Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management€¦ · Purchasing/supply management Supply chain...

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 18 (2012) 258–269

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management

1478-40

http://d

n Corr

E-m

rhooker1 Te2 Te

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

Purchasing and supply management sustainability: Drivers and barriers

Larry C. Giunipero a,n, Robert E. Hooker b,1, Diane Denslow c,2

a Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USAb Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33813, USAc Department of Management, Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 9 July 2012

Keywords:

Sustainability

Green

Environment

Corporate social responsibility

Purchasing/supply management

Supply chain management

92/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003

esponding author. Tel.: þ1 850 644 8224; fax

ail addresses: [email protected] (L.C. Giu

@poly.usf.edu (R.E. Hooker), [email protected]

l.: þ863 667 7877.

l.: þ904-620-1381.

a b s t r a c t

While sustainability has garnered a great deal of attention in the popular press, it is not well defined,

and little is known about the actual drivers and barriers to adopting environmentally sustainable

practices within organizations. This is particularly true with regard to implementation in the

purchasing and supply management (P/SM) function. This study reviews the sustainability literature

and defines supply management sustainability (SSM) and its components. Additionally, a multi-method

approach was utilized consisting of an extensive review of the sustainability literature, a multi-stage

Delphi analysis with a panel of twenty-one P/SM executives, and interviews with nineteen additional

P/SM executives. The purpose of this study was to identify the drivers and barriers currently facing

P/SM sustainability implementation efforts. The results indicated that top management initiatives and

government regulations currently drive P/SM sustainability efforts while investments in sustainability

and economic uncertainty are a hindrance to these programs.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This research identifies the drivers and barriers to supplymanagement’s implementation of sustainable purchasing prac-tices. The research is based on a Delphi analysis of 21 leadingsupply management executives from national to multinationalcompanies headquartered in the United States. A review of theresearch uncovered significant discrepancies in the definitions ofsustainability and a significant lack of understanding of the driversand barriers in Purchasing/Supply Management (P/SM) sustain-ability efforts. After conducting a thorough review of the generaland supply management sustainability literature, we have devel-oped a definition of sustainable supply management (SSM).

The lack of clarity in the literature and void in standards forsustainability was found in a previous study of CEOs (Berns et al.,2009) to hamper implementation efforts. In P/SM, Walker et al.(2008) identified a list of drivers and barriers in their work withseven U.K. based firms. We extend both of these works byidentifying and analyzing a more comprehensive list of thedrivers and barriers of sustainability in supply management. Testswere then conducted on a group of senior level purchasers using aDelphi approach.

ll rights reserved.

: þ1 850 644 4098.

nipero),

du (D. Denslow).

The results of the Delphi study indicate that such confusionand lack of consensus extends to supply managers who viewsustainability somewhat differently. Top management initiativesand compliance to government regulations appear to be the keydrivers to supply management sustainability efforts. Conversely,barriers to sustainability are not extensively discussed in theliterature but were found to include supplier and buyer invest-ments in sustainability along with economic uncertainty. Thisresearch paper begins with a historical review of the sustain-ability literature then specifically reviews the literature whichapplies to the supply chain and supply management. Next, weprovide a definition of sustainable supply management (SSM) tofill a gap in the literature and provide future researchers with afoundation for their work. Following this is a description of theresearch purpose, description of the research sample, the Delphianalysis and results, and implications for managers.

2. Literature review

Over the past few years, global organizations have recognizedsustainability as an increasingly important strategic goal (Closset al., 2011). Linton et al. (2007) propose that sustainability as anintegrative concept is following the same trajectory as globalwarming by both the public and private sectors. The magnitude ofthis concept is shown by the global interest in sustainability asevidenced by the European Union (EU) which is a highly influen-tial proponent of sustainability (Linton et al., 2007). They furtherstate that if the EU’s earlier influence in the area of quality

www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003



mailto:[email protected]




L.C. Giunipero et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 18 (2012) 258–269 259

management and the global adoption of ISO 9001 certification isany indication, the EU emphasis on sustainability is likely to be astrong harbinger of actions by others. The UK organizations,Business in the Environment and Chartered Institute ofPurchasing and Supply (1997), developed guidelines for tacklingenvironmental issues in the supply chain early in the 21stCentury (Preuss, 2001).

2.1. Evolving views on sustainability

The last twenty years have seen growing pressure on busi-nesses to pay attention to the environmental and resourceconsequences of their products and processes (Kleindorfer et al.,2005). Starik and Marcus (2000) state two common explanationsof the emergence and study of ‘‘greening organizations’’ are: (1)this development was the evolving outcome of the environmentaland social movements that received considerable attention in the1960s and 1970s; and (2) the perception that organizationalentities have or could have significant impacts on their respectiveecosystems became widely held, providing various motivationsfor organizational change. One aspect of these overall themes isgreen supply chain management issues and how organizationscan maximize the potential of their suppliers to adopt greensupply chain management practices (Walker et al., 2008).

Table 1 highlights the key themes in the sustainability litera-ture. Environmental compliance was considered a ‘‘fringe’’ issuein the 1960s and 1970s and elicited little discussion at executivelevels (Walton et al., 1998). In the late 1960s, with environmentalprotection gaining prominence in the political arena, producers ofcommodities focused on the externalities connected to theirproducts by national and local governments with regulativeapproaches (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009).

The period from 1970 to 1985 saw the beginning of theintegration of environmental concerns and business and market-ing strategies. The beginning of a strategic and coherent approachto handling environmental concerns can be traced to this stage(Menon and Menon, 1997). During the 1980s, research wasconducted on the various aspects of organizational greening(Starik and Marcus, 2000). In this time period, several leadingedge firms started to change their corporate positions fromignoring or even resisting environmental pressures to trying toembrace, incorporate, and even profit from them (Schot and

Table 1Major themes in the sustainability literature.

Time frame Major theme(s)

1960s Compliance with government regulation

1970s Initial actions to integrate sustainability into business

1980s Change of corporate position to embrace sustainability

Focus on environmental and resource consequences of product

1990s Incorporating sustainability to provide a competitive advantag

2000s Proactive approaches to sustainability and the realization of th

goal and in the supply chain

Fisher, 1993; Winn, 1995; Starik and Marcus, 2000). In the late1980s evidence indicates that businesses began internalizing theconcept of sustainability into their own value sets (Vermeulenand Seuring, 2009; Sharma et al., 2010).

Beginning in the 1990s, the sustainability focus shifted to‘‘green marketing’’ to gain or maintain a competitive advantage(Stone and Wakefield, 2001). One popular approach used in the1990s was the argument that environmental sustainability couldcontribute to economic profitability as well as to competitiveadvantages (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Schmidheiny, 1992;Wald, 2006; Lash and Wellington, 2007; Sharma et al., 2010). Inthe 21st Century, overall sustainability issues moved into thesupply chain. Researchers began to probe: consideration ofproduct life cycle during material selection; impact of greenpurchasing on a firm’s supplier selection; waste management;packaging; and regulatory compliance (Kaiser et al., 2001; Zhuand Geng, 2001; Theyel, 2001; Min and Galle, 2001; Sarkis, 2001).

2.2. Sustainability—a lack of consensus

Although global organizations have recognized sustainabilityas an increasingly important strategic goal, there are manydefinitions, focuses and business activities associated with sus-tainability. Berns et al.’s (2009) research found that there is not asingle established definition for sustainability. Linton et al. (2007)define sustainability as ‘‘using resources to meet the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs.’’ This is the definition put forth previouslyby the World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED, 1987). Savitz and Weber (2006) suggest that a sustain-able company is one that creates profit for its shareholders whileprotecting the environment and improving the lives of those withwhom it interacts.

