Interactions in sustainable supply chain management: a framework review

• Published date: 11 February 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0112
• Pages: 140-173
• Date: 11 February 2019
• Author: Gawon Yun,Mehmet G. Yalcin,Douglas N. Hales,Hee Yoon Kwon
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Interactions in sustainable

supply chain management:

a framework review

Gawon Yun, Mehmet G. Yalcin, Douglas N. Hales and Hee Yoon Kwon

Department of Supply Chain Management, College of Business,

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the research conducted among the interim, dyadic

interactions that bridge the stand-alone measures of economic, environmental and social performance and the

level of sustainability, as suggested in the Carter and Rogers (2008) framework.

Design/methodology/approach –This paper conducts a systematic literature review based on the

Tranfield et al. (2003) method of the articles published in 13 major journals in the area of supply chain

management between the years 2010 and 2016. Results were analyzed using an expert panel.

Findings –The area of research between environmental and social performance is sparse and relegated to

empirical investigation. As an important area of interaction, this area needs more research to answer the how

and why questions. The economic activity seems to be the persistent theme among the interactions.

Research limitations/implications –The literature on the “environmental performance and social

performance (ES)”interactions is lacking in both theoretical and analytical content. Studies explaining the

motivations, optimal levels and context that drive these interactions are needed. The extant research portrays

economic performance as if it cannot be sacrificed for social welfare. This approach is not in line with the

progressive view of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) but instead the binary view with an

economic emphasis.

Practical implications –To improve sustainability, organizations need the triple bottom line (TBL)

framework that defines sustainability in isolation. However, they also need to understand how and why these

interactions take place that drive sustainability in organizations.

Originality/value –By examining the literature specifically dedicated to the essential, interim, dyadic

interactions, this study contributes to bridging the gap between stand-alone performance and the TBL that

creates true sustainability. It also shows how the literature views the existence of sustainability is

progressive, but many describe sustainability as binary. It is possible that economic sustainability is binary,

and progressive characterizations of SSCM could be the reason behind the results favoring economic

performance over environmental and social.

Keywords Sustainability,Literature review, Sustainable supply chain management(SSCM), North America

Paper type Literature review

Introduction

Sustainability is considered a fundamental principle of smart management (Gladwin et al.,

1995) and an inescapable priority for business (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Likewise,

sustainability is also an increasingly important global topic. For instance, two-thirds of

managers and executives from 113 countries report sustainability as being critical to doing

business (Kiron et al.,2012). Kiron reported that managers no longer ask why they should be

sustainable, but rather what they need to do to become sustainable. This is driven somewhat

by the way sustainability is defined. The most common and frequently cited definition of

sustainabilityis “development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their needs”(United Nations World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987, p. 41). While valuable, this definition does not provide

guidance on how to operationalize sustainability or provide an adequate context. Since a key

element of global business is global supply chain management, sustainability (sustainable

supply chain management (SSCM)) in this area can have huge impacts on the environment,

economics and social welfare of the current and future generations.

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 30 No. 1, 2019

pp. 140-173

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0112

Received 11 May 2017

Revised 21 November 2017

11 May 2018

17 May 2018

6July2018

Accepted 6 July 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

140

IJLM

30,1

In operationalizing sustainability, Carter and Rogers (2008) developed a framework of

sustainability built on the triple bottom line (TBL) concept (Elkington, 1998, 2004). They

argued that to become sustainable an organization must be economically viable,

environmentally friendly and socially responsible (CSR). The interaction of all three

elements is described as being “sustainable.”Their framework is generally accepted and has

been helpful to begin to answer the question of what organizations need to do to become

sustainable. This inspired a plethora of studies on measuring the individual elements of

environment, economics or CSR; or on organizations that practice all three elements, and

thus considered themselves sustainable. However, according to Carter and Rogers (2008),

there are three interim, dyadic stages to achieving sustainability that bridge the individual

elements. This suggests that there is some form of progressive activities from stand-alone

measures to full sustainability. They referred to the intersection of all three elements as the

highest level of sustainability. Carter and Rogers referred to them as Good (the interaction

between environment and CSR); Better 1 (the interaction between environment and

economics); and Better 2 (the interaction between economics and CSR). While these

categories have been criticized for their judgmental inference, there is a paucity of studies on

these interim dyadic stages. Asgari et al. (2015) and Slocum (2015) considered this as

judgmental and they re-categorized the SSCM framework of Carter and Rogers (2008) to a

less judgmental labeling as “Bearable”(Good), “Viable”(Better 1), “Equitable”(Better 2) and

“Sustainable”(Best). Nevertheless, the progressive view still seems to be the fundamental

underpinning to achieving sustainability.

The study of these dyadic, interim stages of sustainability has merit since we found

no article that reports an organization achieving sustainability all at once. Instead,

case studies report the implementation of sustainability as a progressive process.

