A framework of sustainablesupply chain management:moving toward new theory

Craig R. Carter and Dale S. RogersUniversity of Nevada, College of Business Administration, Reno, Nevada, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The authors perform a large-scale literature review and use conceptual theory building tointroduce the concept of sustainability to the field of supply chain management and demonstrate therelationships among environmental, social, and economic performance within a supply chainmanagement context.

Design/methodology/approach – Conceptual theory building is used to develop a framework andpropositions representing a middle theory of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).

Findings – The authors introduce the concept of sustainability – the integration of environmental,social, and economic criteria that allow an organization to achieve long-term economic viability – tothe logistics literature, and position sustainability within the broader rubric of SSCM. They thenpresent a framework of SSCM and develop research propositions based on resource dependencetheory, transaction cost economics, population ecology, and the resource-based view of the firm.The authors conclude by discussing managerial implications and future research directions, includingthe further development and testing of the framework’s propositions.

Originality/value – This paper provides a comprehensive review of the sustainability literature,introduces sustainability to the field of supply chain management, and expands the conceptualizationof sustainability beyond the triple bottom line to consider key supporting facets which are posited tobe requisites to implementing SSCM practices. The use of conceptual theory building to developtheoretically based propositions moves the concept of sustainability from a relatively a-theoreticaltreatment toward new theory in supply chain management.

Keywords Supply chain management, Social responsibility, Economic sustainability

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionOne need only contemplate the recent and rapid rise in oil prices, rising transparency andconsumer awareness of where and under what types of working conditions products aremanufactured, and financial reporting requirements such as Sarbanes-Oxley tounderstand how these factors might affect a firm’s supply chain and its economic bottomline. Until recently, most logistics and supply chain management research has examinedissues such as the environment, safety, and human rights in a standalone fashion,without consideration of the potential interrelationships among these and other aspectsof social responsibility (Carter and Jennings, 2002). The work of Carter and Jennings(2002, 2004) and Murphy and Poist (2002) begins to fill this void, by explicitly examiningthese standalone issues as a broader conceptualization and higher-order construct of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The authors wish to thank Rob Klassen, Mark Pagell, and Mellie Pullman, who providedcomments and feedback on earlier versions of this paper. This research was partially funded by agrant from Kenco Logistics.

IJPDLM38,5

360

Received November 2007Revised April 2008Accepted April 2008

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 38 No. 5, 2008pp. 360-387q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600030810882816

logistics social responsibility (LSR) and purchasing social responsibility (PSR). Yet, thismore recent social responsibility research contains an important omission – a failure toexplicitly include what Carroll (1979) refers to as an organization’s economicresponsibility.

The term sustainability, which increasingly refers to an integration of social,environmental, and economic responsibilities, has begun to appear in the literature ofbusiness disciplines such as management and operations. In addition, companies arebeginning to rapidly adopt the term sustainability. About 68 percent of the Global 250firms generated a separate annual sustainability report in 2004 which consideredenvironmental, social, and economic issues, in contrast to the primary emphasis onenvironmental reporting in 1999; in addition, 80 percent of these reports discuss supplychain-related issues (KPMG, 2005). Unfortunately, a review of the literature will showthat the term sustainability has been inconsistently defined and applied in the extantresearch.

This lack of an explicit consideration of economic criteria in current models anddefinitions of LSR and PSR, and the failure to consistently define sustainability and toapply the concepts of sustainability to the field of supply chain management, lead tothe following research questions:

RQ1. How can the term sustainability be defined and applied to supply chainmanagement?

RQ2. Is there a relationship between the integration of the concepts of sustainabilityand supply chain management, and long-term economic success?

More specifically, do firms which engage in sustainable supply chain management(SSCM) practices attain higher economic performance than firms which concentratesolely on economic performance?

The answers to these research questions will help to clarify and begin to defuse thedebate surrounding the relationship between environmental and social performance onone hand, and economic performance on the other. As noted by Hoffman and Bazerman(2005, p. 16):

The key to resolving this debate is the recognition that (social and environmental) behaviorsare sometimes profit-compatible and sometimes not. When parties acknowledge this simplefact, it becomes easier to convince corporations to adopt (environmental and social initiatives)that are mutually beneficial. This thinking moves us beyond the simple question, “Does it payto be green?”

These research questions are also particularly relevant because supply chainprofessionals are in an outstanding position to impact sustainability practices.Activities such as reducing packaging, improving working conditions in warehouses,using more fuel efficient transportation, and requiring suppliers to undertakeenvironmental and social programs, as just a few examples among many, can reducecosts while also improving corporate reputation.

The authors answer the paper’s research questions by conducting a large-scaleliterature review and subsequently using conceptual theory building (Meredith, 1993;Weick, 1989) to develop a framework of SSCM, along with related researchpropositions. Specifically, the remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In thenext section, the authors describe the paper’s conceptual theory building methodology.

A frameworkof SSCM

361

This is followed by a review of the literature and an introduction of a framework ofSSCM which expands the concept of sustainability from the organization to the supplychain. Afterwards, propositions surrounding the framework are introduced, based onan integration of the sustainability literature, along with resource dependence theory,transaction cost economics, population ecology, and the resource-based view of thefirm. The framework and resulting propositions begin to fill the void created by thelack of consistency in defining sustainability and the relatively a-theoretical conceptualand empirical research found in the extant sustainability literature. The research andmanagerial implications of this theory development are discussed in the paper’s finalsection.

MethodologyDespite numerous calls for more theory development in supply chain managementresearch (Kent and Flint, 1997; Mentzer and Kahn, 1995; Meredith, 1993; Melynk andHandfield, 1998; Wacker, 1998), there has been, respectively, little theory-buildingresearch appearing within the broad field of supply chain management to date (Carterand Ellram, 2003). In addition, the relatively few existing studies appearing in thelogistics literature that have rigorously employed inductive approaches have relied ongrounded theory techniques or similar interpretive tradition (Flint et al., 2005;Svensson, 2000). Interpretive field research that employs interviews and observationsis not the only way to develop theory however (Elsbach et al., 1999; DiMaggio, 1995;Weick, 1999), just as survey research is not the only way to deductively test theory(McGrath, 1982).

Conceptual theory-building methods can create a balance between inductive anddeductive reasoning and research and can help academics to lead and guide managerialpractice (Meredith, 1993). In this paper, we develop what Meredith (1993, p. 7) refers to asa conceptual framework – “a collection of two or more interrelated propositions whichexplain an event, provide understanding, or suggest testable hypotheses” – of SSCM.The methodology to accomplish this theory building consists of an integration of “anumber of different works . . . summariz(ing) the common elements, contrast(ing) thedifferences, and extend(ing) the work in some fashion,” (Meredith, 1993, p. 8) and alsothrough the definition of variables and the development of “specific predictions”(Wacker, 1998, p. 368) based on this integration of existing theory along with “logicaldeduction” which bring about the conceptual framework’s propositions (Handfield andMelnyk, 1998, p. 323).

The data collection to support this methodology occurred through a rigorouskey-word search of the literaure using ABI/Inform and EBSCO. An extensive databaseof the relevant literature was developed through initial searches on specific terminology.As literature was discovered that contained information relevant to sustainability, thereferences were examined and added to the developing literature database. Theconceptualization as described above was an iterative process involving many hundredsof hours of reading, additional collection of literature, synthesis, and refinement of ourframework via discussions with colleagues over a period of 17 months. Finally, wepresented the results of our conceptualization to 35 supply chain managers in 28Fortune-1000 sized companies in the USA and Germany to help further ensure thevalidity of our framework (Yin, 1994).

