A Literature Review and a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chians With a Focus on Metrics

Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

0925-52

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains witha focus on metrics

Elkafi Hassini a,n, Chirag Surti b, Cory Searcy c

a DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canadab Faculty of Business & IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canadac Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 31 October 2010

Accepted 30 January 2012Available online 8 February 2012

Keywords:

Sustainable supply chain

Performance measurement

73/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. A

016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042

esponding author.

ail address: [email protected] (E. Hassini)

a b s t r a c t

We review the literature on sustainable supply chains during the last decade; 2000–2010. We analyze

the literature from different perspectives. We then provide frameworks for sustainable supply chain

management and performance measures. We also provide a case study to illustrate the experience of a

utility supply chain in setting performance indicators.

& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The topic of supply chain sustainability has been of greatinterest for the last decade both in academia and the practi-tioners’ world. Due largely to pressures from various stake-holders, especially government regulators, community activists,non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and global competition,many companies have adopted a certain level of commitment tosustainability practices. Some of these commitments are some-times superficial and non-compulsory, for example including themotto ‘‘Think before you print’’ in a company’s electronic mailcommunications. Other companies are still hesitant to commit tosustainability measures, as long as they are not forced to do so bylaw. The common trait between these companies is that they donot have a common standard for evaluating sustainability initia-tives (e.g., Searcy et al., 2009; Tweed, 2010). Some authors evenargue that there are incompatibilities between the known prin-ciples of performance measures and supply chain dynamics (e.g.,see Lehtinen and Ahola, 2010). Thus, there is a need for moreresearch on developing an appropriate framework for perfor-mance measurements in supply chains. It is our goal in this paperto survey the literature and extract a common framework forsustainable supply chain performance measures and metrics.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the nextsection we outline the review objectives and methodology. InSection 3 we provide a definition of sustainable supply chainmanagement. The results of our review are presented in Section 4.In Section 5 we describe two frameworks: one for managing

ll rights reserved.

.

sustainable supply chains and the other for the development ofperformance measures for sustainable supply chains. A case studyto illustrate the experience of an electric utility company insetting performance indicators is reported in Section 6. Finally,in Section 7 we conclude and suggest a future research agenda forthe field of sustainable supply chain management.

2. Objectives and methodology

The purpose of our research is to (i) review sustainable supplychain management research in the last decade and analyze it fromdifferent perspectives, (ii) propose a unified conceptual frame-work for sustainable supply chain management, (iii) highlight theimportance of reliable supply chain performance measures anddevelop and propose a composite index metric, (iv) present a casestudy of sustainable supply chain performance indicators in a theenergy sector, and (v) highlight the gaps in the literature thatneed further investigation.

We reviewed papers from journals and sources that catermainly to social and applied sciences, unless the work discusseda general and imitable ‘‘sustainable’’ practice, it was excludedfrom the review. The focus of this paper is to analyze and extractrelevant literature from journals that can help both academicsand practitioners formulate a response tailored to their businessneeds. Thus this paper is focused on the tactical and the opera-tional aspect of sustainable supply chains.

We started the review process by searching Title, Abstract andKeyword in SCOPUS with keywords (sustainable OR green) AND(supply AND chain) and further restricting results to just peerreviewed articles published in English language journals after 1999.This gave us a total of 707 articles in various subject area categories.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Journal of the Operational Research SocietyTQM Journal

International Journal of Services and Operations ManagementInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and Management

International Journal of Product Lifecycle ManagementInternational Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking

International Journal of Operational ResearchInternational Journal of Management and Enterprise Development

International Journal of Logistics Research and ApplicationsInternational Journal of Information Management

InterfacesFoundations and Trends in Tech. Info. and Op. Management

Enterprise Information SystemsComputers in Industry

Computers and Industrial EngineeringOmega

International Journal of Management and Decision MakingComputers and Operations Research

Management ScienceProduction and Operations Management

International Journal of Technology ManagementTransportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review

Production Planning and ControlEuropean Journal of Operational Research

International Journal of Production EconomicsInternational Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Logistics Systems and ManagementJournal of Operations Management

International Journal of Production Research

Fig. 1. Distribution of reviewed papers by journal.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Publ

icat

ions

in D

ecis

ion

Scie

nce

Jour

nals

All

Publ

icat

ions

Decision Science Publications All Publications

Fig. 2. Distribution of reviewed and other relevant papers by publication year.

E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–8270

Next, we restricted the articles by subject area, requiring that they beonly published in category Decision Sciences resulting in 87 articles.We chose to focus on the Decision Sciences subject area because weare targeting to publish the review in journals that are within thissubject area. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of reviewed papers byjournal. It is worth noting that five journals account for about 50% ofthe reviewed publications.

Fig. 2 shows the distribution by publication year of thereviewed papers as well as all the articles that fell under oursearch criteria. Barring the distribution at the right tale, due to thepossibility of additional publications in the pipeline, it is evidentthat there is an increasing trend manifesting the increasinginterest in this research area.

While including all the 707 papers in the review is not practical,we also realize that restricting our study to the 87 papers may not

allow us to cover all the important issues related to sustainablesupply chains. Thus, whenever we find that the 87 pool of papersdoes not include a sufficient number of studies on a particular issue,we extend our search to the larger database of 707 papers.For example, to study publications in different industry sectorsand firm sizes we have enlarged our papers pool to the 707 papers.To help the reader distinguish between the two pools of papers weinclude them in different sections in the bibliography.

3. Definition of sustainable supply chain management

As in Chopra and Meindl (2007), we define a supply chain as allparties involved in fulfilling a customer order. In particular, westress the fact that more than one decision maker is involved inmanaging resources, information, and/or processes that may not beentirely under the control of their company. In addition we definesupply chain management as the control of the supply chainoperations, resources, information and funds in order to maximizethe supply chain profitability or surplus—the difference betweenthe revenue generated from a customer’s order and all the costsincurred by the supply chain while satisfying that customer’s order.We define business sustainability as the ability to conduct businesswith a long term goal of maintaining the well-being of the economy,environment and society. Elkington (1997) is credited with popular-izing the latter three dimensions, which he called the triple bottomline (TBL) principle (also known as the three pillars: profit, planet,and people). As a sign of their sustainability practices companiesissue periodic TBL reports to their stakeholders. We are now readyto provide a unified definition for sustainable supply chain manage-ment as the management of supply chain operations, resources,information, and funds in order to maximize the supply chainprofitability while at the same time minimizing the environmentalimpacts and maximizing the social well-being.

Table 1Industry research.

Industry sector Publications

Agriculture, wine, horticulture, etc. Higgins et al. (2010), Hall and Matos

(2010), Van Der Vorst et al. (2009), Matos

and Hall (2007), Cox et al. (2007)

Automotive Nunes and Bennett (2010), Thun and

Mu€ller (2010), Subramoniam et al.

(2009), Beske et al. (2008), Ding et al.

(2007), Kim et al. (2007), Seitz and Wells

(2006), Van Hoek (2002), Early et al.

(2009)

E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82 71

By social well-being, as used in the above definition, we meanhow the supply chain treats its employees, customers and thecommunity at large. The above definition implies that companiesthat practice sustainable supply chain management strive tosatisfy multiple, possibly conflicting, objectives: while maximiz-ing profits calls for reducing operations costs, minimizing theenvironmental impacts and maximizing the social well-being canadd to the supply chain’s operational costs. In addition thechallenge of conflicting objectives, the definition also impliesother challenges to supply chain managers: dealing with multipledecision makers and assessing the environmental impacts andsocial benefits in a multi-party supply chain.

Education Hawkins and Matthews (2009), Roome

(2005)

Electrical, electronics Park et al. (2010), Hu and Bidanda

(2009), Hsu and Hu (2009), Nawrocka

(2008), Rai et al. (2006), Savaskan et al.

(2004), Frota Neto et al. (2010)

Fashion, retail, grocery de Brito et al. (2008)

Government, NGO Boons and Mendoza (2010), Preuss

(2009)

Healthcare, pharmaceuticals Schieble (2008), Veleva et al. (2003)

4. Review results and classifications

In this section we report our analysis of the literature we havereviewed. We start by highlighting some of the recent relatedreviews.

Hospitality, catering, tourism Font et al. (2008), Hawkins (2004),

Adriana (2009)

Housing, construction, real estate Blengini and Garbarino (2010), Isaksson

and Steimle (2009), Ofori (2000)

ICT None

Industrial or manufacturing exclu.

automotive, electrical,

electronics

Testa and Iraldo (2010), Simpson (2010),

Yang et al. (2010), Holt and Ghobadian

(2009), Huang et al. (2009), Chung and

Wee (2008), Marsillac (2008), Vachon

and Klassen (2008)

Zhu et al. (2008b), Vachon (2007),

Corbett and Klassen (2006), Kainuma and

Tawara (2006), Sarkis (2006), Wells and

Seitz (2005), Zhu and Sarkis (2004),

Savaskan et al. (2004), Albino et al.

(2002)

Materials, mining, and energy Matos and Hall (2007), Huang et al.,

(2009), Haibin and Zhenling (2010),

Ferretti et al. (2007)

Transportation and logistics Frota Neto et al. (2009), Ciliberti et al.