Sustainability in the supply chain has taken a number ofdifferent labels in the literature including green supply chain(Bowen et al., 2006), socially responsible purchasing (Carter andJennings, 2002; Carter, 2004a, 2004b), or closed loop supply chain(Seitz and Peattie, 2004; Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009;Krause et al., 2009). Other concepts used in the literaturesuch as corporate social responsibility have similar definitions.A classic definition of CSR is ‘‘the firm’s consideration of, andresponse to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and

Key references

Vermeulen and Seuring (2009)

Walton et al. (1998)

Costanza et al. (1995)

Gladwin et al. (1995)

Hawken (1993)

Menon and Menon (1997)

Schmidheiny (1992)

Kleindorfer et al. (2005)

Schot and Fisher (1993)

s and processes Starik and Marcus (2000)

Winn (1995)

e Lash and Wellington (2007)

Porter and van der Linde (1995)

Schmidheiny (1992)

Stone and Wakefield (2001)

Wald (2006)

e value of sustainability as a strategic Closs et al. (2011)

Hart (1995) Hart (2005)

Min and Galle (2001)

L.C. Giunipero et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 18 (2012) 258–269260

legal requirements of the firm’’ (Davis, 1973; Salam, 2008). Carroll(1991) maintains that the responsibilities of a business go beyonda base level of economic responsibility, to include legal, ethical,and discretionary responsibilities (Salam, 2008). Matten andMoon, 2008 state that corporations have recently begun to adoptthe language and practice of CSR, particularly in Europe, but alsoin Africa, Australia, South America, and Southeast Asia.

Overall there is lack of consensus in the definition of sustain-ability. Despite these confusions in defining sustainability, Bernset al. (2009) found that businesses were unified in their view thatsustainability will be a major force that will need to be addressed.Further, they felt that it will have a determining impact on theway that businesses think, act, manage, and compete. Fig. 1illustrates the broad landscape comprising the sustainabilityliterature and provides a map for the discussion which follows.

2.3. SCM sustainability

Supply chain management has traditionally been viewed asprimarily operational, with a major focus on reducing cost. Overthe past ten years, this perspective has broadened substantially asfirms realize that they require effective supply managementstrategies to enhance competitiveness. In a financial world thatseeks increased return on investments, effective supply chainmanagement can help deliver increased revenue, lowered costs,reduced assets, and improved sustainability (Linton et al., 2007;Closs et al., 2011).

Salam (2008) discusses socially responsible supply manage-ment activities, or PSR, and how they affect costs. Carter andJennings (2002) identify key drivers and facilitators of PSR as apeople oriented culture, top management leadership, employeeinitiatives, and customer pressures. Although the dimensions ofPSR appear to mirror those of CSR, many of the specific activitiesappear to be unique to purchasing/supply chain management.

Srivastava (2007) defined Green SCM as ‘‘integrating environ-mental thinking into supply-chain management, including pro-duct design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturingprocesses, delivery of the final product to the consumers as wellas end-of-life management of the product after its useful life.’’This term is gaining popularity as firms realize that customersand other stakeholders do not always distinguish between a

EcoOrientation

Corporate Environmentalism

SM Sustainability

Sustainability

Purchasing Social ResponsibilityGreen Purchasing

Green ManufacturingClosed Loop Supply Chains

Corporate Social

ResponsibilitySocial

Sustainability

Fig. 1. SCM sustainability map.

single company and its partners in the supply chain (Rao andHolt, 2005; Kovacs, 2008; Large and Thomsen, 2011).

According to sustainability, the British organization creditedwith coining the vision of the triple bottom line over a decade ago,‘‘The triple bottom line (TBL) focuses corporations not just on theeconomic value they add, but also on the environmental andsocial value they add—and destroy’’ (Elkington, 1998). Foerstlet al. (2010) further supports the definition of sustainability as thepursuit of the tripartite of economic, environmental, and socialperformance.

2.4. Defining sustainable supply management (SSM)

While there are several definitions of sustainability, none havespecifically addressed supply management sustainability. Incor-porating and extending these various definitions, we define‘‘sustainable supply management’’ (SSM) as the extent to whichsupply management incorporates environmental, social, andeconomic value into the selection, evaluation and managementof its supply base.

Historically, supply managers have focused almost exclusivelyon the economic value when evaluating and selecting suppliers(Monczka et al., 2009). However, this started to change early in the21st century as researchers posited that there was value inconsidering environmental and social considerations (Handfieldet al., 2002; Carter, 2004a, 2004b). Closs et al. (2011) argue thatsustainability is an important value consideration across the entiresupply chain. Thus, the SSM definition recognizes and incorporatesthe broader value considerations needed to evaluate and selectsuppliers. SSM practices provide a wider lens that recognize theneed to consider environmental and social values in addition toeconomic ones that will help the organization achieve its overallgoals in a profitable and sustainable manner. If SSM is to beincorporated into the fabric of the organization, then it must beprompted by certain organizational forces that we term as drivers.

3. Drivers of sustainability

In our research we were unable to find a comprehensive list ofsustainability drivers. As a result, one of the objectives of thisresearch was to identify the drivers of P/SM sustainability efforts.We also attempt to show how these drivers are associatedwith different corporate initiatives. Previous research identifiedmotives for corporate ‘greening’ such as regulatory compliance,competitive advantage, stakeholder pressures, ethical concerns,events and top management initiative (Bansal and Roth, 2000;Dillon and Fisher, 1992; Lampe et al., 1991; Lawrence and Morell,1995; Vredenburg and Westley, 1993; Winn, 1995).

Sroufe (2003) identifies growing environmental regulations,government pressures, international certification standards suchas the International Organization for Standardization, (ISO)14000, changing customer demands, and managers recognizingpollution as waste (Kleiner, 1991; Porter and Van Der Linde,1995) as reasons why firms must now develop environmentalpolicies for their manufacturing plants and supply chain partnerswhile being consistent with new regulations (Rondinelli andVastag, 1996).

The following sections identify the most commonly citeddrivers of sustainability.

3.1. Involvement of top management

Members of top management are instrumental in encouragingfirms to evaluate their role in society and are responsible for thefirms’ environmental management leadership (Anderson and


Bateman, 2000; Lawrence and Morell, 1995; Winn, 1995). Theyare also a strong internal political force that can foster corporateenvironmentalism (Banerjee et al., 2003). Bansal and Roth (2000)state that top management team members (Anderson andBateman, 2000; Lawrence and Morell, 1995; Winn, 1995) andcompany values (Buckholz, 1991) are instrumental in encoura-ging these firms to evaluate their role in society.

Banerjee et al. (2003) identified four antecedents to corporateenvironmentalism: public concern; regulatory forces; competitiveadvantage; and top management commitment. They found thatcorporate environmentalism is related to all four antecedents andthat industry type moderates several of those relationships. Theinfluences of regulatory forces, public concern and competitiveadvantage were all significantly mediated by top managementcommitment and moderated by industry type.

3.2. Government regulation

Previous research by Lampe et al. (1991), Lawrence and Morell(1995), Post (1994) and Vredenburg and Westley (1993) showedthe importance of legislation as a driver for corporate ecologicalresponsiveness has been widely recognized (Bansal and Roth,2000). Escalating penalties, fines, and legal costs have punctuatedthe importance of complying with legislation (Cordano, 1993).Furthermore, firms can avoid expensive capital refits by keepingahead of legislation (Lampe et al., 1991). According to Rondinelliand Vastag (1996) firms may be reacting to an increasinglydifficult regulatory environment or responding to market pressurein adopting environmental management practices (Montabonet al., 2007). Preuss (2001) found the motivation for environmentalinitiatives in manufacturing companies to date, centers aroundcompliance with legislation and cost or quality considerations.Berns et al. (2009) research found that government legislationis the sustainability-related issue with the greatest impact onbusinesses.

3.3. Financial benefits

Studies have concluded that corporate social responsibilitydoes pay off financially. Waddock and Graves (1997) concludedthat corporate social performance and profitability are signifi-cantly and positively related. Bansal and Roth (2000) examinedwhy companies go green and refined a model that explainedcorporate ecological responsiveness. They identified three moti-vations: competitiveness (potential for ecological responsivenessto improve long-term profitability); legitimization; and ecologicalresponsibility that induce corporate ecological responsiveness.They found that organizational self-interest, including elementsof both competitiveness and legitimacy, was needed to fuel themovement toward eco-responsibility.

