114 Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.

2, 2010

The constructs of sustainable supply chain

management – a content analysis based on
published case studies

Stefan Gold*, Stefan Seuring and Philip Beske

Department of International Management,
University of Kassel,
Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
Fax: +49-5542-981207
E-mail: gold@uni-kassel.de
E-mail: seuring@uni-kassel.de
E-mail: beske@uni-kassel.de
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The intersection of supply chain management and sustainability is

still a rather young research field emerging as growing topic only recently. This
paper outlines findings of a content analysis assessing systematically all case
studies in the field of sustainable supply chain management, published from
1994 to 2007 in English-speaking peer-reviewed journals, and thus, mapping
and evaluating the scope of current SCM topics reflected in these case
papers. The analysis confirms previous research that highlights pressures from
governments, customers and stakeholders as triggers of sustainable supply
chain management and the neglect of the social dimension of sustainability
within supply chain management. Improving supplier performance or, at least,
assuring minimum performance standards can be generally regarded important
objectives of supply chain strategies. Communication is an outstanding
characteristic both for traditional and sustainable supply chain management;
though far-reaching supply chain integration is still rather limited.

Keywords: supply chain management; SCM; sustainability; case studies;

content analysis.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Gold, S., Seuring, S. and
Beske, P. (2010) ‘The constructs of sustainable supply chain management –
a content analysis based on published case studies’, Progress in Industrial
Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.114–137.

Biographical notes: Stefan Gold graduated in International Cultural and

Business Studies at the University of Passau, Germany. He is a Research
Assistant and Lecturer at the Department of International Management at the
University of Kassel, Germany. His research interests include issues related to
the interlinkage of business and sustainable development, sustainable/green
supply chain management, strategic management, sustainable consumption and
production, and bioenergy. He has conducted research work for several
principals as, for instance, the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE), the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research
(BMF) or the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 115

Stefan Seuring holds the Chair for International Management at the University
of Kassel, Germany, being associated with both the Faculty of Organic
Agricultural Sciences as well as the Faculty of Business Administration and
Economics. After studying business administration and chemistry, he obtained
his PhD and habilitation at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg,
Germany. In 2006–2007, he was an Associate Professor in Supply
Chain Management at the University of Waikato. In 2004, he was an Otto
Mønsted Visiting Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. His
research focuses on supply chain management, sustainability, sustainable
supply chains and management accounting.

Philip Beske studied Economic Science at the Universities of Oldenburg,

Germany, and Salamanca, Spain. Currently, he is a Research Assistant and
Lecturer at the Department of International Management at the University
of Kassel, Germany. His major research interests are the management of
sustainable supply chains and risk management in supply chains. Prior to his
work at the University of Kassel, he worked in an environmental research and
consultancy company and for the European Space Agency (ESA) in The
Netherlands.

1 Introduction

In 2001, Mentzer et al. (2001) noticed that supply chain management (SCM) “has
become such a ‘hot topic’ that it is difficult to pick up a periodical on manufacturing,
distribution, marketing, customer management or transportation without seeing an article
about SCM or SCM-related topics” [Mentzer et al., (2001), p.2]. Yet, the intersection
of SCM and sustainability was a rather young field only a few years ago. This has
developed rapidly since then as can be seen by a series of special issues recently
published or under development. Much of the academic development has first taken place
on reverse logistics and closed loop SCM (Fleischmann et al., 1997; Srivastava, 2007),
but the forward part of the supply chain has recently caught up.
According to Seuring and Müller (2008b), 191 papers on green and sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) have been published in English-speaking peer-
reviewed journals from 1994 to 2007. A preliminary literature search for 2008 already
yielded another more than 40 papers newly published or accepted for publication, of
which some might of course only appear in 2009.
Seuring and Müller (2008b) found that the field of SSCM is dominated by case study
research, as 70 of the 191 papers applied this research method, i.e., 37% of all papers; in
contrast to traditional SCM and logistics publications, which are dominated by surveys
and mathematical models (Mentzer and Kahn, 1995; Kotzab, 2005). Another evaluation
(Seuring, 2008) has revealed that except for very few instances only case study-based
research projects have taken the effort to collect data from more than one company and
stage of the supply chain respectively, i.e., supplier, manufacturer and distributor. Almost
half of the case studies under examination accessed two or more stages of the supply
chain. Seuring and Müller (2008b) explicitly call for follow-up research analysing more
deeply particular sub-bodies of publications. This is where the extant paper ties in by
taking a closer look at what has been achieved so far regarding case study research on
SSCM.
116 S. Gold et al.

The aim of this paper is to systematically assess all case study publications in the
field of SSCM, published in English-speaking peer-reviewed journals from 1994 to 2007,
and thus, to map and evaluate the scope of current SCM topics reflected in these case
papers. One framework of traditional SCM (Chen and Paulraj, 2004) and one of SSCM
(Seuring and Müller, 2008a, 2008b) are used for deriving categories, which are applied in
a content analysis to the chosen set of case studies.
The structure of the paper is as follows: after first defining the basic terminology, a
brief overview about literature reviews addressing the field of SSCM is given. Categories
for our content analysis are deductively derived from one framework of traditional SCM
and one framework of SSCM. The methodology of a literature review conducted as
content analysis is outlined. Subsequently, main formal aspects of the case study sample
are assessed and the findings of the frequency and contingency analyses of our data are
presented. The paper concludes by integrating the outcomes into the broader context of
the current SCM debate.

2 Basic terminology

For delineating SSCM as the major theme of this paper, core terms concerning this matter
are defined below.
The most well-known definition of sustainability is that of the Brundtland
Commission. It defines sustainable development as “a development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” [WCED, (1987), p.8]. Elkington (1997) suggests the integration
of the economic, ecological and social aspect of sustainability in a ‘triple-bottom
line’ concept, emphasising their intense interrelatedness. Dyllick and Hockerts (2002)
conceive corporate sustainability as the business case (economic), the natural case
(environmental) and the societal case (social). Thus, six criteria for achieving corporate
sustainability are derived: eco-efficiency, socio-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, socio-
effectiveness, sufficiency and ecological equity.
Commonly used and well-adopted definitions of supply chains and SCM are shaped
by Mentzer et al. (2001). They define the supply chain as “a set of three or more entities
(organisations or individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of
products, services, finances and/or information from a source to a customer” [Mentzer
et al., (2001), p.4f]. SCM means “the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional
business functions and the tactics across these business functions within a particular
company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the purposes of improving
the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole”
[Mentzer et al., (2001), p.18].
Combining definitions of SCM and sustainability, Seuring and Müller (2008b)
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 customer and stakeholder requirements” [Seuring and
Müller, (2008b), p.2]. As such, members in a sustainable supply chain have to fulfil
environmental and social criteria, but equally have to remain competitive by meeting
customer demands and related economic criteria.
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 117