(2008), Frota Neto et al. (2008), Kim

(2009)

Utilities Boons and Mendoza (2010), Sheu (2008)

4.1. Related reviews

Reviews on sustainability in a supply chain or operationalcontext have largely focused on a broad and strategic overview.Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) have published a systematicreview. Although their main research question is ‘‘What is thereand what is missing?’’ they have restricted their attention to onlynine journals and reviewed studies from the year 1995. Earlier,Srivastava (2007) reviewed 227 books and articles from 1994 to2007. The focus of the review was on green aspects and the studyadopted a reverse-logistics approach. Two other recent studieshave focused on providing a literature review together with aconceptual framework for sustainable supply chains: Seuring andMuller (2008) reviewed 191 journal articles from 1994 to 2007and Carter and Rogers (2008) reviewed 166 publications andinterviewed 35 supply chain managers in 28 Fortune 1000companies in the USA and Germany.

4.2. Classification by industry sector

We list various industry sectors of the economy in Table 1. Ourclassification of the sectors is similar to the GICS1 Standards. Webelieve that such a classification is important since sustainablepractices that work for one industry may not work for otherindustries. We note that the majority of the reviewed literaturefocuses on manufacturing sectors. On the other hand, we did notfind any study that focused on the Information and Communica-tion Technologies. This is despite the fact that in their 2010NewsWeek Green Rankings, six of the top ten companies in theUS are ICT companies (Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Adobe, and Yahoo!)(NewsWeek, 2010).

We believe the focus on sustainability in the manufacturing sectorcan be explained by two factors. Firstly, traditionally operationsresearch has focused on production and manufacturing topics andthus it is only natural that sustainable supply chain research builds onthat literature. This view is supported by the literature that arguesthat companies that adopt lean manufacturing strategies are morelikely to adopt sustainability practices (e.g., King and Lenox, 2001).Secondly, historically environmental regulations has focused onmanufacturing plants (e.g., pollution control).

1 http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/gics/.

4.3. Firm size and sustainability

Tomomi (2010), Moore and Manring (2009), Lee and Klassen(2008), and Lee (2008) have focused on the adoption of green orsustainable practices in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).One of the major challenges that SMEs face in relation to adoptionof sustainable practices in the supply chain is the significantupfront cost of greening. Sarkis (2006) found that early adoptionand increased investment in environment risk management didnot increase performance for small firms in the metal finishingindustry. Testa and Iraldo (2010) analyzed the determinants andmotivations for the implementation of green practices at facilitiesowned by large multinational enterprises in OECD countries. Theyconclude that although these practices are complementary toadvanced management practices their impact on the bottom lineis ambiguous. While it is acknowledged that large firms have anadvantage for adopting sustainable practices more than SMEs andthat SMEs adoption is necessary in the long run, these studiesfound that the rate of return on early adoption is not encouraging.Thus, we believe more research is required in this area.

4.4. Research methods

Fig. 3 shows the distribution of reviewed papers by the type ofmethodology used.

http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/gics/

36

19 18

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Methodological, analytical,mathematical

Case study Review Empirical model

Research Method for Decision Science Journals

Fig. 3. Distribution of reviewed papers by research methodology.

Pricing

Sourcing andpurchasing

Facilities

Information

Transportation andlogistics

Supply Chain Drivers

20181614121086420

Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed papers by supply chain driver.

1 1

15

20

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Retailer Customer Supplier Whole enterprise Manufacturer

Supply Chain Entity

Fig. 5. Distribution of reviewed papers by supply chain partner.

2 http://www.nrel.gov/lci.


Given our focus on decision sciences publications, it is notsurprising that the majority of the surveyed papers use analyticalmodels. These studies focus on solving problems that deal withfacility location (Srivastava, 2008; Dou and Sarkis, 2010), sche-duling (Lejeune, 2006), supplier selection, policy assessment, etc.This includes, use of optimization concepts (Cannon et al., 2005),Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Che, 2010), Fuzzy decisionmaking (Tsai and Hung, 2009), heuristics such as genetic algo-rithm (Wang and Hsu, 2010), simulation (Van Der Vorst et al.,2009; Vlachos et al., 2007) and exergoeconomics (Ji, 2008).Another popular decision support method is Life Cycle Costingor Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) used to evaluate the total impactof the goods or products on the environment from extraction ofraw materials to eventual disposal or abandonment into landfill(Matos and Hall, 2007; Frota Neto et al., 2010; Hu and Bidanda,2009; Singh et al., 2008).

The second most used method is the case study. This is incontrast to the trend in operations management research wherecase study research is not well utilized. This can be explained bythe fact that the sustainability area is a relatively new researchfield and researchers need to do more case study work to under-stand the real issues and problems, something that case studymethodology is well-suited for (McCutcheon and Meredith,1993).

4.5. Supply chain drivers

Chopra and Meindl (2007) have defined six major drivers forsupply chain performance: transportation, inventory, facilities,information, pricing, and sourcing. They also provide a frameworkfor supply chain analysis that proceeds by first understanding thesupply chain competitive strategy and its fit with the operationalstrategy and how they can be deployed by each driver. Thus, it isexpected that a company that emphasizes sustainability in itscompetitive strategy would reflect it in each of the six drivers ofthe supply chain. To investigate how this is reflected in the paperswe have reviewed, Fig. 4 shows the distribution of the reviewedpapers by driver.

We note that most studies focused on transportation (includ-ing logistics and distribution) and information drivers. There areno studies that focus on the inventory driver and only one paperthat addresses the pricing driver. There were many papers (29)that focused on closed-loop supply chains, but they did notaddress inventory explicitly as a driver for the supply chainperformance. Our explanation for this disparity in the emphasison supply chain drivers is two-fold: (i) companies focus on the

information driver to set the technology infrastructure as a sign ofan early stage of implementing sustainability practices and (ii)the focus on the transportation driver could be explained by thepressure from external stakeholders where the emphasis was ongreenhouse gas emissions and pollution reduction. The USDepartment of Energy’s National Energy Renewable Lab (NERL)is developing the US Life-cycle Inventory Database.2 According toNERL; ‘‘y[this] database is a publicly available database that allows

users to objectively review and compare analysis results that are

based on similar data collection and analysis methods.’’ This data-base is created to help practitioners answer questions aboutenvironmental impact. It provides individual gate-to-gate, cra-dle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave accounting of the energy andmaterial flows into and out of the environment that are associatedwith producing a material, component, or assembly in the USSuch a database could serve as useful source for sustainablesupply chain research on inventory.

4.6. Supply chain partner

Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the papers according the whichparty of the supply chain was the focus of study.

http://www.nrel.gov/lci


We see that the majority of papers focus on the manufacturer.This can be explained using the same factors that we outlined inthe industry classification. We also note the focus on the ‘‘wholeenterprise’’, with no emphasis on the nature of the party, andsuppliers. The focus on suppliers can be partly explained by thepressure that they would feel from their customers, such as thecase of retailers like Walmart.

5. Frameworks for sustainable supply chain management andevaluation

5.1. Sustainable supply chain management framework

We envisage a sustainable supply chain as wheels constitutingof six spokes, representing the major relevant functions withinthe chain: sourcing, transformation, delivery, value proposition,customers, and recycling (see Fig. 6).

In Fig. 7 we illustrate the important issues for each function. Inthe next section we discuss each of these functions. In thesubsequent section we outline the major factors that could havean impact of these functions.

5.1.1. Sustainable supply chain functions

Sourcing and Transformation are critical functions in a sustain-able supply chain. One of the key aspects of green and sustainablesupply chain is the use of green procurement practices (Varnaset al., 2009; Bala et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Dawson andProbert, 2007; Handfield et al., 1997). The idea is that the focalcompany in the supply chain will force its upstream suppliers toadopt and adapt technology and practices that result in moreefficiently and environmentally friendly material sources, engagein labor practices that are considered ethical and result in lowergreen house gas (GHG) emissions as well as low impact on theenvironment. However, Beamon (1999) points out that using suchpractices may make the supply of inputs more unreliable. Manycompanies that source from impoverished regions of the world

Sourcing

Delivery

Transformation

ValueProposition

Customers andproduct use

Reuse,Recycle,Return

Fig. 6. Framework for sustainable supply chains.

now engage in what are called fair trade practices. The idea is topay more for commodities like coffee and cotton since theyusually fetch a higher price in the West as finished goods.However, usually it means that it is the customer who pays thehigher price, as these costs are usually passed on by the business.Mining and energy companies that extract material from theground, inevitably tend to damage the surrounding area. Use oftoxic chemicals in the refining process and production of GHGemissions is an ongoing issue. However, many businesses haveswitched from consumption of non renewable resources torenewable ones at a higher price. For example, using electricityproduced from green alternatives instead of fossil fuels, usingrecycled paper and plastics where possible or using non-toxicchemicals in their processes.

The delivery process is a broad term used to encompass manyoperational processes. The choice of location such as offshore vs.onshore, close to the customer vs. close to the raw material sourcecan have a significant impact on the GHG emissions. The choice ofmode of transportation is an important decision to GHG emis-sions, however, at the same time the need to have the productdelivered on time quickly and cheaply is a key concern for anybusiness e.g., rail and waterways usually have lower emissions fora ton of goods shipped but they are slower than trucks andairplanes which have higher costs and emissions. Time sensitiveand high value items still get shipped via truck and air, however,the focus has shifted towards making less bulky goods so as toship more (Dou and Sarkis, 2010; Triantafyllou and Cherrett,2010). One of the least investigated issues in sustainable practicesis the choice of inventory management policy. For example singleperiod and multi-period models aim to lower the total stock out,backorder and salvage costs and do not incorporate sustainabilitycriteria in the decision making framework.