Given the public and political pressure on firms to turn green,Stone and Wakefield (2001) studied the orientation of firmstoward environmental issues and their subsequent businessperformance. Their findings suggest that firms that are responsiveto eco-oriented issues perform better in the marketplace.

Economic opportunities drive corporate ecological responsive-ness. By intensifying production processes, companies can reducetheir environmental impact while simultaneously lowering thecosts of inputs and waste disposal (Cordano, 1993; Lampe et al.,1991; Porter and Van Der Linde, 1995).

Pullman et al. (2009) found that current sustainability pro-grams indirectly help the economic bottom line of the company.The ISO 14001 system may help prevent expensive environmentalnon-conformances, but often has a company go above and beyondthe legal requirements of applicable regulatory agencies. Ganesanet al. (2009) state that social responsibility perceptions affect the

images of brands and firms, the propensity of consumers to buyspecific brands and patronize certain retailers, and the financialperformance of firms (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).

3.4. Competitive advantage

An increasing number of firms are engaging in ‘‘green market-ing’’ to gain or maintain a competitive advantage. Previousresearch found that excellence in protecting the environmentcreated opportunities to achieve competitive advantage (Starikand Marcus, 2000). Walton et al. (1998) reviewed integratingenvironmental management with the day to day processes of theorganization and concluded that purchasing and supply chainmanagers can have a major impact on the ability of a company toestablish and maintain a competitive advantage though envir-onmentally-friendly practices (EFP).

Orsato (2006) states that ‘‘managers need to identify circum-stances that favor the generation of both public and corporatebenefits of sustainability initiatives.’’ He further presents a frame-work to categorize types of competitive environmental strategiesthat can be utilized by managers to optimize the economic returnon environmental investments and transform these investmentsinto sources of competitive advantage. Orsato (2006) identifiesfour types of environmental strategies that are based on thestructure of the industry in which the firm operates, the positionwithin that industry, the types of markets the company serves,and its capabilities. They include eco-efficiency, beyond compli-ance leadership, eco-branding, and environmental cost leader-ship. The four types of environmental strategies can be used as abasis from which they can prioritize environmental investments.

3.5. ISO certification

Handfield et al. (2002) found that the movement towardsgreater environmental responsibility is a result of several recentdevelopments including the introduction of the ISO 14000 certi-fication standard and the escalating emphasis on waste reductionfrom external or governmental agencies. They further state thatthe need to be environmentally friendly is beginning to influencedecision making in product design, process design, manufacturingpractices and purchasing.

Montabon et al. (2007) found evidence in both extant litera-ture and anecdotal experiences of firms suggests that environ-mental management practices are becoming increasingly populardue to the release of voluntary and international environmentalstandards. Since the release of the ISO 14001 standard there hasbeen additional pressure on some industry supply chains toaddress environmental performance through the use of environ-mental management systems (Zuckerman, 2000; Gordon, 2001).In addition to ISO 14001, firms wishing to sell in the EuropeanUnion must comply with WEEE and RoHS rules that are laid downat the European level and then re-implemented at each countrylevel (taken from http://www.buyusa.gov/europeanunion/weee.html accessed 7-23-2011). WEEE is an acronym for ‘‘WasteElectrical and Electronic Equipment’’ and its purpose is to preventthe buildup of electrical and electronic waste by encouragingreuse, recycling and other forms of waste reduction. RoHS is anabbreviation for ‘‘Restriction of Hazardous Substances’’ andrestricts the use of certain hazardous substances such as lead inelectronic equipment.

3.6. Customer demand

During the 1960s and 1970s the emphasis was mostly towardpolitical solutions, environmental and social ills (Wells, 1990).However, in the 1990s, the focus was on consumer purchase

http://www.buyusa.gov/europeanunion/weee.html

http://www.buyusa.gov/europeanunion/weee.html


behavior. Roberts (1996) found that ecologically conscious con-sumers of the 1990s differ from their predecessors. The individualconsumer’s belief that they can help solve environmental pro-blems was found to be the best predictor of ecologically consciousconsumer behavior.

Stakeholders have played a key role in increasing corporateresponsiveness with regards to ecology. Customers, local com-munities, environmental interest groups and even the naturalenvironment itself encourage companies to consider ecologicalimpacts in their decision making (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998;Buckholz, 1991; Lawrence and Morell, 1995; Starik, 1995). Bernset al. (2009) found that consumer concerns about sustainabilitywere a significant impact on the businesses in their study.Additionally, consumer concerns were viewed as a more criticalforce in sustainability in companies outside the U.S. and Europe.

4. Barriers

While there are forces driving firms to sustainability, on theopposite side, there are factors that hinder a firm’s effort to adoptsustainable practices which we discuss below. These factors are:(1) lack of consensus at the CEO level; (2) costs of sustainabilityand economic conditions; (3) lack of sustainability standards andappropriate regulations; and (4) misalignment of short term andlong term strategic goals.

4.1. Lack of consensus at the CEO level

Berns et al. (2009) found a lack of clarity regarding sustain-ability and what it means to an organization amongst businessleaders. Companies do not have a common definition or languagefor discussing sustainability, some define it more narrowly,whereas others define it more broadly, while still others do nothave a corporate definition. Additionally, the reward for effortsare too loosely defined and not collectively understood within theorganization. Often there is not an understanding of how tomeasure progress once actions are undertaken.

Sharma (2000) found that in the Canadian oil and gas industry,environmental strategies were associated with managerial inter-pretations of environmental issues as either threats or opportu-nities. The extent to which some of these firms went further inincorporating environmental concerns into decision making washeavily dependent on the degree to which their managersperceived these issues as opportunities and not threats.

4.2. Costs of sustainability and economic conditions

Many companies are convinced that the more environmentallyfriendly they become, the more the effort will erode theircompetitiveness. They believe it will add to costs and will notdeliver immediate financial benefits (Nidumolu et al., 2009).

On a short term basis, going green can be an expensiveundertaking. A company that decides to initiate a green revolu-tion will have to front the cost for a wide array of upgrades frommore energy efficient machines to recycled printer paper. Thereare a variety of other related expenses when considering greenchanges, specifically to manufacturing processes. Green materialstend to be more expensive and raise the product’s overall cost(Koplin et al., 2007).

Hoffman (2008) found that while three quarters of logisticscontracts included environmental impact targets, only 46% pro-vided for the cost of compliance. They further predicted thatshippers will continue to require green initiatives, but alsocontinue to transfer the cost to service providers.

Berns et al. (2009) provide a good indication that sustainabilityhas staying power. Less than one fourth of their survey respon-dents indicated that they had pulled back on their commitment tosustainability during the downturn.

4.3. Lack of sustainability standards and appropriate regulations

Koplin et al. (2006) states that globalization allows workingwith numerous suppliers to get raw materials and preliminaryproducts, and each first tier supplier often depends on a multi-level supply chain for their own production. Such a structuremakes it difficult for a company to handle the whole suppliernetwork and thus increases the complexity of purchasing. Theyfurther state that the global nature of today’s business environ-ment requires large supply chains to adequately serve differentmarkets on various continents. Each continent has differentacceptable standards of sustainability, as do the varying countriesthat comprise it. Gaining cooperation from such companies couldbe difficult and not all suppliers will agree to the restrictionsplaced upon them, hence limiting supply options (Koplin et al.,2006). The various regions of the world face their own uniquechallenges to building and sustaining a global supply chainbecause of different environmental circumstances in variouslocations. Also, it is difficult to monitor these companies to ensurethey are complying with set standards (Koplin et al., 2006).

Compliance is complicated as environmental regulations vary bycountry, by state or region, and even by city (Nidumolu et al., 2009).Banerjee et al. (2003) indicate that environmental regulations gettop management’s attention. Additionally, top management’s directinvolvement in environmental issues is more prevalent in firmsthat perceive regulations as a major threat or whose customerscome from the environmentally-friendly segment.