3 Literature review

The literature on SSCM is still rather limited and literature reviews are scant. In
addition to one paper in conference proceedings focusing on remanufacturing and reverse
logistics (Alfaro et al., 2003), there are only nine papers that attempt to review parts of
the literature.
The study of de Burgos Jiménez and Céspedes Lorente (2001) covers environmental
performance as an operation’s objective; supply chain issues are only second-rank.
Baumann et al. (2002) focus their review on green product development and hence take a
similarly narrow perspective. Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) present a limited review on
environmental purchasing based on only 38 publications. Abukhader and Jönson (2004)
examine the intersection of environmental issues with logistics, only considering
logistics management journals and regarding supply chain issues not self-contained but as
a subset of logistics management. Kleindorfer et al. (2005) review papers integrating
sustainability into operations management, while supply chain-related issues are also
covered. Seuring and Müller (2007) specialise their focus to the emergence and evolution
of integrated chain management in Germany. Srivastava (2007) provides indeed a broad
review, taking, however, primarily a reverse logistics angle. Seuring and Müller (2008b)
provide a rather comprehensive overview of literature on SSCM, containing 191 papers
published from 1994 to 2007. The case studies as one subset of this literature compilation
are the empirical basis for the content analysis presented in the extant paper. Most
recently, Carter and Rogers (2008) review sustainability and logistics literature aiming
for conceptual theory building through incorporating the concept of sustainability into
SCM.

4 Category building from SCM theory

In this section, a close selection of current prominent conceptual frameworks of SCM –

both traditional and sustainable – is presented. The framework of traditional SCM by
Chen and Paulraj (2004) and the framework of SSCM proposed by Seuring and Müller
(2008b) as well as Seuring and Müller (2008a) are used for deriving categories to be
applied in the subsequent content analysis. Frameworks are distinguished from theory
essentially in that effect that they represent pretheories, not yet fulfilling all theory
requirements, but substituting for theories in many respects. Hence, frameworks allow,
for example, “a mapping of items (such as the existing literature or research studies)
on to the framework” [Meredith, (1993), p.7f]. Chen and Paulraj (2004) consolidate a
large body of literature dispersed across several academic disciplines and undertake an
unprecedented comprehensive approach of developing constructs and measurements for
framing SCM. As well, the research designs of Seuring and Müller (2008a, 2008b) aim
explicitly at finding a full range of relevant issues constituting SSCM and incorporate
them into a SSCM framework.
Chen and Paulraj (2004) developed their research framework of SCM as a response
to various calls for theory building in operations management, e.g., by Melnyk and
Handfield (1998) or Meredith (1998). They consolidate and integrate relevant findings of
various previous works into a research framework (see Figure 1), emphasising the
interdependence of relationships within a supply chain and hence the need of aiming for
‘collaborative advantage’ [Kanter, (1994), p.96].
118 S. Gold et al.

Figure 1 A research framework of SCM

Environmental
uncertainty Supply Network
Structure Supplier
Customer Performance
focus
Buyer-Supplier-Relationship
¾ Supplier Base Reduction
Top Manage- Strategic ¾ Long-term Relationships
ment Support Purchasing ¾ Communication
¾ Cross-functional Teams
¾ Supplier Involvement
Competitive
Priorities Buyer
Logistics Performance
Information Integration
Technology

Source: Chen and Paulraj (2004, p.121)

Table 1 Categories and their description for F-CP

Category Acronym Description

1 Strategic purchasing Strategic purchasing as main category is a
strategy to enhance competitive advantage
through cooperation within the supply chain
1.1 Environmental uncertainty UNC Uncertainty in terms of supply (e.g., quality,
timeliness), demand (e.g., fluctuations,
variations) and technology (technological
change)
1.2 Customer focus CUS Importance given to customers in the
execution of strategic planning, quality
initiatives, product customisation and
responsiveness
1.3 Top management support TMS Time and resources contributed by the top
management to strategic purchasing, supplier
relationship development and adoption of
advanced information technology
1.4 Supply strategy SST Supply strategy is inherently broader than
manufacturing strategy because it incorporates
interactions among various supply chain
members.
1.4.1 Competitive COMP Supply chain strategy not based on cost alone,
priorities but rather on the issues of quality, flexibility,
innovation, speed, time and dependability
1.4.2 Strategic STP Conceptualised by its proactive as well as
purchasing long-term focus, its contributions to the firm’s
success and strategically managed supplier
relationships
Source: Chen and Paulraj (2004)
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 119

Table 1 Categories and their description for F-CP (continued)

Category Acronym Description

1.5 Information technology IT Presence of electronic transactions and
communication in various forms between
the supply chain partners
2 Network structure Network structure comprises the buyer-
supplier dyadic relationship and the links as
well as information and material flows within
the supply chain.
2.1 Supply network structure SNS Emphasises non-power-based relationships
and inter-firm coordination as well as the
informal social systems that are linked
through a network of relations
2.2 Managing buyer-supplier MBS Incorporates five key aspects of the buyer-
relationships supplier relationship
2.2.1 Supplier base SBR Reduced numbers of suppliers, contractual
reduction agreements and supplier retention policies
utilised by the buying firm
2.2.2 Long-term LTR Initiatives taken by the buying firm to
relationships encourage long-term relationships with their
suppliers
2.2.3 Communication COM Involves two-way communication and
interaction between buyers and suppliers
2.2.4 Cross-functional CFT Efforts taken to encouragement as well as use
teams of supplier-involved cross-functional teams
2.2.5 Supplier NPD Involvement of the suppliers in crucial project
involvement and planning processes
2.3 Logistics integration LOG Includes the seamless integration of the
logistics function of the various supply chain
partners
3 Supply chain performance Refers to the performance of all supply chain
members, i.e., suppliers and buyers, since
each member’s performance impacts
significantly the overall supply chain
performance
3.1 Supplier performance SPF Comprises indicators like quality, cost,
flexibility, delivery and prompt response
3.2 Customer performance CPF Comprises indicators of operational
performance in addition to financial indicators
such as return on investment, profit, present
value and net income
Source: Chen and Paulraj (2004)
Table 1 outlines the categories assessed in our content analysis, derived from the
framework of Chen and Paulraj (2004), mainly based on their description in the original
paper. We refer to this framework and the respective categories as ‘F-CP’ in the
following.
120 S. Gold et al.