One of the key decision criteria missing so far from the green,sustainable supply chain models is the role of the consumers. Thetraditional view of the product life cycle has focused on thesourcing of raw materials, the transformation and delivery pro-cess, customer use over the useful life and the end of life where theproduct is either abandoned to a landfill, recycled into rawmaterials, reused, returned or re-manufactured for consumption.However, the value proposition is usually not explicitly consid-ered. Many businesses that sell environmentally friendly, green orsustainable, low carbon emission products tend to cost more. Thiscost is usually passed onto the consumers in the form of higherprices. Often, as in the case of consumers buying carbon offsets,these are tangential decisions independent of product purchasedecisions. In order to successfully market and sell green orsustainable products, many businesses will have to not onlyquantify the benefits but justify the value proposition to thecustomers. In the case of products that are certified green e.g.,carbonfund.org or retail processes that use more expensive greenenergy for operations e.g., bullfrogpower, clear economical justi-fication for passing on the higher costs to the customers is oftenmissing.

For sourcing of raw materials, the use of renewable resourcesincluding recycled materials is a key operational feature. How-ever, using a source of material that is renewable may nottranslate into consumer acceptance or willingness to buy theproduct. Similarly fair trade practices result in higher prices forthe consumers, many of whom in lean times have proved to beunwilling to pay extra for such practices. The mining and extrac-tion of natural resources is a matter of concern to many. However,in the absence of a viable alternative to such practices, they willcontinue. One of the major pushes by businesses has been toavoid using toxic substances in manufacturing their products. Forexample, Apple no longer uses toxic substances in their electro-nics as a way to reduce future liabilities stemming from its use.

Reuse, Recycle, Return

Can the product be returnedto the OEM?

Can the product be reused ina different form?

Can the product beefficiently recycled?

Customers and product use

Energy efficency Use of green energy Customer education GHG Emissions

Value Proposition

Pay more and Feel goodfactor

Snowball effect Marketing and PR

Delivery

Transportation Facilities locationand layout

Inventory GHG Emissions

Transformation

Sustainable practices and processes Fair Labour Practices

Sourcing

Renewable Resource

Fair trade practices

Damage to the environment Toxic Substances GHG Emissions

Fig. 7. Issues for sustainable supply chain management.


GM marketed Flexfuel car models that had engines that are ableto run on both gasoline as well as bioethenols. However, the keyvalue proposition in this case was neither well communicated norclearly understood by the consumers. Bioethnols make use of cornor soy depriving many of an affordable food source. They do nothave the same energy density as that of traditional hydrocarbonsand a sufficiently widespread infrastructure does not exist so as tosupply bioethnols to consumers. Furthermore, use of such fuelsmay drive up prices for grains resulting in food shortages.

In the absence of clear and quantifiable personal or environ-mental benefits, customers will either ignore marketing of suchproducts, attract consumer lawsuits or regulatory oversight foruse of allegedly deceptive practices. Often, paying more for thepurchase of such goods is justified on the basis of saving theenvironment, doing the right thing, or feeling good about doingthe right thing. Such logic makes use of Veblen’s paradox

(Zafirovski, 2003, p. 206). Furthermore, Bullfrogpower explicitlyuses the logic of snowball effect for the marketing of green power.The idea being that if more customers demand more expensiveelectricity because it is the right thing to do, more businesses willproduce and demand such electricity for operations. Some ofthese ideas and issues are addressed and justified using the TBLapproach (Wang and Lin, 2007).

Based on life cycle assessment of many consumer goods, suchas cars and computers, a significant proportion of emissionscomes from the consumer’s use of products. Making goods moreenergy efficient is certainly a key objective of any enterprise.

The reuse, recycle and return (3R) is a well researched issue inthe literature on closed-loop supply chains and reverse logistics.The idea being that the product will eventually be disassembledand components reused, re-manufactured or recycled into asource of raw materials.


The above functions’ major issues are summarized in Fig. 7. Asshown in Fig. 6 the reusable material ends up in the sourcingspoke and the sustainable wheel keeps turning.

5.1.2. Major factors for the adoption of sustainable supply chain

practices

Fig. 8 shows the major external and internal pressures thatmay push a supply chain to adopt sustainable operations.

Market forces factors include consumers, retailers, OEMs whomay demand products considered environmentally friendly fromtheir suppliers. Financial stakeholders such as mutual funds andpensions funds require that the company follow sustainable prac-tices as described by them or some third party. Furthermore, in thefuture access to capital markets may be restricted only to businessesthat are deemed to be ethical or environmentally friendly. Finally,competition in the marketplace may require a company to offerproducts considered as socially responsible, green or sustainable.

Policy and regulations factors come from governments eitherthrough legislation or via a regulator requiring that companiesadhere to certain environmental standards. In case of environ-mental disaster (example BP), governments may retroactivelyintroduce legislation or regulation to curtail certain businesspractices. In addition, industry standards (such ISO 14001)require suppliers to carry audits and certifications. For example,Klassen and Vachon (2003) found that adoption of ISO 4001 issignificantly related to companies’ efforts to invest more inenvironmental management practices.

The science and technology factor stems from the need to useR&D to find materials and processes that are not toxic, use lessenergy or find suitable substitutes without compromising use.

The product development factor involves the greening of theexisting product (e.g., using more recycled content, using biode-gradable materials or alternative sources of fuels and materials)and developing new green sustainable products (e.g., reverselogistics, design for disassembly, using renewable resources, andusing biodegradable materials).

The process capability factor calls for greening the existingprocess (e.g., energy efficient machines, fuel-efficient transportation,etc.). In order to have an affordable and a competitive productconsistently delivered to the consumer, the process of producing theproduct will have to be environmentally capable. In case of returns

Fig. 8. Factors in sustain

after the useful life of the product, the supply chain would also haveto secure that the process is capable of absorbing returns intomanufacturing or production of new goods.

The sourcing and operations factors push businesses to engagein green sourcing practices, sometimes forcing suppliers to adoptor adapt processes to be more environmentally friendly. Compa-nies like Subaru and Toyota claim to operate a zero-waste facilityas a means of reducing costs and helping the environment. Theysecure zero wastes by making sure that no by-product of theiroperations ends up in a landfill.

The transport and logistics factors direct companies to con-sider the economics of reverse logistics and closed loop supplychains and reuse, recycle and return programs.

The marketing and public relations factors refer the efforts ofcompanies to create a value proposition for the customers,especially when the ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ product is moreexpensive. Companies have to also create awareness of thepractices that makes the product more environmentally friendlyor makes it sustainable, e.g., use Carbonfund or Bullfrogpower as ameans to signal to customers that the product is environmentallyfriendly via the use of logos and co-branding. Just like focalcompanies in the supply chain force their upstream suppliers tobecome more green and sustainable, companies are also trying toeducate and convince its customers to buy its green products. Asan external pressure, NGO’s can run boycotts or adverse publicitycampaigns designed to shame the company into offering moresustainable products.

Finally, the social issues factor focuses more on the existingbehavior and practices of companies in relation to the treatmentof their labor force, sourcing practices and environmental impacton their communities. Green, sustainable operations is moreconcerned with translating those aspirations into economicallysustainable business practices (Wang and Lin, 2007).

5.2. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics

Elkington (1997) argued that due to the advance of informa-tion technology companies can no longer keep their practicessecret from stakeholders. They have to report on their sustain-ability practices to inform them and to serve as a benchmarkagainst competitors. It is also important that these reports include

able supply chain.


measures or indicators that make the company’s performanceverifiable by external agencies and global standards. In achievingsuch transparency in reporting and measuring, Elkington stressedthe importance of forming partnerships, not only with supplychain partners, but also with government and non-governmentalorganizations. In this section we will report on our findings in theliterature, outline the major hurdles in developing sustainablesupply chain metrics and propose a framework for such a metric.

5.2.1. Sustainable supply chain management metrics literature

Despite its importance, there is a scarcity of research on thissubject. This is expected as the research on supply chain metrics ingeneral is scarce (Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Even in related supplychain metrics studies there is no discussion of sustainability indica-tors. For example, in a recent review by Gunasekaran and Kobu(2007) there are no sustainability related measures in the 27 majorperformance measures that they have identified in the literature.

Hervani et al. (2005) propose the use of ISO 14032 as a basisfor green supply chain performance management system (GSC/PMS). However, it is important to stress here that the ISO guide-lines are developed for individual organizations. AlthoughHervani et al. (2005) list some of the complexities of designinga GSC/PMS, they do not give solutions for how to overcome them.Zhu and Sarkis (2004) look at the merit of employing greensupply chain practices on economic and environmental perfor-mance in the Chinese manufacturing industry. Clemens (2006)investigates a similar question but for small firms. They find apositive relationship between financial and green performance.Furthermore, it appears that this correlation is strengthened inthe presence of government incentives. Vachon and Klassen(2008) look at how environmental collaboration impacts manu-facturing performance. They find that while upstream collabora-tion has clear benefits, the case is not as evident from customer-based collaboration. Vachon and Mao (2008) link supply chainstrength, at a country level, to its environmental and socialsustainability performances. Sarkis (2006) finds that early adop-tion of environmental and risk management practices may notresult in a positive impact on a company’s environmental perfor-mance. Searcy et al. (2007) present a case study of sustainableperformance indicators for an electric utility company. They focuson environmental and social issues.

It is worth noting that no study has comprehensivelyaddressed the three dimensions of sustainability (economy,society and environment). Table 2 shows what dimension eachstudy has focused on.