4.4. Misalignment of short term and long-term strategic goals

Berns et al. (2009) found a lack of understanding amongbusiness leaders as to what sustainability means to a company.Reasons for this include: (1) managers lack a common fact baseabout the full suite of drivers and issues that are relevant to theircompanies and industries; (2) companies do not share a commondefinition of language for driving sustainability as a definition canvary from narrow to broad, to none at all; and (3) the goal of effortsis often defined very loosely and not collectively understood withinthe organization. Additionally, there is often no understanding ofhow to measure progress once actions are undertaken.

Their research found that a majority of businesses did not havea strong business case for sustainability. This was attributed to:(1) difficulty in forecasting and planning beyond the one-to-fiveyear time horizon that is typical of most investment frameworks;(2) difficulty in gauging the system-wide effects of sustainabilityinvestments; and (3) planning amid high uncertainty includingregulation and customer preferences.

5. Research propositions

As previously shown in Fig. 1, sustainability is a very broadand evolving issue. There is a lack of consensus on what sustain-ability means. This becomes problematic when translating it intocorporate programs. Likewise, supply chain sustainability effortsrun a gamut from closed loop supply chains, to purchasing socialresponsibility, to green purchasing. Part of our contribution wasto take the various definitions and develop a specific definition ofsupply management sustainability (SSM) based on the disparateliterature.


The SSM definition adds to the literature, but does not addressthe progression or stages of SSM in organizations. Friedman andHerman (1998), proposed a ‘‘Ladder of Sustainability,’’ and indicatethat steps exist in helping organizations to achieve sustainability.The bottom rung of the ladder starts with the organization’sproducts and services. Issues include whether nontoxic, renewablematerials and sustainable manufacturing practices are used. Thenext rung involves analyzing the sustainability of company pro-cesses. This is followed by the alignment of the business modelwith sustainable practices, i.e., does the business model focus ongoals other than economic value? Once the business model isrealigned, the entire company focuses on sustainability. Thisextends to the company’s brand identity. Now the firm extendsits efforts up the supply chain to its suppliers. Finally, at the toprung the company takes an advocacy role for sustainability. Whatis important is not the actual rungs on the ladder, but how far upthe ladder an organization must have progressed to enable SSM.This would indicate that a firm needs to have advanced practices tobe at the top of the ladder and enable SSM.

Other researchers have classified three approaches in GreenSupply Chains, namely reactive, proactive and value-seeking (vanHoek, 1999). Given this lack of consensus, there is a need in theliterature to uncover the drivers and barriers to SSM to reach thelevels necessary to fully implement SSM.

The intent of this research was to uncover both the drivers andbarriers to SSM sustainability efforts. Berns et al. (2009) did this withCEOs and were not able to find consensus on sustainability practices.Further, it was more difficult to make a value creating business caseand the execution strategy of CEOs was often flawed. Thus, it followsthat if sustainability efforts evolve along a continuum or ladder, firmswill have differing perceptions of the drivers and barriers.

P1: From the perspective of CPOs and supply managers, the

importance of drivers of sustainable supply management (SSM)

will differ across organizations.

Top management is responsible for directing sustainabilityefforts (Anderson and Bateman, 2000). The P/SM function isincreasingly becoming more strategic in its focus (Monczkaet al., 2009). CEOs and CPOs should be closely aligned in theirpursuit and attainment of organizational goals and objectives. Inan examination of the strategy-making process, Hart (1992)

Table 2Primary businesses of the Delphi panel and supplemental interviewees.

Total sample (40 organizations)

Primary business Manufacturing Service

Automotive X

Basic parts manufacturing (2)n X

Biotech X

Consumer products (2) X

Consumer services (2) X

Energy/utilities X

Hardware manufacturing (2)n X

Healthcare provider (3) X

Heavy equipment manufacturing (2) X

Oil and gas (2) X

Pharmaceutical (5) X

Railroads X

Renewable energy manufacturing X

Retail (2) X

Steel manufacturer X

Technology manufacturing (6) X

Technology services X

Transport aerospace X

Universities (4) X

( )¼number of firms in that category.

highlights that many researchers have ‘‘advocated the importanceof top management vision and the nurturing of strong corporatevalues in the strategy process’’ (Conger and Kanungo, 1988;Kotter, 1988; Pascale, 1985; Peters, 1987; Weick, 1987). Still, nostrategic vision can take hold without the ‘‘commitment andinvolvement of organizational members,’’ therefore, highlightingan integrative process, led by top management (Hart, 1992).Hence, the following proposition is made:

P2: Sustainable supply management (SSM) efforts will follow top

management strategic initiatives.

We have discussed the barriers to sustainability adoption inthe literature review. One of the most influential factors thataffect organizational plans is economic conditions. Our definitionof SSM is based on economic, social and environmental compo-nents. It has been previously found that among CEOs, economicconditions did not affect sustainability efforts (Berns et al., 2009).Such economic conditions include times of economic prosperityas well as recession conditions. Therefore, we propose that:

P3: Sustainable supply management (SSM) efforts should not be

affected by the economic environment.

6. Research methodology

6.1. Research sample

This research utilizes the Delphi method to explore the driversand barriers of sustainability in P/SM across a diverse sample offirms. Twenty-one high level supply managers in U.S. basednational and multinational firms comprised the Delphi sample.Additionally, comments on sustainability practices were obtainedfrom another nineteen organizations and used to enrich thediscussion of the results from the Delphi panel. These nineteenparticipants were P/SM executives interviewed at industryconferences. Their input was used to provide an improved under-standing of sustainability practices and P/SM. The additional firmswere interviewed at the end of Phase III of the Delphi to providean additional check on the validity of the research instrument.Their feedback served to qualitatively enhance the Delphi results.Table 2 lists the primary business of the forty organizations in

Delphi sample (21 organizations)

Primary business Manufacturing Service

Automotive X

Consumer products (2) X

Consumer services (2) X

Energy/utilities X

Healthcare provider X

Heavy equipment manufacturing (2) X

Oil and gas (2) X

Pharmaceutical (2) X

Railroads X

Retail (2) X

Technology manufacturing (2) X

Technology services X

Universities (2) X


alphabetical order and a subset list of the twenty-one Delphiparticipants.

All forty companies were private sector organizations andwere larger firms with annual sales revenue over a billion dollars.The universities were also private. They were not directly sup-ported by government funding, but received most of theirrevenue from student tuition and endowments. Since P/SMsustainability efforts are applicable in all organizational settings,a diverse sample should strengthen the research. Taking this intoconsideration, the Delphi study included manufacturers, serviceproviders, retailers and universities.

The supply managers selected for the Delphi panel werechosen because of their commitment to sustainability, theirextensive experience in supply management and their high-levelposition within the organization. As a group, the companies werecommitted to sustainability with over one half of the supplymanagement executives employed by companies ranked inNewsweek’s ‘‘Green Rankings 2010’’ report and/or were membersof CorporateRegister.com, a membership-based website devotedto the reporting and sharing of corporate responsibility andsustainability information. Additionally, as senior managerswithin their respective organizations, each respondent possessedthe specific knowledge of their organization’s strategy withregards to sustainability and also played a role in shaping thatstrategy. Therefore, the experts in this study were able to evaluatethe drivers and barriers to sustainability within the P/SMfunction.

Phase I of the Delphi study was initiated in January of 2009and Phase III was completed during August of 2009. To preservethe confidentiality and independent responses required of theDelphi process, all communication was conducted by individualemail to each respondent’s business email address.

6.2. Benefits of the Delphi method

The primary method of analysis used in this study was theDelphi method. The Delphi technique is characterized ‘‘as amethod for structuring a group communication process so thatthe process is effective in allowing a group of individuals,as a whole, to deal with a complex problem’’ (Linstone andTuroff, 1975).

