Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
The role of supply chain leadership in the learning of sustainable
practice: toward an integrated framework
Jonathan Gosling, Fu Jia*, Yu Gong, Steve Brown
University of Exeter Business School, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 30 April 2014
Received in revised form
9 October 2014
Accepted 12 October 2014
Available online 16 October 2014
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is a topic that has become increasingly important in
recent years. However, very few papers focus on studying SSCM from both leadership and learning
perspectives. In this research, we carry out a content-based literature review on the intersections of
Supply Chain leadership, Supply Chain Learning and SSCM; we propose a conceptual framework on how
focal companies assuming a leadership role initiate and disseminate sustainable practices in their supply
chains. Three types of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) strategies (i.e., reactive, contributive
and proactive) have been identified in this research based on four dimensions of SSCM governance,
supply chain learning, supply chain leadership and SSCM performance. It is argued that two new constructs of supply chain learning and supply chain leadership are an integral part of the SSCM conceptual
framework developed from the literature and have significant implication to our understanding of SSCM.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainable supply chain management
Supply chain learning
Supply chain leadership
Multinational corporations
Content-based literature review
1. Introduction
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has garnered
much attention from academia and practitioners alike in the last
ten years. The widely cited paper by Seuring and Muller (2008) is
probably the first comprehensive review of this body of literature
and identifies the triggers of SSCM to be reputational risk, which
can be mitigated by applying strict supplier evaluation/assessment
processes. A more recent review by Sarkis et al. (2011) categorizes
and reviews green SCM literature under nine broad organizational
theories, with special emphasis on investigating the adoption,
diffusion and outcomes of green supply management practices.
Winter and Knemeyer (2013) review the intersection of “sustainability” and “supply chain management (SCM)”, finding little integration between the two literature and, consequently, they propose
a more holistic and integrated approach.
These reviews show that the existing SSCM literature is primarily focused on building the definitions of SSCM (Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Muller, 2008); implementation of
SSCM practice (Lam, 2011; Walker and Jones, 2012); proposing
strategic decisions incorporating SSCM (Harms et al., 2013; Wu and
Pagell, 2011); SSCM governance mechanisms (Gimenez and Sierra,
2013; Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012); and sustainable supply chain
analysis framework (Ny et al., 2006, 2008). Based on these reviews,
* Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.029
0959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
it is suspected that very few focus on studying SSCM from both
leadership and learning perspectives (Vachon and Klassen, 2006;
Van Hoof, 2014).
Smith et al. (2008) provide a case for the PVC industry, which in
the late 1990s faced various pressures from stakeholders such as
customers, NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace) and legislators who challenged
the unsustainable production of PVC. Major PVC producer Hydro
Polymers positively responded to these pressures by adopting a
systematic approach, The Framework for Strategic Sustainable
rt et al., 2013), to
Development (FSSD; for references, see, e.g., Robe
identify five internal and external challenges for the industry and
later developed this into a white paper for fully sustainable PVC
design and production. Hydro Polymers disseminated this framework through a semi-distance course delivered by Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden. The key suppliers and
customers were trained through this course in which attendees
received 7.5 university credits. Based on the shared mental model
for systematic planning that this training led to, a cascading effect
of actions and business developments occurred across the supply
chain, leading to a 10-year sector agreement: the companies have
agreed to embark on a joint venture to eventually comply with the
FSSD sustainability principles together.
This case example demonstrates vividly how a company taking
an initiative assumes a leadership role in the value chain, disseminating sustainable PVC design and production best practice through
the online training as well as other mechanisms e.g., supplier conferences, and eventually creates a new industry standard.
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
In practice, major Western-based Multi-national Corporations
(MNCs) respond proactively to the constraints of scarce resources
and environmental degradation, usually claim to integrate sustainability as part of their strategy and tend to assume a Leadership
role in their supply chains in order to implement various practices
aiming at improved sustainability along with quality, price and
reliability (Lam, 2011).
However, among the main streams of SSCM research, it is surprising (due to its prevalence in practice) that the leadership role of
MNCs in their supply chain has been ignored by researchers, i.e., the
relationship between SC leadership and SSCM practice, with just a
few exceptions (e.g., Defee et al., 2009a). For example, Lai and Wong
(2012) found that Green Logistics Management (GLM) success requires the leadership of OEMs, and claim that this is worthy of
future investigation. Carter and Rogers (2008) may be the first to
call for research to investigate the role of supply chain learning in
achieving sustainability i.e., the relationship between SC learning
and SSCM. Even less is known on how MNC's leadership in their
supply chain has facilitated the supply chain members (both customers and suppliers) to learn and adopt sustainability practice i.e.,
the relationship between SC leadership and SC learning in the
context of SSCM.
The idea that a supply chain competes with other supply chains
is not new and there is an increasing body of literature on SSCM.
These emerging ‘sustainable’ practices involve dissemination or
learning or knowledge transfer of new ideas throughout a supply
chain, and thereby influencing wider networks. For example,
Ivarsson and Alvstam (2009) provide a case that Volvo works with
its first tier supplier's and disseminate quality management and
SSCM practice to sub-tier Chinese suppliers which benefited all
members of the chain. Often, this process is initiated by multinational corporations (MNCs) seeking to apply global standards (see
Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). The purposes of the paper is to develop a
framework integrating supply chain leadership and supply chain
learning perspectives and attempts to conceptually address the
research question:
“How do MNCs assume leadership in how their supply chains learn
and adopt sustainability practices?”
The reasons for selecting MNCs are two folds: first, supply
chains tend to be global and MNCs have the ability to directly influence their suppliers through product and process specifications,
and to impact their customers in both developed and emerging
economy contexts through standards and branding, thus expanding
their CSR standards and associated best practices to developing
countries (Cote et al., 2008). In this sense, global supply chains of
MNCs provide a rich context to observe the different mechanisms
and constructs e.g., supply chain leadership and supply chain
learning. Second, MNCs or focal companies are considered more
mature than companies in developing countries in not only SCM,
but also corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Lam, 2011); therefore
they are more likely to assume leadership in creating or adapting
sustainable supply chain practices in a host country. For example,
foreign enterprises are in leading positions in sustainability
development especially in environmental sustainability and core
value services (supply chain sustainability) compared with Chinese
companies (A.T. Kearney, 2008).
In the rest of the paper, we intend to use MNCs and focal
companies interchangeably. A focal company is defined as “companies that usually 1) rule or govern the supply chain; 2) provide
the direct contact to the customer; and 3) design the product or
service offered” (Seuring and Muller, 2008: 1699).
This paper will contribute to the investigation of the SSCM
literature through new combined lenses of supply chain leadership
1459
and supply chain learning. In particular, the conceptual framework
we are proposing could contribute to the SSCM literature in the
following ways:
First, it is the first attempt that applies both supply chain
learning and supply chain leadership lenses to investigate SSCM,
which could potentially generate interesting and fruitful findings.
Second, since the supply chain learning research is still at an early
stage (Jia and Lamming, 2013), this study could provide a conceptual model for the theoretical development of supply chain
learning. Third, leadership of organisations is well researched and
understood but there is surprisingly little on leadership of a system
or network of organisations (Defee et al., 2010). This research could
potentially enrich our understanding of the role of organisational
leadership in MNCs' SSCM. Fourth, the research proposes a causal
model and three types of SSCM practice adopted by companies
based on a content-based literature review and anecdotal case
examples for future empirical testing.
This paper is arranged as follows: First, we present our literature
review method; then we provide an overview of SSCM, supply
chain learning and supply chain leadership and the interface of the
three domains. Next we introduce a conceptual model to cover the
discussed points; finally, we provide a conclusion to summarize the
contribution and make suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review method
To address the research question, a content-based literature
review method was performed, in line with Seuring and Gold's
(2012) assessment of this as an effective method to examine
research work in a systematic way. Content-based literature review
applies content analysis tools and may be considered a branch of
systematic literature reviews (Jia et al., 2014). The dimensions and
analytic categories can be deductive, based on theories, or inductive, based on reviewed material. Due to the limited number of
papers on supply chain learning and supply chain leadership, this
review mainly applied an inductive approach.
SSCM is the main theoretical debate we would like to engage
with. However, considering the large quantity of SSCM research
publications and the high quality and comprehensiveness of SSCM
literature reviews, we adopted a selective approach towards the
SSCM literature by focussing on previous SSCM literature review
papers (by searching “sustainable supply chain” and “literature
review” jointly in SCOPUS and Google Scholar with 11 papers
found) in order to identify current themes and future trends for
SSCM.