SSCM is still a rather young research field emerging as growing topic only recently
(Seuring and Müller, 2008a). Recent attempts to structure the field of SSCM are a
literature review and a Delphi-study by Seuring and Müller (2008b, 2008a).
According to Seuring and Müller (2008b), external pressure and incentives from
governing agencies, customers and stakeholders as well as supply chain intern barriers
and supporting factors determine crucially if and how SSCM is implemented by the
members of a supply chain.
On this basis, two main strategies are identified:
1 supplier management for risks and performance
2 SCM for sustainable products.
Some additional insights are offered by a related Delphi-study, also conducted by Seuring
and Müller (2008a), which found four major issues of SSCM:
1 pressures and incentives for SSCM
2 identifying and measuring how the three dimensions of sustainability impact SCM
3 supplier management focusing on issues at the dyadic supplier-buyer interface
4 SCM addressing more comprehensively the overall supply chain.
These two studies are taken as the basis for deriving categories for our content analysis,
which are presented in Table 2. We refer to this framework and the respective categories
as ‘F-SM’ in the following.
Table 2 Categories and their description for F-SM
Category Acronym Description
1 Pressure from Summarises pressures and incentives leading to
the implementation of SSCM
1.1 Government GOV Regulatory activities from governing agencies
1.2 Customer CUS Comprises customer demands for sustainable
products or processes and threats like boycotts
1.3 Stakeholder STA Demands and threats of NGOs and other interest
groups
2 Risk avoidance/management RIS Points to the management of risks regarding all
three dimensions of sustainability
2.1 Environmental risk ENVR Risks concerning the environment
2.2 Social risk SOCR Risks concerning human and societal issues
2.3 Economic risk ECNR Risks concerning the profitability
3 Performance Addresses the performance in the three
dimensions of sustainability
3.1 Win-win WIN Positive correlation between the performance in
two or more dimensions
3.2 Trade-off TRA Negative correlation between the performance in
two or more dimensions
3.3 Minimum criteria MIN Minimum criteria for each sustainability
dimension
Source: Seuring and Müller (2008a, 2008b)
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 121

Table 2 Categories and their description for F-SM (continued)

Category Acronym Description
4 Supplier evaluation Describes the management of suppliers focusing
on issues at the dyadic supplier-buyer interface
4.1 Importance of supplier SEL Supplier selection according to their
selection sustainability (economic, environmental,
social) performance
4.2 Supplier EVA Supplier self-evaluation of their sustainability
self-evaluation performance
4.3 Auditing and MON Practices aiming at auditing and monitoring
monitoring suppliers suppliers concerning their sustainability
performance
4.4 Implementation of ENVS Implementation of environmental standards
environmental (either common or firm-specific)
standards
4.5 Implementation of SOCS Implementation of social standards
social standards (either common or firm-specific)
4.6 Supplier integration INT Supplier integration into the buyer’s
organisational, operational and cultural structure
5 Supply chain management Comprises issues related to the management of
the overall supply chain
5.1 Communication and COM Means and intensity of communication and
coordination coordination between supply chain members
5.2 Total life cycle LCA Concepts and thinking comprehending a
approach product’s total life cycle
5.3 Cost and profit sharing SHA Sharing of costs and/or profits, thus, building a
supply chain identity
5.4 Joint innovation INN Cooperation between different supply chain
members aiming at innovative products and
processes
6 Third party involvement TPI Summarises all third party involvement in
auditing, certification and/or consulting
6.1 TPI for auditing and AUD Involvement of third parties to implement
certification certification schemes or standards
6.2 TPI as ENA Involvement of third parties as consultants,
enabler/consultant advisors or facilitators
Source: Seuring and Müller (2008a, 2008b)

5 Research methodology: literature reviews as content analysis

“A research literature review is a systematic, explicit, and reproducible design for

identifying, evaluating and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded
work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners” [Fink, (2005), p.3]. The
purpose of a literature review is to provide an in-depth account of research conducted in
a certain field. It constitutes a first step in the theory development process (Mentzer and
Kahn, 1995).
122 S. Gold et al.

Regarding research methodology, two further issues need to be addressed. First, case
study research needs to be briefly defined, as this research strategy was applied in the
analysed papers. Second, content analysis is described, as this is the method applied for
the research presented in this paper.
According to Yin (2003, p.13), “a case study is an empirical enquiry that:
1 investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when
2 the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”.
Linking this to the research stages of description, explanation and testing (Meredith,
1993), case studies might, for example, take up existing theories to gain a first insight
into the phenomenon studied (Seuring, 2008). Siggelkow (2007) underlines the necessity
within case research to develop a strong theoretical background and to consistently
select data only referring to the conceptual arguments, thus clear-cutting the abundance
of data case research usually produces.
Berelson (1952, p.55) defines content analysis as a “research technique for
the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of
communication”. Peer-reviewed journal articles represent a characteristic mode of
communication among researchers; hence, they form a relevant unit of analysis. Since it
is impractical to read everything, the researcher has to define narrowly what is included
into the analysis. Jauch et al. (1980) have argued on the suitability of a structured content
analysis of cases for organisational research. Case analysis can provide the researcher
with in-depth data from multiple sources stemming from different time periods, allowing
detailed insights beyond the single case. Content analysis of cases relies on the quality of
the analysis schedule, which defines the assessment categories. Information unrelated to
these categories is strictly eliminated from consideration.
Content analysis as a research method requires theoretical preconsiderations and
follows a clear process. This allows the researcher to draw conclusions on the analysed
material. A process model for content analysis [Mayring, (2003), p.54] involves the
following four steps:
1 Material collection: The material to be compiled is delineated and delimitated.
Moreover, the unit of analysis, for instance, the single paper, is defined.
2 Descriptive analysis: Formal aspects of the material under examination are assessed.
This forms the background for the theoretical analysis.
3 Category selection: Analytic categories are selected. Those are to be applied in the
literature review in order to structure the field.
4 Material evaluation: The material is sorted according to the analytic categories built
and further evaluated through frequency and contingency analyses. Thus, relevant
issues are identified, which can be further interpreted and discussed in the following.
This process was followed in the extant study.
(ad 1) English-speaking peer-reviewed papers have been selected according to their
topic (SSCM) and the research method applied (case study). Thereby, the time period
from 1994 to 2007 was taken into account. Our material collection drew on the literature
review conducted by Seuring and Müller (2008b), choosing from their literature
body the subset of papers applying case study design as research method. Basically,
Seuring and Müller (2008b) carried out a structured keyword search. Therefore,
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 123

