptation in supply chains: theoretic developments and
extensions. Natural Hazards . [Crossref]
194. SinghAmol, Amol Singh, TrivediAshish, Ashish Trivedi. 2016. Sustainable green supply chain
management: trends and current practices. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 265-288. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
195. AgrawalSaurabh, Saurabh Agrawal, SinghRajesh Kr, Rajesh Kr Singh, MurtazaQasim, Qasim Murtaza.
2016. Triple bottom line performance evaluation of reverse logistics. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 289-310.
196. YounisHassan, Hassan Younis, SundarakaniBalan, Balan Sundarakani, VelPrakash, Prakash Vel. 2016.
The impact of implementing green supply chain management practices on corporate performance.
Competitiveness Review 26:3, 216-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
197. Anthony SwaimJames, James Anthony Swaim, MaloniMichael J., Michael J. Maloni, HenleyAmy, Amy
Henley, CampbellStacy, Stacy Campbell. 2016. Motivational influences on supply manager environmental
sustainability behavior. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:3, 305-320. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
198. Kuo-Jui Wu, Ching-Jong Liao, MingLang Tseng, Kevin Kuan-Shun Chiu. 2016. Multi-attribute
approach to sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 116:4, 777-800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
199. SchulzSteven A., Steven A. Schulz, FlaniganRod L., Rod L. Flanigan. 2016. Developing competitive
advantage using the triple bottom line: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
200. Luca Mattia Gelsomino, Riccardo Mangiaracina, Alessandro Perego, Angela Tumino. 2016. Supply chain
finance: a literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:4,
201. Laura Maria Ferri, Nelly Oelze, André Habisch, Mario Molteni. 2016. Implementation of responsible
Procurement Management: An Institutional Perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:4,
261-276. [Crossref]
202. Nelly Oelze, Stefan Ulstrup Hoejmose, Andre Habisch, Andrew Millington. 2016. Sustainable
Development in Supply Chain Management: The Role of Organizational Learning for Policy
Implementation. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:4, 241-260. [Crossref]
203. Jon F Kirchoff, Wendy L Tate, Diane A Mollenkopf. 2016. The impact of strategic organizational
orientations on green supply chain management and firm performance. International Journal of Physical
204. Tyler R. Morgan, Robert Glenn Richey Jr, Chad W. Autry. 2016. Developing a reverse logistics
competency. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:3, 293-315.
205. Anne Touboulic. 2016. Thomas E. Johnsen, Mickey Howard, and Joe Miemczyk. Purchasing and Supply
Chain Management: A Sustainability Perspective. Oxon, UK: Routledge (2014) pp. 420. Journal of
Marketing Channels 23:1-2, 85-87. [Crossref]