IJPDLM38,5

362

Sustainability: a review of the literatureDefinitions from the sustainability literatureThe most well-adopted and most often quoted definition of sustainability is that of theBrundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987,p. 8): “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their needs.” Included within this broad rubric ofsustainability are such issues as understanding the environmental impact of economicactivity in both developing and industrialized economies (Erlich and Erlich, 1991);ensuring worldwide food security (Lal et al., 2002); ensuring that basic human needsare met (Savitz and Weber, 2006); and assuring the conservation of non-renewableresources (Whiteman and Cooper, 2000). Unfortunately, the macro-economic, societaldefinition of sustainability is difficult for organizations to apply and provides littleguidance regarding how organizations might identify future versus present needs,determine the technologies and resources required to meet those needs, and understandhow to effectively balance organizational responsibilities to multiple stakeholders suchas shareholders, employees, other organizations in the supply chain, and broaderstakeholders including society and the natural environment (Hart, 1995; Starik andRands, 1995). In addition, because the Brundtland Commission’s definition is so farreaching, organizations often find it difficult to determine their individual roles withinthis broader, macro-economic perspective (Shrivastava, 1995a; Stead and Stead, 1996).

More micro-economic applications of sustainability have been investigated in thefields of management, operations, and engineering. Within the management literature,most of the existing conceptualizations of organizational sustainability have focusedon ecological (e.g. the natural environment) sustainability, with only implicitrecognition of social and economic responsibilities (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995;Shrivastava, 1995a; Starik and Rands, 1995). Like the macroeconomic viewpoint, thisresearch also takes a long-term perspective in defining sustainability. Starik and Rands(1995, p. 909) for example define sustainability as:

[. . .] the ability of one or more entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and flourish(either unchanged or in evolved terms) for lengthy timeframes, in such a manner that theexistence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is permitted at related levels and inrelated systems.

Shrivastava (1995a, p. 955) describes sustainability as offering, “the potential forreducing long-term risks associated with resource depletion, fluctuations in energycosts, product liabilities, and pollution and waste management.”

The operations management literature has similarly often considered sustainabilityfrom this ecological perspective without explicit incorporation of the social aspects ofsustainability (Sarkis, 2001; Hill, 2001; Daily and Huang, 2001). Interestingly, theorganizational definitions of sustainability in the engineering literature have beenmore encompassing, and have explicitly incorporated the social, environmental, andeconomic dimensions of the macro-viewpoint by defining organizational sustainabilityas, “a wise balance among economic development, environmental stewardship,and social equity,” (Sikdar, 2003, p. 1928) and as including “. . . equal weightingsfor economic stability, ecological compatibility and social equilibrium,” (Goncz et al.,2007, p. 4).

A frameworkof SSCM

363

Logistics literatureWithin the field of supply chain management, researchers have examined severalstand-alone topics of environmental and social issues, including the development ofenvironmental logistics strategies (Murphy et al., 1996); environmental purchasing(Min and Galle, 1997); carrier selection for and the transportation of hazardousmaterials (Kalevela and Radwan, 1988; Sharp et al., 1991); improvement of fuelefficiency and emissions reduction from transportation equipment (McKinnon et al.,1993; Stock, 1978); safety in motor carrier, rail, and airline industries (Cantor et al.,2006; Weener and Wheeler, 1992; Crum et al., 1995); diversity hiring and promotionissues concerning logistics personnel (Lynagh et al., 1996) and diversity of for-hiremotor carriers (Corsi et al., 1982) and other industrial suppliers (Carter et al., 1999).More recently, Carter and Jennings (2002) have conceptualized the integration of socialand environmental issues under the rubric of LSR, which ties together the previouslystandalone concepts of the environment, diversity, human rights, safety, andphilanthropy and the community as they relate to logistics management. Carter andJennings (2004) empirically operationalize purchasing’s involvement in LSR, whichthey refer to as PSR. The authors find that PSR is a second-order construct consistingof five first-order dimensions: the environment, diversity, safety, human rights, andphilanthropy. While Carter and Jennings’ (2004) operationalization includes an implicitrecognition of economic responsibility as a base level of organizational responsibilitybased on Carroll’s (1979) framework, they fail to explicitly incorporate economicresponsibility into their empirical investigation.

Although there exists a divergence of definitions of sustainability, these differencesare not as great as one might initially believe. Most definitions of sustainabilityincorporate a consideration of at least environmental and economic concerns, and evenCSR conceptualizations and operationalizations consider the intersection of social andenvironmental issues. Further, it is not uncommon to find varying definitions of aconstruct during the embryonic stages of its adoption in practice or its development ina field of scholarly inquiry (Kuhn, 1996). As noted by Gladwin et al. (1995, p. 876),“definitional diversity is to be expected during the emergent phase of any potentiallybig idea of general usefulness.”

The triple bottom lineOur review of the literature suggests that organizational sustainability, at a broaderlevel, consists of three components: the natural environment, society, and economicperformance. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of these three components. Thisperspective corresponds to the idea of the triple bottom line, a concept developed byElkington (1998, 2004), which simultaneously considers and balances economic,environmental and social goals from a microeconomic standpoint. Within this context,organizations recognize that sustainability:

[. . .] is not simply a matter of good corporate citizenship – earning brownie points forreducing noxious emissions from your factory or providing health care benefits to youremployees [. . .] Sustainability is now a fundamental principle of smart management (Savitzand Weber, 2006, pp. xiv).

Thus, the triple bottom line suggests that at the intersection of social, environmental,and economic performance, there are activities that organizations can engage in which

IJPDLM38,5

364

not only positively affect the natural environment and society, but which also result inlong-term economic benefits and competitive advantage for the firm.

Supporting facets of the triple bottom lineOther aspects of sustainability that emerged from our review of the sustainabilityliterature but which were not included in explicit definitions were risk management,transparency, strategy, and culture (Gladwin et al., 1995; Hart, 1995; Elkington, 1998;Henriques and Richardson, 2004; Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995; Sarkis, 2001; Savitzand Weber, 2006; Shrivastava, 1995a, b; Starik and Rands, 1995). We highlight each ofthese areas next, and show the relationships between these facets of sustainability andthe core, triple-bottom line framework shown in Figure 1. While it may be argued that ahost of other constructs could be included as supporting facets of sustainability, noother constructs appeared as consistently in the extant literature or in companysustainability reports, nor to nearly the same extent as the four supporting facetswhich will be introduced in this section of the paper. In addition, our interviews andopen discussions with 35 managers and executives from 28 companies provided strongconfirmation for these four supporting facets. At the same time, none of these35 managers suggested the inclusion of any additional facet(s). For this reason,additional variables not highlighted in this section are treated as causal antecedents,modifiers, or outcomes of sustainability, and are examined in the propositions and inthe discussion of the future research implications in the ensuing sections of the paper.

Risk management. While not a part of operational definitions of sustainability in theextant literature, the concept of risk and the management of risk was identified as areoccurring theme in the sustainability literature described earlier. Shrivastava (1995b)advocates that within the context of sustainability, an organization must manage notonly short-term financial results, but also risk factors such as harm resulting from its

Figure 1.Sustainability: the triple

bottom line

EnvironmentalPerformance

SocialPerformance

EconomicPerformance

Sustainability

A frameworkof SSCM

365

products, environmental waste, and worker and public safety. Gladwin et al. (1995,p. 878, p. 897) state that sustainable development must encompass the concept ofsecurity, which, “demands safety from chronic threats and protection from harmfuldisruption” including, “biodiversity loss, climate change, freshwater scarcity, foodinsecurity, and population growth.” Further, Shrivastava (1995a, p. 955) notes that,“by systematically addressing these long-term (sustainability) issues early, companiescan become aware of and manage these risks” associated with scarcity in naturalresources used as inputs to the supply chain and fluctuations in energy costs. Inaddition, proactive engagement in sustainable practices lowers the risk of theintroduction of new and costly regulations (Porter and van der Linde, 1995).

Risk can be broadly defined as the probability of variation surrounding ananticipated outcome. Risk has been examined across multiple disciplines includingeconomics and management via behavioral decision theory and prospect theory(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia, 1998), and finance interms of insurance and portfolio analysis (Stultz, 1996). Zsidisin et al. (2000) definesupply chain risk as the potential occurrence of an inbound supply incident whichleads to the inability to meet customer demand. Such supply chain risks can resultfrom natural disasters such as hurricanes (Atkinson, 2006), legal liabilities (Giuniperoand Eltantawy, 2004), poor demand forecasting and failure to coordinate demandrequirements across the supply chain (Christopher and Lee, 2004), fluctuating pricesfor key raw materials including energy (Barry, 2004), poor supplier quality andshipment quantity inaccuracies (Zsidisin, 2003), and poor environmental and socialperformance by a firm and its suppliers which can result in costly legal actions (Carterand Jennings, 2004; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996).