In Table 3 we show the performance measures used in thestudies. It is important to note that the above measures were notused or designed to be used in a supply chain context; themeasures do not span across partners in the supply chain.Furthermore, some studies where specific to limited industries(e.g., Scrap yards in steel industry in Clemens (2006), metal

Table 2Focus of papers on sustainable supply chain metrics.

Paper Dimension

Economy Environment Society

Clemens (Clemens 2006) x x

Hervani et al. (2005) x

Sarkis (2006) x

Searcy et al. (2007) x x

Vachon and Klassen (2008) x x

Vachon and Mao (2008) x x

Zhu and Sarkis (2004) x x

finishing in Sarkis (2006), utility in Searcy et al. (2007)). Inaddition there is no consistency in the number of measures used:it ranges from as low as three to as high as 98.

5.2.2. Hurdles for the development of reliable metrics

The research on performance measures in supply chainsacknowledges the difficulty of developing reliable performancemeasures. Some of these difficulties are inherent to the nature ofsupply chain management. We list nine important challenges:

1.
Although there is no shortage of environmental indicators,there is a difficulty in deciding on which ones to use, when andhow: Hervani et al. (2005).
2.
Different supply chain players have to agree on which metricsto use and with which data.Thus agreements and negotiationsare sometimes necessary: Hervani et al. (2005).
3.
Incompatibility between classical production measures, whichare designed for intra-organizational management, and supplychain measures that should have an inter-organizationalscope: Lehtinen and Ahola (2010).
4.
Lack of an oversight agency that controls the whole supplychain. While some environmental measures are linked to cleargovernmental regulations, many economic and social mea-sures are not and it is usually hard to enforce compliancethroughout the supply chain.
5.
Lack of trust in the relationship and fear that data confidenti-ality may be compromised.
6.
Difficulties in aligning strategies throughout the supply chain.One prerequisite of classical performance measures is thatthey serve to achieve a fit between a firms’ competitivestrategy and its operational strategy (see, e.g., Bendoly et al.,2007). The difficulty with supply chains is that several firms inthe same supply chain may have different, and potentiallyconflicting, strategies.
7.
Difficulties in coordination of competencies. Performancemeasures are designed to capitalize on a firms’ internalcompetencies and use them to strengthen its external compe-tencies (see, e.g., Bendoly et al., 2007). The challenge within asupply chain context is that there could be redundancy incompetencies and that the sum of the different parties’competencies may not be equal to the whole.
8.
Difficulty in streamlining the different types of supply chainparties. There are different management theories for firms’strategies such as defenders, prospectors and analyzers or care-takers, innovators, and marketers (see Bendoly et al., 2007 andreferences therein). Performance management theory recom-mends that firms select their measures according to their types(Bendoly et al., 2007). However, in supply chain contexts we mayhave several firms with different types.
9.
Dynamic nature of supply chains. Not only are performancemeasures likely to change with times, a supply chain party(e.g., a supplier) is likely to play different roles in differentsupply chains. For example, a supplier may supply a criticalcomponent to one manufacturer in one supply chain and be adual supply source for another manufacturer in a differentsupply chain.
5.2.3. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics

Keeping in mind the above challenges and taking into accountthe theory of performance measures design (e.g., see Bendolyet al., 2007) we propose to use composite indicators to createreliable performance measures for sustainable supply chains.Composite indicators (CIs) have been used successfully to sum-marize complex and multi-dimensional indicators. Saisana

Table 3Sustainable performance measures used in the literature.

Paper Measures

Clemens (2006) Environmental policy, Investment in Environmental responsiveness, Environmental consciousness

Hervani et al. (2005) Fugitive non-point air emissions, stack or point air emissions, discharges to receiving streams and water bodies, underground injection on-site,

releases to land on-site, discharges to publicly owned treatment works, other off-site transfers, on-site and off-site energy recovery, on-site

and off-site recycling, on-site or off-site treatment, non-production releases, source reduction activities, spill and leak prevention, inventory

control, raw material modification, process modifications, cleaning and decreasing, surface preparation and finishing, product modifications,

pollution prevention opportunity audits, materials balances audits, employee and participative management, publicly available missions and

values statement(s), management systems pertaining to social and environmental performance, magnitude and nature of penalties for non-

compliance, number, volume, and nature of accidental or non-routine releases to land, air, and water, costs associated with environmental

compliance, environmental liabilities under applicable laws and regulations, site remediation costs under applicable laws and regulations,

major awards received, total energy use, total electricity use, total fuel use, other energy use, total materials use other than fuel, total water

use, habitat improvements and damages due to enterprise operations, quantity of non-product output returned to process or market by

recycling or reuse, major environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the life cycle of products and services, formal, written

commitments requiring an evaluation of life cycle impacts, programs or procedures to prevent or minimize potentially adverse impacts of

products and services, procedures to assist product and service designers to create products or services with reduced adverse life cycle impact

Sarkis (2006) Water consumption, energy usage, organics emitted, and sludge emitted by the facility

Searcy et al. (2007) Level of trust by stakeholder category, openness to stakeholder participation, effectiveness of engagement process, meeting expectations,

aboriginal satisfaction with the decision making process, no. of public consultation opportunities, no. of attendees to public consultations,

public awareness of consultation opportunities, percent of past commitments fully met, average response time to requests for publicly

available information, adequacy of reporting and information provided to the public, resources devoted to aboriginal participation in the

consultation process, status as an employer of choice, staff preparedness to represent the company in public, percent of workers who report

complete job satisfaction, effectiveness of capturing staff feedback, average employee turnover by classification, effectiveness of staff training

programs, effectiveness of staff training programs, perceived clarity of expectations, perceived opportunity for advancement, perceived ability

to influence decisions, perceived access to necessary resources, staff sense of team, internal and external salary ratios, percent of employee

development plans completed, non-entry level positions filled with external candidates, investment in staff education and training, public

attitude factor, investment in community outreach, charity and education, percent of electromagnetic field information requests promptly

followed up on, in-kind contributions to community and other local programs, participation in voluntary programs, existence of cultural

awareness training for employees, perceived risk of electromagnetic field to humans and livestock, number of staff hours directed to

electromagnetic field education and awareness initiatives, annual change in right of way by type, transmission intensity, % right of way under

secondary land use, no. of requests for adjustments to development plans, Hectares of right of way (ROW) required, loss of alternate land use

by type, total electricity transmitted, % lines on protected environmental or cultural areas, no. of complaints related to dust, noise, and visual,

Average compensation paid, contribution to fragmentation of the landscape, net change in forest cover per, percent of lines for which

vulnerable, threatened, or endangered species have been identified and action has been taken, existence of an up-to-date biodiversity policy,

change in affected media due to line installation, hectares of forest cover cleared per year, hectares of trees planted per year, hectares of

critical habitat affected by operations, effect on aquatic organisms, percent of lines where mitigation of edge effect is pursued, properties of

area media prior to line installation, properties of area media after line installation, cost of reducing vegetation in critical zone vs. cost of

outages, relationship between outages and dollars spent, cost of increasing intensity of vegetation management, percent of right of way with

vegetation in critical zone, minutes of system outages caused by vegetation, dollars spent on vegetation management per year, cost per

hectare managed by practice, percent of hectares managed by practice, cycle time by method of vegetation management, percent of lines with

up-to-date vegetation management, existing reliability vs. cost of upgrading plans, existing efficiency vs. cost of upgrading, megawatts

transferred per value of fixed assets, transmission line efficiency, average system outage frequency, average system outage time, waste poles,

line, and other hardware recycled or reused, cost per kilometer of line, number of regulatory violations by type, total kilometers of line by

voltage, export/import ratio and capability, percent of time that the system has 100% transfer capability, percent of time capable of meeting

demand, percent of in-service dates met, Average lifetime of infrastructure, Variance in expenditures from budget, Investment in R&D by type,

reportable and non-reportable spills including unintended releases, percent of wood used that is treated, percent of wood used that is treated,

workforce representative of provincial demographics, classification of employees (full-time, part time, temporary), ratio of lowest wage to

provincial minimum, net employment creation, percent of contracts with provincial suppliers, stakeholder satisfaction with programs to

mitigate effects of transmission line installation, benefits shared with affected communities, percent of employment sourced from local

communities, percent of purchase orders placed with aboriginal companies, percent of suppliers with an up-to-date sustainable development

policy

Vachon and Klassen

(2008)

Solid waste disposal, air emissions, water emissions

Vachon and Mao

(2008)

Waste recycling rate, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental innovation

Zhu and Sarkis (2004) Reduction of air emission, reduction of waste water, reduction of solid wastes, decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic

materials, decrease of frequency for environmental accidents, improve a enterprises environmental situation, increase of investment, increase

of operational cost, increase of training cost, increase of costs for purchasing environmentally friendly materials, decrease of cost for materials

purchasing, decrease of cost for energy consumption, decrease of fee for waste treatment, decrease of fee for waste discharge, decrease of fine

for environmental accidents


and Tarantola (2002) give an extensive review of the differentmethodologies used to develop CIs and report on 24 practicalimplementations.

Fig. 9 shows the proposed framework. Using Elkington’s TBL’sprinciple, each supply chain partner (supplier, manufacturer,distributor, retailer or customer) collects measures on each ofthe three dimensions: economy, environment and society. Thechoice of these measures as to align with each partners ownstrategic goals. At this stage a performance measure frameworksuch that proposed by Gunasekaran et al. (2004) would be usefulto decide on which measures to choose. Each partner thenproduce their own internally calculated sub-indicator. These

sub-indicators are then aggregated to form a supply chaincomposite indicator.