The use of the selective approach of literature review is for two
reasons: 1) each of these streams (SSCM, learning and leadership)
of studies includes many more works than those identified here. A
more extensive review for each would detract from the focus of the
paper; 2) for each of these streams only the works considered most
significant and relevant to the theoretical framework are reviewed.
The literature review on supply chain learning and supply chain
leadership was carried out by searching the exact terms of “supply
chain learning” and “supply chain leadership” in SCOPUS and
Google Scholar initially to capture the most related papers. 12 papers were found for supply chain learning and 16 papers found for
supply chain leadership. A number of themes were inductively
derived from each. After reviewing these three domains, key words
were identified and discussed with fellow researchers. Table 1 lists
the key search streams.
Scopus was used to identify the interface papers; it has a broad
coverage on management journals and has been used by Hassini
et al. (2012) and Ahi and Searcy (2013) for SSCM literature reviews, with the results further limited to peer-reviewed articles
published in English language journals. Interfaces between supply
1460
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Table 1
Literature review searching strings.
A. Sustainable related
B. Supply chain related
C. Learning related
D. Leadership related
sustainable
sustainability
environment
environmental
green
social responsibility
CSR
ethics
ethical
closed loop
reverse
recycling
social enterprise
supply chain
supply
procurement
purchasing
sourcing
supply network
transport
transportation
logistic
value chain
supply chain learning
organizational learning
inter-organizational learning
inter-firm learning
inter-partner learning
cross-cultural learning
mutual learning
dyadic learning
alliance learning
joint learning
cross-border learning
relationship learning
second-order learning
first-order learning
supply chain leadership
organizational leadership
transformational leadership
transactional leadership
supply chain followership
transformational followership
transactional followership
group leadership
unit leadership
shared leadership
co-leadership
focal firm leadership
network leadership
entrepreneur leadership
trade leadership
collaborative leadership
chain learning and supply chain leadership (i.e., research strings
B&C&D), SSCM and Supply chain learning (i.e., A&B&C), SSCM and
supply chain leadership (i.e., A&B&D), and SSCM, supply chain
learning and supply chain leadership (i.e., A&B&C&D) are identified: the numbers are 1, 60, 16, 0 respectively.
With the limited number on the interface of supply chain
learning and supply chain leadership, SSCM and supply chain
leadership, and the interface of the three domains, we expanded
the scope of the search to include more papers by searching
learning and leadership (i.e., B&D), and supply chain leadership
(i.e., C&D), which returned 30 and 50 respectively. Together with
the previously identified 60 papers on SSCM and supply chain
learning, this resulted in a total of 140 papers for review, to which
the following ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ criteria were applied
(Table 2). There were 11 papers identified as relevant, of which six
were captured by pervious steps. Finally, five papers were identified in this extended search.
Eventually, there are 44 papers identified for final review
(SSCM: 11 papers; SC learning: 12; SC leadership: 16; extended
search: 5). With the 44 papers, we attempt to identify the key
themes for each domain and overlapping of domains and at the
same time identify the causal relationships between the constructs
(i.e., SSCM strategy, SSCM governance, Supply chain leadership,
Supply chain learning and SSCM performance). Eventually, we
develop a typology of SSCM strategies based on the four dimensions/constructs and a conceptual framework (i.e., causal relationships between them) for future empirical test.
3. Findings
3.1. Sustainable supply chain management
This section will present the results of the literature review on
SSCM, from which four themes were identified: SSCM definitions,
drivers and enablers for SSCM, SSCM strategies and SSCM governance mechanisms, and were adopted in this section.
Table 2
Literature review selection criteria.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
organizational learning
peer reviewed English
journal articles
management focus
individual level learning
books, conference papers,
magazines; other languages
technology, political focus
3.1.1. Definitions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
As a starting point, sustainability was first defined in Brundtland
Report as “using resources to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED, 1987). Sikdar (2003: 1928) define sustainability as
“a wise balance among economic development, environmental
stewardship, and social equity”. Convergence of supply chains and
sustainability is given consideration in recent years: the research
areas include corporate social responsibility, sustainable supply
chain network, green purchasing strategies, reverse logistics, lifecycle assessment and so on (Linton et al., 2007). Growing
research interests have shown in the fields of sustainability and
SCM with a substantial growth occurring from 2001 onwards
(Ashby, 2012). Organizational approaches to sustainability in the
SCM vary: some emphasis more on green and environmental issues
while others focus more on social aspects according to Walker and
Jones (2012).
Seuring and Muller (2008: 1700) integrate the triple bottom line
approach of sustainability into SCM and define SSCM as:
“The management of material, information and capital flows as
well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while
taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development,
i.e., economic, environmental, and social, into account which are
derived from customers and stakeholder requirements.”
Carter and Rogers (2008: 368) emphasize the systematic coordination of the three elements of sustainability and define it as:
“The strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an organization's social, environmental, and economic goals in the
systemic coordination of key interorganizational business processes for improving the long-term economic performance of the
individual company and its supply chain.”
It can be seen that both definitions attempt to explain the
relationship between sustainability and SCM and integrate them.
Carter and Rogers's definition is more focused on focal company's
perspective while Seuring and Muller one is from supply chain and
stakeholder's perspectives. Seuring and Muller's (2008) definition
is adopted in this paper.
3.1.2. Drivers and enablers for SSCM
Many papers have discussed the drivers and enablers for organizations implementing SSCM, distinguishing between those that
are internal or external (Cheung et al., 2009; Harms et al., 2013;
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Seuring and Muller, 2008; Walker
et al., 2008; Walker and Jones, 2012).
Seuring and Muller (2008) emphasize that different groups such
as government, customers and other stakeholders have an impact
on organizations' supply chain sustainability. The pressures and
incentives frequently mentioned are legal demands/regulation,
responses to stakeholders, competitive advantage, customer demands, reputation loss, and environmental and social pressure
groups.
Among the previous analyses, Walker and Jones (2012) provide
the most comprehensive list of factors by taking a literature review
approach. Internal factors include people issues, strategic issues
and functional issues. External factors include government, competitors, customers, suppliers etc. Based on this classification, four
types of companies have been observed:
“Internally focused” organizations, which are more influenced
by internal factors such as level of management commitment
and employee involvement.
“Reserved players” that face more external enablers and internal
barriers.
“Agenda setters” are affected by internal enablers and external
barriers.
“External responders” face more external influences, such as
government, customer and NGO pressure.
Among all these factors, the key enablers are customer requirements, reputational risks, internal factors and stakeholder
involvement (Walker and Jones, 2012).
Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) further distinguish drivers and
enablers and claim that a driver is a factor that initiates and motivates firms to adopt SSCM, and an enabler is a factor that assists
firms in achieving these sustainable practices. They conduct a review particularly of enablers and similar to Walker and Jones (2012)
separate internal enablers and external enablers, based on firms'
boundaries (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). Internal enablers
include a firm's environmental commitment, senior or top management support, the availability of resources, the strategic role of
the purchasing function, the development of supply management
capabilities of purchasing personnel, the role of the project leader
and appropriate performance measurement systems. External enablers from a supply chain relationship perspective are trust, national culture, logistical and technological integration and clarity of
objectives.
According to Seuring and Muller (2008) and Harms et al. (2013),
these drivers and enablers influence organizations' sustainable
supply chain strategies which we address in the following review.
3.1.3. SSCM strategies
Seuring and Muller (2008) identify the triggers for SSCM and
propose two SSCM strategies: supplier management for risks and
performance, and supply chain management for sustainable
products. Harms et al. (2013) further develop these two SSCM
strategies into risk-orientated strategy and opportunity-orientated
strategy. Risk-orientated strategy is considered more reactive to
pressures from stakeholders and focuses on avoiding SSCM risks.
On the contrary, opportunity-orientated strategy is more proactive
to SSCM opportunities and aiming to be innovative and to develop
sustainable products (Harms et al., 2013).
Van Tulder et al. (2009) develop a classification of CSR approaches to identify four types of sustainable supply chain strategies on implementing codes of conduct: inactive, reactive, active
and proactive. Inactive and reactive strategies have a low level of
compliance of codes because these companies mainly focus on efficiency and primary stakeholders; active and proactive strategies
1461
have a high level of compliance of codes because they are driven by
ethical values and virtues and the requirement of active stakeholder involvement (Van Tulder et al., 2009).
Closs et al. (2011) distinguish three types of supply chain sustainability: reactor, contributor and innovator, each of which could
be viewed as an SSCM positioning strategy. Reactor firms comply
with laws and regulations, and make few efforts beyond compliance; contributor firms recognize SSCM as strategically important
and take more proactive initiatives: they benchmark within or
across industries to identify potential approaches and collaborate
with suppliers and less frequently with customers. However, these
initiatives are normally not their creation; innovator firms see
SSCM as a strategic priority and a long-term investment, eagerly
seeking best practices by innovation (Closs et al., 2011).