Linstone and Turoff (1975) indicate that the Delphi approach isused primarily when one of the following properties exist: (1) theproblem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques, butcan benefit from subjective judgments on a collective basis; (2)the individuals needed to contribute to the examination of abroad or complex problem have no history of adequate commu-nication and may represent diverse backgrounds with respect toexperience or expertise; (3) more individuals are needed than caneffectively interact in a face-to-face exchange; (4) time and cost

Fig. 2. Delphi me

make frequent group meetings infeasible; (5) the efficiency offace-to-face meetings can be increased by a supplemental groupcommunication process; (6) disagreements among individuals areso severe or politically unpalatable that the communicationprocess must be refereed and/or anonymity assured; and/or (7)the heterogeneity of the participants must be preserved to assurevalidity of the results, i.e., avoidance of domination by quantity orby strength of personality (‘‘bandwagon effect’’).

Existing research indicates there is no formula for determininga proper number of Delphi study participants. Ten to fifteenparticipants are adequate for Delphi studies with homogenousgroups (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). While under certain othercircumstances, as few as four participants may perform well(Brockhoff, 1975; Delbecq et al., 1975). Thus it can be concludedthat the twenty-one participants in this group are more thanadequate.

The Delphi methodology is appropriate for this research forseveral reasons. First, the Delphi method allows for opinions to begathered and attempts to reach consensus among a group ofexperts regarding sustainability in P/SM. Second, it is the firstattempt to systematically measure the SSM drivers and barriersacross a broad sample of organizations. Finally, insights gained bythe Delphi study can be used as a platform to facilitate futureresearch as well as increase understanding of SSM practices.

6.3. Three-phased approach to measuring P/SM sustainability

This study followed the three overarching phases of datacollection in a Delphi study:

(1) discovering the issues; (2) determining the most importantissues; and (3) ranking the issues (Schmidt, 1997). Fig. 2 sum-marizes the process that is described in detail below.

This research focused on the drivers and barriers that P/SMmanagers encounter in implementing sustainability. As pre-viously mentioned, a literature review was performed to uncoveran initial set of drivers and barriers to sustainability. Next, supplychain and purchasing experts from three different organizationswere asked to submit their sustainability issues. All three expertshad work experience in the area of supply management sustain-ability. They were employed at large organizations, two in theprivate sector and one in the public sector.

This process provided a comparison to the literature and theaddition of critical issues facing P/SM managers. Finally, itprovided face validity to the Delphi instrument. At these face toface meetings, the experts were asked to describe each issue indetail. This helped to mitigate potential misinterpretation by theresearchers if respondents provided the same issue, but useddifferent terms. Finally, all responses were consolidated into asingle list and issues having the same definitions were deleted(Schmidt, 1997; Schmidt et al., 2001).

thod phases.


The second phase of the Delphi process involved sending thefinal list generated from the pre-Delphi activity to the twenty-oneperson expert panel. The intent of this was to further pare downthe list of drivers and barriers to sustainability so that they couldbe appropriately ranked (Schmidt, 1997). The Delphi panel wassent a randomly ordered, consolidated list generated from thefirst phase of the study and asked to rank the issues in terms oftheir overall importance. Normally, the ranking is limited to thetop 10% or top twenty issues (whichever is fewer) in order toreveal the most critical ones. According to Schmidt (1997), limit-ing the number of issues ranked by each respondent forces aresult to emerge. The initial list of 17 drivers and 16 barriers wasreduced to a final ten drivers and barriers.

The third phase of the Delphi involved ranking the consoli-dated lists for both drivers and barriers to sustainability that weredeveloped and refined during the first and second phases. Thestudy participants were asked to avoid assigning the same rank toissues that they believe are of equal importance (Schmidt, 1997).Tied rankings were, however, compensated for by computingKendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W), a commonly usedstatistic for evaluating consensus, for significance. If Kendall’s W

fails to show consensus amongst the panel experts, the respon-dents can be told, for example, ‘‘There was no agreement amongthe panel members on the relative ranking of these items in theprevious round’’ (Schmidt, 1997). As Schmidt (1997) indicates,however, the statistical significance of W is not a sufficientcriterion to stop the progress of the survey. Even very smallvalues of Kendall’s W may be significant. Therefore, researchersmust consider the value of W as an indication of the strength ofconsensus. The third phase was repeated until no change in therankings occurred.

7. Delphi study results

7.1. Delphi method phase I and phase II

In Phase I the researchers had an a-priori list of drivers andbarriers from the literature review and these were used as a‘‘preliminary list.’’ Face to face meetings were conducted with the

Table 3SSM drivers and barriers-Delphi panel.

Item Drivers

A Top management initiatives for adoption of green strategies

B Public relations is the main drivernn

C Compliance with government rules and regulations

D Generates revenue growthnn

E Cost savings on goods/services purchased from suppliers

F Our competitors have adopted green

G Improved resource utilization, reduction and lean practices are desire

H Reusing/recycling of resources is a prioritynn

I End customers driving green efforts making it a requirement or a stro

recommendationnn

J ISO 14000 compliance dictates our effortsn

K Government and economic incentives

L Reducing the company’s carbon footprint is the priority

M Required by a customer’s contract solicitation on RFP or RFQnnn

N Offering sustainable product/service solutions is considered a legitima

competitive differentiatornnn

O Compliance with international standards (such as European standards

RoHS)n

P Purchasing initiated our green initiativesnn

Q Green IT systems integration practicesnn

Combined

itemsnDropped itemsnn

three executives to collaborate on the creation of each list.Following these meetings, 17 drivers and 16 barriers were agreedupon for P/SM in striving to implement sustainable practices. Theresults of the first phase, which served as the basis for Delphirespondents to further pare down and rank, are provided inTable 3.

Following the creation of the drivers and barriers to sustain-able practices, the Delphi process moved on to the second phase.During Phase II, the 21 P/SM managers were asked to further paredown the lists generated during Phase I, by ranking the top tendrivers and barriers. Respondents were asked to provide theirrationale for each driver and barrier that they suggested bedropped from the instrument.

Respondents provided significant feedback on Phase II. Theresults indicated that several factors from both lists needed to bedropped, revised or added. In total, six drivers were dropped, onenew one was added, one item was reworded to make it morespecific to P/SM, and two separate drivers were combined intoone. The rationale provided by the respondents for dropping eachitem was summarized in the following discussion. ‘‘Public rela-tions is the main driver’’ was dropped due to the belief that, inP/SM, there were more pressing drivers.

‘‘Generates revenue growth’’ was dropped due to the agreementamong respondents indicating that acquiring green goods/servicesfrom their suppliers were not directly linked to revenue growth intheir organizations. There are several issues in the popular press onhow green IT systems result in energy savings through the construc-tion of environmentally sustainable data centers and warehouses(Babcock, 2009). However, the item ‘‘Green IT systems integrationpractices’’ appears to be more of an IT department issue than a P/SMissue. ‘‘Purchasing initiated our green initiatives’’ was dropped sincethe respondents felt their initiatives supported sustainable strategies,but did not necessarily initiate them. ‘‘Reusing/recycling resources’’is encouraged in all sustainability efforts. These P/SM managersfelt it to be too broad to be incorporated and not necessarily a top tendriver.

‘‘End customers driving green efforts making it a requirementor a strong recommendation’’ was an item that respondentssuggested be reworded more specifically to reflect how it appliesto P/SM. Respondents felt that this often came from marketing

Barriers

High initial investment cost to both our firm and supplier firms

Uncertain economic times are causing the cost of adoption to become

a lower priority

Lack of U.S. or global environmental sustainability standards

Lack of top management support

Short term goals (more profit oriented) and long-term strategic goals

(sustainability) are misaligned

Perceived lack of technology to drive environmental sustainabilitynn

d Suppliers lack the resources required for green initiative

Suppliers view green initiative as an additional burden/cost

ng Our competition is not operating with environmentally responsible

practicesnn

Too difficult to change current company practices

Drop in energy/commodity prices reduces green prioritiesnn

Difficulty in changing user preferences to green products/servicesnn

Customer demand is not sufficient to drive green strategiesnn

te Regulatory demand is not sufficient to drive green strategies

, WEEE & Difficulty in creating external awareness of green strategies and

associated support

Challenges in changing user behaviors and comfort levelsnn

Reworded/added itemsnnn


and was restated to read ‘‘Required by a customer’s contractsolicitation on RFP or RFQ.’’ The final item suggested for additionto the list was that ‘‘Offering sustainable product/service solu-tions is considered a legitimate competitive differentiator.’’ Thisreflects the view that these P/SM executives feel their sustain-ability efforts can lead to a competitive advantage and is aproactive driver for sustainability as opposed to the previouslymentioned and mostly reactive driver of responding to sustain-ability due to a customer request.

Finally, ‘‘ISO 14000 compliance dictates our efforts’’ and‘‘Compliance with international standards such as Europeanstandards, WEEE and RoHS’’ were combined, as panel experts feltas though the items were addressing similar issues.

Six barriers hindering SSM adoption were dropped. The sugges-tion to remove ‘‘Perceived lack of technology to drive environ-mental sustainability’’ was deemed appropriate because, as onerespondent stated, ‘‘Our competition is not operating with envir-onmentally responsible practices.’’ It was removed due to thebelief that at an operational level, many of the respondents’competitors were utilizing green practices.

‘‘Drop in energy/commodity prices reduces green priorities’’was dropped due to the belief that regardless of commodity pricelevels, P/SM sustainability efforts will move forward. ‘‘Difficulty inchanging user preferences to green products/services,’’ ‘‘Customerdemand is not sufficient to drive green strategies,’’ and ‘‘Chal-lenges in changing user behaviors and comfort levels’’ also wentagainst the majority of experts. There were two major reasonsgiven for dropping these items. Some respondents believed thesewere beyond the traditional measurements in P/SM and werereally more marketing issues. Still, other P/SM executives, mostlyin consumer products, retailing and universities believed thatuser preferences were evolving more towards green products/services and that customers are becoming more accepting anddemanding of green alternatives. Following the removal of alldriver and barrier items that were deemed unnecessary torespondents, the study proceeded to Phase III.

7.2. Delphi method phase III

In the third and final phase of the Delphi process, respondentswere asked to rank order the remaining drivers and barriers ofsustainability (ten each) from 1–10 (1 being the ‘‘most impor-tant’’). Two rounds were conducted during this phase of the studywith a goal of obtaining consensus between the respondents.The strength of consensus amongst respondents was measuredusing Kendall’s W. The closer the coefficient of concordance(Kendall’s W) is to 1, (perfect consensus) the stronger the consen-sus among study participants.

The results of both rounds of rankings for Phase III indicatedgenerally weak levels of consensus for both drivers and barriers.As can be seen in Table 4, .39 was the highest consensus obtainedin either the drivers or barriers. Interestingly, the highest levels ofconsensus were found on the ranking of barriers during the firstround. Efforts to strengthen levels of consensus in the secondround resulted in lower levels of agreement. These results agreewith Berns et al. (2009) who found that CEOs pursued a variety ofsustainability strategies and were stymied by a lack of standardsto drive their sustainability initiatives.

Table 4Summary of Kendall’s W.

Drivers Barriers

Round 1 0.33 0.39

Round 2 0.22 0.20

8. Discussion of the Delphi study results and interviews

Qualitative insights for this study were obtained through acareful assessment of the open-ended comments provided by thetwenty-one Delphi participants and the nineteen other P/SMexecutives that were interviewed separately. The qualitativeanalysis of the nineteen respondents supplemented reasoningfor the results generated from the Delphi panel.

8.1. SSM drivers

The P/SM panel was very insistent on sticking to their rankingsof drivers and barriers even after being shown the ranking fromthe previous phases. Repeated runs of the Delphi did not changetheir views. This lack of consensus provides support for Pro-position 1 showing that the drivers of SSM will differ acrossorganizations.

Quantitative analysis of the mean rankings from the Delphipanel provided important information on the key themes drivingand limiting sustainability within organizations. First, accordingto the P/SM executives, the most important driver of sustain-ability was top management initiatives, thus providing supportfor Proposition 2. The results of this study clearly indicate thatSSM requires the vision and support of top management. This is inagreement with Bansal and Roth (2000). They found that thephilosophy of top management was instrumental in establishingthe role of the firm in society.

One respondent stated that top management support was‘‘Critical to support any corporate strategic initiatives.’’

Second, sustainability efforts are currently driven by compli-ance to government regulations. This indicated that current SSMefforts are compliance oriented. Certainly, this finding wouldindicate that SSM adoptions of social and environmental concernsare those promulgated by regulatory bodies. This is supportedby Berns et al. (2009) that found government regulation has thegreatest impact on sustainable efforts by businesses. A res-pondent from a large multinational automotive firm and onefrom a heavy equipment manufacturer had almost identicalquotes stating, ‘‘Most of the changes are driven by government

regulationsy.’’

Alternatively the lowest rated drivers are ISO 14000 andgovernment incentives. This could be directly attributed to thevariety of panel participants’ business orientation. Not all manu-facturing firms sold in Europe, and the service sector firms werenot directly affected by either the EC standards (ROHS and WEEE)or had not yet implemented ISO 14000. Also, it would appearthese executives felt that while they complied fully with govern-ment regulations, there was a lack of positive incentive to driveSSM efforts.

Mid-level drivers focused on using sustainability to drivecompetitive advantage and reduce total costs. This was wellsummarized by one respondent.

‘‘Top management is driven by cost, compliance and customer

demand. Our senior leaders must see these priorities reflected in

any initiatives they champion.’’

Reducing both the organization and supply chain’s carbonfootprint is becoming a concern to P/SM executives as indicatedby one respondent (Fig. 3).

‘‘We have started tracking our carbon footprint and found that

collectively our suppliers create a much higher footprint than we

do alone. Reducing the entire supply footprint will become more

important.’’

Fig. 3. Rankings of SSM drivers and barriers.


8.2. SSM barriers

The top two barriers to SSM were the high initial buyer andsupplier investment costs of adopting sustainable practices andeconomic uncertainty due to recessionary times. Costs on boththe buyer and supplier side were very uncertain and viewed as abarrier, particularly in a tenuous economic environment whenfirms are seeking to do more with less. This is in agreement withthe findings of Nidumolu et al. (2009) that firms believe sustain-ability will add to costs and will not deliver immediate financialbenefits. As two respondents, one in the transportation businessand another in the services sector, stated

‘‘Costs for implementing ‘green’ are not at all clear.’’and‘‘It is difficult to clearly identify the financial returns (ROI) from

the required capital investments to support ‘green’ (initiatives).’’

One respondent in the manufacturing sector highlighted theimpact of the current recession by stating

‘‘The economic climate dictates caution with regard to capital

investments required to support green transformation.’’

This indicates that firms tend to reorder their priorities in SSMpractice by stressing the importance of the economic as opposedto the environmental or social value. The focus in a recessionshifts to costs. Meanwhile, another P/SM executive from a largeU.S. based grocer is similarly focused on costs for both buyer andsupplier while trying to establish green practices and processeswithin the organization. This firm was trying to maintain abalanced focus on SSM, despite uncertain economic times.

‘‘We are finding creative ways to reduce investment costs required

to maintain our green initiatives.’’

Overall, these findings do not support Proposition 3 whichindicated that SSM is not affected by economic conditions.

The mid-range barriers focused on the difficulty of balancingthe need to satisfy stakeholders’ short term profit goals for longerterm sustainability goals. These barriers related to P/SM execu-tives being able to measure sustainability’s effect on short termprofits. For example, as one respondent succinctly put it,

‘‘Green strategy requires a long term horizon and focus to clearly

realize economic and social benefitsy’’

The lack of sustainability standards left respondents guessingat the direction of government policy on sustainability. One largepharmaceutical manufacturer’s P/SM director ranked the ‘‘Lack ofU.S. or global environmental sustainability standards’’ as theirsecond highest barrier to sustainable business practices. Theyfollowed up by stating that it is

‘‘Difficult to gauge the direction that the Obama administration

and EPA will take regarding mandating new ‘green’ policies with

the recession.’’