To address the difficulties outlined in points 1–9 in theprevious section, guidelines are provided to each partner so thattheir sub-indicators are reliable, but still satisfy their privacyneeds as the way a sub-indicator is calculated can hide thepeculiarities of the different measures within a company. Theoverall composite indicator should be designed in a way that itencourages trust and transparency between the different supplychain partners. We purposely left open the details of the differentmeasures and sub-indicators that can be used as these depend onthe nature of operations and strategies for each partner. Some of


the authors are currently working on a more detailed model thatwill also be tested empirically.

6. Case study

In this section we present a case study to illustrate the processthat companies have to go through in practice to develop supplychain sustainability metrics. It is worth mentioning that thecompany team of experts has noted the need for the developmentof composite indicators in this field.

The case company is a major Canadian electric utility. It is aProvincial Crown corporation that operates in a regulated energymarket. The case company provides generation, transmission, anddistribution services to nearly 750,000 customers in its homeprovince. It also exports electricity to over 50 electric utilitiesthroughout Canada and the United States. The case company has awell-established sustainable development program. A sustainabledevelopment policy was first developed in the early 1990s. Thepolicy is accompanied by a set of 13 sustainable developmentprinciples. However, while the case company has implemented anumber of initiatives in support of its sustainable developmentpolicy and principles, it has struggled to incorporate sustainabledevelopment considerations into its key decision-making processes.

To help address this issue, the case company decided to developa system of sustainability indicators linked to its core managementinfrastructure. The primary factor influencing the decision todevelop the indicators was an increasing expectation on the partof the company’s major stakeholders, including customers andgovernment that the company would explicitly consider environ-mental and social issues as a part of its decision-making process.This is consistent with the market forces, policy, and social factors

Table 4Supply chain indicators at the electric utility case company.

Indicator Significance

Percent of suppliers with an up-to-date

sustainable development policy

Although the existence of a policy does no

development, it does indicate that the com

the issue. This indicator is a starting point

Percent of contracts with Provincial

suppliers

The company seeks to utilize local supplie

Percent of purchase orders placed with

Aboriginal companies

The company seeks to strengthen relations

support their businesses where practical

Level of stake-holder trust by category Trust is one of the most important factors

Economic Environment

Measures

Partners

SupplierManufacturer

DistributorRetailerCustomer

sub-indicators

CI

MeasuresMeasures

sub-indicators

Society

Fig. 9. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics.

discussed earlier in the paper. To provide a manageable pilot test,the scope of the initiative was initially limited to the company’smajor high-voltage (115 kV and above) transmission system.The indicators were developed through an iterative process consist-ing of a needs assessment, detailed process planning, developmentof draft indicators, refinement of the indicators, and integration ofthe indicators with existing company infrastructure. A review ofthe process and results was also conducted at the conclusion of theprocess. Every stage in the process involved extensive consultationwith experts from both inside and outside of the case company. Atotal of 16 internal experts and 10 external experts were consultedthroughout the process. Ultimately, a system of indicators wasdeveloped to address the case company’s key sustainability themes,including stakeholder relationships, land use practices, and govern-ance issues. Although the focus of the initiative was not explicitly onsuppliers and the supply chain, these issues were considered as apart of the process.

Several indicators focused on supply chain issues were incor-porated into the company’s overall system of sustainabilityindicators. The indicators that directly addressed supply chainissues are listed in Table 4. As indicated in Table 4, four indicatorsdirectly addressed supply chain issues. All of the indicators werebased on existing data collected by the case company. Theindicator on Aboriginal suppliers is in recognition of the impor-tance of that stakeholder group in the Canadian energy industry.Table 4 highlights that all of the selected indicators wereexplicitly linked to goals. The goal of three of the indicators wasto increase the value of the measure, while the goal of the otherwas to maintain a range identified by the case company. It isimportant to note that several other indicators were included inthe overall system that indirectly addressed supply chain issues,including ‘‘percent of wood used that is treated’’, ‘‘number ofregulatory violations by type’’, and ‘‘waste poles, line, and otherhardware recycled or reused’’. The complete system of indicatorsis available in Searcy et al. (2007). Moreover, it is important tonote that other indicators were suggested by the participatingexperts throughout the indicator development process that werenot reflected in the final system. Indicators relevant to supplychain management in this regard included ‘‘supplier lead-time byinfrastructure type’’, ‘‘participation in voluntary or above com-pliance level programs’’, and ‘‘number of warnings issued’’. It isimportant to note that the indicators ultimately selectedaddressed several of the relevant functions suggested in thesustainable supply chain management framework discussed inSection 5.1. Sourcing issues were of particular interest to the caseutility. For example, the indicators ‘‘percent of suppliers with anup-to-date sustainable development policy’’, ‘‘percent of contractswith Provincial suppliers’’, and ‘‘percent of purchase orders placedwith Aboriginal companies’’ all addressed sourcing issues. The‘‘level of stakeholder trust indicator’’ addressed customer issues.

Measurement Goal

t necessarily indicate more sustainable

pany has given some thought to

in developing a more robust measure

Percent of total Increase

rs wherever practical Percent of total Increase

hips with aboriginal peoples and to Percent of total Maintain

target

range

in relationships with interested stake-holders Likert scale (1–5)

from survey

Increase


Related indicators, such as ‘‘waste poles, line, and other hardwarerecycled or reused’’ addressed other aspects of the framework.Moreover, the framework provides insight into possible exten-sions of the set of indicators in the future. For example, althoughthey were not included in the initial version of the indicators,other indicators such as ‘‘supplier lead-time by infrastructuretype’’ would be consistent with other relevant functions with thesupply chain.

Building on the discussion above, one of the key points empha-sized in the process of developing the indicators was that theywould evolve over time. For example, the experts recognized that anindicator such as ‘‘percentage of suppliers with an up-to-datesustainable development policy’’ would likely be replaced by a moresophisticated indicator in the future. While the experts recognized the

challenges in developing broadly applicable indicators for supply chain

management, a composite indicator that addresses key supplier factors

could therefore be an area of future work. The system of indicatorsdeveloped by the case company reflects the fact that it is at differentstages of development for different issues. Since the case companywas in the early stages of evaluating the sustainability of its supplychain, the experts felt it did not make sense to develop indicatorsthat were overly prescriptive at this time. Time would be needed toagree with the company’s suppliers on more sophisticated indica-tors, align strategies throughout the supply chain, and to resolvedifficulties in streamlining the different types of supply chainparties. Indicators would also need to be developed that accommo-date the dynamic nature of supply chains. These points are allconsistent with the hurdles for the development of reliable metricsdiscussed earlier.

The indicators developed by the case company closely alignwith the most commonly reported indicators on supply chainmanagement in Canada. A review of 100 Canadian corporatesustainability reports (published as of July 1, 2010) shows thatthe most commonly reported supply chain indicator was ‘‘policy,practices, and proportion of spending on locally based suppliers’’(Morali and Searcy, 2011). This indicator was reported by 25 ofthe 100 companies. No other indicator focused on the supplychain was reported by more than 5 of the Canadian companiessampled. The indicators developed by the case company are alsoconsistent with the GRI indicators focusing on supplier issues,namely ‘‘policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locallybased suppliers at significant locations of operation’’ and ‘‘per-centage of significant suppliers and contractors that have under-gone screening on human rights and actions taken’’ (GRI, 2006).

The experience at the case company demonstrates some of thechallenges and opportunities in developing supply chain-focusedsustainability indicators. The study helps illustrate that there is atradeoff between selecting technically sophisticated indicatorsand choosing indicators that can be reasonably implemented bythe company at that time (Searcy et al., 2007). Different indicatorswill be needed by different companies and the indicators ulti-mately selected must reflect the unique needs of the companythat will use them. Recognizing their inexperience in measuringsustainability in the supply chain, the experts at the casecompany felt it was in the company’s best interest to start withstraightforward indicators that provide insight into some of thecompany’s key priority areas. Given the complexity of measuringsustainability in the supply chain, it may be appropriate forcompanies to start with fairly top-level indicators and extendthem over time. In any case, the study shows that there is a strong

demand for indicators in this area. While the indicators ultimatelyselected by the experts were heavily debated, there was aconsensus on the need to address supply related issues in theoverall system of indicators. However, the experience at the casecompany also illustrates the difficulty in developing innovativeindicators tailored to the unique needs of the organization. There

is a need for further case studies that shed light on the indicatorscompanies use to measure the success of their sustainable supplychain management initiatives.