major databases were used, such as Elsevier (http://www.sciencedirect.com),

Emerald (http://www.emeraldinsight.com), Springer (http://www.springerlink.com),
Wiley (http://www.wiley.com) or library services [e.g., Ebsco (http://www.ebsco.com),
Scopus (http://www.scopus.com) or Metapress (http://www.metapress.com)]. Although
the extant study aims for a complete inventory for the time period 1994 to 2007 and does
not represent a random sample, the findings of the contingency analysis are checked for
their statistical significance. The generation of the ‘real’ data of our population, i.e., the
origination of the case studies themselves, may be regarded as the implementation of
a stochastic data generating process, analogical to drawing a random sample out
of a population. Hence, the specific characteristics of the case studies from which we
generated our data can be considered results of a random process which has only created
reality in its concrete occurrence, how the researcher comes across it (Benke, 2005).
Broscheid and Gschwend (2005) encourage an even broader use of inferential statistical
methods when studying entire populations, since general theories and models are per se
indeterministic and since the section of reality which the researcher aims to explain is
stochastic itself.
(ad 2) The distribution of the case study sample across the time period and across
source journals is assessed. Furthermore, the economic sectors treated in the papers are
depicted.
(ad 3) Preliminary categories for the analysis have been deductively derived from
supply chain theory as described in the previous section. After a first round of coding, the
categories have been modified and supplemented, thus, applying as well elements of
inductive category building.
(ad 4) The body of case study literature on SSCM is structured according to these
categories. Category frequencies and selected positive associations between pairs of
categories are assessed. The results are interpreted and discussed against the backcloth of
the current SCM debate.

6 Reliability and validity considerations

For ensuring high levels of objectivity throughout the research process and validity of the
findings, we have developed theoretically-based categorisation schemes with predefined
categories and clear decision rules for coding (cf. Spens and Kovács, 2006; see
Section 4). Furthermore, Kolbe and Burnett (1991) highlight the importance of
transparency through careful methodology reporting which is regarded “critical for
discerning the quality and usefulness of content-analysis studies as well as for allowing
replication” [Kolbe and Burnett, (1991), p.250]. We responded to this challenge by
ensuring transparency through documentation of the chosen research method and the
various steps of the process model for content analysis (see Section 5).
Still, the neuralgic point of the method of content analysis is rather obvious: “content
analysis is reliant on the multiple judgments of a single analyst […] keen to find support
for a particular view of the data” [Brewerton and Millward, (2001), p.153]. Therefore,
involving two or more researchers into data search and data analysis enhances validity
and reliability of content analysis research (Duriau et al., 2007). We complied with this
demand by involving two coders into the analytic process so that every paper of the
sample was coded twice. When coding primarily latent content that gives considerable
124 S. Gold et al.

room to subjective interpretations according to the mental schemes of the coders, it is

particularly necessary to make “the judgments of coders intersubjective, that is, those
judgments, while subjectively derived, are shared across coders” [Potter and Levine-
Donnerstein, (1999), p.266]. In the extant study, we addressed this issue by individually
assessing and resolving all cases where different judgments occurred; thus, discrepancies
between the two coders regarding the interpretations of categories have been aligned
gradually (see also Seuring and Müller, 2008b for such an approach). Following this
approach of intensive exchange between the coders, we have refrained from calculating
measures of intercoder reliability, such as, e.g., Cohen’s kappa, since the use of these
measures imply decoupled coding.

7 Descriptive analysis: formal aspects of the material

Our sample of 70 case studies is derived from 32 journals, whereas 24 journals have
published just one case study. Greener Management International (16), Journal of
Cleaner Production (nine) and Business Strategy and the Environment (six) are the top
three source journals of our sample. Further journals containing multiple papers are
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Journal of Business Ethics,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Journal of Industrial Ecology and Journal of
Operations Management.
The following table depicts the distribution of our sample of case studies across the
considered time period from 1994 to 2007. Publication peaks – for example, in the years
2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007 – are in many cases induced by the publication of special
issues on SSCM in these years. Greener Management International, for example,
released in Autumn 2001 a special issue entitled Greening Supply Chain Management,
and in Autumn 2003, one entitled Transforming International Product Chains into
Channels of Sustainable Production: The Imperative of Sustainable Chain Management.
Furthermore, in November 2007, the Journal of Operations Management published the
special issue Supply Chain Management in a Sustainable Environment.
Table 3 Distribution of the sample of case studies across the time period
Year Number
1994 1
1995 0
1996 2
1997 3
1998 6
1999 1
2000 6
2001 7
2002 4
2003 11
2004 5
2005 10
2006 3
2007 11
Source: Own illustration
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 125

Table 4 Sectors treated in the sample of case studies

Sector Number
Food 28
Textile 16
Vehicle manufacturing 13
Chemicals 12
Electronic and telecom 12
Wood and paper 12
Retailing 8
Metal and plastic 4
Construction 2
Source: Own illustration
Table 4 shows the various industry sectors treated by our sample of case studies. The
food sector is cited 28 times and thus is the most popular example to illustrate SSCM
issues. Other sectors often used as case studies are: textile (16), vehicle manufacturing
(13), chemicals (12), electronic and telecommunication (12), wood and paper (12) and
retailing (eight). Less often mentioned are the metal and plastic (four) as well as the
construction industries (two).

8 Findings of the content analysis

8.1 Frequency analysis

Figure 2 displays the frequencies of category occurrence for F-CP.
Supply strategy (50) is the item mentioned most often under the main category
entitled strategic purchasing. In the analysed case studies, supply strategy is more often
driven by competitive priorities (48) than by strategic purchasing (28). Customer focus
(31), top management support (25) and information technology (21) still are addressed
at an average level, while the need and incentives for SCM coming from external
uncertainties (11) only play a minor role.
Concerning the main category network structure, almost all the analysed papers point
to the management of the dyadic buyer-supplier relationships (64). The most relevant
aspect within this relationship turns out to be communication (52). The long-term nature
of the relationships (32), cross-functional teams (32) and supplier involvement (30) are
still frequently addressed, while supplier base reduction (18) is accorded less attention.
Other categories of network structure are the supply network structure (38), rather often
discussed, and logistics integration (20), playing a minor role.
Regarding supply chain performance, which overall merely plays a modest role
within our case study sample, supplier performance (27) is far more often addressed than
buyer performance (9).
A totalling of the occurrence of F-SM categories detected by our content analysis of
70 case studies dealing with SSCM yields the results presented in Figure 3.
126 S. Gold et al.