3.1.4. SSCM governance mechanisms
Raynolds (2004: 728) defines governance as “the relations
through which key actors create, maintain, and potentially transform network activities”. Traditionally price, hierarchy and social
mechanisms are used to describe SCM governance (Adler, 2001).
‘Price’ refers to utilizing competition between suppliers in the
market to steer the relationship, ‘hierarchy’ refers to customer use
of authority in the relationship and application of hierarchical
structures and processes to the business relationship and ‘social’
refers to trust, open interaction and a feeling of a shared destiny
(Kohtamaki, 2010).
Organizations have developed different governance mechanisms
to draw suppliers into sustainability-related practices (Gimenez and
Tachizawa, 2012). In the SCM literature, these activities are also
known as supplier development. Krause et al. (1998) list several
different supplier development practices, including 1) supplier
assessment; 2) providing suppliers with incentives to improve
performance; 3) instigating competition among suppliers; and 4)
working directly with them with training or other activities.
Rao (2002) points out that the extension of sustainability to
suppliers is widely adopted by industries but the extent and mode of
implementation differ significantly. Vachon and Klassen (2006)
classify these practices into environmental monitoring (inspection
and risk minimization) and environmental collaboration (mutual
problem-solving). Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) summarize them
into assessment (evaluation of suppliers, such as assessment questionnaires, CSR audits, social impact assessments, site inspections/
audits) and collaboration (working with suppliers directly, such as
providing them with visits, training and joint efforts).
In a similar vein, Pagell and Wu (2009) summarize two best
practices as certification and collaboration. Certification applies to a
few practices which embrace social issues such as child labour and
unsafe working conditions (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Collaboration
with suppliers and customers is essential for driving environmentally sustainable practices (Carter and Carter, 1998; Zhu and Sarkis,
2004); incentives are needed to reduce suppliers' risks when
adopting these collaborative processes (Goodman, 2000); so focal
companies need to educate their suppliers and have their suppliers
educate each other (Rao and Holt, 2005). In an SSCM context, Van
Hoof and Thiell (2014) argue that collaboration theory highlights
collective problem solving by means of innovation and aims at
confronting complex problems that exceed the capacity of individual firms.
Elaborating in more details, Beske et al. (2014) propose that
SSCM mechanisms are becoming more and more complex and
summarize SSCM practices into five types: strategic orientation
underpinned by SCM and triple bottom line; supply chain continuity
(long-term relationship, partner development and partner selection); collaboration (joint development, technical integration,
logistical integration and enhanced communication); risk
1462
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
management (individual monitoring, pressure group management
and standards and certification); and finally pro-activity for sustainability (learning from suppliers, stakeholder management,
innovation and life cycle assessment). This five-fold typology thus
identifies and usefully re-categorizes SSCM practices that can be
linked to different constructs in SSCM literature. Strategic orientation toward sustainability is related to SSCM strategy. Supply chain
continuity and risk management are used interchangeably in SC risk
management literature and is closely related to Harms et al.’s
(2013) risk avoidance orientated SSCM strategy. The detailed
practices proposed under these two are not dissimilar to the
governance mechanism of ‘assessment’. Collaboration bears the
same meaning and refers to practices often categorized as governance mechanisms. Pro-activity includes some collaboration and
SSCM best practices and may be considered as outcomes of SSCM
governance mechanisms.
Linking SSCM strategy to governance mechanisms, Gimenez and
Sierra (2013) further propose that as SSCM strategy moves towards
proactivity, the level of supply chain governance mechanisms (e.g.,
from supplier assessment to collaboration with suppliers) increases. So the higher the proactivity, the more likely organizations
implement both mechanisms (assessment and collaboration) and
the better the environmental performance.
3.2. Supply chain learning
To survive in fierce competition, organizations need to gain
learning abilities (Hult et al., 2000b). Most previous literature
outputs on organizational learning focused on an individual or
intra-firm level, while some authors pay attention to inter-firm and
network levels (e.g., Bessant et al., 2003). After defining supply
chain learning, three themes emerged from the reviewed papers:
supply chain learning processes; antecedents, enabling and constraining factors; and outcomes of supply chain learning, each of
which are discussed.
3.2.1. Definitions of supply chain learning
Supply chain learning derives from inter-organizational leaning,
which addresses how organizational members act jointly to create
collective knowledge (Mariotti, 2012). It is a process through which
network actors learn to collaborate and share and create knowledge (Mariotti, 2012), which suggests analysis at three levels: dyad,
supply chain and network.
Bessant and Tsekouras (2001) are among the first to review
learning at a network level. By learning network they mean “a
network formally set up for the primary purpose of increasing
knowledge” (Bessant and Tsekouras, 2001: 88). Such networks are
formally established and defined in a way that they have a primary
learning target; they are structured with boundaries; processes can
be mapped on learning cycle (experience, reflection, concept formation and experimentation (Kolb and Fry, 1975)) and with measurement providing feedback for any future formal arrangements.
Supply chain network is one of these networks (Bessant and
Tsekouras, 2001).
Bessant et al. (2003) refer ‘supply chain learning’ to learning
behaviours in an inter-organisational context, observing that,
despite a growing interest in inter-organizational application of
such principles, research literature had focused on intraorganizational learning. Later, Flint et al. (2008: 274) provide a
formal and broad definition for supply chain learning: “Multiple
supply chain partners engaged in interaction where learning occurs
and is focused on supply chain issues and solutions.” Comparing
the two definitions, one can find that Bessant et al. (2003) focus on
inter-organisational or dyadic learning of best practices from both
buyer's and supplier's perspectives, while Flint et al. (2008) focus
on supply chain partners learning of supply chain issues and solutions i.e., beyond dyads.
Building on Bessant et al. (2003) and Flint et al. (2008) definitions, adopting an Extended Resource Based View (ERBV) and
providing empirical evidence from a China-West supply chain
relationship context, Jia and Lamming (2013: 549) redefine interfirm or dyadic learning within a supply chain context as: “A dyad
of buyer-supplier engaged in interactions learning jointly or from
each other about supply chain issues and solutions with the aim of
increasing relational rents or inbound spillover rents or both.”
3.2.2. Processes of supply chain learning
According to Argyris and Schon (1996) organizational learning
can be divided into single-loop learning and double-loop learning.
Single-loop learning implies simple, adaptive responses that do not
affect underlying values or structures which are called mental
models by Senge (1994). Double-loop learning involves new ways
of solving problems and new core values. In short, single-loop
learning is within the existing framework while double-loop
learning questions, challenges and changes the framework. Unlike some organisation-scale theories (e.g., Senge, 1994), the single/
double loop learning construct can readily be applied to collective
learning at any scale, including supply chains and networks.
Grounding their work in innovation literature, Bessant et al.
(2003) divide supply chain learning into three phases. The first
phase is ‘set up’ which is for establishing a set of procedures to
promote supply chain learning. The second phase is ‘running’ or
‘operating’, to translate the procedures to routines and norms
which govern the behaviour between and within firms. The final
phase is ‘sustain’, dealing with management processes for the
needs of continuous learning such as measurements and
benchmarking.
3.2.3. Antecedents, enabling and constraining factors of supply
chain learning
Spekman et al. (2002: 42) suggest that learning is a key
component of supply chain competency, where a supply chain can
be seen “as a vehicle for gathering knowledge and learning” and
identify six factors influencing supply chain learning. The first is
trust and commitment. “Trust is the belief that one's partner will
act in a predictable manner, will keep his/her word, and will behave
in a way that will not negatively affect the other” while “commitment is simply one partner's willingness to devote time, energy,
and/or resources to the alliance” (Spekman et al., 2002: 44). The
second is communications in that the frequency, depth and content
of information will impact the effect. The third factor is relationship
type amongst supply chain members. When the relationship is
more informal and people co-mingle, knowledge transfer tends to
be more frequent and deeper. The fourth factor is decision-making
style: flexible, adaptive and open organizations are more conducive
to learning. The fifth factor affecting partners' ability to learn is the
company's culture, ideally open to continuous learning, encouraging questioning behaviours, rewarding those who work to
improve quality and allowing transparency of information acquired
through partners.