7. Conclusions and suggestions for further research

We have reviewed research on sustainable supply chainmanagement with a focus on studies that were published in thelast decade. After providing a definition for sustainable supplychain management we presented our literature survey results.Based on these results we have developed an original frameworkfor sustainable supply chain management. Recognizing theimportance of reliable performance measures for the mainte-nance of sustainable supply chain practices we have also includeda case study describing the experience of a utility company insetting performance indicators. This case showed that there is astrong demand in industry for such indicators and that morecomplex indicators are required. Based on these findings we alsodeveloped a framework for sustainable supply chain metrics. Asshown in Fig. 2 there is an increasing interest in studyingsustainable supply chains. Below we outline a research agendabased on our findings in the literature and experience with thecase study company:

�
Industry specific research: we feel that more attention shouldbe given to industry-specific research on sustainable supplychain management. For example, although in practice the ICTindustry has been judged to be successful in greening theirsupply chains, they haven’t been well studied in the literature.As per Table 3 it is also clear that different performancemeasurement systems need to be developed for differentindustries. Searcy et al. (2007) and Hassini and Surti (2011)provide example studies in the utilities and transportation/logistics sectors, respectively.
�
Pricing: the operations management literature is currentlythriving with research at the interface of marketing andoperations that would usually incorporate pricing as animportant decision making lever (e.g., see recent review byTang, 2010). However, as shown in Fig. 4 we found only onepaper that addresses the pricing issue in a sustainable supplychain context. As we stressed in our framework for sustainablesupply chains, we believe it is important that, pricing, as partof the value proposition to the customer, be more stronglyemphasized.
�
Inventory Management: As shown in Fig. 4 we did not findany study that explicitly addressed inventory managementwithin a sustainable supply chain. If examined from the TBLprinciple, we find that the traditional inventory models focusonly the economic aspect. For example, if it is cheap to disposeleftover stock, a news vendor model would recommend stock-ing more. The US life-cycle inventory database (described inSection 4.5 can aid in empirical research.
�
Firm Size: While it is acknowledged that large firms have anadvantage for adopting sustainable practices more than SMEsand that SMEs adoption is necessary in the long run, reviewedstudies found that the rate of return on early adoption is notencouraging. More research is thus needed on how SMEs andlarge firms should approach investment in and adoption ofsustainable practices.
�
Sustainable Supply Chain Metrics: As we outline in Section5.2.2, the existing performance management theory hasseveral principles that makes it incompatible for implementa-tion in a supply chain context. We suggested the use of

Bad

al.,

Chr

and

Fiel

Gel

Wa

Bid

Jaya

200

200

and

Hal

Nar

Pul

200

al.,

Vac

200

Gao

Iako

al.,

200

refe

the


composite indicators. More empirical research is required tovalidate the proposed framework. In addition more theoreticalre- search is required to develop principles that take intoaccount the intricacies of supply chain structures that distin-guishes them from the management of individual firms.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank theanonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that helpedimprove the presentation and content of the paper. We alsowould like to acknowledge the financial support from the NaturalScience and Engineering Research Council.

References3

Adamides, E.D., Karacapilidis, N., Pylarinou, H., Koumanakos, D., 2008. Supportingcollaboration in the development and management of lean supply networks.Production Planning and Control 19 (1), 35–52.

Badurdeen, F., Iyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H., Gupta, S., Jawahir, I.S., 2009.Extending total life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design. Inter-national Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 4 (1–3), 49–67.

Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with greysystem and rough set methodologies. International Journal of ProductionEconomics 124 (1), 252–264.

Barratt, M., Oke, A., 2007. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supplychains: a resource-based theory perspective. Journal of Operations Manage-ment 25 (6), 1217–1233.

Blackhurst, J., Wu, T., O’Grady, P., 2007. A network-based decision tool to modeluncertainty in supply chain operations. Production Planning and Control 18(6), 526–535.

Chan, H.K., 2007. A pro-active and collaborative approach to reverse logistics—acase study. Production Planning and Control 18 (4), 350–360.

Che, Z.H., 2010. Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and particle swarmoptimisation for balanced and defective supply chain problems consideringweee/rohs directives. International Journal of Production Research 48 (11),3355–3381.

Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A., 2004. Strategic purchasing, supply management,and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 22 (5), 505–523.

Chen, Y.J., Sheu, J.-B., 2009. Environmental-regulation pricing strategies for greensupply chain management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics andTransportation Review 45 (5), 667–677.

Christensen, W.J., Germain, R., Birou, L., 2005. Build-to-order and just-in-time aspredictors of applied supply chain knowledge and market performance.Journal of Operations Management 23 (5), 470–481.

Da Silveira, G.J.C., Arkader, R., 2007. The direct and mediated relationshipsbetween supply chain coordination investments and delivery performance.International Journal of Operations and Production Management 27 (2),140–158.

3 The references are divided in two parts: References (Adamides et al., 2008;

urdeen et al., 2009; Bai and Sarkis, 2010; Barratt and Oke, 2007; Blackhurst et

2007; Chan, 2007; Che, 2010; Chen et al., 2004; Chen and Sheu, 2009;

istensen et al., 2005; Da Silveira and Arkader, 2007; Ding et al., 2007; Dou

Sarkis, 2010; Efendigil et al., 2008; Fahmy Salama et al., 2009; Ferguson, 2009;

d and Sroufe, 2007; Foulds and Luo, 2006; Fritz and Schiefer, 2009;

dermann et al., 2007; Georgiadis and Vlachos, 2004; Guide and Van

ssenhove, 2006a, 2006b; Guide et al., 2000; Higgins et al., 2010; Hu and

anda, 2009; Huang et al., 2009; Isaksson and Steimle, 2009; Jayaraman, 2009;

raman et al., 2010; Ji, 2008; Kaipia et al., 2007; Kannan et al., 2008; Kim et al.,

7; Kim, 2009; Kim and Narasimhan, 2002; Klibi et al., 2010; Lee and Klassen,

8; Lejeune, 2006; Levner et al., 2008; Linton et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2008; Loch

Wu, 2008; Lu et al., 2007; Macpherson et al., 2005; Marsillac, 2008; Matos and

l, 2007; Mazhar et al., 2007; Miles and Snow, 2007; Mudgal et al., 2010;

asimhan and Kim, 2002; Nyaga et al., 2010; Pilkington and Fitzgerald, 2006;

lman and Dillard, 2010; Neto et al., 2009, 2010; Rao, 2002; Robertson et al.,

2; Savaskan et al., 2004; Sheu, 2008; Sheu et al., 2005; Simpson, 2010; Singh et

2008; Srivastava, 2008; Triantafyllou and Cherrett, 2010; Tsai and Hung, 2009;

hon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Van Der Vorst et al., 2009; Van Hoek,

2; Vinodh et al., 2007; Vlachos et al., 2007; Wang and Hsu, 2010; Wang and Ip

, 2010; White and Lee, 2009; Wu and Kleindorfer, 2005; Xanthopoulos and

vou, 2010; Yan et al., 2008; Yang and Sheu, 2007; Yang et al., 2010; Zheng et

2006; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Zhu et al., 2005, 2008a,

8b; Zhuo and He, 2007) were included in the literature review study and

rence (Adriana, 2009) onwards are other references that are not included in

review.

Ding, F.-Y., Raghavan, B., Pollard, S., 2007. Supplier capacity analysis for amanufacturing firm with a case study. Production Planning and Control 18(6), 514–525.

Dou, Y., Sarkis, J., 2010. A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis fora strategic offshoring decision. International Journal of Production Research 48(2), 567–592.

Efendigil, T., €onu€t, S., Kongar, E., 2008. A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Computers andIndustrial Engineering 54 (2), 269–287.

Fahmy Salama, K., Luzzatto, D., Sianesi, A., Towill, D.R., 2009. The value of auditingsupply chains. International Journal of Production Economics 119 (1), 34–45.

Ferguson, M., 2009. Strategic and tactical aspects of closed-loop supply chains.Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Manage-ment 3 (2), 101–200.

Field, J.M., Sroufe, R.P., 2007. The use of recycled materials in manufacturing:implications for supply chain management and operations strategy. Interna-tional Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4439–4463.

Foulds, L.R., Luo, Y., 2006. Value-added services for sustainable third-party ware-housing. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 2 (2),194–216.

Fritz, M., Schiefer, G., 2009. Tracking, tracing, and business process interests infood commodities: a multi-level decision complexity. International Journal ofProduction Economics 117 (2), 317–329.

Geldermann, J., Treitz, M., Rentz, O., 2007. Towards sustainable productionnetworks. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19),4207–4224.

Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D., 2004. The effect of environmental parameters onproduct recovery. European Journal of Operational Research 157 (2), 449–464.

Guide Jr., V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2006a. Closed-loop supply chains: anintroduction to the feature issue (part 1). Production and Operations Manage-ment 15 (3), 345–350.

Guide Jr., V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2006b. Closed-loop supply chains: anintroduction to the feature issue (Part 2). Production and Operations Manage-ment 15 (4), 471–472.

Guide Jr., V.D.R., Jayaraman, V., Srivastava, R., Benton, W.C., 2000. Supply-chainmanagement for recoverable manufacturing systems. Interfaces 30 (3),125–142.

Higgins, A.J., Miller, C.J., Archer, A.A., Ton, T., Fletcher, C.S., McAllister, R.R.J., 2010.Challenges of operations research practice in agricultural value chains. Journalof the Operational Research Society 61 (6), 964–973.

Hu, G., Bidanda, B., 2009. Modeling sustainable product lifecycle decision supportsystems. International Journal of Production Economics 122 (1), 366–375.

Huang, X.-Y., Yan, N.-N., Qiu, R.-Z., 2009. Dynamic models of closed-loop supplychain and robust HN control strategies. International Journal of ProductionResearch 47 (9), 2279–2300.

Isaksson, R., Steimle, U., 2009. What does gri-reporting tell us about corporatesustainability? TQM Journal 21 (2), 168–181.

Jayaraman, V., 2009. What is the buzz about the cross-functional role of purchas-ing in a sustainable supply chain environment? International Journal ofLogistics Systems and Management 5 (1–2), 7–20.

Jayaraman, V., Baker, T., Lee, Y.J., 2010. Strategic end-of-life management ofelectronic assembly product recovery in sustainable supply chain systems.International Journal of Operational Research 7 (1), 54–73.