9. Managerial implications and conclusions

This research provides supply managers with a definition ofSSM to assist in guiding and implementing their programs.Further, this study has demonstrated that a diverse sample ofmanufacturing and service organizations rank the top drivers andbarriers to sustainable business practices somewhat differently.Our findings are applied to P/SM executives and generally supportpast research showing that there is no consensus in sustainablepractices from the CEO level.

Given the current findings, we would state that SSM is not aswell developed in this sample as both the general sustainabilityliterature and the limited sustainable P/SM literature would indi-cate. While the literature has stated sustainability provides value insocial and environmental realms, the reality is that the economicside currently drives SSM in practice. This is evidenced by the toptwo drivers being government compliance and a lack of economicincentive to be more proactive. Further, the top barrier was the highinitial buyer and supplier investment costs associated with adaptingSSM. Thus, this study extends Walker et al. (2008) study andproposes that the status of SSM programs are driven by governmentregulations and top management initiatives, but are constrained bycost issues and economic uncertainty.

Sustainability programs in P/SM are compliance driven andrequire top management support. The consensus from this Delphistudy on drivers and barriers is limited, indicating a great deal ofdivergent thought across different organizations. There is supportthat this Delphi study of P/SM executives accurately portrays thestatus of sustainability in organizations today. A recent study ofCEOs by Berns et al. (2009) found difficulties in obtaining a


consensus on sustainability strategies. Thus, while the overallresults are mixed, what is clear is that P/SM executives must looktoward their particular company’s CEO strategies. CEO initiativesregarding sustainability were the number one driver of P/SMsustainability efforts, clearly indicating that top managers aredriving sustainability strategies. Second, P/SM executives mustkeep up to date with government regulations on sustainabilityand be in full compliance with these regulations. Conversely, ourstudy indicated that it may be wise for government policy makersto reconsider their sustainability initiatives since they appear tobe currently insufficient to motivate P/SM executives to increasesustainability efforts.

In overcoming barriers to sustainable efforts, it is important tominimize both buyer and supplier investments in sustainability,especially in tougher economic times. Many P/SM executives inthis sample were uncertain about making the necessary invest-ments by themselves in their suppliers to advance SSM. Makingsuch investments was particularly uncertain in the tough eco-nomic climate. These findings are different from those at the ‘‘CEOlevels’’ who must maintain a ‘public posture’’ that economicconditions do not affect sustainability efforts. However, thesesame CEOs look to supply management for cost reductions duringeconomic downturns. This creates a mixed signal between shortand long term goals which was evident in this research.

The results of this study are supportive of the sustainabilityliterature which describes the multiple sides of sustainability withno real consensus as to what sustainability means. We have clarifiedthis by providing a definition for SSM. However, implementing thisdefinition is challenging as a lack of consensus among companieshinders these efforts. The only real anchor they have is governmentregulations and a much weaker perception that sustainable practicescan lead to competitive advantage and perhaps lower costs. Thecurrent compliance shift to government standards becomes the‘‘de-facto’’ standard for SSM efforts. Below these compliance issuesare feelings that sustainability can promote a competitive advantageand lower costs, but it appears P/SM executives are currently dividedon how much it actually can create this advantage.

On the positive side, based on comments from 40 P/SMexecutives, SSM is here to stay. This research has shown thatcurrently SSM is company specific and will continue to evolve asmore standards are developed. Finally, the P/SM function canmake substantial contributions to supporting their organizationssustainable strategies.

Overall, the results of this study demonstrated that P/SMexecutives do follow and support their CEO’s in implementingsustainable practices. They also realize the need to comply withgovernment regulations. Their uncertainty comes into play withtruly understanding the costs and paybacks associated withimplementing sustainable practices. There is certainly a mixedmessage sent to P/SM regarding the short term need to uncoverprice savings versus the long term additional costs and unknownbenefits of sustainable practices. It appears getting a grasp of thesetradeoffs to build a business case for overall lowest total cost is alarge challenge for P/SM executives. However, the cons of notengaging in sustainable practices could be the loss of a longer termcompetitive advantage. Thus SSM will continue to be on both theCEO and the P/SM agenda, but the methods and techniques willvary across companies. A challenge for future researchers is to usethis data to launch efforts at finding other variables that maystrengthen the key drivers and overcome the barriers.

References

Anderson, L.M., Bateman, T.S., 2000. Individual environmental initiative: cham-pioningnatural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academyof Management Journal 43 (4), 548–570.

Babcock, C., 2009. IBM Sees Costs Aligning with Green Tech. Information Week,March 26.

Banerjee, S., Iyer, E., Kashyap, R., 2003. Corporate environmentalism: antecedentsand influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing 67 (April), 106–122.

Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecologicalresponsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 71–736.

Berns, M, Townend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves, M., Hopkins, M.,Kruschwitz, N., 2009. The business of sustainability. MIT Sloan ManagementReview, 1–82.

Berry, M.A., Rondinelli, D.A., 1998. Proactive corporate environment management:a new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive 12 (2), 38–50.

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2006. The role of supplymanagement capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Manage-ment 10 (2), 174–189.

Brockhoff, K., 1975. The performance of forecasting groups in computer dialogueand face-to-face discussion. In: Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (Eds.), The DelphiMethod: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Buckholz, R., 1991. Corporate responsibility and the good society: from economicsto ecology. Business Horizons 34 (4), 19–31.

Business in the Environment and Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply,1997. Buying into a Green Future: Partnerships for Change. Business in theEnvironment, London.

Carroll, A.B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward themoral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons (July–August), 39–48.

Carter, C.R., 2004a. Purchasing and social responsibility: a replication and exten-sion. Journal of Supply Chain Management 40 (4), 4–16.

Carter, C.R., 2004b. Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: the keymediating roles of organizational learning and supplier performance. Interna-tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 35 (3),177–194.

Carter, C.R., Jennings, M., 2002. Social responsibility and supply chain relation-ships. Transportation Research 38 (1), 37–52.

Closs, D., Spier, C., Meachman, N., 2011. Sustainability to support end-to-end valuechains: the role of supply chain management. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 39, 101–116.

Conger, J., Kanungo, N., 1988. Charismatic Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Cordano, M., 1993. Making the natural connection: justifying investment in

environmental innovation. Proceedings of the International Association forBusiness and Society, 530–537.

Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., Bartholomew, J.A., 2001. Goals, agenda and policyrecommendations for ecological economics. In: Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecologicaleconomics: the science and management of sustainability, Columbia Univer-sity Press, New York, pp. 99–123.

Davis, K., 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsi-bilities. Academy of Management Journal 16 (2), 312–322.

Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H, 1975. Group Techniques forProgram Planning. Scott, Foresman, and Co, Glenview, IL.

Dillon, P.W., Fisher, K., 1992. Environmental Management in Corporations. TuftsUniversity Center for Environmental Management, Medford, MA.

Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom lineof 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management 8 (1), 37–51.

Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Managing supplier sustain-ability risks in a dynamically changing environment—Sustainable suppliermanagement in the chemical industry. Journal of Purchasing and SupplyManagement 16 (2), 118–130.

Friedman, L., Herman, G., 1998. The Dynamic Enterprise: Tools for Turning Chaosinto Strategy and Strategy into Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Business andManagement Series. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

Ganesan, S., George, M., Jap, S., Palmatier, R., Weitz, B., 2009. Supply managementand retailer performance, emerging trends, issues, and implications forresearch and practice. Journal of Retailing 85 (10), 84–94.

Gladwin, T.N., Freeman, T.K., Kennelly, J.J., 1995. Toward biophysically sustainableenterprise: challenges for management theory, research, and practice. Acad-emy of Management Review 20 (4), 874–907.

Gordon, P., 2001. Making EMS companies ‘‘lean and green.’’. Circuits Assembly12 (9), S2.

Guide, V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. The evolution of closed-loop supplychain research. Operations Research 57 (1), 10–18.

Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R., Melnyk, S., 2002. Applying environmentalcriteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analyticalhierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 141, 70–87.