Hult et al. (2003: 544) and Thakkar et al. (2011: 318) summarise
four antecedents for supply chain learning in a supply management
context: team orientation; systems orientation; learning orientation and memory orientation: 1) Team orientation is defined as the
degree to which the members of the focal supply management unit
stress collaboration and cooperation in performing supply management activities and in making supply management decisions; 2)
Systems orientation is defined as the degree to which the members
of the focal supply management unit stress the interconnectedness
and mutual dependence of the activities in the supply management
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
process; 3) Learning orientation is defined as the degree to which
the members of the focal supply management unit stress the value
of learning for the long-term benefit of the supply management
system; and finally, 4) memory orientation is defined as the degree
to which the members of the focal supply management unit stress
the distribution and preservation of supply management
knowledge.”
Team orientation is similar to the team learning discipline of
Senge's (1994) five disciplines, which indicates that it starts with
dialogue, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine thinking together.
3.2.4. Outcomes of supply chain learning
Hult et al. (2003) argue that learning among supply chain
members may be seen as a strategic resource which provides a
bonding effect to enhance a supply chain's success. The four antecedents collectively contribute to the creation of a strategic
resource which further leads to ten sub consequences in four categories consisting of learning consequences including information
acquisition, knowledge distribution, information interpretation
and organizational memory; supply management consequences
including relationship commitment and customer orientation;
management consequences including innovativeness and entrepreneurship; and performance consequences including cycle time
and overall performance (Hult et al., 2003).
Lambrechts et al. (2012: 628) summarise five outcomes for indepth joint supply chain learning which is defined as “building
the capacity to create new knowledge and possibilities together
through a process where actors can learn collectively how to
rethink and renew their supply chain frame”. The first outcome is
interdependent system optimization and development, improving
for example product quality; a second benefit is joint competence
development which concerns in-depth joint learning and therefore
allows the system to be more adaptable to external changes and
complexity; a third benefit is the creation of unique mutual
knowledge and expertise; a fourth outcome is whole system
awareness concerning how members contribute to each other and
foster more mutual understanding; and the last outcome is transforming the essence or identity of the chain, via new goals, policies,
business models and norms (Lambrechts et al., 2012).
It can be seen that both indicate supply chain learning can lead
to mutual understanding, improved inter-organizational relationships, innovation and improvements in overall performance.
3.3. Supply chain leadership
Leadership has traditionally been studied with an emphasis on
the characteristics and behaviours of individuals, and their effects
on colleagues and organizations. Leadership is believed to be a key
contributor to organizational success and a strategic source of
competitive advantages (Bass, 1991; Waldman et al., 2001). Building on individual leadership theory, research on organizational
leadership under SCM frameworks has been developed.
Stevens (1989) and Cooper et al. (1997) identified leadership
and power structure as a key component of SCM. Lambert et al.
(1998) point out that unless one organization takes the leadership role for strategic supply chain decisions, risk will occur
throughout the chain and lead to chaos. Supply chain leaders can be
recognized by their size, economic power, customer patronage,
comprehensive trade franchise, or the ignition of the inter-firm
relationships (Bowersox and Closs, 1996). This section first distinguish leadership and power in the supply chain, and then focus on
other three themes: definitions of supply chain leadership; supply
chain leadership styles; and outcomes of supply chain leadership.
1463
3.3.1. Leadership and power in the supply chain
Existing literature (Cooper et al.,1997; Cox, 2001; Cox et al., 2004;
Stevens, 1989) tend not to distinguish power and leadership and
sometimes use power as a proxy for leadership. For example, Hall
(2000) claims that power can be applied by channel leaders to influence suppliers toward sustainability. Power has been introduced
in market channel literature to describe how any industry is probably
dominated by two or three major competitors (Daugherty, 2011). The
exercise of power or lack of power can affect the level of commitment
of other channel members; however forced participation will
encourage exit behaviour if given the opportunity (Cooper et al.,
1997). Cox (2001) and Cox et al. (2004) discuss the different types
of power relationships between buyers and suppliers.
However, Ahi and Searcy (2013) stress the voluntary character of
SSCM and claim that power may not be able to fully explain proactive
SSCM behaviours. Focal companies collaborate with suppliers on
SSCM initiatives, in which suppliers may be driven by leader's sustainable vision, a characteristic of leadership (Ahi and Searcy, 2013).
Echoing this, Defee et al. (2009a) argue that power should not be
viewed as the sole source of supply chain leadership; other aspects of
leadership should be taken into consideration. Thus, we will focus on
leadership at an organizational level in the supply chain context.
3.3.2. Definitions of supply chain leadership
Defee et al. (2009b: 69) attempt to distinguish supply chain
leadership and supply chain followership, are among the first to
define supply chain leadership and may be the first significant
empirical study devoted to this research area. Defee et al. (2010:
766) further develop the theory and propose a formal definition
of supply chain leadership.
“[ … ] a relational concept involving the supply chain leader and
one or more supply chain follower organizations that interact in a
dynamic, co-influencing process. The supply chain leader is characterized as the organization that demonstrates higher levels of the
four elements of leadership in relation to other member organizations (i.e. the organization capable of greater influence, readily
identifiable by its behaviours, creator of the vision, and that establishes a relationship with other supply chain organizations).”
Lockstrom et al. (2010: 275) also provide a definition of supply
chain leadership based on Northouse (1997) and Yukl (1998) but
from individual leaders' perspective.
“[ … ] the ability to influence one's own organisation and the
suppliers' organisations in order to establish and accomplish
common goals and objectives.”
This definition implies that individual leaders can not only influence their own company but also cross firm boundaries to the
supply chain context.
‘Supply chain leadership’ is thus identified as potentially significant, but is yet to emerge as a distinct field of scholarly research. This
is also indicated by the small number of publications and the time
period in which the papers were published. Harland et al. (2007)
concur that there is a dearth of publications and empirical studies
devoted to leadership in supply chain domains. The possible
explanation is that leadership is a mature subject but a contested
discipline (Bolden et al., 2011); combined with the complex
boundary issues of SCM this makes the research even more complex.
3.3.3. Supply chain leadership styles
Leadership has been variously described as a function of individual traits and behaviours, as a function of collective identity and
1464
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
unconscious needs, or as one of several relationship processes of
ordering and influencing (Bolden et al., 2011; Grint, 2005). In the
more limited literature on supply chain leadership, the majority of
papers focus on a transactional and/or transformational leadership
styles (Defee et al., 2009a, b; 2010; Hult and Nichols, 1999; Hult
et al., 2000a, b).
Defee et al. (2009a, b, 2010) are among the first to apply leadership theory to supply chains, exploring transformational supply
chain leadership and transactional supply chain leadership, and
going further to distinguish transformational from transactional
supply chain followership. Despite the empirical difficulties in
distinguishing transactional and transformational behaviours in
complex, multi-organisational interactions, Bolden et al. (2011) find
the conceptual constructs to be useful in characterising some of
these relations.
We concur with this assessment and adopt Defee's definition. In
a supply chain context, Defee et al. (2009b) argue that both transactional and transformational leadership operate via contingent
reward and management-by-exception, while transformational
leadership more frequently exhibits inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Contingent reward indicates that followers will be rewarded on their expected
performance, management by exception implies that leaders point
out followers' mistakes and take actions when needed (Bass and
Avolio, 2000).
Defee et al. (2009a) explain inspirational behaviour as an
articulation of a collective mission; a vision of desirable futures and
the definition of the path to achieve the vision. Intellectual stimulation occurs where leaders call on followers to be more innovative and creative to provide better solutions to problems.
Individualized consideration refers to a leader's ability to recognize
each individual follower's unique skills and development needs.
Transformational leaders focus on developing long-term relationships and do not seek to control followers' behaviour through the
use of contingent rewards, but manage in a more holistic way
(Avolio et al., 1988; Bass, 1985).
3.3.4. Outcomes of supply chain leadership
Harland et al. (2007) argue that the fact that downstream larger
businesses don't assume supply chain leadership poses a barrier for
SMEs adopting e-Business (information technology based business). Defee et al. (2009a) claim that transformational supply chain
leadership moderates the relationship between sustainability
drivers and closed-loop supply chain orientation. Transformational
leadership is also found to positively influence organizational
learning (Hult et al., 2000b). There is also positive relationship
between transformational leadership and organizational performance such as purchasing cycle time (Hult and Nichols, 1999; Hult
et al., 2000b), efficiency and effectiveness (Defee et al., 2009b,
2010). Brown et al. (2008) apply a situational leadership model
i.e., how empowered a workforce is and how expertise is distributed in a contingency model to inform the selection of different
leadership styles which in turn determines continuous improvement strategies e.g., lean or six sigma for the medical devices/
equipment sector.
3.4. Interfaces of the three domains
After reviewing the above three domains individually: SSCM,
supply chain learning and supply chain leadership, this section will
focus on the interfaces between them. Five papers discuss supply
chain learning and supply chain leadership, four on SSCM and
supply chain learning, two on SSCM and supply chain leadership
and finally we found no paper on the overlapping of the three.