Ji, G., 2008. Performance evaluation of complaint management and virtual enterprisein closed-loop supply chains by using exergoeconomics and extenics. Interna-tional Journal of Services and Operations Management 4 (3), 368–397.

Kaipia, R., Holmstr€om, J., Hellstr€om, M., 2007. Measuring the benefit of changingthe value offering in grocery supply chains. Production Planning and Control18 (2), 131–141.

Kannan, G., Noorul, A., Sasikumar, P., Subramaniam, A., 2008. Analysis andselection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling andanalytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and DecisionMaking 9 (1), 163–182.

Kim, K.I., Syamil, A., Bhatt, B.J., 2007. A resource-based theory of supplier strategy.International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 3 (1), 20–33.

Kim, S.W., 2009. An investigation on the direct and indirect effect of supply chainintegration on firm performance. International Journal of Production Econom-ics 119 (2), 328–346.

Kim, S.W., Narasimhan, R., 2002. Information system utilization in supply chainintegration efforts. International Journal of Production Research 40 (18),4585–4609.

Klibi, W., Martel, A., Guitouni, A., 2010. The design of robust value-creating supplychain networks: a critical review. European Journal of Operational Research203 (2), 283–293.

Lee, S.-Y., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster environmentalmanagement capabilities in small- and medium-sized suppliers in supplychains. Production and Operations Management 17 (6), 573–586.

Lejeune, M.A., 2006. A variable neighborhood decomposition search method forsupply chain management planning problems. European Journal of Opera-tional Research 175 (2), 959–976.

Levner, E., De Pablo, D.A.L., Ganoulis, J., 2008. Risk management of transboundarywater resources using the green supply chain approach. International Journalof Risk Assessment and Management 10 (4), 357–372.

Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: anintroduction. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1075–1082.


Liu, J.J., So, S.C.K., Choy, K.L., Lau, H., Kwok, S.K., 2008. Performance improvementof third-party logistics providers—an integrated approach with a logisticsinformation system. International Journal of Technology Management 42 (3),226–249.

Loch, C.H., Wu, Y., 2008. Social preferences and supply chain performance: anexperimental study. Management Science 54 (11), 1835–1849.

Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.-C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to greensupplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. InternationalJournal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4317–4331.

Macpherson, A., Jones, O., Zhang, M., 2005. Virtual reality and innovation net-works: opportunity exploitation in dynamic SMEs. International Journal ofTechnology Management 30 (1–2), 49–66.

Marsillac, E.L., 2008. Environmental impacts on reverse logistics and green supplychains: similarities and integration. International Journal of Logistics Systemsand Management 4 (4), 411–422.

Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1083–1102.

Mazhar, M.I., Kara, S., Kaebernick, H., 2007. Remaining life estimation of usedcomponents in consumer products: life cycle data analysis by Weibull andartificial neural networks. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1184–1193.

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 2007. Organization theory and supply chain management:an evolving research perspective. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2),459–463.

Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010. Modelling the barriers of greensupply chain practices: an Indian perspective. International Journal of LogisticsSystems and Management 7 (1), 81–107.

Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on therelationship between diversification and performance: evidence from Japa-nese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations Management 20 (3), 303–323.

Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F., 2010. Examining supply chain relation-ships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationshipsdiffer? Journal of Operations Management 28 (2), 101–114.

Pilkington, A., Fitzgerald, R., 2006. Operations management themes, concepts andrelationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management 26 (11), 1255–1275.

Pullman, M.E., Dillard, J., 2010. Values based supply chain management andemergent organizational structures. International Journal of Operations andProduction Management 30 (7), 744–771.

Frota Neto, J.Quariguasi, Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T.,2009. A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in logistics networks.European Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 670–682.

Neto, J.Quariguasi Frota, Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., Van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T.,2010. From closed-loop to sustainable supply chains: the weee case. Interna-tional Journal of Production Research 48 (15), 4463–4481.

Rao, P., 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in south east Asia.International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22 (5–6),632–655.

Robertson, P.W., Gibson, P.R., Flanagan, J.T., 2002. Strategic supply chain develop-ment by integration of key global logistical process linkages. InternationalJournal of Production Research 40 (16), 4021–4040.

Savaskan, R.C., Bhattacharya, S., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2004. Closed-loop supply chainmodels with product remanufacturing. Management Science 50 (2), 239–252.

Sheu, J.-B., 2008. Green supply chain management, reverse logistics and nuclearpower generation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-tion Review 44 (1), 19–46.

Sheu, J.-B., Chou, Y.-H., Hu, C.-C., 2005. An integrated logistics operational modelfor green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E: Logisticsand Transportation Review 41 (4), 287–313.

Simpson, D., 2010. Use of supply relationships to recycle secondary materials.International Journal of Production Research 48 (1), 227–249.

Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2008. Integrated environmentmanagement in steel industries. International Journal of Management andDecision Making 9 (1), 103–128.

Srivastava, S.K., 2008. Network design for reverse logistics. Omega 36 (4),535–548.

Triantafyllou, M.K., Cherrett, T.J., 2010. The logistics of managing hazardous waste:a case study analysis in the UK retail sector. International Journal of LogisticsResearch and Applications 13 (5), 373–394.

Tsai, W.-H., Hung, S.-J., 2009. A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supplychain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance evaluationwith a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production Research 47(18), 4991–5017.

Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmentaltechnologies. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4357–4379.

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain:the impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management 26 (7), 795–821.

Van Der Vorst, J.G.A.J., Tromp, S.-O., Van Der Zee, D.-J., 2009. Simulation modellingfor food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on product quality,sustainability and logistics. International Journal of Production Research 47(23), 6611–6631.

Van Hoek, R.I., 2002. Case studies of greening the automotive supply chainthrough technology and operations. International Journal of TechnologyManagement 23 (1–3), 89–112.

Vinodh, S., Devadasan, S.R., Rajanayagam, D., 2007. Roadmap for lucrative greeningof supply chains: theoretical and practical perspectives. International Journalof Process Management and Benchmarking 2 (1), 29–44.

Vlachos, D., Georgiadis, P., Iakovou, E., 2007. A system dynamics model fordynamic capacity planning of remanufacturing in closed-loop supply chains.Computers and Operations Research 34 (2), 367–394.

Wang, H.-F., Hsu, H.-W., 2010. A closed-loop logistic model with a spanning-treebased genetic algorithm. Computers and Operations Research 37 (2), 376–389.

Wang, J.W., Gao, F., Ip, W.H., 2010. Measurement of resilience and its application toenterprise information systems. Enterprise Information Systems 4 (2), 215–223.

White, L., Lee, G.J., 2009. Operational research and sustainable development: tacklingthe social dimension. European Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 683–692.

Wu, D.J., Kleindorfer, P.R., 2005. Competitive options, supply contracting, andelectronic markets. Management Science 51 (3), 452–466.

Xanthopoulos, A., Iakovou, E., 2010. A strategic methodological optimisationframework for the design of a reverse logistics network with forward supplychannel synergies. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management7 (2), 165–183.

Yan, W., Chen, C.-H., Huang, Y., Mi, W., 2008. An integration of bidding-orientedproduct conceptualization and supply chain formation. Computers in Industry59 (2–3), 128–144.

Yang, C.-L., Sheu, C., 2007. Achieving supply chain environment management: anexploratory study. International Journal of Technology Management 40 (1–3),131–156.

Yang, C.-L., Lin, S.-P., Chan, Y.-H., Sheu, C., 2010. Mediated effect of environmentalmanagement on manufacturing competitiveness: an empirical study. Interna-tional Journal of Production Economics 123 (1), 210–220.

Zheng, J., Bakker, E., Knight, L., Gilhespy, H., Harland, C., Walker, H., 2006. Astrategic case for e-adoption in healthcare supply chains. International Journalof Information Management 26 (4), 290–301.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices inChinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 22 (3),265–289.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures onemergent green supply chain practices and performance. International Journalof Production Research 45 (18–19), 4333–4355.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in china:pressures, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations andProduction Management 25 (5), 449–468.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J., Lai, K.-H., 2008a. Firm-level correlates of emergentgreen supply chain management practices in the Chinese context. Omega 36(4), 577–591.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H., 2008b. Green supply chain management implicationsfor closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-tion Review 44 (1), 1–18.

Zhuo, J., He, X.J., 2007. Analysis of e-marketplace for the textile industry in China.International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 4 (3),337–353.

Adriana, B., 2009. Environmental supply chain management in tourism: the case oflarge tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (16), 1385–1392.

Albino, V., Izzo, C., Kuhtz, S., 2002. Input–output models for the analysis of a local/global supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 78 (2),119–131.

Bala, A., Munoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Ysern, P., 2008. Experiences with greeningsuppliers. the universitat autonoma de Barcelona. Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion 16 (15), 1610–1619.

Beamon, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logistics InformationManagement 12 (4), 332–342.

Bendoly, E., Rosenzweig, E.D., Stratman, J.K., 2007. Performance metric portfolios:a framework and empirical analysis. Production and Operations Management16 (2), 257–276.

Beske, P., Koplin, J., Seuring, S., 2008. The use of environmental and socialstandards by German first-tier suppliers of the Volkswagen AG. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (2), 63–75.

Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin(Italy): The role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. Journalof Cleaner Production 18 (10–11), 1021–1030.

Boons, F., Mendoza, A., 2010. Constructing sustainable palm oil: how actors definesustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (16–17), 1686–1695.

Cannon, M., Kouvaritakis, B., Huang, G., 2005. Modelling and optimisation forsustainable development policy assessment. European Journal of OperationalResearch 164 (2), 475–490.

Carter, C., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-ment: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribu-tion and Logistics Management 38 (5), 360–387.

Chopra, S., Meindl, P., 2007. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, andOperation. Prentice-Hall.

Chung, C.-J., Wee, H.-M., 2008. Green-component life-cycle value on design andreverse manufacturing in semi-closed supply chain. International Journal ofProduction Economics 113 (2), 528–545.

Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility:standard adoption and practices in Italian companies. International Journalof Production Economics 113 (1), 88–106.

Clemens, B., 2006. Economic incentives and small firms: does it pay to be green?Journal of Business Research 59 (4), 492–500.


Corbett, C.J., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending the horizons: environmental excellenceas key to improving operations. Manufacturing and Service OperationsManagement 8 (1), 5–22.

Cox, A., Chicksand, D., Yang, T., 2007. The proactive alignment of sourcing withmarketing and branding strategies: a food service case. Supply Chain Manage-ment 12 (5), 321–333.

Dawson, G.F., Probert, E.J., 2007. A sustainable product needing a sustainableprocurement commitment: the case of green waste in Wales. SustainableDevelopment 15 (2), 69–82.

de Brito, M.P., Carbone, V., Blanquart, C.M., 2008. Towards a sustainable fashionretail supply chain in Europe: organisation and performance. InternationalJournal of Production Economics 114 (2), 534–553.

Early, C., Kidman, T., Menvielle, M., Geyer, R., McMullan, R., 2009. Informingpackaging design decisions at Toyota motor sales using life cycle assessmentand costing. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (4), 592–606.

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st CenturyBusiness. Capstone, Oxford.

Ferretti, I., Zavanella Zanoni, S., Diana, A.L., 2007. Greening the aluminium supplychain. International Journal of Production Economics 108 (1–2), 236–245.

Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., Kornilaki, M., 2008. Sustainable supply chainmanagement in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (4), 260–271.

Frota Neto, J.Q., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Nunen, J., Van Heck, E., 2008.Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks. International Journalof Production Economics 111 (2), 195–208.

Frota Neto, J.Q., Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T., 2009.A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in logistics networks. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research 193 (3), 670–682.

Frota Neto, J.Q., Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., Van Nunen, J., Spengler, T., 2010. Fromclosed-loop to sustainable supply chains: the weee case. International Journalof Production Research 48 (15), 4463–4481.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines:Version 3.0. GRI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Gunasekaran, A., Kobu, B., 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logisticsand supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) forresearch and applications. International Journal of Production Research 45(12), 2819–2840.

Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., McGaughey, R.E., 2004. A framework for supply chainperformance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 87(3), 333–347.

Haibin, L., Zhenling, L., 2010. Recycling utilization patterns of coal mining waste inChina. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (12), 1331–1340.

Hall, J., Matos, S., 2010. Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainablesupply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and LogisticsManagement 40 (1–2), 124–147.

Handfield, R.B., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K., Melnyk, S.A., 1997. ‘green’ value chainpractices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management 15 (4),293–315.

Hassini, E., Surti, C., 2011. A composite indicators performance measurementframework for sustainable logistics and transportation. In: Proceedings of theThird Annual Translog 2011 Conference.

Hawkins, D.E., 2004. Sustainable tourism competitiveness clusters: application toworld heritage sites network development in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal ofTourism Research 9 (3), 293–307.

Hawkins, T.R., Matthews, D.H., 2009. A classroom simulation to teach economicinput–output life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (4), 622–637.

Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green supplychain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4), 330–353.

Holt, D., Ghobadian, A., 2009. An empirical study of green supply chain manage-ment practices amongst UK manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Tech-nology Management 20 (7), 933–956.

Hsu, C.-W., Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplierselection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2),255–264.

Johnson, M.L., Lai, H.-Y., Wortman, D., 2008. Preventing mercury emissions fromcoal-fired power plants using environmentally preferable coal purchasingpractices. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (6), 716–721.

Kainuma, Y., Tawara, N., 2006. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to leanand green supply chain management. International Journal of ProductionEconomics 101 (1), 99–108. (special issue).

King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and green? an empirical examination of therelationship between lean production and environmental performance. Pro-duction and Operations Management 10 (3), 244–256.

Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., 2003. Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain:the impact on plant-level environmental investment. Production and Opera-tions Management 12 (3), 336–352.

Lee, S.-Y., 2008. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliersin green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Management 13 (3), 185–198.

Lehtinen, J., Ahola, T., 2010. Is performance measurement suitable for an extendedenterprise? International Journal of Operations and Production Management30 (2), 181–204.

McCutcheon, D.M., Meredith, J.R., 1993. Conducting case study research inoperations management. Journal of Operations Management 11 (3), 239–256.

Moore, S.B., Manring, S.L., 2009. Strategy development in small and medium sizedenterprises for sustainability and increased value creation. Journal of CleanerProduction 17 (2), 276–282.

Morali, O., Searcy, C., (2011). Building Sustainability into Supply Chain Management inCanadian Corporations. Canadian Purchasing Research Foundation, January 2011.

Nawrocka, D., 2008. Environmental supply chain management, ISO 14001 androhs. how are small companies in the electronics sector managing? CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (6), 349–360.

NewsWeek, 2010. Green rankings. /http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/green-rankings-2010-full-methodology.htmlS.

Nunes, B., Bennett, D., 2010. Green operations initiatives in the automotiveindustry: an environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Bench-marking 17 (3), 396–420.

Ofori, G., 2000. Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. EuropeanJournal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6 (3–4), 195–206.

Park, J., Sarkis, J., Wu, Z., 2010. Creating integrated business and environmentalvalue within the context of China’s circular economy and ecological moder-nization. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (15), 1492–1499.

Preuss, L., 2009. Addressing sustainable development through public procurement:the case of local government. Supply Chain Management 14 (3), 213–223.

Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., Seth, N., 2006. Firm performance impacts of digitallyenabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly: ManagementInformation Systems 30 (2), 225–246.

Roome, N., 2005. Teaching sustainability in a global mba: insights from theonemba. Business Strategy and the Environment 14 (3), 160–171.

Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., 2002. State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologiesand Practices for Composite Indicator Development. European Commission,Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of theCitizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit.

Sarkis, J., 2006. The adoption of environmental and risk management practices:relationships to environmental performance. Annals of Operations Research145 (1), 367–381.

Schieble, T.M., 2008. Advertised sustainability practices among suppliers to auniversity hospital operating room. Journal of Hospital Marketing and PublicRelations 18 (2), 135–148.

Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S., 2007. Sustainable development indica-tors for the transmission system of an electric utility. Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management 14 (3), 135–151.

Searcy, C., Karapetrovic, S., McCartney, D., 2009. Designing corporate sustainabledevelopment indicators: reflections on a process. Environmental QualityManagement 19 (1), 31–42.

Seitz, M.A., Wells, P.E., 2006. Challenging the implementation of corporatesustainability: the case of automotive engine remanufacturing. BusinessProcess Management Journal 12 (6), 822–836.

Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual frameworkfor sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15), 1699–1710.

Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art litera-ture review. International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1), 53–80.

Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., Chinnam, R.B., 2009. Remanufacturing for theautomotive aftermarket-strategic factors: literature review and futureresearch needs. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (13), 1163–1174.

Tang, C.S., 2010. A review of marketing-operations interface models: from co-existence to coordination and collaboration. International Journal of Produc-tion Economics 125 (1), 22–40.

Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. Shadows and lights of gscm (green supply chainmanagement): determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-national study. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10–11), 953–962.

Teuteberg, F., Wittstruck, D., 2010. A systematic review of sustainable supplychain management. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010: Gttingen,23.-25. Februar, Kurzfassungen der Beitrge, p. 203.

Thun, J.H., Mu€ller, A., 2010. An empirical analysis of green supply chain manage-ment in the German automotive industry. Business Strategy and the Environ-ment 19 (2), 119–132.

Tomomi, T., 2010. Environmental management strategy for small and medium-sized enterprises: why do smbs practice environmental management? AsianBusiness and Management 9 (2), 265–280.

Tweed, K., September 29, 2010. Sustainability practices are really risk manage-ment. /http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sustainability-is-really-risk-management/S.

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturingperformance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. InternationalJournal of Production Economics 111 (2), 299–315.

Vachon, S., Mao, Z., 2008. Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development:a country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1552–1560.

Varnas, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental consideration in procure-ment of construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunitiesin green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of CleanerProduction 17 (13), 1214–1222.

Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., 2003. Indicators for measuringenvironmental sustainability: a case study of the pharmaceutical industry.Benchmarking 10 (2), 107–119.

Wang, L., Lin, L., 2007. A methodological framework for the triple bottom lineaccounting and management of industry enterprises. International Journal ofProduction Research 45 (5), 1063–1088.

Wells, P., Seitz, M., 2005. Business models and closed-loop supply chains: atypology. Supply Chain Management 10 (4), 249–251.

Zafirovski, M., 2003. Market and Society: Two Theoretical Frameworks. PraegerPublishers.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/green-rankings-2010-full-methodology.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/green-rankings-2010-full-methodology.html

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sustainability-is-really-risk-management/

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sustainability-is-really-risk-management/

A Literature Review and a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chians With a Focus on Metrics

Documents

Transcript of A Literature Review and a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chians With a Focus on Metrics