A majority of the analysed literature discuss pressure from governing agencies (49),
customers (44) and stakeholders (42) as important triggers for establishing corporate
SSCM. Pressure by public authorities is addressed most often, while many papers treat all
three pressures conjointly.
While risk management (52) in general plays a strong role in our literature body,
predominantly environmental risks (41) are addressed; economical (28) and social (18)
risks are lower-ranking.
The interrelatedness of the corporate performance concerning all three dimensions
of sustainability is only moderately discussed in the analysed case studies. Win-win-
situations (32) are considerably more often mentioned than trade-offs (19). Twenty-one
papers refer to minimum criteria for each sustainability dimension.

Figure 2 Frequency of category occurrence for F-CP

Frequency of occurrence out of a

total of 70 64

60

52
50
50 48

40 38

33
32
31
30
30 28
27
25

21
20
20 18

11
10 9

0
UNC CUS TMS SST COMP STP IT SNS MBS SBR LTR COM CFT NPD LOG SPF CPF
Categories

Strategic purchasing IT Information technology COM Communication

UNC Environmental Network structure CFT Cross-functional teams
uncertainty
CUS Customer focus SNS Supply network NPD Supplier involvement
structure
TMS Top management MBS managing LOG Logistics integration
support buyer-supplier relationships
SST Supply strategy Relationships Supply chain performance
COMP Competitive priorities SBR Supplier base reduction SPF Supplier performance
STP Strategic purchasing LTR Long-term relationships CPF Customer performance
Source: Own illustration
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 127

Figure 3 Frequency of category occurrence for F-SM

Frequency of occurrence out of a

total of 70

60

52

50 49 49
47 47
44
42
41
40 40
40

34
32

30 29
28
25
24 24
21
20 19
18 18

14 14

10

0
GOV CUS STA RIS ENVRSOCRECNR WIN TRA MIN SEL EVA MONENVSSOCS INT COM LCA SHA INN TPI AUD ENA
Categories

Pressures from TRA Trade-off Supply chain management

GOV Government MIN Minimum criteria COM Communication and

coordination with suppliers

CUS Customers Supplier evaluation LCA Total life cycle

approach
STA Stakeholders SEL Importance of supplier SHA Cost and profit sharing
selection

RIS Risk EVA Supplier self-evaluation INN Joint innovation

avoidance/management

ENVR Environmental Risk MON Auditing and TPI Third party involvement
monitoring suppliers

SOCR Social Risk ENVS Implementation of AUD for auditing &

environmental standards certification
ECNR Economic Risk SOCS Implementation of ENA as enabler
social standards

Performance INT Supplier integration

WIN Win-win

Source: Own illustration

128 S. Gold et al.

For managing the dyadic supplier-buyer interface, it is far more common to implement
environmental standards (47) than social (18) standards, which reflects
the discrepancies concerning the occurrence of environmental and social risks. Supplier
self-evaluation (14) plays a considerably minor role in comparison to actively auditing
and monitoring suppliers (34). The importance of supplier selection (29) and supplier
integration (28) are mentioned at an average level throughout the literature body.
Regarding the management of the overall supply chain, our analysis yields an
upscale importance of communication and coordination (49), followed by a total life
cycle approach (40). Cost and profit sharing (24) and joint innovation (25) occur at an
under-average frequency level.
Third party involvement (47) is often discussed in the analysed case studies, in
particular, in the context of implementing certification schemes or standards (41). Third
parties involved as consultants, advisors or facilitators (14) are mentioned far less often.

8.2 Comparison of overall mean category occurrence between F-CP and F-SM

The mean occurrence of all 17 F-CP categories over the sample of 70 case studies is
45%, while the mean occurrence of all 23 F-SM categories accounts for 47%. However,
this slight difference does not prove to be a statistically significant one.

Table 5 Analysis of selected positive associations between categories within F-CP

Expected Observed
Exact Phi-
Category relative relative Approximate
Topic significance coefficient
pairs frequency frequency significancef
(one-sided)d (φ)e
(ERF)a b (ORF)a c

Performance SPF – 0.28 0.37 .000 .436 .000

and SCM SST

SPF – 0.26 0.36 .000 .410 .001

COMP
SPF – 0.15 0.26 .000 .431 .000
STP
SPF – 0.18 0.26 .009 .310 .010
LTR

Notes: aFigures are rounded.

b
Calculated relative probability of occurrence of category pairs (in %) by
multiplying the observed single relative occurrences of each category
c
Observed relative occurrence of category pairs (in %)
d
Statistical significance of association within category pairs, with p < = .001
(highly significant), p < = .01 (very significant) and p < = .05 (significant)
e
Measure of association within category pairs, varying from 0 (no association) to
1 (complete association) or –1 (complete inverse association)
f
Statistical significance of φ, with p < = .001 (highly significant), p < = .01
(very significant) and p < = .05 (significant)
Source: Own illustration
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 129

Table 6 Analysis of selected positive associations between categories within F-SM

Expected Observed
Exact Phi-
Category relative relative Approximate
Topic significance coefficient
pairs frequency frequency d e significancef
(one-sided) (φ)
(ERF)a b (ORF)a c
Trade-offs and TRA – 0.07 0.13 .015 .302 .011
social dimension SOCS
of sustainability
Win-wins and WIN – 0.32 0.40 .003 .350 .003
SCM COM
Minimum MIN – 0.12 0.24 .000 .525 .000
criteria and SEL
managing the
buyer-supplier
interface
MIN – 0.06 0.14 .000 .452 .000
EVA
MIN – 0.15 0.27 .000 .549 .000
MON
MIN – 0.20 0.27 .005 .325 .007
ENVS
Implementation ENVS – 0.38 0.50 .000 .500 .000
of standards and AUD
third party
involvement
SOCS – 0.15 0.24 .000 .443 .000
AUD
Notes: aFigures are rounded.
b
Calculated relative probability of occurrence of category pairs (in %) by
multiplying the observed single relative occurrences of each category
c
Observed relative occurrence of category pairs (in %)
d
Statistical significance of association within category pairs, with p < = .001
(highly significant), p < = .01 (very significant) and p < = .05 (significant)
e
Measure of association within category pairs, varying from 0 (no association) to
1 (complete association) or –1 (complete inverse association)
f
Statistical significance of φ, with p < = .001 (highly significant), p < = .01
(very significant) and p < = .05 (significant)
Source: Own illustration