206. Eleftherios Iakovou, Dionysis Bochtis, Dimitrios Vlachos, Dimitrios Aidonis. Sustainable Agrifood Supply
Chain Management 1-39. [Crossref]
207. Loo-See Beh, Abby Ghobadian, Qile He, David Gallear, Nicholas O'Regan. 2016. Second-life retailing:
a reverse supply chain perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:2, 259-272.
208. Emy Ezura A Jalil, David B. Grant, John D Nicholson, Pauline Deutz. 2016. Reverse logistics in household
recycling and waste systems: a symbiosis perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
209. Jan Meinlschmidt, Kai Foerstl, Jon F Kirchoff. 2016. The role of absorptive and desorptive capacity
(ACDC) in sustainable supply management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
210. Vivek Soundararajan, Jill A. Brown. 2016. Voluntary Governance Mechanisms in Global Supply Chains:
Beyond CSR to a Stakeholder Utility Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 134:1, 83-102. [Crossref]
211. Chih-Chao Chung, Li-Chung Chao, Shi-Jer Lou. 2016. The Establishment of a Green Supplier Selection
and Guidance Mechanism with the ANP and IPA. Sustainability 8:3, 259. [Crossref]
212. Matloub Hussain, Mehmood Khan, Raid Al-Aomar. 2016. A framework for supply chain sustainability
in service industry with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55,
1301-1312. [Crossref]
213. Ana M. Mejías, Enrique Paz, Juan E. Pardo. 2016. Efficiency and sustainability through the best practices
in the Logistics Social Responsibility framework. International Journal of Operations & Production
214. Sebastian Brockhaus, Stan Fawcett, Wolfgang Kersten, Michael Knemeyer. 2016. A framework for
benchmarking product sustainability efforts. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:1, 127-164.
215. ErikssonDavid, David Eriksson, SvenssonGöran, Göran Svensson. 2016. A balance model of theoretical
sustainability – framework and propositions. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business
in society 16:1, 21-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
216. Anne Touboulic, Helen Walker. 2016. A relational, transformative and engaged approach to sustainable
supply chain management: The potential of action research. Human Relations 69:2, 301-343. [Crossref]
217. Christian Gahm, Florian Denz, Martin Dirr, Axel Tuma. 2016. Energy-efficient scheduling in
manufacturing companies: A review and research framework. European Journal of Operational Research
248:3, 744-757. [Crossref]
218. Marco Guerci, Annachiara Longoni, Davide Luzzini. 2016. Translating stakeholder pressures into
environmental performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management 27:2, 262-289. [Crossref]
219. Yang Liu, Jagjit Singh Srai, Steve Evans. 2016. Environmental management: the role of supply chain
capabilities in the auto sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:1, 1-19. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
220. Hanne Ala-Harja, Petri Helo. 2016. Food supply chain sustainable performance in plant decision.
International Journal of Advanced Logistics 5:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
221. Heti Mulyati. 2016. Sustainability in Supply Chain Management Casebook: Applications in SCM: a book
review. Journal of Cleaner Production 110, 198-199. [Crossref]
222. Ki-Hoon Lee, Stephan Vachon. Integrated Supply Network and Business Sustainability 59-93. [Crossref]
223. Luis Miguel D. F. Ferreira, Cristóvao Silva. Integrating Sustainability Metrics in the Supply Chain
Performance Measurement System 113-132. [Crossref]
224. Jon F. Kirchoff, Ayman Omar, Brian S. Fugate. 2016. A Behavioral Theory of Sustainable Supply Chain
Management Decision Making in Non-exemplar Firms. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52:1, 41-65.
[Crossref]
225. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. Flexibility in Social Sustainability: Evidence from Indian
Manufacturing Industries 71-88. [Crossref]
226. Ki-Hoon Lee, Stephan Vachon. Introduction 3-17. [Crossref]
227. Marco Formentini, Paolo Taticchi. 2016. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms
in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1920-1933. [Crossref]
228. Martin Tidy, Xiaojun Wang, Mark Hall. 2016. The role of Supplier Relationship Management in
reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions from food supply chains: supplier engagement in the UK supermarket
sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 3294-3305. [Crossref]
229. Yavuz Ağan, Cemil Kuzey, Mehmet Fatih Acar, Atif Açıkgöz. 2016. The relationships between corporate
social responsibility, environmental supplier development, and firm performance. Journal of Cleaner
230. Ki-Hoon Lee, Stephan Vachon. The Carbon Economy: A Brave New World? 97-133. [Crossref]
231. Yuan-Hsu Lin, Ming-Lang Tseng. 2016. Assessing the competitive priorities within sustainable supply
chain management under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2133-2144. [Crossref]
232. Yanchong Zheng, Tim Kraft, León Valdés. Assessing Consumers’ Valuations of Socially Responsible