Recently, Spekman and Davis (2004, p. 418) suggest that one:

[. . .] dimension of risk relates to the notion of corporate social responsibility and the extent towhich supply chain members’ reputation and image can be tainted by the actions of anothermember who engages in activities that result in public sentiment or outcry or, even worse, isaccused of criminal behavior where liability extends up and down the supply chain.

Within the context of our framework, we define supply chain risk management as theability of a firm to understand and manage its economic, environmental, and socialrisks in the supply chain.

Corporations are increasingly recognizing that risk management is a part of theirsustainability. For instance, Hewlett Packard (2006, p. 50) notes in its annualsustainability report:

HP conducts preliminary risk assessment of the supply base to determine priorities. Riskcriteria include geographic location, chemical or labor-intensive processes, length of supplierrelationship to HP and commitment to global citizenship.

As another example, General Electric’s (2006, p. 47) Corporate Risk Committee meetsquarterly to examine risks surrounding human rights at supplier locations “with afocus on minimizing commercial and reputational risks.”

Supply chain risk management can occur through contingency planning and bybuilding more resilient and agile supply chains. As part of its sustainability, Motorola(2005, p. 13) attempts to address potential supply chain disruptions via crisis teamsthat have:

IJPDLM38,5

366

[. . .] developed preparedness plans to ensure that our response will be effective and our recoveryswift. Teams conduct annual tests of their plans and capabilities to improve coordination,sharpen employee skills and discover potential trouble spots before an emergency happens.

Risk management also includes product stewardship issues related to being able toswiftly and efficiently recall damaged or tainted products (Corbett and Klassen, 2007).

Transparency. While not included in stated definitions, transparency is alsomentioned extensively within discussions of organizational sustainability.For example, Hart (1995, p. 1000) states that:

Increasingly, local communities and external stakeholders are demanding that corporatepractices become more visible and transparent [. . .] To maintain legitimacy and buildreputation, therefore, companies may need to open their operations to greater public scrutiny.

This transparency is being driven, in part, by the rapid speed of communication via theinternet and satellite television (Elkington, 1998), as well as other factors such asinteroperable software and globalization of supply chains which have lead to a “flatworld” (Friedman, 2005). Maintaining the secrecy of corporate wrongdoings hasbecome very difficult and extremely risky. The actions of a company’s facility orsupplier this morning in a remote part of the world may be this evening’sheadline news. As noted by Tom Delfgauuw, retired Vice President for SustainableDevelopment at Shell, “We discovered that there are no more ‘local’ issues anymore . . .In the long run, it is simpler, and like anything simpler, it is also cheaper,” for acompany to operate with transparency concerning economic, social, and environmentalissues (Holliday et al., 2002, p. 21).

Transparency includes not only reporting to stakeholders, but actively engagingstakeholders and using their feedback and input to both secure buy-in and improvesupply chain processes. This transparency encompasses green marketing activitieswithin a stakeholder perspective (Rivera-Camino, 2007) as well as more traditionalcause-related marketing (Drumwright, 1996). Transparency can be improved throughvertical coordination across a supply chain as well as horizontal coordination acrossnetworks. For example, common auditing procedures adopted by an industry coalitioncan allow a single, effective supplier sustainability audit to be performed, whichincreases transparency and supplier sustainability while lowering transaction costs forboth the supplier and the multiple buying organizations that might do business withthat supplier. As noted by Nike (2005, p. 29):

Transparency across the industry of our respective contract factories will promote greatercollaboration, sharing of monitoring information and reinforcement of remediationexpectations across the industry. This could also decrease the burden on suppliers dealingwith contradictory audit requirements by multiple buyers.

Strategy and culture. An organization’s sustainability initiatives and its corporatestrategy must be closely interwoven, rather than separate programs that are managedindependently of one another (Shrivastava, 1995a). In its annual sustainability report,IBM (2005, p. 15) describes the integration of its triple bottom line strategy with its corebusiness strategy, and Hewlett Packard notes that its goal, “is to connect our corporatecommitment to global citizenship with the day-to-day conduct of the HP business.”To accomplish this, we have chosen to align our global citizenship strategy andpriorities with our business strategy to maximize the impact of our investments

A frameworkof SSCM

367

(Hewlett Packard, 2006, p. 8). Similarly, Nike (2005, p. 14) states that sustainability is,“integrated into Nike’s core business strategies.”

Finally, organizations that become sustainable enterprises do not simply overlaysustainability initiatives with corporate strategies. These organizations also have(or have changed) their company cultures and mindsets (Savitz and Weber, 2006).Hamel and Prahalad (1989) found that a shared, organization-wide long range visionwas significant in generating the internal drive and passion to spur innovation andchange. Similarly, in their study of “visionary companies” that have outperformedcompetitors over extended periods of time, Collins and Porras (1994) found that profitmaximization was not the primary driving force of these organizations. Instead, thesefirms had core values and cultures and a sense of purpose beyond the economic bottomline. A post hoc analysis that we conducted found that the visionary companies aresignificantly more likely to be members of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (2006)– the leading global indexes that track the “financial performance of the leadingsustainability-driven companies worldwide” – and are significantly more likely to berated among Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work for than the “comparisoncompanies” from the Collins and Porras study ( p , 0.01 and p , 0.001, respectively).As additional support for the role of corporate culture in sustainability, Carter andJennings (2004) found a significant relationship between environmentally and sociallyresponsible purchasing activities and an organizational culture which considers thewelfare of others and which is fair and supportive.

Interrelationships among risk management, transparency, culture, and strategy. Thefour supporting facets of the triple bottom line are not intended to be entirely mutuallyexclusive. For instance, engaging stakeholders – an example of improvingtransparency – can reduce risk by lowering the chances of consumer boycotts andtargeted actions by non-governmental organizations, and can also be an explicit part ofan organization’s strategy. For example, at HP, stakeholder engagement is a key partof the development of HP’s sustainability goals and strategy; HP’s sustainabilitystrategy is in turn used as one of the primary parts of its overall business strategy.Thus, the authors advocate that all four of these supporting facets are an integratedpart of SSCM practices.

A framework of SSCMThe term supply chain management has been defined by Mentzer et al. (2002, p. 18) as,“the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and thetactics across these business functions within a particular company and acrossbusinesses within the supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-termperformance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole” and byLambert et al. (2006, p. 2) as, “the integration of key business processes from end-userthrough original suppliers, that provides products, services, and information that addvalue for customers and other stakeholders”[1]. Based on these prominent andcomplementary definitions of supply chain management, and our review of thesustainability literature, we define SSCM as the strategic, transparent integration andachievement of an organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals in thesystemic coordination of key interorganizational business processes for improving thelong-term economic performance of the individual company and its supply chains.This definition of SSCM, which is based on the triple bottom line and the four

IJPDLM38,5

368

supporting facets of sustainability reviewed above – risk management, transparency,strategy, and culture – is conceptualized and shown in Figure 2.

Of course, the social and environmental dimensions of SSCM shown in Figure 2must be undertaken with a clear and explicit recognition of the economic goals of thefirm. Thus, like Carter and Jennings (2002), we are not suggesting that organizationsblithely undertake social and environmental goals relating to the supply chain. In fact,in the same vein as Porter and Kramer (2002), the SSCM perspective advocates thatsuch undertakings would be socially irresponsible unless considered within thebroader context of a firm’s overall strategic and financial objectives. Thus, we placequestion marks around the term “good” which labels the intersection of social andenvironmental components but omits the economic component of the triple bottom linein Figure 2.

These question marks actually complement the perspective undertaken by somescholars that environmental and social initiatives are costly undertakings. Forexample, Walley and Whitehead (1994, p. 46) state that, “Responding to environmentalchallenges has always been a costly and complicated proposition for managers,” andgo on to suggest that, “win-win situations . . . are very rare and will likely beovershadowed by the total cost of a company’s environmental program.” Colby et al.(1995, p. 135) somewhat similarly argue that, “easy problems have mostly been fixed –the remaining obstinate challenges are becoming increasingly expensive to resolve.”Walley and Whitehead (1994), however, focus their discussion of the costs ofcompliance with reactive governmental regulation, which can indeed result inincreased costs for business (Porter and van der Linde, 1995), while Colby et al. (1995)focus on costs, while ignoring potential benefits.