8.3 Contingency analysis

A contingency analysis aiming to identify association patterns is used to detect positive
associations between categories, i.e., pairs of categories which occur relatively more
frequent together in one case study than the product of their single probabilities would
suggest. The Phi-coefficient (φ) indicates the strength of the relation of those pairs of
categories. Literature suggests that φ exceeding 0.3 denotes a non-trivial relation
(Backhaus et al., 2008; Fleiss, 1981). Accordingly, we only included category relations
with φ > 0.3. It should be noted, however, that a statistically ‘positive association’ does
not mean that a link between two categories is also a semantically positive one in a
130 S. Gold et al.

paper’s argumentation (Diekmann, 2002). This should be considered when interpreting

the findings of the contingency analysis. Table 5 and Table 6 present relevant correlations
between categories within F-CP and F-SM respectively.
While there are no significant association between customer performance and
the remaining categories of F-CP, those can be found concerning supplier performance.
This category occurs unexpectedly often in combination with the supply strategies
(φ = 0.436) competitive priorities (φ = 0.410) and strategic purchasing (φ = 0.431). This
result indicates that supply strategies are implemented with regard to impacting the
level of supplier performance within our sample of case studies. Furthermore, supplier
performance is associated with long-term partnerships (φ = 0.310), whereas it shows no
significant contingencies with the remaining categories referring to the main category
network structure. This may support the view that long-term partnerships are accorded
extraordinary importance for improving the supplier performance.
Analysing the occurrence of F-SM categories, it can be seen that trade-offs are
unexpectedly often associated with the implementation of social standards (φ = 0.302). A
statistically significant link between win-win situations and the main category SCM can
be identified regarding the category communication and coordination with suppliers
(φ = 0.350). Seuring and Müller (2008b) postulate supplier management for risks and
performance as one norm SCM strategy for ensuring minimum standards regarding each
sustainability dimension. Supporting this view, associations are found between minimum
performance criteria and four categories of the main category supplier evaluation, namely
importance of supplier selection (φ = 0.525), supplier self-evaluation (φ = 0.452),
auditing and monitoring suppliers (φ = 0.549) and implementation of environmental
standards (φ = 0.325). Moreover, the implementation of both social (φ = 0.443) and
environmental (φ = 0.500) standards is unexpectedly often associated with third party
involvement for auditing and certification.

9 Discussion

The alignment of supply chains to customers’ demands is often highlighted in SCM

literature (e.g., Korpela et al., 2001). For such an important role of customer focus, we
find also evidence in our body of case study literature. F-CP postulates customer focus as
an important driving force for companies to put effective SCM schemes into operation.
F-SM assumes pressure from customers as one of three pivotal triggers for introducing
SSCM, along with pressure from government and stakeholders. This assumption of
governing agencies, customers and stakeholders as external push factors is backed by our
analysis, which assesses frequent occurrence of all these three categories. Moreover, it is
in line with previous research. Kleindorfer et al. (2005, p.484), for example, argue that
“companies are most likely to improve their environmental performance when public
pressure results in strong regulations”. On the other hand, Roberts (2003, p.160) states
that NGOs use increasingly ‘corporate reputational vulnerability’ in order to promote
social and environmental change.
While Seuring and Müller (2008a) assume that case study research might
overemphasise companies acting as pro-active forerunners – at least partly induced by the
fact that participating companies do not like negative reporting (Seuring, 2008) – our
analysis shows that the importance of external triggers is plainly acknowledged in the
case studies. In this context, it is even more noticeable that government pressure is the
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 131

most often mentioned of these triggers. This clearly shows that the outstanding role of
regulations is not entirely left aside in case research on SSCM, even though more space
may be dedicated to proactive corporate activities. Considering the low occurrence of
the F-CP category entitled environmental uncertainty, which refers to uncertainties
concerning supply, demand and technology as driving forces of introducing SCM, one
may conclude that the reasons of companies to engage in SSCM structurally differ from
those of traditional SCM. At least, one can state that our sample of case studies on SSCM
highlights new facets of the SCM debate when addressing governments and stakeholders
as powerful non-economic triggers for establishing effective SSCM.
Preventing risks and securing performance as one of two main supply chain strategies
postulated by Seuring and Müller (2008b) finds evidence through our analysis, showing
frequent occurrence of the F-SM main category risk avoidance/management. This goes
in line with various SCM literature sources, as for example Zsidisin and Smith (2005)
highlighting the interrelation between early supplier involvement and the reduction of
supply risks as well as high levels of supplier performance. Furthermore, our analysis
yields positive associations between minimum performance criteria and the management
of the dyadic buyer-supplier relationship by selecting suppliers, demanding supplier
self-evaluation, auditing and monitoring suppliers and stimulating the implementation of
environmental standards. A firm’s ability of selecting suppliers and reducing effectively
its supply base are critically affected by issues such as a good information system, the use
of cross-functional teams or top management support (Ogden, 2006). According to
Seuring and Müller (2008b), these activities at the buyer-supplier interface represent
measures to be taken to avoid supply chain-related risks and to improve the overall
supply chain performance. Considering F-CP, supplier performance is positively linked
to long-term relationships, highlighting the outstanding importance of grown partnerships
built on trust (cf. Ireland and Webb, 2007; Sharfman et al., 2009). Moreover,
the implementation of supply chain strategies based both on the achievement of
competitive priorities such as quality, flexibility, innovation and on the realisation of
proactive strategic purchasing with long-term-focus is positively associated with supplier
performance. Hence, increasing the supplier performance and, consequently, improving
the overall performance of the supply chain represents one crucial objective for supply
chain actors engaging in SCM, which is a widely recognised argument within literature
(cf. Rungtusanatham et al., 2003).
The neglect of the social dimension both in conceptual research (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002) and in corporate practice (Beske et al., 2008) becomes evident once
more. Risk management as well as the implementation of standards clearly focuses on
environmental aspects (e.g., Courville, 2003) according to our analysis. Social standards
like SA 8000 (Social Accountability 8000) (Graafland, 2002) or codes of conduct
(Davies and Crane, 2003) still take a back seat. Our analysis shows that both social
and environmental standards are often implemented with assistance of third parties
conducting auditing and certification tasks. Also, Corbett and Kirsch (2001) state for the
case of the environmental certification scheme ISO 14001 that although self-evaluation
is principally possible, it is not very widespread in practice. Here, the procedure of
independent third party verification dominates.
Complying with Seuring and Müller (2008b), our analysis shows considerably more
win-wins than trade-offs between the three dimensions of sustainability. Once more, this
optimistic view may be partly owed to the emphasis on positive reporting within business
132 S. Gold et al.