Products with Controlled Experiments 29-50. [Crossref]
233. Kannan Govindan, Stefan Seuring, Qinghua Zhu, Susana Garrido Azevedo. 2016. Accelerating the
transition towards sustainability dynamics into supply chain relationship management and governance
structures. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1813-1823. [Crossref]
234. Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Chunguang Bai, Joseph Sarkis, Xuping Wang. 2015. Green supply chain practices
evaluation in the mining industry using a joint rough sets and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Resources
Policy 46, 86-100. [Crossref]
235. Matthias Freise, Stefan Seuring. 2015. Social and environmental risk management in supply chains: a
survey in the clothing industry. Logistics Research 8:1. . [Crossref]
236. Kannan Govindan. 2015. Embedding Sustainability Dynamics in Supply Chain Relationship Management
and Governance Structures: Introduction, Review and oppurtunities. Journal of Cleaner Production .
[Crossref]
237. P.R.C. Gopal, Jitesh Thakkar. 2015. Development of composite sustainable supply chain performance
index for the automobile industry. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 8:6, 366-385. [Crossref]
238. Paolo Taticchi, Patrizia Garengo, Sai S. Nudurupati, Flavio Tonelli, Roberto Pasqualino. 2015. A review
of decision-support tools and performance measurement and sustainable supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Research 53:21, 6473-6494. [Crossref]
239. A. Lake, A. Acquaye, A. Genovese, N. Kumar, S.C.L. Koh. 2015. An application of hybrid life cycle
assessment as a decision support framework for green supply chains. International Journal of Production
240. Ali Haji Vahabzadeh, Arash Asiaei, Suhaiza Zailani. 2015. Reprint of “Green decision-making model
in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104, 334-347.
[Crossref]
241. Ali Haji Vahabzadeh, Arash Asiaei, Suhaiza Zailani. 2015. Green decision-making model in reverse
logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 103, 125-138. [Crossref]
242. Christian Nuss, Ramin Sahamie, Dennis Stindt. 2015. The Reverse Supply Chain Planning Matrix: A
Classification Scheme for Planning Problems in Reverse Logistics. International Journal of Management
Reviews 17:4, 413-436. [Crossref]
243. Ceren Altuntaş Vural. 2015. Sustainable Demand Chain Management: An Alternative Perspective for
Sustainability in the Supply Chain. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 207, 262-273. [Crossref]
244. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. 2015. Social sustainability in the supply chain: analysis of enablers.
Management Research Review 38:9, 1016-1042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
245. Mohammadreza Amiri Khorheh, Frank Moisiadis, Hoda Davarzani. 2015. Socio-environmental
performance of transportation systems. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal
246. Chattharn Limoubpratum, Himanshu Shee, Kamrul Ahsan. 2015. Sustainable distribution through
coopetition strategy. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 18:5, 424-441. [Crossref]
247. Jing Dai, David E. Cantor, Frank L. Montabon. 2015. How Environmental Management Competitive
Pressure Affects a Focal Firm's Environmental Innovation Activities: A Green Supply Chain Perspective.
Journal of Business Logistics 36:3, 242-259. [Crossref]
248. Jen-Yi Chen, Swathi R. Baddam. 2015. The effect of unethical behavior and learning on strategic supplier
selection. International Journal of Production Economics 167, 74-87. [Crossref]
249. Anne Touboulic, Helen Walker. 2015. Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in
sustainable supply chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 21:3, 178-191. [Crossref]
250. David Eriksson, Göran Svensson. 2015. Elements affecting social responsibility in supply chains. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 20:5, 561-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
251. Kavigtha Mohan Kumar, Azmawani Abd Rahman, Murali Sambasivan. Sustainable logistics: An emerging
research area 350-354. [Crossref]
252. Sabariah Yaakub, Muhammad Subhan, Nik Ab Halim Nik Abdullah, Nasrullah Gapar. Environmental
sustainability strategies and impacts 401-406. [Crossref]
253. Alireza Tajbakhsh, Elkafi Hassini. 2015. Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: a review
and research questions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 64:6, 744-783.
254. Paola Signori, Daniel John Flint, Susan Golicic. 2015. Toward sustainable supply chain orientation
(SSCO): mapping managerial perspectives. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
255. Donna Marshall, Lucy McCarthy, Paul McGrath, Marius Claudy. 2015. Going above and beyond: how
sustainability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sustainability supply chain practice
adoption. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:4, 434-454. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
256. Maja Izabela Piecyk, Maria Björklund. 2015. Logistics service providers and corporate social responsibility:
sustainability reporting in the logistics industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
257. Riccardo Mangiaracina, Guang Song, Alessandro Perego. 2015. Distribution network design: a literature
review and a research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:5,
258. P. Dadhich, A. Genovese, N. Kumar, A. Acquaye. 2015. Developing sustainable supply chains in the
UK construction industry: A case study. International Journal of Production Economics 164, 271-284.
[Crossref]
259. ManMohan S. Sodhi. 2015. Conceptualizing Social Responsibility in Operations Via Stakeholder
Resource-Based View. Production and Operations Management n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
260. Marcus Brandenburg, Tobias Rebs. 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective.
Annals of Operations Research 229:1, 213-252. [Crossref]
261. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. 2015. Supply Chain Social Sustainability: A Comparative Case
Analysis in Indian Manufacturing Industries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 189, 234-251.
[Crossref]
262. Jairo R. Montoya-Torres. Designing sustainable supply chains based on the Triple Bottom Line approach
1-6. [Crossref]
263. Inma Borrella, Carlos Mataix, Ruth Carrasco-Gallego. 2015. Smallholder Farmers in the Speciality Coffee
Industry: Opportunities, Constraints and the Businesses that are Making it Possible. IDS Bulletin 46:3,
29-44. [Crossref]
264. Johan Rauer, Lutz Kaufmann. 2015. Mitigating External Barriers to Implementing Green Supply Chain
Management: A Grounded Theory Investigation of Green-Tech Companies' Rare Earth Metals Supply
Chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management 51:2, 65-88. [Crossref]
265. Rick Edgeman. 2015. Wicked global challenges: sustainability in the enterprise crosshairs. Measuring
Business Excellence 19:1, 13-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
266. Hendrik Reefke, Jason Lo. A Review of Tools, Practices, and Approaches for Sustainable Supply Chain
Management 1-19. [Crossref]
267. Anne Touboulic, Helen Walker. 2015. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: a structured
literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:1/2, 16-42.
268. Mary J Meixell, Patrice Luoma. 2015. Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain management.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:1/2, 69-89. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
269. Chee Yew Wong, Christina WY Wong, Sakun Boon-itt. 2015. Integrating environmental management
into supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:1/2, 43-68.
270. Christian F. Durach, Andreas Wieland, Jose A.D. Machuca. 2015. Antecedents and dimensions of supply
chain robustness: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 45:1/2, 118-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
271. William Ariel Sarache-Castro, Yasel José Costa-Salas, Jhully Paulin Martínez-Giraldo. 2015.
Environmental performance evaluation under a green supply chain approach. DYNA 82:189, 207-215.
[Crossref]
272. GurtuAmulya, Amulya Gurtu, SearcyCory, Cory Searcy, JaberM.Y., M.Y. Jaber. 2015. An analysis of
keywords used in the literature on green supply chain management. Management Research Review 38:2,
273. Annachiara Longoni, Raffaella Cagliano. 2015. Environmental and social sustainability priorities.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:2, 216-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
274. Hanne Ala-Harja, Petri Helo. 2015. Reprint of “Green supply chain decisions – Case-based performance
analysis from the food industry”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 74,
11-21. [Crossref]
275. Majid Azadi, Mostafa Jafarian, Reza Farzipoor Saen, Seyed Mostafa Mirhedayatian. 2015. A new fuzzy
DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain
management context. Computers & Operations Research 54, 274-285. [Crossref]
276. Marta Zorzini, Linda C. Hendry, Fahian Anisul Huq, Mark Stevenson. 2015. Socially responsible
sourcing: reviewing the literature and its use of theory. International Journal of Operations & Production
277. Ogoro Thomas Ombati, Philip Hirschsohn. 2015. Stakeholder Salience and Firm’s Accountability on
Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices: A Case of MaxTech, Africa. Journal of Service Science
and Management 08:02, 267-278. [Crossref]
278. T. A. Akinremi, R. Anderson, A. Olomolaiye, L. Adigun. Risk Management as an Essential Tool for
Successful Project Execution in the Upstream Oil Industry . [Crossref]
279. Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy. 2015. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 360-377. [Crossref]
280. Kai Foerstl, Arash Azadegan, Thomas Leppelt, Evi Hartmann. 2015. Drivers of Supplier Sustainability:
Moving Beyond Compliance to Commitment. Journal of Supply Chain Management 51:1, 67-92.
[Crossref]
281. Hendrik Reefke, M. Daud Ahmed, David Sundaram. 2014. Sustainable Supply Chain Management
—Decision Making and Support: The SSCM Maturity Model and System. Global Business Review
15:4_suppl, 1S-12S. [Crossref]
282. Andrea Appolloni, Hui Sun, Fu Jia, Xiaomei Li. 2014. Green Procurement in the private sector: a state
of the art review between 1996 and 2013. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 122-133. [Crossref]
283. Uni Martinsen, Maria Huge-Brodin. 2014. Environmental practices as offerings and requirements on the
logistics market. Logistics Research 7:1. . [Crossref]
284. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. 2014. Supplier selection using social sustainability: AHP based
approach in India. International Strategic Management Review 2:2, 98-112. [Crossref]
285. Riccardo Manzini, Riccardo Accorsi, Ziad Ayyad, Alessandra Bendini, Marco Bortolini, Mauro Gamberi,
Enrico Valli, Tullia Gallina Toschi. 2014. Sustainability and quality in the food supply chain. A case study
of shipment of edible oils. British Food Journal 116:12, 2069-2090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
286. Antje Wahl, Gary Q. Bull. 2014. Mapping Research Topics and Theories in Private Regulation for
Sustainability in Global Value Chains. Journal of Business Ethics 124:4, 585-608. [Crossref]
287. Malin Song, Shuhong Wang, Ron Fisher. 2014. Transportation, iceberg costs and the adjustment of
industrial structure in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 32, 278-286.
[Crossref]
288. Hanne Ala-Harja, Petri Helo. 2014. Green supply chain decisions – Case-based performance analysis
from the food industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 69, 97-107.
[Crossref]
289. Adela J. McMurray, Md. Mazharul Islam, Chamhuri Siwar, John Fien. 2014. Sustainable procurement
in Malaysian organizations: Practices, barriers and opportunities. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
290. Anne Touboulic, Daniel Chicksand, Helen Walker. 2014. Managing Imbalanced Supply Chain
Relationships for Sustainability: A Power Perspective. Decision Sciences 45:4, 577-619. [Crossref]
291. Hadi Sahebi, Stefan Nickel, Jalal Ashayeri. 2014. Environmentally Conscious Design of Upstream Crude
Oil Supply Chain. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 53:28, 11501-11511. [Crossref]
292. Lena Schneider, Carl Marcus Wallenburg, Sebastian Fabel. 2014. Implementing sustainability on a
corporate and a functional level. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:6,
293. Lutz Kaufmann, Aischa Astou Saw. 2014. Using a multiple-informant approach in SCM research.
[PDF]
294. Claire Moxham, Katri Kauppi. 2014. Using organisational theories to further our understanding of socially
sustainable supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:4, 413-420. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
295. Sachin K. Mangla, Pradeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2014. Flexible Decision Approach for
Analysing Performance of Sustainable Supply Chains Under Risks/Uncertainty. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management 15:2, 113-130. [Crossref]
296. Riccardo Accorsi, Alessandro Cascini, Susan Cholette, Riccardo Manzini, Cristina Mora. 2014. Economic
and environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: A food catering supply chain case study.
International Journal of Production Economics 152, 88-101. [Crossref]
297. Philip Beske, Anna Land, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and
dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of
Production Economics 152, 131-143. [Crossref]
298. Joanne Meehan, David J. Bryde. 2014. Procuring sustainably in social housing: The role of social capital.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 20:2, 74-81. [Crossref]
299. Philip Beske, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Putting sustainability into supply chain management. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:3, 322-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
300. Henrik Pålsson, Gyöngyi Kovács. 2014. Reducing transportation emissions. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:4, 283-304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
301. Mohsen Varsei, Claudine Soosay, Behnam Fahimnia, Joseph Sarkis. 2014. Framing sustainability
performance of supply chains with multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: An
302. Pietro De Giovanni, Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi. 2014. The benefits of the emissions trading mechanism for
Italian firms: a multi-group analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
303. Stefan Schaltegger, Roger Burritt. 2014. Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply
chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3, 232-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
304. Eduardo Ortas, José M. Moneva, Igor Álvarez. 2014. Sustainable supply chain and company performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3, 332-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
305. Adolf Acquaye, Andrea Genovese, John Barrett, S.C. Lenny Koh. 2014. Benchmarking carbon emissions
performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3, 306-321.
306. Usha Ramanathan, Yongmei Bentley, Gu Pang. 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
307. Fahian Anisul Huq, Mark Stevenson, Marta Zorzini. 2014. Social sustainability in developing country
suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:5, 610-638. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
308. Nathalie Fabbe-Costes, Christine Roussat, Margaret Taylor, Andrew Taylor. 2014. Sustainable supply
chains: a framework for environmental scanning practices. International Journal of Operations & Production
309. Jens K. Roehrich, Johanne Grosvold, Stefan U. Hoejmose. 2014. Reputational risks and sustainable
supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:5, 695-719.
310. Subrata Mitra, Partha Priya Datta. 2014. Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their
impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms. International Journal of
Production Research 52:7, 2085-2107. [Crossref]
311. Samaneh Shokravi, Sherah Kurnia. 2014. A Step towards Developing a Sustainability Performance
Measure within Industrial Networks. Sustainability 6:4, 2201-2222. [Crossref]
312. Jacob Hasselbalch, Nives Costa, Alexander Blecken. 2014. Examining the relationship between the
barriers and current practices of sustainable procurement: A survey of un organizations. Journal of Public
Procurement 14:3, 361-394. [Abstract] [PDF]
313. Bart van Hoof, Marcus Thiell. 2014. Collaboration capacity for sustainable supply chain management:
small and medium-sized enterprises in Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production 67, 239-248. [Crossref]
314. Marcus Brandenburg, Kannan Govindan, Joseph Sarkis, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational
315. James W. Clark, Lisa C. Toms, Kenneth W. Green. 2014. Market-oriented sustainability: moderating
impact of stakeholder involvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:1, 21-36. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
316. Constantin Blome, Daniel Hollos, Antony Paulraj. 2014. Green procurement and green supplier
development: antecedents and effects on supplier performance. International Journal of Production Research
52:1, 32-49. [Crossref]
317. Tienhua Wu, Yen-Chun Jim Wu, Yenming J. Chen, Mark Goh. 2014. Aligning supply chain strategy with
corporate environmental strategy: A contingency approach. International Journal of Production Economics
147, 220-229. [Crossref]
318. Steffen Maas, Tassilo Schuster, Evi Hartmann. 2014. Pollution Prevention and Service Stewardship
Strategies in the Third-Party Logistics Industry: Effects on Firm Differentiation and the Moderating
Role of Environmental Communication. Business Strategy and the Environment 23:1, 38-55. [Crossref]
319. Xiaohua Chen, Guoyi Xiu. 2014. Research on the Degree of Ecological Supply Chain Management
Practice among Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises. Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering 2014,
1-5. [Crossref]
320. Lisa M. Ellram, Martha C. Cooper. 2014. Supply Chain Management: It's All About the Journey, Not
the Destination. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:1, 8-20. [Crossref]
321. Mark Pagell, Anton Shevchenko. 2014. Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should
Have no Future. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:1, 44-55. [Crossref]
322. Mieko Igarashi, Luitzen de Boer, Annik Magerholm Fet. 2013. What is required for greener supplier
selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
323. Yahaya Y. Yusuf, A. Gunasekaran, Ahmed Musa, Nagham M. El-Berishy, Tijjani Abubakar, Hafsat M.
Ambursa. 2013. The UK oil and gas supply chains: An empirical analysis of adoption of sustainable
measures and performance outcomes. International Journal of Production Economics 146:2, 501-514.
[Crossref]
324. Zheng Ren, Arjaree Saengsathien, David Zhang. Modeling and optimization of inventory and sourcing
decisions with risk assessment in perishable food supply chains 934-939. [Crossref]
325. R. David Swanson, Ronn J. Smith. 2013. A Path to a Public-Private Partnership: Commercial Logistics
Concepts Applied to Disaster Response. Journal of Business Logistics 34:4, 335-346. [Crossref]
326. Thomas Leppelt, Kai Foerstl, Evi Hartmann. 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility in Buyer-Supplier
Relationships: Is it Beneficial for Top-Tier Suppliers to Market their Capability to Ensure a Responsible
Supply Chain?. Business Research 6:2, 126-152. [Crossref]
327. Hendrik Reefke, Mattia Trocchi. 2013. Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and
development guidelines. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:8, 805-826.
328. Zhihong Wang, Joseph Sarkis. 2013. Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain
management with corporate financial performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
329. Stefan Seuring, Stefan Gold. 2013. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: from
stakeholders to performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 1-6. [Crossref]
330. Peter K.C. Lee, Antonio K.W. Lau, T.C.E. Cheng. 2013. Employee rights protection and financial
performance. Journal of Business Research 66:10, 1861-1869. [Crossref]
331. Oguz Morali, Cory Searcy. 2013. A Review of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices in Canada.
Journal of Business Ethics 117:3, 635-658. [Crossref]
332. Silvia Rossi, Claudia Colicchia, Alessandra Cozzolino, Martin Christopher. 2013. The logistics service
providers in eco-efficiency innovation: an empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 18:6, 583-603. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
333. Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, Matthias H. Gehrsitz, Janjaap Semeijn. 2013. Participation of suppliers in greening
supply chains: An empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
334. Mario Turrisi, Manfredi Bruccoleri, Salvatore Cannella. 2013. Impact of reverse logistics on supply
chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:7, 564-585.
335. Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy. 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 52, 329-341. [Crossref]
336. Silvia Ayuso, Mercè Roca, Rosa Colomé. 2013. SMEs as “transmitters” of CSR requirements in the supply
chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:5, 497-508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
337. Kyle Goldschmidt, Terry Harrison, Matthew Holtry, Jeremy Reeh. 2013. Sustainable Procurement:
Integrating Classroom Learning with University Sustainability Programs. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education 11:3, 279-294. [Crossref]
338. LaDonna M. Thornton, Chad W. Autry, David M. Gligor, Anis Ben Brik. 2013. Does Socially
Responsible Supplier Selection Pay Off for Customer Firms? A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 49:3, 66-89. [Crossref]
339. Rika Ampuh Hadiguna. 2013. Decision Support System of Performance Assessment for Sustainable
Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Green Computing 4:2, 24-37. [Crossref]
340. Dorli Harms, Erik G. Hansen, Stefan Schaltegger. 2013. Strategies in Sustainable Supply Chain
Management: An Empirical Investigation of Large German Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 20:4, 205-218. [Crossref]
341. Patsy Perry, Neil Towers. 2013. Conceptual framework development. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 43:5/6, 478-501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
342. Anu Bask, Merja Halme, Markku Kallio, Markku Kuula. 2013. Consumer preferences for sustainability
and their impact on supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 43:5/6, 380-406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
343. Sebastian Brockhaus, Wolfgang Kersten, A. Michael Knemeyer. 2013. Where Do We Go From Here?
Progressing Sustainability Implementation Efforts Across Supply Chains. Journal of Business Logistics 34:2,
167-182. [Crossref]
344. Xiaole Zhang, Li Zhou, Petros Ieromonachou. The effect of uncertainty on economic performance of
reverse logistic operation 110-114. [Crossref]
345. Ramin Sahamie, Dennis Stindt, Christian Nuss. 2013. Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable
Operations - An Application to Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Business Strategy and the Environment 22:4,
245-268. [Crossref]
346. Na Fu, Patrick C. Flood, Janine Bosak, Tim Morris, Philip O'Regan. 2013. Exploring the performance
effect of HPWS on professional service supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
347. Jesper Kronborg Jensen, Kristin Balslev Munksgaard, Jan Stentoft Arlbjørn. 2013. Chasing value offerings
through green supply chain innovation. European Business Review 25:2, 124-146. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [Supplemental Material]
348. Riccardo Manzini, Riccardo Accorsi. 2013. The new conceptual framework for food supply chain
assessment. Journal of Food Engineering 115:2, 251-263. [Crossref]
349. Stefan Seuring. 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision
Support Systems 54:4, 1513-1520. [Crossref]
350. Srinivas Talluri, Hugo A. DeCampos, G. Tomas M. Hult. 2013. Supplier Rationalization: A Sourcing
Decision Model. Decision Sciences 44:1, 57-86. [Crossref]
351. Marc Winter, A. Michael Knemeyer. 2013. Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain
management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:1, 18-38. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
352. Carsten Reuter, Philipp Goebel, Kai Foerstl. 2012. The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainability
and cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18:4,
270-281. [Crossref]
353. Nicole L. Kudla, Thorsten Klaas-Wissing. 2012. Sustainability in shipper-logistics service provider
relationships: A tentative taxonomy based on agency theory and stimulus-response analysis. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 18:4, 218-231. [Crossref]
354. Ki-Hoon Lee. 2012. Carbon accounting for supply chain management in the automobile industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production 36, 83-93. [Crossref]
355. Wendy L. Tate, Lisa M. Ellram, Kevin J. Dooley. 2012. Environmental purchasing and supplier
management (EPSM): Theory and practice. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18:3, 173-188.
[Crossref]
356. Sara Perotti, Marta Zorzini, Enrico Cagno, Guido J.L. Micheli. 2012. Green supply chain practices and
company performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
357. Alison Ashby, Mike Leat, Melanie Hudson‐Smith. 2012. Making connections: a review of supply chain
management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:5,
358. Banjo Roxas, Val Lindsay. 2012. Social Desirability Bias in Survey Research on Sustainable Development
in Small Firms: an Exploratory Analysis of Survey Mode Effect. Business Strategy and the Environment
21:4, 223-235. [Crossref]
359. Laurens Klerkx, Pablo Villalobos, Alejandra Engler. 2012. Variation in implementation of corporate
social responsibility practices in emerging economies' firms: A survey of Chilean fruit exporters. Natural
Resources Forum 36:2, 88-100. [Crossref]
360. Kenneth W. Green Jr, Pamela J. Zelbst, Jeramy Meacham, Vikram S. Bhadauria. 2012. Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:3,
361. Anne Wiese, Julian Kellner, Britta Lietke, Waldemar Toporowski, Stephan Zielke. 2012. Sustainability
in retailing – a summative content analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
362. Kenneth W. Green, Jr, Pamela J. Zelbst, Vikram S. Bhadauria, Jeramy Meacham. 2012. Do environmental
collaboration and monitoring enhance organizational performance?. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 112:2, 186-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
363. Hokey Min, Ilsuk Kim. 2012. Green supply chain research: past, present, and future. Logistics Research
4:1-2, 39-47. [Crossref]
364. Lóránt A. Tavasszy, Kees Ruijgrok, Igor Davydenko. 2012. Incorporating Logistics in Freight Transport
Demand Models: State-of-the-Art and Research Opportunities. Transport Reviews 32:2, 203-219.
[Crossref]
365. Pao Kao, William Redekop, Cecilia Mark-Herbert. 2012. Sustainable supply chain management - the
influence of local stakeholder expectations in China's agri-food industry. Journal on Chain and Network
Science 12:3, 273-289. [Crossref]
366. Stefan E. Genchev, R. Glenn Richey, Colin B. Gabler. 2011. Evaluating reverse logistics programs:
a suggested process formalization. The International Journal of Logistics Management 22:2, 242-263.
367. Romy Morana, Stefan Seuring. 2011. A Three Level Framework for Closed-Loop Supply Chain
Management—Linking Society, Chain and Actor Level. Sustainability 3:4, 678-691. [Crossref]
368. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Advocating Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Sustainability in Global
Supply Chain 234-271. [Crossref]
369. Shibin K. T.. Enablers of Sustainable Manufacturing Overview, Framework and Further Research
Directions 363-385. [Crossref]
370. Kaifeng Zhang, Zheng Liu. An Investigation on Fair Trade Business 560-582. [Crossref]
371. Geevaneswary Saththasivam, Yudi Fernando. Integrated Sustainable Supply Chain Management 218-233.
[Crossref]
372. Aliona Grigorenco, Philippos Papadopoulos, Konstantinos Rotsios. Does the Outsourcing of Logistics
Services Keep its Promise of Increased Efficiency? 162-184. [Crossref]
373. George Malindretos. Distribution and Logistics Outsourcing in the Pharmaceutical Sector 202-222.
[Crossref]
374. Iris Hausladen, Alexander Haas. Contribution of IT-Based Logistics Solutions to Sustainable Logistics
Management 128-147. [Crossref]
375. Susheela Girisaballa, Sonali Bhattacharya. Sustainable Supply Chain 272-302. [Crossref]
376. Shibin K. T.. Enablers of Sustainable Manufacturing Overview, Framework and Further Research
Directions 52-73. [Crossref]

Carter 2011

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Carter 2011

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions

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

Center for Logistics Management, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

Summary of the literature

managers and academics alike.

Strategy Good? Organizational

Risk management Transparency

(6) Transportation Journal.

Carbon Human rights Social enterprise

EFA 8.16 11.11 2.86

Discussion: evolution and future directions

However, this decision by researchers to use multi-industry samples also presents

Methodology and analysis

additional barrier to publishing such research. We refer the reader to a forthcoming

Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmental

Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 66-86.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

interpretive structural modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis. Management of Environmental

34:6, 699-709. [Crossref]

Supply Management . [Crossref]

Marketing Channels 23:1-2, 85-87. [Crossref]

S-ar putea să vă placă și