Figure 2.Sustainable supply chain

management

Environmental

Performance

SocialPerformance

EconomicPerformance

Sustainability

Good?

Best

Better Better

Strategy• Sustainability as part of an integrated strategy

Risk Management

• Contingency Planning• Supply Disruptions• Outbound Supply Chains

Transparency

• Stakeholder Engagement• Supplier Operations

OrganizationalCulture

• Deeply Ingrained

• Organizational Citizenship

• Values and Ethics

A frameworkof SSCM

369

In response to Walley and Whitehead, Clarke (1994, p. 37) notes, “a broader approach isnecessary, one that focuses on basic changes in products, services, and businessstrategies that offer opportunity financially as well as ecologically.” In addition,win-win situations will increasingly arise as energy prices inevitably increase and asgreater transparency allows stakeholders to see further along an organization’s supplychain. Additionally, companies such as 3M would argue against Walley andWhitehead’s assertion that there is very little low-hanging fruit. For example, Smart(1994, p. 42) notes, “3M is still finding projects for its 3P (pollution prevention pays)program, now over 15 years old. Many other companies have barely begun to look.”Finally, authors such as Walley and Whitehead largely overlook theproduct-differentiation contribution to the revenue side of shareholder value.

There are of course, challenges to implementing sustainability. First, it is true thatsome companies have begun to exhaust the easy, low-hanging fruit and “are now intothe harder, longer term investment commitments in which conventional andenvironmental criteria are not necessarily in harmony” (Gray, 1994, p. 47). However,projects will likely become increasingly viable as energy costs continue to rise,pressures from consumer groups increase due to greater transparency along supplychains, and firms begin to take a more holistic view of the costs and benefits associatedwith social and environmental projects. For example, in examining the economic costsand benefits of alternative energy sources for its warehouses, Staples places aneconomic value on the price certainty and availability of solar energy versus the riskassociated with price volatility and rolling blackouts of traditional energy sources(Buckley, 2007). Second, the above debate has to some degree solidified into entrenchedpositions on opposite sides of a continuum, in which the argument is viewed as a fixedpie (Bazerman, 1983) which cannot be enlarged (Hoffman and Bazerman, 2005). Weinstead offer an alternative to this fixed pie perspective, in which there are a variety ofenvironmental and social issues that a firm can undertake which can both improve aswell as harm the economic bottom line. Environmental and social activities which canharm or at least not help the economic bottom line are represented by the areas inFigure 2 which do not overlap with economic performance. Third, it is important tonote that some individual environmental and social initiatives of course, fail, as domarketing, research and development, new product development, and numerous otherconventional business initiatives. The key is to learn from these failures and to developworkarounds for the most common failures. For example, misunderstanding themarketplace and incorrectly expecting a price premium can be partially mitigated byplacing real numbers on intangibles such as customer loyalty and selling green andsocial attributes as tertiary to quality and cost (Etsy and Winston, 2006).

Conversely, there are social and environmental supply chain activities that lie at theintersection with the economic bottom line – these are the activities that are defined assustainable. Potential economic advantages (intersections of economic with socialand/or environmental performance in Figure 2) include the following:

. Cost savings due to reduced packaging waste (Mollenkopf et al., 2005; Rosenauet al., 1996), and the ability to design for reuse and disassembly (Christmann,2000; Hart, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995c).

. Reduced health and safety costs, and lower recruitment and labor turnover costsresulting from safer warehousing and transportation and better workingconditions (Brown, 1996; Carter et al., 2007).

IJPDLM38,5

370

. Lower labor costs – Better working conditions can increase motivation andproductivity, and reduce the absenteeism of supply chain personnel (Holmeset al., 1996; McElroy et al., 1993).

. Proactively shaping future regulation – companies that proactively addressenvironmental and social concerns can influence government regulation whenthis regulation is modeled after a company’s existing production and supplychain processes, leading to a difficult-to-replicate competitive advantage forcompanies and their suppliers (Carter and Dresner, 2001).

. Reduced costs, shorter lead times, and better product quality associated with theimplementation of ISO 14000 standards, which provide a framework forenvironmental management systems (Hanson et al., 2004; Montabon et al., 2000;Tibor and Feldman, 1996).

. Enhanced reputation – engaging in sustainable behavior can make anorganization more attractive to suppliers and customers (Ellen et al., 2006), topotential employees (Capaldi, 2005), and to shareholders (Klassen andMcLaughlin, 1996).

Our contention is that the proportion of environmental and social initiatives whichresult in enhanced economic performance is relatively large, as illustrated by the extentof overlap between environmental, social, and economic performance shown inFigure 2.

While most of the above outcomes are “good” examples of ways in which a firm canimprove its sustainability, true sustainability occurs at the intersection of all threeareas – environmental, social, and economic – and includes multiple activities(e.g. activities in the aggregate) where an organization explicitly and comprehensivelyincorporates social, environmental, and economic goals in developing strategic visionand long-term strategic objectives. Further, as indicated in our review of the supplychain management literature, the environmental and social aspects of sustainabilitycan extend beyond an organization’s boundary to include supply chain activities.When coupled with economic objectives to develop a clear, long-term strategy, theinclusion of supply chain management activities in a firm’s sustainability can actuallycreate a longer-lasting, and less imitable set of processes, as will be discussed further inthe next section of the paper.

The preceding discussion of the benefits of such an explicit and long-term viewpointand integration of all three of the dimensions which make up SSCM leads to thefollowing proposition:

P1. Firms that strategically undertake SSCM will achieve higher economicperformance than firms that pursue only one or two of the three componentsof the triple bottom line.

Although P1 might appear tautological, it advocates that the highest level of economicperformance will occur at the intersection of environmental, social, and economicperformance as shown in Figure 2. Thus, firms which attempt to simultaneouslymaximize performance of all three dimensions of the triple bottom line will outperformorganizations that attempt to only maximize economic performance, or companies thatattempt to achieve high levels of social and environmental performance withoutexplicit consideration of economic performance.

A frameworkof SSCM

371

While our discussion thus far provides a definition and framework forunderstanding sustainability and SSCM, it is somewhat a-theoretical. More than itsuse as a conceptual tool, the framework should also offer predictive and normativevalue, based on sound theoretical underpinnings. In the next section of the paper, weintegrate the resource dependence perspective, transaction cost economics, populationecology, and the resource-based view of the firm to provide a theoretical lens by whichto view SSCM and to more broadly make the case for why the explicit incorporation ofsupply chain management activities into an organization’s sustainability practices canfurther enhance the organization’s long-term viability. This is accomplished throughthe development of theoretically based propositions which consider the antecedents toand consequences of SSCM, and which can be used to guide future empirical research.

Theory development and research propositionsIn following the calls of Flint et al. (2005) and Mentzer and Kahn (1995) forthe development and creation of theory in the supply chain management discipline, wedevelop a broader theoretical framework within which to position our aboveconceptualization of SSCM. We do so by integrating four distinct but complementarytheories – resource dependence theory, transaction cost economics, populationecology, and the resource-based view of the firm – in order to advance researchpropositions which might begin to guide future inquiry in this area. We chose thesefour perspectives to build our framework of SSCM because each theoretical base isderived from divergent disciplines: resource dependence from sociology and politicalscience, transaction cost economics from economics, population ecology from biology,and the resource-based view from strategic management and the theory of competitiveadvantage. These four theories were also selected because while each tenders uniqueperspectives, they are also complementary in offering explanations of SSCM, as we willshow next.

The population ecology perspective advocates that limited environmental resourcescan constrain populations (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). This means that somepopulations, and organizations within populations, disappear and others survive(Hannan and Freeman, 1988) and that in order to survive, firms must control limitedenvironmental resources. The resource dependence perspective also proposes thatorganizational success and ultimately survival occur by maximizing power (Pfeffer,1981), through the acquisition of scarce and valuable resources (Pfeffer and Salancik,1978), in a stable and low-cost manner. Similarly, one of the tenets of transaction costeconomics is that firms attempt to acquire resources in a low cost and stable manner(Williamson, 1975). Pfeffer and Salancik argue that as dependence on resources rises,firms should attempt to increase vertical coordination.