research. When considering the aim of overall supply chain performance, the relation
between environmental and economic performance was usually focused in literature (e.g.,
Green et al., 1998; Rao and Holt, 2005; Yakoleva, 2007). Günther and Scheibe (2005)
point to a firm’s chance of gaining competitive advantage through the integration of
environmental aspects. They state that environmental value chain management “can
help companies achieve a unique position higher than their competitors” [Günther and
Scheibe, (2005), p.108]. In contrast, the social dimension has been rarely addressed
(Seuring and Müller, 2008b). Seuring and Müller (2008a) present a grading of how
the sustainability dimensions are interrelated: win-win situations are reached most
easily between social and environmental goals, less easily between environmental and
economic goals, and the least easily between social and economic goals. This grading
partly finds support through our finding that trade-offs are disproportionately often
mentioned along with the implementation of social standards. A meta-analysis conducted
by Orlitzky et al. (2003), on the other hand, point to a slight positive correlation between
corporate social and financial performance. Highlighting another aspect, Newton and
Harte (1997) criticise much of the business literature for overemphasising the ‘easy
wins’. They conclude once more that further-reaching incorporation of environmental
objectives into business needs stronger state regulation.
Our analysis shows that communication is of paramount importance for SCM
according to both frameworks. In general, SSCM postulates a need for information flows
and coordination among a wider range of companies along the supply chain than it is
the case in traditional SCM (Pesonen, 2001). This may contribute to explain that F-CP
situates communication within the dyadic buyer-supplier relationship, while F-SM
allocates communication rather within the broader context of managing the over-all
supply chain. Our analysis shows that communication and coordination with suppliers is
positively associated with win-win situations. This affirms arguments of prior SCM
research, which underlines the paramount importance of communication, information
sharing and trust for improving performance and establishing effective SCM schemes
(Terpend et al., 2008). The conception of communication being a key factor of SCM has
been incorporated into both SCM and SSCM definitions (e.g., Mentzer et al., 2001;
Seuring and Müller, 2008b).
Furthermore, we found that a great number of cases take on the total life cycle
approach. Here, environmental impacts and resource use of a specific product are
regarded throughout its whole life cycle within certain system boundaries (Korhonen,
2003). Companies often rely on this approach when implementing the second main
supply chain strategy postulated by Seuring and Müller (2008b): SCM for sustainable
products (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Michelsen, 2007; Pesonen, 2001). This strategy
requires to ensure product quality and operations performance. At the same time,
however, it calls for deeper integration and partnership building (Simatupang and
Sridharan, 2005), which allows, for example, joint product development and market
launch. Hence, the complete supply chain from cradle to grave, i.e., from raw material
extraction to the final disposal, needs to be integrated (Kogg, 2003; Preuss, 2005;
Seuring, 2004).
While communication and a life cycle approach are widespread in our literature body,
the F-SM categories cost and profit sharing as well as joint innovations are less often
addressed. Also according to F-CP, supplier involvement and logistics integration are
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 133

only mentioned at an average or below average level. This confirms previous research
that supply chain integration, in practice, is still rather limited (Fawcett and Magnan,
2002; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001), even within SSCM. Tan and Tracey (2007)
find that collaborative new product development efforts implying cross-functional and
cross-firm thinking are scarce, although they would yield long-term advantages to the
involved organisations. Seuring and Müller (2008b) have assessed an increased need
for cooperation among supply chain partners engaging in SSCM. Similarly, Spekman
et al. (1998) conclude that customer-focused integrated supply chains indispensably
require high degrees of interdependence. Many companies, however, are deterred from
deeper integration because they estimate the risks of increased dependence higher than
the possible benefits of collaboration.

10 Conclusions

This paper outlines findings of a content analysis assessing systematically all case studies
in the field of SSCM, published from 1994 to 2007 in English-speaking peer-reviewed
journals. One framework of traditional SCM and one of SSCM served as basis for
deductively deriving categories, used in the content analysis. After evaluating the case
study sample according to the years of publication, source journal and economic sectors
treated, frequency and contingency analyses have been carried out.
These analyses yield the following main insights:
1 Pressures from governing bodies, customers and stakeholders are highly-relevant
triggers of SSCM.
2 The social dimension of sustainability is neglected both in conceptual research
and in corporate practice concerning corporate risk management as well as the
implementation of standards.
3 Increasing the supplier performance can be considered an important objective
for companies running supply chain strategies. To this end, long-term trustful
partnerships are highlighted.

4 Assuring minimum performance standards concerning the social, environmental and

economic dimensions of sustainability is often pursued by selecting suppliers,
demanding supplier self-evaluation, auditing and monitoring suppliers and
stimulating the implementation of environmental standards.
5 Win-win situations between the dimensions of sustainability are more accentuated
than trade-offs. Our findings support the view that trade-offs are often linked to
social corporate and business goals, although the interrelations between the
dimensions of sustainability still need further research.
6 Communication is a paramount structure characteristic both for traditional SCM and
SSCM.

7 Far-reaching supply chain integration is still rather limited, even in SSCM.

134 S. Gold et al.

References

For obtaining the references of papers contained in the content analysis, please contact
the authors.
Abukhader, S.M. and Jönson, G. (2004) ‘Logistics and the environment: is it an established
subject?’, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp.137–149.
Alfaro, J.A., Alvarez, M.J., Montes, M.J. and Viguier, R. (2003) ‘‘Green light’ for supply chain
research: what is on regarding environmental issues?’, in Spina, G., Vinelli, A., Cagliano, R.,
Klachschmidt, M., Romano, P. and Salvador, F. (Eds.): One World? One view of OM? –
The Challenge of Integrating Research and Practice, pp.949–958, Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference EurOMA, Como, Italy, 16–18 June.
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W. and Weiber, R. (2008) Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine
anwendungsorientierte Einführung (Multivariate Methods of Data Analysis: An Use-Oriented
Introduction), Springer, Berlin.
Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A. (2002) ‘Mapping the green product development field:
engineering, policy and business perspectives’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10, No. 5,
pp.409–425.
Benke, J. (2005) ‘Lassen sich Signifikanztests auf Vollerhebungen anwenden? Einige essayistische
Anmerkungen (Does it make sense to use significance tests for analyzing entire populations?
Some essayistic remarks)’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.O1–O15.
Berelson, B. (1952) Content Analysis in Communications Research, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Beske, P., Koplin, J. and Seuring, S. (2008) ‘The use of environmental and social standards
by German first-tier suppliers of the Volkswagen AG’, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.63–75.
Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. (2001) Organisational Research Methods, Sage Publications,
London.
Broscheid, A. and Gschwend, T. (2005) ‘Zur statistischen Analyse von Vollerhebungen (On the
statistical analysis of superpopulations)’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 46, No. 1,
pp.O16–O26.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008) ‘A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving towards new theory’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.360–387.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004) ‘Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs
and measurements’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.119–150.
Corbett, C.J. and Kirsch, D.A. (2001) ‘International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification’,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.327–342.
Courville, S. (2003) ‘Use of indicators to compare supply chains in the coffee industry’, Greener
Management International, No. 43, pp.93–105.
Davies, I.A. and Crane, A. (2003) ‘Ethical decision making in fair trade companies’, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 45, Nos. 1–2, pp.79–92.
de Burgos Jiménez, J. and Céspedes Lorente, J.J. (2001) ‘Environmental performance as
an operations objective’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 21, No. 12, pp.1553–1572.
Diekmann, A. (2002) Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen
(Empirical Social Research: Basics, Methods, Applications), Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K. and Pfarrer, M.D. (2007) ‘A content analysis of the content analysis
literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological
refinements’, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.5–34.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002) ‘Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability’,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.130–141.
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 135

Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002) ‘The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32, No. 5,
pp.339–361.
Fink, A. (2005) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Dekker, R., van der Laan, E., van Nunen, J.A.E.E. and
Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1997) ‘Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp.1–17.
Fleiss, J.L. (1981) Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Wiley, New York.
Frohlich, M. and Westbrook, R. (2001) ‘Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain
strategies’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.185–200.
Graafland, J.J. (2002) ‘Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: the case of C&A’, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.282–294.
Green, K., Morten, B. and New, S. (1998) ‘Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve
companies’ environmental performance?’, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.89–95.
Günther, E. and Scheibe, L. (2005) ‘The hurdles analysis as an instrument for improving
environmental value chain management’, Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International
Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.107–131.
Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2007) ‘A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.482–497.
Jauch, L.R., Osborn, R.N. and Martin, T.N. (1980) ‘Structured content analysis of cases: a
complementary method for organizational research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp.517–525.
Kanter, R.M. (1994) ‘Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 72, No. 4, pp.96–108.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005) ‘Sustainable operations
management’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.482–492.
Kogg, B. (2003) ‘Greening a cotton-textile supply chain: a case study of the transition towards
organic production without a powerful focal company’, Greener Management International,
No. 43, pp.53–64.
Kolbe, R.H. and Burnett, M.S. (1991) ‘Content-analysis research: an examination of applications
with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.243–250.
Korhonen, J. (2003) ‘On the ethics of corporate social responsibility – considering the paradigm of
industrial metabolism’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.301–315.
Korpela, J., Lehmusvaara, A. and Tuominen, M. (2001) ‘Customer service based design of the
supply chain’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp.193–204.
Kotzab, H. (2005) ‘The role and importance of survey research in the field of supply chain
management’, in Kotzab, H., Seuring, S., Müller, M. and Reiner, G. (Eds.): Research
Methodologies in Supply Chain Management, pp.235–250, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Lamming, R.C. and Hampson, J.P. (1996) ‘The environment as a supply chain management issue’,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, Special issue, pp.45–62.
Mayring, P. (2003) Qualitative Inhaltanalyse – Grundlagen und Techniken (Qualitative Content
Analysis – Basics and Techniques), Beltz Verlag, Weinheim.
Melnyk, S.A. and Handfield, R.B. (1998) ‘May you live in interesting times: the emergence
of theory-driven empirical research’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp.311–319.
136 S. Gold et al.

Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1995) ‘A framework of logistics research’, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.231–251.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G.
(2001) ‘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 of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.3–11.
Meredith, J.R. (1998) ‘Building operations management theory through case and field research’,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.441–454.
Michelsen, O. (2007) ‘Investigation of relationships in a supply chain in order to improve
environmental performance’, Cleaner Technology and Environmental Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp.115–123.
Newton, T. and Harte, G. (1997) ‘Green business: technicist kitsch?’, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.75–98.
Ogden, J.A. (2006) ‘Supply base reduction: an empirical study of critical success factors’, Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.29–39.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003) ‘Corporate social and financial performance: a
meta-analysis’, Organisation Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.403–441.
Pesonen, H.L. (2001) ‘Environmental management of value chains’, Greener Management
International, No. 33, pp.45–58.
Potter, W.J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999) ‘Rethinking validity and reliability in content
analysis’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.258–284.
Preuss, L. (2005) ‘Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain
management function’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.123–139.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005) ‘Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25,
No. 9, pp.898–916.
Roberts, S. (2003) ‘Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing
initiatives’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.159–170.
Rungtusanatham, M., Salvador, F., Forza, C. and Choi, T.Y. (2003) ‘Supply-chain linkages
and operational performance: a resource-based-view perspective’, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp.1084–1099.
Seuring, S. (2004) ‘Integrated chain management and supply chain management – comparative
analysis and illustrative cases’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, Nos. 8–10,
pp.1059–1071.
Seuring, S. (2008) ‘Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management’, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.128–137.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2007) ‘Integrated chain management in Germany – identifying schools
of thought based on a literature review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, No. 7,
pp.699–710.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008a) ‘Core issues in sustainable supply chain management – a
Delphi study’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp.455–466.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008b) ‘From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, No. 15,
pp.1699–1710.
Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M. and Anex, R.P., Jr. (2009) ‘The road to cooperative supply chain
environmental management: trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms’, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Siggelkow, N. (2007) ‘Persuasion with case studies’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50,
No. 1, pp.20–24.
 The constructs of sustainable supply chain management 137

Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005) ‘An integrative framework of supply chain
collaboration’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp.257–274.
Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W., Jr. and Myhr, N. (1998) ‘An empirical investigation into
supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships’, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp.630–650.
Spens, K.M. and Kovács, G. (2006) ‘A content analysis of research approaches in logistics
research’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 36,
No. 5, pp.374–390.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007) ‘Green supply-chain management: a state-of the-art literature review’,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.53–80.
Tan, C.L. and Tracey, M. (2007) ‘Collaborative new product development environments:
implications for supply chain management’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43,
No. 3, pp.2–15.
Terpend, R., Tyler, B.B., Krause, D.R. and Handfield, R.B. (2008) ‘Buyer-supplier relationships:
derived value over two decades’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44, No. 2,
pp.28–55.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Yakoleva, N. (2007) ‘Measuring the sustainability of the food supply chain: a case study of the
UK’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.75–100.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001) ‘Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development’, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp.61–73.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Smith, M.E. (2005) ‘Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: a
case study and research propositions’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41, No. 4,
pp.44–57.