Organizations begin with stand-alone practices of environmental, social and economic,

which eventually interact into what they describe as Good, Better 1 and Better 2. These

overlaps can be viewed as interactions; where an improvement in one area supports an

improvement in another. The Good, Better 1 and Better 2 demonstrate the dyadic

interactions that are antecedents to true sustainability from t he progressive point of view

of the Carter and Rogers (2008) framework. This view sends a message that managers and

organizations can support sustainability efforts on one or two variables early-on, instead

of trying to achieve three-way interactions.

The problem is that while a plethora of research has been conducted on the

implementation of stand-alone economic, environmental and social performance activities,

little research has been conducted on the interim dyadic interactions. This causes the dyadic

relationships of sustainability to be poorly understood (Carter and Jennings, 2002).

The understanding diminishes even further when the dyadic interactions are considered in

conjunction with a point of view that is other than progressive. In other words, some studies

characterize sustainability as a point in time where a firm is either sustainable or not,

suggesting a binary viewpoint to sustainability.

This study focuses on identifying the recent literature on these dyadic relationships to

evaluate what organizations need to do to encourage sustainable activities, whether

progressive or binary. In doing so, the literature is informed by suggesting which areas of

interaction need further research, which Kiron et al. (2012) suggested is an important issue to

global executives and managers.

Recent publications on sustainability suggest different perspectives on a firm’s effort

to be sustainable. Montabon et al. (2016) suggested a sustainability framework which

views sustainability narrowly as environmental performance, in which economic and

social issues are nested. Similarly, Markman and Krause (2016) argued that for true

sustainability firms should not consider sustainability issues on the top of economic

performance; rather, they should proactively move beyond meeting minimum social and

141

Sustainable

supply chain

management

environmental regulations. These perspectives argue that the progressive approach is

insufficient, and a broader view of sustainability is needed. While pure economic self-

interest can be considered as binary, it can also be inferred that progression can propagate

from social or environmental elements; perhaps toward the economic dimension. While

these papers provide meaningful insights on where sustainability should begin, true

sustainability is the ultimate goal.

For our purposes, the typologies from Carter and Rogers (2008) and Asgari et al. (2015)

work well because they are the characterizations used in the majority of TBL research that

we reviewed. Furthermore, detailed explication of dyadic relationships could encourage

theory development to support the binary view of SSCM, which is sparse relative to the

progressive view approach.

Background of progressive SSCM framework

The TBL that was developed by Elkington (1998, 2004) and advanced by various scholars

considers sustainability as the balance among social, environmental and economic goals.

Social performance is measured through actions taken to solve social issues and the results

of those actions. Common variables used to measure social performance are equal

opportunity, human rights, business ethics, etc. (Drobetz et al., 2014). Environmental

performance is defined as actions taken to limit harm to, or improve the natural

environment. Measurements include CO

2

emissions, waste discharge, recycling, etc.

(Drobetz et al., 2014). Economic performance is measured in transaction costs (Theißen et al.,

2014), shareholder value (Panda, 2014) and operational efficiency (Harja and Helo, 2014).

Carter and Rogers (2008) described the degree of sustainability based on the strength of the

interaction of social, environmental and economic performance. They treated sustainability

as outcomes of the TBL. The independent areas which do not show interactions are not

directly contributing to sustainability. The unique part of their model is that they show

three different levels of sustainability. They described different forms of sustainability

based on hierarchy, for example, “Good?”as the interaction of environmental and social

performance. The moderate level of sustainability is described as “Better,”which is divided

for the purposes of discussion, into “Better 1”the interaction of environmental and economic

performance, and “Better 2,”the interaction of social and economic performance. The

interaction of all three variables of the TBL is described as “Best.”While each variable can

be measured independently, this study focuses on the interactions between the variables.

Better 1 and Better 2 are terms that differentiate two types of interactions and are not

intended to suggest a hierarchy of importance.

The conceptual model interactions

To address these dyadic interactions, this study reviews the current stream of supply

chain management research on sustainability (SSCM) in an effort to categorize the most

recent findings based on Carter and Rogers (2008). Articles in mainstream operations and

supply chain journals that specifically address the dyadic interactions comprised of social,

environmental and economic performance are the sampling frame. It is important to note

here that this review excludes studies that measure only the individual elements of

environment, economics or CSR activities and those that address the “Best”interactions.

We exclude these studies for three reasons. First, the progressive approach starting from

the individual dyadic interactions is the main focus. This progressive view is widely held

in industry. Second, practitioners view theseinteractionsasthefirststeptomovethe

concept from individual silos to a more integrated approach. Heavily influenced by the

neoclassical view of the economy, managers tend to believe that continual iterations

of the three factors should lead to reconciliation of all elements in true sustainability.

Third, stand-alone studies in environmental and social areas within the operations and

142

IJLM

30,1