This leads to P2a, which posits that resource dependence is positively related tovertical coordination. As firms become increasingly dependent on scarce and valuedresources, they will increase coordination with other members of the supply chain, byfor example acquiring access to strategic supplier technologies and knowledge byforming supplier partnerships and strategic alliances (Arminas, 2004), developing jointventures (Ellram, 1992), or even purchasing sources of supply (Webster, 1992):

P2a. Firms that are dependent upon key, external resources can improve theireconomic sustainability through vertical coordination.

IJPDLM38,5

372

This relationship between resource dependence and vertical coordination becomeseven more important under conditions of uncertainty (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978)which is based on both dynamism and complexity (Duncan, 1972) in the supply chainenvironment. Similarly, the transaction cost literature suggests that firms are morelikely to vertically integrate in the event of uncertainty, by creating bureaucracies orclans (Williamson, 1979; Ouchi, 1980) or other, more vertically coordinated governancemechanisms (Williamson, 2008). Thus, P2b:

P2b. Firms that face uncertainty regarding key, external resources can improvetheir economic sustainability through vertical coordination.

Finally, there is likely to be an interaction effect between resource dependence anduncertainty. Thus, if an organization is highly dependent upon a resource, and facesuncertainty surrounding the acquisition of that resource, this suggests an evenstronger rationale for vertical integration than if either of the exogenous conditions ofuncertainty or resource dependence existed without the other. Hence, the followingproposition:

P2c. There is a positive relationship between vertical coordination and theinteraction of uncertainty and resource dependence.

That is, firms which are dependent upon key resources and which face uncertaintyconcerning those resources should increase vertical coordination to an even greaterextent than firms that only face resource dependence or only face uncertainty.

While these propositions may at the surface seem rudimentary, they begin toprovide guidance for how organizations can structure supply chains to achieveeconomic sustainability, and follow the calls in the extant literature for theorydevelopment in supply chain management (Flint et al., 2005; Mentzer and Kahn, 1995).Additionally, these propositions, while perhaps seemingly generic, apply to ourframework of SSCM (Figure 2) concerning risk management and assurance ofcontinuity of supply. In the short term, for commodity-like products, an organizationmight utilize futures markets to attempt to “coordinate” with supply sources tominimize this uncertainty. Other options include contracts, and relational forms ofgovernance such as partnerships and strategic alliances (Ellram and Cooper, 1990).Starbucks Coffees has used such partnerships to ensure the supply of high-qualitycoffee while paying stable and living wages to farmers who grow the coffee in anecologically sound manner (Argenti, 2004). This strategy cannot only benefit thefarmer in terms of stable wages, but can also result in a lower purchase price due to thedisintermediation of the inbound supply chain (McKone-Sweet, 2004). Finally, P2a-P2cdo not advocate that increasing access to scarce resources is a sole solution to ensuringsustainability. As will be highlighted at the end of this section of the paper, firms willlikely need to adopt even longer-term and more flexible supply chain solutions toensure their long-term viability. As one example here, the hybrid car has been criticizedas not being a solution to a dwindling supply of oil, but it is nonetheless a valuableintermediate technology. Somewhat similarly the creation of a vertically integrated,closed-loop supply chain by General Mills (2006) (Carter et al., 1998) to ensure aconsistent supply of recycled material has been an excellent initial step toward thereduction of packaging materials for its products, although in the long run even moresustainable materials and processes may be developed.

A frameworkof SSCM

373

Traditionally, the field of strategic management has analyzed an organization’sexternal opportunities and threats (Ansoff, 1965; Porter, 1980, 1985) with the belief thatinternal organizational resources are homogeneous and any existing resourceheterogeneity within an industry will be short lived (Porter, 1981). The resource-basedview (Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984; Wernerfelt, 1984) challenges these assumptions andposits that:

. strategic resources within an industry may be heterogeneous across firms; and

. these resources may not be mobile, and as a result this resource heterogeneitymay be long lasting (Barney, 1991).

Hence, the resource-based view suggests that a firm may achieve economicsustainability by effectively employing its resources.

Barney (1991, p. 101) defines firm resources to include:

[. . .] all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge,etc. controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies thatimprove its efficiency and effectiveness.

Some researchers have focused on knowledge as a resource, which includes the abilityof organizations to effectively learn and to implement changes based on what theyhave learned (Garvin, 1993). Such organizational learning occurs when knowledge isaccumulated over time and learned by an organization’s members (March, 1991). Thisknowledge is stored by organizations not only in their procedures and rules, but also intheir less formal norms and social and communication patterns (Barney, 1991; March,1991). These knowledge and human capital resources (Becker, 1964) consist of training,as well as experience, social relationships, and the insights of managers and workers inan organization (Barney, 1991).

Researchers have shown that a learning organization, in concert with a marketingorientation, can lead to competitive advantage (Moorman and Miner, 1997; Sinkulaet al., 1997; Slater and Narver, 1995). The resource and knowledge-based views can beexpanded to the resources of a supply chain (Gulati, 1999). In fact, while supply chainsare external to an organization they are in many ways less transparent and moredifficult to imitate. Learning that occurs between buyers and suppliers concerningenvironmental and social activities such as working with suppliers to commit to wastereduction goals and developing capable minority business enterprise suppliers takestime, but such learning can have a strong positive influence on supplier performanceand reduced operating costs in supply chain relationships (Carter, 2005). Supply chainswhich integrate social and environmental resources may also be more difficult toreplicate, particularly if suppliers devote asset-specific investments to engage in thedesign for disassembly and reuse activities of their customers (Carter and Carter, 1998)or share rich information and develop higher levels of trust associated with the“embedded ties” (Gulati, 1999, p. 400) of minority supplier development activities(Krause et al., 1999). This leads to the next proposition:

P3. Supply chains which integrate social and environmental resources andknowledge may be more difficult to imitate, thus leading to economicsustainability.

IJPDLM38,5

374

Williamson (1975, 1985, 1996) states that transaction costs include both the direct costsof managing relationships and potential opportunity costs of making poor governancedecisions. Transaction cost economics makes two assumptions about human behavior:

(1) bounded rationality exists due to limitations associated with communication,information processing, and cognitive capabilities (Simon, 1957) and this iscomplicated by external uncertainty; and

(2) there is the potential for opportunistic behavior, which is defined as,“self-interest seeking with guile” (Williamson, 1985, p. 47).

Because some organizations act unethically or even illegally, this creates transactioncosts in terms of investment monitoring for shareholders and costly governmentregulation and reporting requirements (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley) for the organizationsthemselves. Within a supply chain context, the threat of opportunistic behavior byother members of the supply chain creates the need for costly monitoring (Stump andHeide, 1996) and cumbersome contracts (Joskow, 1987). While transaction costeconomics often focuses on more relational exchanges, or what Williamson (2008)refers to as Hybrid Contracting, the theory, and issues surrounding opportunism, alsoapply to more arms-length relationships (Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997). From thestandpoint of sustainability, this leads to the following proposition:

P4. To the extent that an organization can eliminate opportunistic behavior(improve social sustainability) in its supply chain, this should lower the firm’scosts, thus improving the economic component of sustainability.

According to Hannan and Freeman (1977), changes in organizational forms, structures,and processes occur due to changes in the environment. Similarly, supply chainstructures likely transform in response to external change. From the populationecology perspective, inertia is the posited explanation for why organizations fail toadapt. Inertia can exist due to internal factors including sunk costs, communicationstructures, internal politics, and institutional norms, as well as external factors likebarriers to entry and exit, bounded rationality, and social legitimacy.

These assertions from the population ecology literature, combined with the conceptof SSCM which integrates social, environmental, and economic considerations, lead tothe final proposition:

P5. Organizations that more effectively adapt to dwindling natural resources,along with social changes such as calls for increased diversity andimprovements in human rights, will be more economically sustainable.