3.4.1. Interface of supply chain leadership and supply chain learning
Hult et al. (2000b) find that transformational leadership has a
positive effect on organizational learning by corporate buyers and
internal users in purchasing management, which further has a
positive effect on information processing capability and the
reduction of the cycle time of purchasing processes.
Bessant et al. (2003) also emphasize the importance of the
leadership role, finding that even if the leader does not attend to
detailed discussions, their appearance has a positive effort on other
members in buyer-supplier interaction context. Leaders will be
more positively assessed if they can learn from other members
(mutual learning). However, the leadership role may change over
time since at the ‘sustain’ stage of supply chain learning, members
may need to share the leadership role, e.g., be responsible for their
own direction and alignment (Bessant et al., 2003). Here, Bessant
and colleagues highlight the dynamic nature of supply chain
leadership in the supply chain learning process.
Lambrechts et al. (2012: 628) focus on in-depth joint supply
chain learning and emphasise that even a strong single party
cannot succeed in this without other parties' involvements and
contribution. This kind of learning needs time, effort and discipline
and in particular leadership. Learning will not occur by itself but
needs careful designing and facilitating normally by a leading
company in the supply chain. To be more effective, leadership may
change over time from an ‘up-front role’ to a ‘stand-back’ role in
which other members actively take part (Lambrechts et al., 2012:
631). This is similar to Bessant et al.’s (2003) argument.
Dyer and Nobeoka's (2000) well known case of Toyota provides
a notable study on supply chain learning and leadership. As the
supply chain leader, Toyota initiates and facilitates the learning
network and solves three learning dilemmas: how to motivate selfinterested members to actively participate in the learning network;
how to avoid ‘free rider’ problems (members enjoy the collective
benefits without contribution); and how to maximize the efficiency
of knowledge transfer. Toyota has done this by creating a strong
network identity with rules for participation and entry into the
network. Most importantly, production knowledge is viewed as the
property of the network. Toyota's highly interconnected, strong tie
network has established a variety of institutionalized routines that
facilitate multidirectional knowledge flows among suppliers (Dyer
and Nobeoka, 2000).
Biotto et al. (2012) provide a single case study of Illycaffe Group's
coffee supply chain practice, which focused on quality management
and gradually established a culture of quality along the supply
chain. The shared culture of quality in turn minimized the coordination efforts and resource utilization through self-selection of
suppliers for better quality coffee beans; self-alignment to quality
standards by different actors e.g., suppliers, logistics operators and
customers; and generative learning (the ability to step back and
reframe the problem and generate new practices) e.g., the emergent behaviour toward sustainability. Illy assumed a facilitative
leadership role in the in-depth joint learning process.
The above five papers highlight the importance and possible
dynamic nature of the leadership role. These findings should also
be applicable for learning specifically focussing on sustainability;
however further studies on supply chain leadership in supply chain
learning are needed to address questions such as “who emerges as
the facilitative leading role, when and how does the leadership
develop over time” (Lambrechts et al., 2012: 633).
3.4.2. Interface of SSCM and supply chain learning
Four papers discuss both SSCM and supply chain learning. Carter
and Rogers (2008) suggest that learning concerning environmental
and social activities between suppliers and buyers is difficult to
replicate and can lead to competitive advantages. Vachon and
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Klassen (2008) find that supply chain learning is embedded in
environmental collaboration with primary suppliers and major
customers which can have a significant positive impact on both
manufacturing and environmental performance. Kim and Han
(2012) carry out a survey of 127 Korean logistics companies and
find that high learning-oriented (double-loop learning compared to
single-loop learning) logistics firms are more capable of adopting
environmental practices which may be linked with the creation of
sustainable competitive advantages.
Van Hoof (2014) applies organizational learning theory
explaining the adoption of cleaner production (CP) projects and
arguing that organisational learning is a critical factor of implementation of CP. The study examines projects launched by the
Mexican Sustainable Supply Programme (MSSP, an NGO) aimed at
disseminating CP among small-sized suppliers of large companies
in Mexico. Suppliers were invited to participate by leading Mexican
and multinational companies, received training on CP projects and
were supervised by a focal company. Suppliers' learning levels are
divided into four types: initial learning, single-loop learning,
double-loop learning and double-loop learning plus (whether
suppliers carry on with the program, propose CP projects, implement CP projects and generate new projects). It is found that a
blended learning method is conducive to implementation success
of CP projects.
With a limited number of papers on SSCM and supply chain
learning, more empirical research is needed.
3.4.3. Interface of SSCM and supply chain leadership
With a limited number of academic works in supply chain
leadership, papers that discuss SSCM and supply chain leadership
are also few: only two papers provide evidence for supply chain
leadership in SSCM research.
Defee et al. (2009a) suggest that a supply chain is a complex
organizational network which requires leadership from a supply
chain leader organization to drive changes for the whole chain and
conclude that transformational supply chain leadership can
enhance the development of closed-loop supply chain orientation.
Transformational leadership includes the behaviours of inspiration,
intellectual stimulation and individual consideration, which they
find to be more acceptable to members and more successful in
making change happen (Defee et al., 2009a).
Based on the analysis of 100 CSR reports and 18 interviews with
senior managers responsible for sustainability of sampled Canadian
companies, Morali and Searcy (2013) find that supplier development on SSCM depends upon focal company leadership, which is
responsible for educating suppliers to understand and implement
what is expected of them.
These two papers indicate the importance of leadership in
SSCM; however, with the limited numbers, more empirical
research is needed on supply chain leadership in SSCM.
Based on the foregoing review of the interfaces between our main
research areas, we can conclude that supply chain leadership, supply
chain learning and SSCM are seemingly distinct areas of research in
the literature and the overlaps between them are sparsely
researched. It is not difficult to understand the reasons for this:
supply chain learning and supply chain leadership are both underdeveloped areas themselves, let alone their relationship with
SSCM. However, the literature suggests that there are relationships
between them and it is valid to link the three bodies of literature
together for the purpose of explaining SSCM practice of MNCs.
4. Development of an integrated conceptual model
Based on the literature review, it seems that there is a casual
chain of relationships between the constructs discussed here.
1465
Various internal and external SSCM drivers and enablers have been
discussed by researchers (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Seuring
and Muller, 2008; Walker and Jones, 2012), which have an impact
on SSCM strategies (Harms et al., 2013; Seuring and Muller, 2008).
Van Tulder et al. (2009) propose that implementing codes of
conduct was a ‘trendy’ SSCM strategy five or six years ago, but
nowadays it is generally a minimum requirement and has become
an industry standard approach (Gimenez and Sierra, 2013). After
Van Tulder, Closs et al. (2011) classify firms adopting SSCM into
reactor, contributor and innovator and Harms et al. (2013) classify
SSCM strategy into risk-orientated or opportunity-orientated;
however both classifications mainly focus on a focal company
perspective.
In this research we propose a new classification of reactive,
contributive and proactive SSCM strategies from both buyer and
supplier's perspectives, building on previous works (Closs et al.,
2011; Van Tulder et al., 2009). Focal companies implementing a
reactive strategy focus on efficiency and primary stakeholders
mainly by setting up a low level of the code of conduct to which
suppliers are required to comply, but make few efforts beyond
compliance.
Going one step ahead, focal firms adopting a contributive SSCM
strategy recognize SSCM as strategically important and take more
proactive initiative by benchmarking within or cross industry to
identify potential approaches and collaborate with suppliers.
However these initiatives are normally not their own creation.
Active SSCM strategy requires focal companies to initiate SSCM
projects with their existing knowledge and then actively involve,
train and develop selected suppliers or the whole supply chain.
Going even further, focal firms adopting a proactive SSCM
strategy consider SSCM a strategic priority and a long-term investment, eagerly seeking best practices by innovation. Proactive
SSCM strategy emphasizes the deep and close collaboration between focal companies and specific suppliers with the aim of
jointly innovating sustainable products, processes or business
modes.
According to Gimenez and Sierra (2013), SSCM strategies are
highly related to SSCM governance mechanisms. SSCM literature
generally divides governance into two types: supplier evaluation/
assessment/certification and supplier development/collaboration
(Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Harms et al., 2013; Pagell and Wu,
2009). This basic distinction, between assessing and developing,
also underlies our proposed classification.
Gimenez and Sierra (2013) also propose measuring collaboration with customers along three scales: ‘visit’, ‘training’ and ‘joint
efforts’. We consider that ‘joint efforts’ is significantly different
from ‘visit’ and ‘training’ in terms of the aims of collaboration and
resources needed. There may therefore be a need to further break
down collaboration type.