Hart, S.L., 1992. An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. TheAcademy of Management Review 17 (2), 327–351.

Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Manage-ment Review 20 (4), 986–1014.

Hart, S. L. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads. The Unlimited Business Opportu-nities in Solving the World’s Most Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.

Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability. HarperBusiness, New York, USA.

Hoffman, A., 2008. From Heresy to Dogma. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA,San Francisco CA.

Kaiser, B, Eagan, PD, Shaner, H., 2001. Solutions to health care waste: life-cyclethinking and ‘‘green’’ purchasing. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (3),205–207.


Kleindorfer, P., Singhal, K., Van Wasenhove, L., 2005. Sustainable operationsmanagement. Production and Operations Management 14 (4), 482–492.

Kleiner, A., 1991. What does it mean to be green? Harvard Business Review 69 (4),38–47.

Koplin, J., Seuring, S., Mesterharm, M., 2006. Incorporating sustainability intosupply management in the automotive industry—the case of the VolkswagenAG. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (11–12), 1053–1062.

Koplin, J., Beske, P., Seuring, S., 2007. The use of environmental and socialstandards by German first-tier suppliers of the Volkswagon AG. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (2), 63–75.

Kotter, J., 1988. The Leadership Factor. The Free Press, New York.Kovacs, G., 2008. Corporate Environmental Responsibility in the Supply Chain.

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1171–1178.Krause, D.R., Vachon, S., Klassen, R., 2009. Special topic forum on sustainable

supply chain management: introduction and reflections on the role ofpurchasing management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (4), 18–25.

Lampe, M., Ellis, S.R., Drummond, C.K., 1991. What companies are doing to meetenvironmental protection responsibilities: balancing legal, ethical, and profitconcerns. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Business andSociety, 527–537.

Large, R., Thomsen, C., 2011. Drivers of green supply management performance:evidence from Germany. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 1–9.

Lash, J., Wellington, F., 2007. Competitive advantage on a warming climate.Harvard Business Review 85 (3), 94–103.

Lawrence, A.T., Morell, D., 1995. Leading-edge environmental management:motivation, opportunity, resources, and processes. In: Collins, D., Starik, M.(Eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, pp. 99–126.

Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications.Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Linton, J., Kalssen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an introduc-tion. Journal of Operations Management 25, 1075–1082.

Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C.C., 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satis-faction, and market value. Journal of Marketing 70 (October), 1–18.

Matten, D., Moon, J., 2008. ‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘Explicit’’ CSR: a conceptual frameworkfor a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academyof Management Review 33 (2), 404–424.

Menon, A., Menon, A., 1997. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergenceof corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing61 (1), 51–67.

Min, H., Galle, W.P., 2001. Green purchasing strategies of U.S. firms. InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management 21 (9), 1222–1238.

Monczka, R., Handfield, R., Giunipero, L., Patterson, J., 2009. Purchasing and SupplyChain Management forth ed. Southwestern Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.

Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 2007. An examination of corporatereporting, environmental management practices and firm performance.Journal of Operations Management 25, 998–1014.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009. Why sustainability is nowthe key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, September, 57–64.

Orsato, R., 2006. Competitive environmental strategies: when does it pay to begreen? California Management Review 43 (2), 127–143.

Pascale, R., 1985. The paradox of ‘corporate culture’: reconciling ourselves tosocialization. California Management Review 27 (2), 26–41.

Peters, T., 1987. Thriving on Chaos. Knopf, New York.Porter, M., Van Der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive. Harvard Business

Review 73 (5), 120–134.Post, J.E., 1994. Environmental approaches and strategies: regulation, markets, and

management education. In: Kolluru, R.B. (Ed.), Environmental StrategiesHandbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 11–30.

Preuss, L., 2001. In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener manufacturing. Journal ofBusiness Ethics 34, 345–359.

Pullman, M., Maloni, M., Carter, C., 2009. Food for thought: social versusenvironmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal ofSupply Chain Management 45 (4), 38–54.

Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness andeconomic performance? International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 25 (9–10), 898–916.

Roberts, J., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications foradvertising. Journal of Business Research 36, 217–231.

Rondinelli, D.A., Vastag, G., 1996. International environmental standards andcorporate policies: an integrative framework. California Management Review39 (1), 106–122.

Salam, M., 2008. Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain.Journal of Business Ethics 85, 355–370.

Sarkis, J., 2001. Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability.International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21, 666–686.

Savitz, A.W., Weber, K., 2006. The Triple bottom-line. How today’s best-run-companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—andhow you can too. Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schmidheiny, S., 1992. The business logic of sustainable development. ColumbiaJournal of World Business 27, 18–24.

Schmidt, R.C., 1997. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statisticaltechniques. Decision Sciences 28 (3), 763–774.

Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., Cule, P., 2001. Identifying software project risks:an international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems 17(4), 5–36.

Schot, J., Fisher, K., 1993. Introduction: the greening of the industrial firm. In:Schot, J., Fischer, K. (Eds.), Environmental Strategies for industry. Island Press,Washington, DC, pp. 3–33.

Seitz, M.A., Peattie, K., 2004. California Management Review. Meeting the closed-loop challenge: the case of remanufacturing 46 (2), 74–89.

Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as pre-dictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 43, 681–697.

Sharma, A., Gopalkrishnan, R., Mehrotra, A., Krishnan, R., 2010. Sustainability andbusiness-to-Business marketing: a framework and implications. IndustrialMarketing Management 39, 330–341.

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.

Sroufe, R., 2003. Effects of environmental management systems on environmentalmanagement practices and operations. Production and Operations Manage-ment 12 (3), 416–431.

Starik, M., 1995. Research on organizations and the natural environment: somepaths we have traveled, the ‘‘field’’ ahead. In: Collins, D., Starik, M. (Eds.),Research in corporate social performance and policy—Sustaining the naturalenvironment: empirical studies on the interface between nature and organi-zations. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1–42.

Starik, M., Marcus, A., 2000. Introduction to the special research forum on themanagement of organizations in the natural environment: a field emergingfrom multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of ManagementJournal 43 (4), 539–546.

Stone, G., Wakefield, K., 2001. Eco-orientation: an extension of market orientationin an environmental context. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 8 (3),21–31.

Theyel, G., 2001. Customer and supplier relations for environmental performance.Greener Management International 35 (3), 61–69.

van Hoek, R., 1999. From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal 4 (3), 129–135.

Vermeulen, W.J.V., Seuring, S., 2009. Sustainability through the market—theimpacts of sustainable supply chain management: introduction. SustainableDevelopment 17, 269–273.

Vredenburg, H., Westley, F., 1993. Environmental leadership in three contexts:managing for global competitiveness. In: Proceedings of the InternationalAssociation of Business and Society, 495–500.

Waddock, S., Graves, S., 1997. The corporate social performance: financialperformance link. Strategic Management Journal 18, 303–319.

Wald, M.L., 2006. What is Kind to Nature can be Kind to Profits. New York Times,E1, ES.

Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmentalsupply chain management practices: lessons from the public and privatesector. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14 (1), 69–85.

Walton, S., Handfield, R., Melnyk, S., 1998. The green supply chain: integratingsuppliers into environmental management processes. International Journal ofPurchasing and Materials Management 34 (2), 2–10.

Weick, K., 1987. Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. StrategicManagement Journal 10, 17–32.

Wells, R., 1990. Environmental performance will count in the 1990s. MarketingNews March 19, 22.

Winn, M., 1995. Corporate leadership and policies for the natural environment. In:Collins, D., Starik, M. (Eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance andPolicy, Supplement 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 127–161.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2001. Integrating environmental issues into supplier selectionand management: a study of large and medium-sized state-owned enterprisesin China. Greener Management International 35, 27–40.

Zuckerman, A., 2000. Ford, GM set ISO 14000 requirements. Iron Age New Steel 16(3), 58–60.

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management€¦ · Purchasing/supply management Supply chain...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management€¦ · Purchasing/supply management Supply chain...