ImplicationsResearch implicationsThe conceptual framework and propositions developed in this paper begin to meet thecall for more theory building research in supply chain management (Melynk andHandfield, 1998; Mentzer and Kahn, 1995), which can, “lead to a better balance betweentheory-building and theory-testing,” in a scientific discipline (Meredith, 1993, p. 4). Thepaper’s theoretical framework (Meredith, 1993), also referred to as a “middle rangetheory” (Weick, 1989), attempts to meet the criteria of a good theory, defined by Weick(1989, p. 517) as, “a plausible theory (which is) judged to be more plausible and of

A frameworkof SSCM

375

higher quality if it is . . . obvious in novel ways . . . (and) high in narrative quality,”conditions which are more likely when explicit research questions, such as those foundin the paper’s introduction, are stated in advance.

While the framework meets many of the components of a theory – specificallydefinitions of key concepts and posited relationships among those concepts (Weick,1989) – frameworks derived through conceptual theory building are considered“pre-theories” (Meredith, 1993, p. 7) or “middle theories” (Weick, 1989) and thetransition from framework to formal theory occurs as “frameworks are tested againstreality until they are eventually developed into theories as research study builds uponresearch study,” (Campbell, 1974, p. 415). Our hope is that our research will stimulateadditional theory-building and conceptual development within the supply chainmanagement discipline. Given the early development of the framework, thepropositions should be considered very tentative, and should be subjected to furtherrefinement through both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

One obvious initial step would be to use a multiple case study methodology to testthe conceptual framework and propositions. Similarly, further development of theframework could be accomplished via a grounded theory approach (Glaser andStrauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). A potentially valuable research design to testthe conceptual framework via multiple case studies would be to sample companies thathave been identified as engaging in sustainable corporate and supply chainmanagement practices, such as organizations that are members of the Dow JonesSustainability Indexes, along with a comparison group of companies that have beenidentified as having good, but not best practice sustainability initiatives. Such a design,which was employed by Collins and Porras (1994) in their study of visionarycompanies, can result in ground-breaking findings which might not be uncovered byonly including best-in-class firms within a sample.

Researchers might gain an even deeper understanding of the beliefs andmotivations of companies’ engagement in SSCM through ethnographic inquiry via fulltime, on-site participation and observation of an organization and its supply chain(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995). Such an approach can allow researchers to take anexperiential “deep dive” into organizational (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997) andpotentially interorganizational phenomena, and can allow for movement from rapidcollection of “specimens” to instead “coax(ing) out of the native by patient sympathy”the deeper relationships and implications of the collected data (Stocking, 1983,pp. 80-81). Supply chain researchers might employ such an ethnographic methodologyto examine the supporting role of organizational culture in SSCM, as well as theinterrelationships among culture, strategy, risk management, and transparency.

To assess long-term economic performance (P1), a longitudinal analysis will benecessary. Such an analysis might use a survey-based methodology to measure thelevel of an organization’s environmental and social supply chain performance overtime (Johnson et al., 2006), combined with multi-year financial measures (Wiggins andRuefli, 2005). This sort of analysis would need to measure actual performance(e.g. reduction in carbon emissions or effect on literacy rates) as opposed to activities(e.g. the use of alternative fuel vehicles or volunteer hours spent at local schools).A longitudinal analysis might also provide a basis for the identification of commonstages of SSCM evolution and implementation, perhaps via an in-depth case studydesign. Obviously, this sort of in-depth analysis would require significant effort, and

IJPDLM38,5

376

the recommendation for employing such longitudinal designs is not being casually putforth. One has only to consider Chandler’s (1966) study of organizational strategy andstructure, or the attrition of companies participating in studies over multi-year periods(Johnson et al., 2006), to appreciate the effort and potential methodological difficultiesthat researchers can encounter in using longitudinal methodologies. However, giventhe call for more longitudinal research in supply chain management, and thelong-term perspective of SSCM, such studies would likely yield rich and very valuableinsights.

After further developing and refining the SSCM framework, a logical next stepwould be to develop scales to measure the triple bottom line, the supporting facets ofSSCM, and the relationships among resource dependence, external uncertainty, verticalcoordination, imitability, and supply chain resiliency (P2a-P5). Potential startingpoints to measure the triple bottom line would be the exploratory work of Murphy andPoist (2002) and Carter and Jennings (2002), and the developed scales which Carter andJennings (2004) used to measure PSR. For the complementary facets of SSCM,researchers might look to Carter and Jennings (2004) and Chatman and Jehn (1994) toassess organizational culture, and Christopher and Peck (2004), Giunipero andEltantawy (2004), Svensson (2004) and Zsidisin and Ellram (2003) to gauge riskmanagement. Social and environmental supply chain resources and knowledge (P3)might be measured using scales adapted from Hult et al. (2006) and others whohave measured knowledge as a resource in the supply chain, while opportunisticbehavior in the supply chain could be assessed using the established scales found inthe marketing channels (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and supply chain (Carter andStevens, 2007) literature. Supply chain imitability could be assessed through amodification of Steensma and Corley’s (2000) scale of imitability intechnology-sourcing partnerships. Findings from interviews with managers and areview of the trade press might be incorporated into the development of scales toassess the remaining facets of SSCM (Churchill, 1979; Flynn et al., 1990).

Implications for supply chain managersOur framework provides a starting point for a common understanding of SSCM amongsupply chain managers. While many managers have heard of the term sustainability,our personal conversations with supply chain managers suggest that most supplychain personnel have very different viewpoints of what sustainability really is. Muchlike the blind men who touch an elephant only to describe it as a thick rope (the trunk),a large leaf (the ear), a tree (the leg), etc. so too do supply chain managers appear toview sustainability primarily as environmental management, as a synonym for socialresponsibility, as long-term economic viability, or in some cases as the triple bottomline. The SSCM framework thus provides an initial integration and extension of all ofthese perspectives into a managerially relevant and theoretically derivedconceptualization.

The SSCM framework also suggests a business case for the managerial adoptionand integration of SSCM. While prior research has alluded to the economic benefits ofLSR and PSR, the SSCM framework explicitly accounts for long-term economicperformance. Our hope is that the business case that has been developed for SSCMthrough the introduction of the paper’s propositions will lead to greater acceptance andadoption of SSCM in practice.

A frameworkof SSCM

377

Of course, it is important to recognize that the social and environmental efforts ofmany companies have not been as productive as they could be (e.g. these efforts falloutside of the triple bottom line) because, “companies tend to think of corporatesocial responsibility in generic ways,” with existing approaches to social andenvironmental initiatives “fragmented” and “disconnected” from “strategy” (Porterand Kramer, 2006, pp. 78-80) which can lead to conflicting social, environmental, andeconomic objectives. Instead organizations must explicitly link environmental, social,and economic goals within a broader strategic perspective to ensure thatenvironmental and social initiatives occur at the intersection of the triple bottom line.

Finally, our framework also offers supply chain managers a starting point for what isneeded to develop SSCM practices in their organizations. The numerous examples thatwe have presented should provide managers with a tangible and salient picture of howleading-edge, real-world companies are already implementing SSCM in theirorganizations. In addition, Porter’s (1985) value chain may be a particularly usefulmeans for managers to pragmatically utilize our framework of SSCM to identify theenvironmental and social initiatives that can have the greatest economic impact, and todo so in the integrative, strategic fashion suggested by our framework. For example,across the primary activities of the value chain, managers can examine inbound andoutbound logistics activities such as packaging use and disposal, warehouse safety, andtransportation impacts such as emissions and safety; operations issues includingemissions, energy use, hazardous materials, and worker safety and human rights; andafter-sales service concerns comprising reverse logistics issues centering onenvironmentally sound disposal and disposition (Porter and Kramer, 2006).Supporting activities in the value chain such as technology development also relateto SSCM (e.g. relationships with universities to develop qualified supply chainmanagers), as does procurement in particular through activities such as askingsuppliers to engage in environmental initiatives, purchasing from and developingminority-owned suppliers, ensuring safe and humane working conditions at suppliers’plants, and participation in design for disassembly, reuse, and recycling (Carter andJennings, 2004). This use of the value chain can enable managers to identify social andenvironmental initiatives with the greatest strategic value (Porter and Kramer, 2006).