Based on Gimenez and Sierra (2013) and Beske et al. (2014), we
propose a new classification of SSCM governance mechanisms of
assessment, involvement and collaboration stipulating that
assessment mainly involves supplier assessment such as supplier
selection, evaluation, certification, audit, visit and code of conduct
related training corresponding to the reactive SSCM strategy.
‘Involvement’ or single sided collaboration indicates sustainable
initiatives beyond code of conducts compliance initiated by focal
companies and requires the involvement of suppliers corresponding to an active, contributive SSCM strategy. This includes such
practices as technical integration, logistics integration and
enhanced communication (Beske et al., 2014).
Finally proactive SSCM strategy mainly requires and emphasizes
joint efforts or collaboration from both parties which include joint
sustainable innovation. Collaboration theory highlights collective
problem solving of complex issues by means of innovation and
1466
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
aims at confronting complex problems that exceed the capacity of
individual firms (Van Hoof and Thiell, 2014). Taking a multiple
stakeholder perspective, collaboration is not confined to supply
chain members but also includes non-traditional members such as
NGOs, regulators, competitors and members of the community
(Pagell and Wu, 2009; Van Hoof and Thiell, 2014).
The difference between assessment and involvement is that the
former is focused on a relatively low level of supplier compliance
with codes of conduct and the latter is focused on initiatives
beyond codes of conduct. The difference between involvement and
collaboration is that for the former, the sustainable initiatives were
initiated by focal firms and participated by or involve suppliers
where suppliers assume a more reactive role and results in
continuous improvements; for the latter, the initiatives are actively
participated in by both parties and result in emergent practices.
These three types of governance mechanisms lead to different
levels of learning activities in the supply chain, evidence for which is
to be found especially in collaboration which leads to double-loop
learning (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). A related model of organizational learning posits a dynamic knowledge creation process
involving the socialization and internalization of tacit and explicit
knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This suggests that doubleloop learning, via processes of exploration, questioning and challenging existing knowledge, can eventually lead to new knowledge
creation (Phan and Peridis, 2000; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001).
We suggest that an evaluation/assessment/certification type of
SSCM governance mechanism mainly involves explicit knowledge
transfer of a focal company's sustainability code of conduct;
involvement or single sided collaboration may, however, include
tacit knowledge transfer; finally, joint efforts or collaboration by
both parties mainly involves tacit knowledge transfer as well as
new knowledge creation, which is indeed related to double-loop
learning or knowledge creation routines. Assessment and involvement operate mainly under a predefined framework while joint
efforts may change the existing framework and lead to innovation.
Hence, the former two require single-loop learning, simple and
adaptive responses that don't affect underlying values, and the
latter requires to double-loop learning, new ways of solving problems and new core values (Argyris and Schon, 1996).
To reflect the difference between assessment and involvement
and to describe the correspondence to the involvement type of
governance, we tentatively define a new level of organizational
learning between single-loop and double-loop learning: singleloop learning plus, which is inspired by Van Hoof's (2014)
double-loop learning plus. Here single-loop learning plus means
learning remains within the existing framework, however focal
companies and suppliers will take a more active attitude of learning
instead of merely adapting to the environment and complying with
low level codes of conduct. In this case, both focal company and
suppliers will make contributions in the learning process.
Linking learning to SSCM performance (Kim and Han, 2012;
Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Van Hoof, 2014), we propose singleloop learning leads to the compliance of codes of conduct by suppliers. Single-loop learning plus may help a supply chain to achieve
results beyond compliance by identifying potential continuous
improvement opportunities within the existing frameworks.
Finally double-loop learning involves joint efforts towards new
knowledge creation and may lead to SSCM innovation through
sustainable products, processes or organizational innovation i.e.,
sustainable supply chain configuration (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014).
Among this chain of causal relationships, supply chain leadership is an ignored factor. Flint et al. (2008: 274) raise a critical
question: “Who should be involved and at what time in the
learning exercises? What are the best ways to motivate a continuous and healthy supply chain learning environment?”. According
to anecdotal evidence and our experience of researching MNCs in
China, supply chain leader organizations seem to play a critical role
in supply chain learning. According to Bessant et al. (2003) and
Lambrechts et al. (2012), the leadership role may change over time
since at the ‘sustain’ stage of supply chain learning, members may
need to share the leadership role.
Linking with the conceptual model, we suggest that both
transactional leadership and transformational leadership play a
mediating role between SSCM governance mechanisms and supply
chain learning; and that more relational theories of leadership may
provide valuable directions for further enquiry.
Defee et al. (2009a) suggest transactional supply chain leadership exhibits contingent reward and management-by-exception
behaviour while transformational supply chain leadership more
often exhibits inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration. Through supplier assessment, suppliers will either
get incentives or sanctions leading to and enhancing single-loop
learning (Peters, 2010). Through collaboration or joint efforts,
supply chain leading organization may create a mutual strategy or
mission for the relationship, encourage suppliers to be more
innovative and eventually develop new ways to solve problems i.e.,
double-loop leaning by recognizing each supplier's unique needs,
spotting new opportunities and developing their skills appropriately. In between, a focal company may use both transactional
leadership and transformational leadership to encourage suppliers
to be sustainable, both by following their instructions and thinking
of new approaches.
Hence, if we consider a continuum between transactional and
transformational leadership and between assessment and collaboration types of governance, we may develop the following
proposition:
Proposition 1. Supply chain leadership style affects the relationship
between SSCM governance and supply chain learning such that the
more a leading organization adopts a transformational leadership
style, the stronger the relationship between collaboration governance
and supply chain learning.
Finally we build a conceptual model as in Fig. 1.
We use a case example to illustrate each of the three types of
SSCM strategy. Reactive SSCM strategy is mainly achieved by
implementation of sustainability codes of conduct with a focal
company using assessment to measure the results. Single-loop
learning is embedded in the process which finally leads to the
compliance of sustainability codes of conduct. Transactional supply
chain leadership moderates the relationship between assessment
and single-loop learning. The stronger a transaction supply chain
leadership style is, the stronger the likelihood that assessment
leads to single-loop learning.
One example of this type is IKEA's code of conduct ‘IWAY’, which
is short for “the IKEA way on purchasing home furnishing products”. IKEA tier 1 suppliers are required to follow these standards
and extend them to upstream (tiers 2 and 3) suppliers. IKEA will
then audit suppliers and provide feedback. Suppliers need to support the audit and respond with detailed adjustment plans, after
which suppliers will be awarded a certificate and re-audited at least
every two years.
Contributive SSCM strategy involves the involvement of both
focal company and suppliers, with activities beyond codes of
conduct, such as training and developing suppliers in sustainability
initiatives by focal companies. The initiatives can be provided by
the focal company or a supplier, or by other organizations such as
industry regulators or NGOs. However the focal company leads the
process, with the involvement or participation of suppliers together
to create a sustainable supply chain. Single-loop learning plus is
embedded in the process and leads to beyond compliance
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
1467
Fig. 1. A conceptual model on SSCM strategy typology (Note: SSCM is short for sustainable supply chain management; SC is short for supply chain).
sustainable performance and continuous improvements. Both
transactional and transformational supply chain leadership i.e., a
hybrid may be used in this process.
An example of this type is given by one of WWF's climate
savers1 companies, SKF (a Swedish bearing manufacturer) which
implemented a pallet re-use and recycling project in China. Suppliers were encouraged to use recycled pallets and required to pay
deposits by SKF China to compensate any damage to them. SKF
China implemented this practice successfully in China by involving
and motivating and providing training to Chinese suppliers and
customers. The learning by suppliers and customers was within the
existing framework, a recycling practice implemented in Europe for
a long time, but the mechanisms e.g., cost benefits incurred from
recycling and reuse and paying a deposit made SKF customers and
supplier actively participate in the project. Here, SKF uses a hybrid
leadership style. Suppliers and customers are encouraged to join
the project, but also needed to obey the predefined rules. Training
and frequent dialogue is found to ensure the success of the project,
which depends on active involvement of suppliers and customers
to achieve a ‘beyond compliance’ performance target and continuous improvements in pallet reuse and recycling rates.
A proactive SSCM strategy involves collaboration or joint efforts
between focal companies and suppliers and between focal companies and customers. Double-loop learning is embedded in the
process and leads to new practices or SSCM innovation. It is suggested that focal companies take a transformational leadership
approach in influencing their suppliers in a way that the stronger a
transformational supply chain leadership style is, the stronger the
likelihood that collaboration leads to double-loop learning.
One example of this type is Wal-Mart’s ‘environmental friendly
packaging’ projects. Since 2008, Wal-Mart China held annual forums and related trainings for suppliers to promote their green
packaging philosophy and technology. Together with Coca-Cola,
Wal-Mart invented a light-weight packaging for pure water,
reducing bottle weight by 30%, CO2 emission by 35% and recycling
space by 70%; with P&G, they redesigned some cosmetic packaging,
reducing 40% of cardboard and half of packaging weight in 2010.
1
WWF climate saver programme is WWF's global platform to engage business
and industry on climate and energy. The programme aims to inspire a change in
thinking about climate solutions in companies and encourage them to transform
themselves in low-carbon leaders, acting as agents of change within their sphere of
influence.
Success was enabled by the deep collaboration between Wal-Mart
and Coca-Cola and between Wal-Mart and P&G, thanks to a strategic sustainable vision, continuous training, knowledge sharing
and encouragement amongst the three companies. We suggest that
these activities enhance the quality of collaboration in ways that are
consonant with transformational leadership. Evidence of this is the
suppliers' (such as Coca-Cola and P&G) active participation and
investment in innovations that finally led to the launch of new
sustainable packaging products, which have significant positive
environmental impact.
It should be noted that the clear distinction we have drawn
between the three types of SSCM strategies is for purposes of
theory development. In reality, MNCs employ a range of different
approaches that transcend the three alternatives suggested. For
instance, Wal-Mart uses standard reactive SSCM strategies to
enforce their basic code of conduct.
In 3.1.1, we claim the adoption of the SSCM definition by Seuring
and Muller (2008) in this paper, which is focused on in achieving
three goals of economic, environment and social derived from
stakeholders' requirements. In our view, all the three types of SSCM
strategy can be considered achieving the three SSCM goals but at
different degrees. The reactive strategy aims to comply with basic
code of conduct meeting minimum requirements from all the
stakeholders; contributive strategy tends to be more proactive and
attempts to improve SSCM performance within the existing framework to delight stakeholders; finally proactive strategy is the most
proactive of the three and intends to surprise and even educate
stakeholders and achieve the goals beyond their expectations.
Linking back to the literature, Hult et al. (2000b) conclude a
positive effect of transformational leadership on organizational
learning; Defee et al. (2009a) identify the positive causal relationship between transformational leadership and development of
closed-loop supply chain i.e., SSCM performance; Biotto et al. (2012)
emphasize that the shared culture leads to the generative learning
and emergent behaviour toward sustainability; Bessant et al. (2003)
and Lambrechts et al. (2012) find that leadership may change over
time from ‘up-front role’ to a ‘stand-back role corresponding the
transactional and transformational leadership styles at the ‘sustain
stage’ of supply chain learning. Based on above discussion and
anecdotal evidence, the following propositions may be developed.
Propositions 2a. The adoption of appropriate leadership style by
MNCs is conductive to the learning of sustainable practice and
improving the overall SSCM performance in the supply chain;
1468
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Proposition 2b. The supply chain leadership style of MNCs tends to
change from more transactional at the beginning, to more transformational when a culture of sustainability is built in the supply
chain.
5. Conclusion
At the beginning of the paper, we set out to answer a question:
How do MNCs assume leadership in how their supply chains learn and
adopt sustainability practices?”
To answer the question, we have reviewed the literature on
SSCM, supply chain learning and supply chain leadership respectively and then the overlap between them. As a result, a conceptual
framework i.e., a causal chain of relationships, was proposed linking driver, SSCM strategy, supply chain governance, supply chain
learning, supply chain leadership and SSCM performance. The
causal relationships have been deducted from findings of existing
empirical studies except for the relationships related to supply
chain leadership construct in which the empirical studies are
limited. The causal relationship related to supply chain leadership
are developed based on anecdotal evidence, our research experience with MNCs and the limited empirical studies on this topic.
Based on the model, three types of supply chain strategies were
also proposed. The two new constructs of supply chain learning and
supply chain leadership were integrated in the model and present a
core contribution of the paper. Another contribution is that we have
proposed a causal model and three detailed SSCM strategies
determined by the four dimensions of supply chain governance
mechanism, supply chain learning, supply chain leadership and
SSCM performance. Third, the introduction of the two constructs
may have implications for improving our understanding of the
SSCM concept in a fundamental way. Existing definitions simply
integrate the triple bottom lines or three dimensions and supply
chain processes without explaining the mechanisms of achieving
SSCM. For example, the strategic and transparent integration of
social, environmental and economic goals in the supply chain
process (Carter and Rogers, 2008) imply the adoption of supply
chain leadership and promote supply chain learning. A new definition may be developed in a future empirical study. Finally, we
develop a measurement of SSCM performance as compliance,
beyond compliance and SSCM innovation.
Our model also has practical implications. We propose and
emphasize importance of the leadership role in the supply chain.
There is also a need to change leadership style where appropriate
during the learning process. Companies should pay attention to the
dynamic nature of leadership styles. Companies adopting a reactive
SSCM strategy may rely on transactional leadership to push suppliers to achieve standards; companies adopting a contributive
SSCM strategy should use both types of leadership to develop
suppliers and to better implement sustainability initiatives; finally
for companies to adopt a proactive SSCM strategy, they should
create a learning environment and turn to transformational leadership to encourage partners be more innovative.
The paper is not without limitation. We adopted a selective
approach of content based literature review that allows us to focus
on the key contributions to the research topic. However this may
have obscured some key papers in SSCM hindering a more
comprehensive discussion. Our model is developed from existing
literature and anecdotal case examples. It is always challenging to
capture the complexities of reality in a conceptual model, and there
may be many other factors affecting the selection of SSCM strategy
beyond those we have proposed. For example, the location of
suppliers, power relationship between buyers and suppliers, tax
and other incentives are amongst the factors that may affect the
selection of SSCM strategy. It should also be noted that a company
may adopt more than one SSCM strategy for different products/
projects. Future research should take these factors into consideration and empirically refine and test the model.
Another future research direction could be linking the product
type to SSCM strategies. The reactive strategy may be applicable to
what Fisher (1997) terms functional products/service and suppliers;
whereas a proactive strategy may be more applicable to innovative
products/service and requires only a small number of suppliers who
have the innovative capabilities to collaborate with focal companies.
Finally, future research may bring the suppliers' followership into the
equation and integrate it into the conceptual model.
References
Adler, P.S., 2001. Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the
future of capitalism. Organ. Sci. 12 (2), 215e234.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 329e341.
Argyris, C., Schon, D., 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice.
Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., Einstein, W.O., 1988. Transformational leadership in a
management game simulation. Group Organ. Stud. 13 (1), 59e80.
Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M., 1991. From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to
share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 18 (3), 19e31.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., 2000. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, second ed.
Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Beske, P., Land, A., Seuring, S., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices
and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 131e143.
Bessant, J., Tsekouras, G., 2001. Developing learning networks. AI Soc. 15, 82e98.
Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R., Lamming, R., 2003. Putting supply chain learning into
practice. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23 (2), 167e184.
Biotto, M., De Toni, A.F., Nonino, F., 2012. Knowledge and cultural diffusion along the
supply chain as drivers of product quality improvement: the illycaffe case study.
Int. J. Logist. Manag. 23 (2), 221e237.
Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J., Taylor, S., 2011. Exploring Leadership: Individual,
Organizational and Societal Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.C., 1996. Logistics Management: the Integrated Supply Chain
Process. McGraw-Hill Series in Marketing, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New
York.
Brown, A., Eatock, J., Dixon, D., Meenan, B.J., Anderson, J., 2008. Quality and continuous improvement in medical device manufacturing. TQM J. 20 (6), 541e555.
Carter, C.R., Carter, J.R., 1998. Interorganizational determinants of environmental
purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industry. Decis. Sci. 29
(3), 659e695.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5),
360e387.
Cheung, D.K.K., Welford, R.J., Hills, P.R., 2009. CSR and the environment: business
supply chain partnerships in Hong Kong and PRDR, China. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 16, 250e263.
Closs, D.J., Speier, C., Meacham, N., 2011. Sustainability to support end-to-end value
chains: the role of supply chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 101e116.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M., Pagh, J.D., 1997. Supply chain management: more than
a new name for logistics. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 8 (1), 1e14.
Cote, R.P., Lopez, J., Marche, S., Perron, G.M., Wright, R., 2008. Influences, practices
and opportunities for environmental supply chain management in Nova Scotia
SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1561e1570.
Cox, A., 2001. Understanding buyer and supplier power: a framework for Procurement and Supply competence. J. Supply Chain Manag. 37 (2), 8e15.
Cox, A., Watson, G., Lonsdale, C., Sanderson, J., 2004. Managing appropriately in
power regimes: relationship and performance management in 12 supply chain
cases. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 9 (5), 357e371.
Daugherty, P.J., 2011. Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and
suggested research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (1), 16e31.
Defee, C.C., Esper, T., Mollenkopf, D., 2009a. Leveraging closed-loop orientation and
leadership for environmental sustainability. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 14
(2), 87e98.
Defee, C.C., Stank, T.P., Esper, T.L., Mentzer, J.T., 2009b. The role of followers in
supply chains. J. Bus. Logist. 30 (2), 65e84.
Defee, C.C., Stank, T.P., Esper, T.L., 2010. Performance implications of transformational supply chain leadership and followership. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 40 (10), 763e791.
Dyer, J., Nobeoka, K., 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge
sharing network: the Toyota case. Strat. Manag. J. 21 (3), 345e367.
Fisher, M.L., 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harv. Bus. Rev.
75 (2), 105e116.
J. Gosling et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1458e1469
Flint, D.J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B., 2008. Exploring processes for customer
value insights, supply chain learning and innovation: an international study.
J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1), 257e281.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., 2013. Sustainable Supply chains: governance mechanisms to
greening suppliers. J. Bus. Ethics 116 (1), 189e203.
Gimenez, C., Tachizawa, E.M., 2012. Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 17 (5), 531e543.
Goodman, A., 2000. Implementing sustainability in service operations at Scandic
hotels. Interface 30 (3), 202e214.
Grint, K., 2005. Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of leadership. Hum. Relat. 58 (11), 1467e1494.
Hall, J., 2000. Environmental supply chain dynamics. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (6), 455e471.
Harland, C.M., Caldwell, N.D., Powell, P., Zheng, J., 2007. Barriers to supply chain
information integration: SMEs adrift of eLands. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6),
1234e1254.
Harms, D., Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2013. Strategies in sustainable Supply chain
management: an empirical investigation of large German companies. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20 (4), 205e218.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., Searcy, C., 2012. A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 69e82.
Hult, G.T.M., Nichols Jr., E.L., 1999. A study of team orientation in global purchasing.
J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 14 (3), 194e210.
Hult, G.T.M., Ferrell, O.C., Hurley, R.F., Giunipero, L.C., 2000a. Leadership and relationship commitment a focus on the supplier-buyer-user linkage. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 29 (2), 111e119.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., Giunipero, L.C., Nichols Jr., E.L., 2000b. Organizational
learning in global purchasing: a model and test of internal user and corporate
buyers. Decis. Sci. 31 (2), 293e325.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen Jr., D.J., Nichols Jr., E.L., 2003. Organizational learning as a
strategic resource in supply management. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 541e556.
Ivarsson, I., Alvstam, C.G., 2009. Learning for Foreign TNCs: a study of technology
upgrading by local suppliers to AB Volvo in Asia and Latin America. Int. J.
Technol. Manag. 48 (1), 56e76.
Jia, F., Lamming, R., 2013. Cultural adaption in Chinese-Western supply chain
partnerships: dyadic learning in an international context. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 33 (5), 528e561.
Jia, F., Lamming, R., Sartor, M., Orzes, G., Nassimbeni, G., 2014. Global purchasing
strategy and international purchasing offices: evidence from case studies. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 154, 284e298.
Kearney, A.T., 2008. Supply Chain Sustainability and Corporate Sustainability. A.T.
Kearney Forum. Available at: Http://forum.atkearney.cn. retrieved on January
10th, 2013 (In Chinese).
Kim, S.T., Han, C.H., 2012. The role of organisational learning in the adoption of
environmental logistics practices: empirical evidence from Korea. Int. J. Logist.
Res. Appl. 15 (3), 147e161.
Klewitz, J., Hansen, E.G., 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 57e75.
Kohtamaki, M., 2010. Relationship governance and learning in partnerships. Learn.
Organ. 17 (1), 41e57.
Kolb, D., Fry, R., 1975. “Towards a theory of applied experiential learning. In:
Cooper, C. (Ed.), Theories of Group Processes. Wiley, Chichester.
Krause, D., Handfield, R., Scannell, T., 1998. An empirical investigation of supplier
development: reactive and strategic processes. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (1), 39e58.
Lai, K., Wong, C.W.Y., 2012. Green logistics management and performance: some
empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing exporters. Omega 40 (3),
267e282.
Lam, M.L.L., 2011. Challenges of sustainable environmental programs of foreign
multinational enterprises in China. Manag. Res. Rev. 34 (11), 1153e1168.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., Pagh, J.D., 1998. Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 9 (2), 1e20.
Lambrechts, F., Taillieu, T., Grieten, S., Poisquet, J., 2012. In-depth joint supply chain
learning: towards a framework. Supply chain Manag. An Int. J. 17 (6), 627e637.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 1075e1082.
Lockstrom, M., Schadel, J., Moser, R., Harrison, N.J., 2010. Successful supplier integration in the Chinese automotive industry: a theoretical framework. Int. J.
Integr. Supply Manag. 5 (3), 260e283.
Mariotti, F., 2012. Exploring interorganizational learning: a review of the literature
and future directions. Knowl. Process Manag. 19 (4), 215e221.
Morali, O., Searcy, C., 2013. A review of sustainable supply chain management
practices in Canada. J. Bus. Ethics 117 (3), 635e658.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Northouse, P., 1997. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, London.
Ny, H., MacDonald, J.P., Broman, G., Yamamoto, R., Robert, K.H., 2006. Sustainability
constraints as system boundaries: an approach to making LifeCycle management strategic. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (1e2), 61e77.
1469
Ny, H., Thompson, A.W., Lindahl, P., Broman, G., Isaksson, O., Carlson, R., Larsson, T.,
Robert, K.H., 2008. Introducing Strategic Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Product-Service Innovation Across Value Chains. Paper presented at
Sustainable Innovation 08: Future Products, Technologies and Industries, 13th
International Conference, October, 27e28, Malmo, Sweden.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of ten exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag.
45 (2), 37e56.
Peters, N., 2010. Inter-organisational Design of Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives:
Increasing the Legitimacy of Sustainability Strategies for Supply Chains. Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
Phan, P.H., Peridis, T., 2000. Knowledge creation in strategic alliances: another look
at organizational learning. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 17 (2), 201e222.
Rao, P., 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (6), 632e655.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chain lead to economic performance? Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (9), 898e916.
Raynolds, L., 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Dev. 32
(5), 725e743.
rt, K.-H., Broman, G.I., Basile, G., 2013. Analyzing the concept of planetary
Robe
boundaries from a strategic sustainability perspective: how does humanity
avoid tipping the planet? Ecol. Soc. 18 (2), 5.
Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B.,
Rebeck, K., 2001. A systems thinking framework for knowledge management.
Decis. Support Syst. 31 (1), 5e16.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.H., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1e15.
Senge, P.M., 1994. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 17 (5), 544e555.
Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable Supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699e1710.
Sikdar, S.K., 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J. 49
(8), 1928e1932.
Smith, C., Brenann, J., Leadbitter, J., 2008. Norsk Hydro ASA: Sustainable PVC at
Hydro Polymers? INSEAD and EABIS.
Spekman, R.E., Spear, J., Kamauff, J., 2002. Supply chain competency: learning as a
key component. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 7 (1), 41e55.
Stevens, G.C., 1989. Integrating the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
19 (8), 3e8.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 2011. Mapping of supply chain learning: a
framework for SMEs. Learn. Organ. 18 (4), 313e332.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (7), 795e821.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111
(2), 299e315.
Van Hoof, B., 2014. Organizational learning in cleaner production among Mexican
supply networks. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 115e124.
Van Hoof, B., Thiell, M., 2014. Collaboration capacity for sustainable supply chain
management: small and medium-sized enterprises in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 67,
239e248.
Van Tulder, R., van Wijk, J., Kolk, A., 2009. From chain liability to chain responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 85 (2), 399e412.
Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J., Puranam, P., 2001. Does leadership
matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of
perceived environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (1), 134e143.
Walker, H., Jones, N., 2012. Sustainable supply chain management across the UK
private sector. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 17 (1), 15e28.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 69e85.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Winter, M., Knemeyer, A.M., 2013. Exploring the integration of sustainability and
supply chain management current state and opportunities for future inquiry.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 43 (1), 18e38.
Wu, Z., Pagell, M., 2011. Balancing priorities: decision-making in sustainable supply
chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (6), 577e590.
Yukl, G., 1998. Leadership in Organizations, third ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operation practices and performance
among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese
manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 265e289.