Note

1. These definitions are largely in-line with other popular definitions including the Councilof Supply Chain Management Professional’s current definition of supply chain management.

References

Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth andExpansion, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Argenti, P.A. (2004), “Collaborating with activists: how Starbucks works with NGOs”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 91-116.

Arminas, D. (2004), “Steel yourself for price increases”, Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 25, p. 14.

Atkinson, W. (2006), “Hilton’s supply chain ready for anything heading into hurricane season”,Purchasing, Vol. 135 No. 12, p. 24.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

IJPDLM38,5

378

Barry, J. (2004), “Supply chain risk in an uncertain global supply chain environment”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 9,pp. 695-7.

Bazerman, M.H. (1983), “Negotiator judgment: a critical look at the rationality assumption”,American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 211-28.

Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Brown, K.A. (1996), “Workplace safety: a call for research”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-61.

Buckley, M. (2007), “Environmental programs meet supply chain at Staples”, paper presented atthe Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals’ Achieving the Energy EfficientSupply Chain Conference, April 30.

Campbell, D.T. (1974), “Evolutionary epistemology”, in Schilpp, P.A. (Ed.), The Philosophy ofKarl Popper, Vol. 14, Open Court, Lasalle, IL, pp. 413-63.

Cantor, D.E., Corsi, T.M. and Grimm, C.M. (2006), “Safety technology adoption patterns in the USmotor carrier industry”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 20-45.

Capaldi, N. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line”, International Journal ofSocial Economics, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 408-23.

Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carter, C.R. (2005), “Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: the key mediatingroles of organizational learning and supplier performance”, International Journal ofPhysical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 177-94.

Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmentalpurchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences,Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 659-85.

Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Environmental purchasing and supply management:cross-functional development of grounded theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 12-27.

Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “Thirty-five years of the Journal of Supply ChainManagement: where have we been, where are we going?”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 27-39.

Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Logistics social responsibility: an integrativeframework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 145-80.

Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2004), “The role of purchasing in the socially responsiblemanagement of the supply chain: a structural equation analysis”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 145-86.

Carter, C.R. and Stevens, C.K. (2007), “Electronic reverse auction configuration and its impact onbuyer price and supplier perceptions of opportunism: a laboratory experiment”, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1035-57.

Carter, C.R., Auskalnis, R. and Ketchum, C. (1999), “Purchasing from minority businessenterprises: a cross-industry comparison of best practices”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 28-32.

Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. and Ready, K.J. (1998), “Environmental purchasing: benchmarking ourGerman counterparts”, International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management,Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 28-39.

A frameworkof SSCM

379

Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. and Tate, W.L. (2007), “Structure and influence: a logistics managementapplication of social network analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1,pp. 137-68.

Chandler, A.D. (1966), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise,Doublday, Garden City, NY.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), “Assessing the relationship between industry characteristicsand organizational culture: how different can you be?”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 522-53.

Christmann, P. (2000), “Effects of ‘best practices’ of environmental management on costadvantage: the role of complementary assets”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43,pp. 663-80.

Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 388-96.

Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal ofLogistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Clarke, R.A. (1994), “The challenge of going green – comment by Clarke”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 37-8.

Colby, S., Kingsley, T. and Whitehead, B.W. (1995), “The real green issue”, McKinsey Quarterly,No. 2, pp. 132-43.

Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.L. (1994), Built to Last, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.

Corbett, C.J. and Klassen, R.D. (2007), “Extending the horizons: environmental excellence as keyto improving operations”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 8No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Corsi, T.M., Tuck, J.M. and Gardner, L.L. (1982), “Minority motor carriers and the Motor CarrierAct of 1980”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 42-55.

Crum, M.R., Dooley, F.J. and Morrow, P.C. (1995), “Employee attitudes about railroad injurycompensation”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 15-29.

Daily, B.F. and Huang, S. (2001), “Achieving sustainability through attention to human resourcefactors in environmental management”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1539-52.

DiMaggio, P.J. (1995), “Comments on ‘What Theory is Not’”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 391-7.

Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (2006), available at: www.sustainability-indexes.com/(accessed December 6, 2006).

Drumwright, M. (1996), “Company advertising with a social dimension: the role of noneconomiccriteria”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 71-87.

Duncan, R.B. (1972), “Characteristics of organizational environments and perceivedenvironmental uncertainties”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 313-27.

Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century,New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek, CT.

Elkington, J. (2004), “Enter the triple bottom line”, in Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds),The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add up?, Earthscan, London, pp. 1-16.

IJPDLM38,5

380

Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006), “Building corporate associations: consumerattributions for corporate social responsibility programs”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-57.

Ellram, L.M. (1992), “Patterns in international logistics”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 13No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), “Supply chain management, partnerships, and theshipper-third-party relationship”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 1No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Elsbach, K.D., Sutton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (1999), “Perspectives on developing managementtheory, circa 1999: moving from shrill monologues to (relatively) tame dialogues”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 627-33.

Erlich, P.R. and Erlich, A.H. (1991), The Population Explosion, Touchstone, New York, NY.

Etsy, D.C. and Winston, A.S. (2006), Green to Gold, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Flint, D.J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B. and Mentzer, J.T. (2005), “Logistics innovation:a customer value-oriented social process”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 113-47.

Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. and Flynn, E.J. (1990), “Empiricalresearch methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 250-84.

Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World is Flat, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, NY.

Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 4,pp. 78-91.

General Electric (2006), GE 2006 Citizenship Report, General Electric, Fairfield, CT.

General Mills (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility Report, General Mills, Minneapolis, MN.

Giunipero, L.C. and Eltantawy, R.A. (2004), “Securing the upstream supply chain: a riskmanagement approach”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 698-713.

Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainabledevelopment: implications for management theory and research”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 874-907.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine De Gruyter,New York, NY.

Goncz, E., Skirke, U., Kleizen, H. and Barber, M. (2007), “Increasing the rate of sustainablechange: a call for a redefinition of the concept and the model for its implementation”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 525-37.

Gray, R. (1994), “The challenge of going green – comment by Gray”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 46-7.

Gulati, R. (1999), “Network location and learning: the influence of network resources andfirm capabilities on alliance formation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5,pp. 397-420.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 3,pp. 63-76.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, Routledge, London.

Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The scientific theory-building process: a primer usingthe case of TQM”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 321-39.

A frameworkof SSCM

381

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J.H. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, AmericanJournal of Sociology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 929-64.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J.H. (1988), Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Hanson, J.D., Melnyk, S.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2004), “Core values and environmentalmanagement”, Greener Management International, No. 46, pp. 29-40.

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997), “Technology brokering and innovation in a productdevelopment firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 716-49.

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.

Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (2004), The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up?, Earthscan,London.

Hewlett Packard (2006), Global Citizenship Report, Hewlett Packard Development Company,Palo-Alto, CA.

Hill, M.R. (2001), “Sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, and international operationsmanagement”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21No. 12, pp. 1503-20.

Hoffman, A.J. and Bazerman, M.H. (2005), “Changing environmental practice: understanding andovercoming the organizational and psychological barriers”, Harvard Business SchoolWorking Paper No. 05-043.

Holliday, C.O. Jr, Schmidheiny, S. and Watts, P. (2002), Walking the Talk: The Business Case forSustainability, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA.

Holmes, S.M., Power, M.L. and Walter, C.K. (1996), “A motor carrier wellness program:development and testing”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 33-48.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Calantone, R.J. (2006), “Knowledge as a strategicresource in supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 458-75.

IBM (2005), IBM’s 2005 Innovations in Corporate Responsibility, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY.

Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995), “Ecologically sustainable organizations:an institutional approach”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1015-52.

Johnson, P.F., Leenders, M.R. and Fearon, H.E. (2006), “Supply’s growing status and influence:a sixteen-year perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 33-43.

Joskow, P.L. (1987), “Contract duration and relationship-specific investments: empirical evidencefrom coal markets”, American Economic Review, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 168-85.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk”,Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 262-91.

Kalevela, S.A. and Radwan, A.E. (1988), “International issues of transporting hazardousmaterials”, Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 125-39.

Kent, J.L. Jr and Flint, D.J. (1997), “Perspectives on the evolution of logistics thought”, Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 15-29.

Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1996), “The impact of environmental management on firmperformance”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1199-214.

KPMG (2005), KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005,University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Krause, D.R., Ragatz, G.L. and Hughley, S. (1999), “Supplier development from the minoritysupplier’s perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 33-41.

IJPDLM38,5

382

Kuhn, T.S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Lal, R., Hansen, D.O., Uphoff, N. and Slack, S.A. (2002), Food Security and Environmental Qualityin the Developing World, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lambert, D.M., Croxton, K.L., Garcıa-Dastugue, S.J., Knemeyer, M. and Rogers, D.S. (2006),Supply Chain Management Processes, Partnerships, Performance, 2nd ed., Hartley PressInc., Jacksonville, FL.

Lynagh, P.M., Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (1996), “Career-related perspectives regarding womenin logistics: a comparative analysis”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-42.

McElroy, J.C., Rodriguez, J.M., Griffin, G.C., Morrow, P.C. and Wilson, M.G. (1993), “Career stage,time spent on the road, and truckload driver attitudes”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 33No. 1, pp. 5-14.

McGrath, J.E. (1982), “Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas”, in McGrath, J.E.,Martin, J. and Kulka, R.A. (Eds), Judgement Calls in Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,pp. 69-102.

McKinnon, A.C., Stirling, I. and Kirkhope, J. (1993), “Improving the fuel efficiency of road freightoperations”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23No. 9, pp. 3-11.

McKone-Sweet, K.E. (2004), “Lessons from a coffee supply chain”, Supply Chain ManagementReview, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 52-9.

March, J.C. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.

Melynk, S.A. and Handfield, R.B. (1998), “May you live in interesting times: the emergence oftheory-driven empirical research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 321-9.

Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1995), “A framework for logistics research”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 231-50.

Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2002),“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.

Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.

Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (1997), “Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications”,International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 10-17.

Mollenkopf, D., Closs, D., Twede, D., Lee, S. and Burgess, G. (2005), “Assessing the viability ofreusable packaging: a relative cost approach”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 169-97.

Montabon, F., Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “ISO 14000: assessing itsperceived impact on corporate performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 36No. 2, pp. 4-16.

Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1997), “The impact of organizational memory on newproduct performance and creativity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 91-106.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 17-38.

Motorola (2005), 2005 Motorola Corporate Citizenship Report, Motorola, Schaumburg, IL.

A frameworkof SSCM

383

Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2002), “Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study”,Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 23-35.

Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F. and Braunschwieg, C.D. (1996), “Green logistics: comparative views ofenvironmental progressives, moderates, and conservatives”, Journal of Business Logistics,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 191-211.

Nike (2005), Nike Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2004, Nike, Beaverton, OR.

Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies, and clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 129-41.

Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York, NY.

Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pittman, Marshfield, MA.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A ResourceDependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1981), “The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 609-20.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002), “The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 56-68.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society: the link between competitiveadvantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12,pp. 78-92.

Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive: ending the statemate”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-34.

Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J.B. (1997), “Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and futureapplications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 30-54.

Rivera-Camino, J. (2007), “Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1328-58.

Rosenau, W.V., Twede, D., Mazzeo, M.A. and Singh, S.P. (1996), “Returnable/reusable logisticalpackaging: a capital budgeting investment decision framework”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 139-65.

Rumelt, R. (1984), “Towards a strategic theory of the firm”, in Lamb, R. (Ed.), CompetitiveStrategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556-70.

Sarkis, J. (2001), “Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 666-86.

Savitz, A.W. and Weber, K. (2006), The Triple Bottom Line, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Sharp, J.M., Novack, R.A. and Anderson, M.A. (1991), “Purchasing hazardous wastetransportation service: federal legal considerations”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 31No. 2, pp. 4-14.

Shrivastava (1995a), “The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability”, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 936-60.

Shrivastava (1995b), “Ecocentric management for a risk society”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 118-37.

Shrivastava (1995c), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 183-200.

IJPDLM38,5

384

Sikdar, S.K. (2003), “Sustainable development and sustainability metrics”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 49No. 8, pp. 1928-32.

Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of Man, Wiley, New York, NY.

Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), “A framework for market-basedorganizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior”, Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-18.

Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.

Smart, B. (1994), “The challenge of going green – comment by smart”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 42-3.

Spekman, R.E. and Davis, E.W. (2004), “Risky business: expanding the discussion of risk and theextended enterprise”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 414-33.

Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), “Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystemperspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 908-35.

Stead, E. and Stead, J.G. (1996), Management for a Small Planet: Strategic Decision Making andthe Environment, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Steensma, H.K. and Corley, K.G. (2000), “On the performance of technology-sourcingpartnerships: the interaction between partner interdependence and technologyattributes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1045-67.

Stock, J.R. (1978), “The energy/ecology impacts on distribution”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Materials Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 249-83.

Stocking, G.W. Jr (1983), “The ethnographer’s magic: fieldwork in British anthropology fromTaylor to Malinowski”, in Stocking, G.W. Jr (Ed.), Observers Observed: Essays onEthnographic Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, pp. 70-120.

Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Stultz, R. (1996), “Rethinking risk management”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 8-24.

Stump, R.L. and Heide, J.B. (1996), “Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 431-41.

Svensson, G. (2000), “A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,pp. 731-50.

Svensson, G. (2004), “Key areas, causes and contingency planning of corporate vulnerability insupply chains: a qualitative approach”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 728-48.

Tibor, T. and Feldman, I. (1996), ISO 14000: A Guide to the New Environmental ManagementStandards, Irwin Professional Publishing, Burr Ridge, IL.

Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-buildingresearch methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 361-85.

Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. (1994), “It’s not easy being green”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 46-52.

A frameworkof SSCM

385

Webster, F.E. Jr (1992), “The changing role of marketing in the corporation”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 1-17.

Weener, E.F. and Wheeler, P.B. (1992), “Key elements of accident avoidance”, Logistics andTransportation Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-60.

Weick, K.E. (1989), “Theory construction as disciplined imagination”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 516-31.

Weick, K.E. (1999), “Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: tradeoffs in the 90’s”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 797-806.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5No. 2, pp. 171-80.

Whiteman, G. and Cooper, W.H. (2000), “Ecological embeddedness”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1265-82.

Wiggins, R.R. and Ruefli, T.W. (2005), “Schumpter’s ghost: is hypercompetition making the bestof times shorter?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 887-911.

Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, The FreePress, New York, NY.

Williamson, O.E. (1979), “Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractualrelationships”, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 233-61.

Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, RelationalContracting, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Williamson, O.E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Williamson, O.E. (2008), “Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chainmanagement”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 5-16.

Wiseman, R.M. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1998), “A behavioral agency model of managerial risktaking”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 133-53.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zsidisin, G.A. (2003), “Managerial perceptions of supply risk”, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 14-25.

Zsidisin, G.A. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “An agency theory investigation of supply riskmanagement”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 15-27.

Zsidisin, G.A., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000), “Purchasing organization involvement in riskassessments, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study”, SupplyChain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 187-98.

About the authorsCraig R. Carter (PhD, Arizona State University) is an Associate Professor of Supply ChainManagement at the University of Nevada. His primary research stream focuses on the sociallyresponsible management of the supply chain. This research stream encompasses ethical issues inbuyer-supplier relationships, environmental supply management, diversity sourcing,perceptions of opportunism surrounding electronic reverse auctions, and the broader,integrative concepts of social responsibility and sustainability. A secondary and oftenintersecting area of research examines international and cross-cultural supply chainmanagement issues. He is a member of the editorial review boards of several journals, andthe Co-Editor of the Journal of Supply Chain Management. His research has appeared in

IJPDLM38,5

386

numerous supply chain management journals including Decision Sciences, International Journalof Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal ofOperations Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Transportation Journal, andTransportation Research E. Craig R. Carter is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:crcarter@unr.edu

Dale S. Rogers (PhD, Michigan State University) is the Director of the Center for LogisticsManagement and a Professor of Supply Chain Management at the University of Nevada. Hereceived his PhD, MBA, and undergraduate degree at Michigan State University. He haspublished in several logistics journals and is a co-author of three books on logistics, includingGoing Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices.

A frameworkof SSCM

387

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints