Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

An action research approach for measurement of sustainability in a

multi-echelon supply chain: Evidences from Indian sea food supply
chains
Kamlesh Tiwari*, Mohammad Shadab Khan
Integral University, Lucknow, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lack of sustainability may be affecting the supply chain operations of businesses. This study has tested
Received 17 July 2018 this concept in Indian seafood industry by examining an action research approach for measuring and
Received in revised form accounting variables affected by sustainability in three seafood-manufacturing companies in India.
11 June 2019
Through action research, sampled tasks in five locations were monitored and accounted for eight sus-
Accepted 17 June 2019
tainability variables taken from the triple bottom-line model. The accounting data of the tasks was
Available online 18 June 2019
converted into multi-level interval scales for all the transactions observed during the data collection
Handling Editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan period and analysed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and regression analysis. In addition, the su-
pervisors in the five locations were field-interviewed to explore the relevant barriers. It was found lack of
Keywords: safety measures, green standards, and environment hazards prevention were increasing the operations
Sustainability practices time and costs, and unfair employment practices were found to be causing loss of materials significantly
Triple bottom-line and increasing the operations time moderately. This reflects an operations overhead caused by lack of
Sustainability data collection sustainability. The descriptive statistical analysis reflected inconsistencies in sustainability activities as
Sustainability measurement and accounting
they are inadequately controlled by the supervisors and vary by actor. From the interviews, regulatory
Sustainability reporting
compliance was found as the highest organisational priority resulting in decentralised sustainability
Seafood industry
Action research monitoring with abstract observations only. It is concluded that measuring and accounting sustainability
Multi-echelon supply chains in the operations activities through action research can help in discovering hidden impacts on the
performance variables and plan for their improvements. In this way, (a) sustainability measurements and
accounting through action research can be considered as a way to improve operations performance, (b)
sustainability can be measured and improved using action research without implementing sophisticated
measurement technologies in the short-term, and (c) performance improvements can help in estab-
lishing feasibility for investing in advanced technologies in the long-run.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sustainability measurement, accounting, and reporting (SMAR)
is a structured approach to assess the costs incurred by the envi-
ronment, society, and people to accommodate the operations of the
plant and machinery of a business (GRI, 2011). Transparency about
such costs is of a vital interest to several stakeholders including
local communities, special interest groups, other businesses,
governmental and non-governmental organisations, investors,
lawmakers, and many others. SMAR is a professional way of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Tiwari.kamlesh@yahoo.com (K. Tiwari).
balancing industrial activities with the latest 21st century problems
related to environmental, poverty, global health, degrading of
natural resources, global warming, and other pressing challenges.
In this context, the global reporting initiative (GRI) had set very
detailed standards for SMAR to be adopted by global industries.
Currently, SMAR has provisions for exclusions as decided by the
management of an organisation (KPMG, 2015). Hence, the local
regulations for sustainability are very important for effective
enforcement of SMAR. A report by KPMG (2015) found inconsistent
trends in quality and content of SMAR. There were challenges found
in the data and its materiality used for measurements and report-
ing, and lack of clarity on sustainability indicators, measurement
approaches, formatting and communicating, and justification of the
value of the SMAR outcome for the society and all its stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.200
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
226 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
SMAR is already recognised as a corporate requirement in India
in order to tangibly demonstrate the national commitment to local
and global sustainability (Garg, 2017; Laskar and Maji, 2016; Tiwari
et al., 2018). However, as reported by Tiwari et al. (2018), Kumar and
Devi (2015), and Majumdar et al. (2017), currently SMAR adoption
and practice among listed industrial companies are highly skewed
(Majumdar et al., 2017). Further, the unlisted industrial companies
also need to enhance their SMAR practices to meet the 21st century
needs. India already has an old SMAR regulation, but it has not
evolved adequately in the lines of GRI recommendations (KPMG,
2014).
This research was conducted to investigate a solution to the
problem of lack of SMAR in an unlisted Indian manufacturing
company. This research investigates one of the many solutions
possible to meet the GRI SMAR framework. The solution examined
was an action research approach to collecting data from sampled
tasks in supply chain operations of three seafood manufacturing
companies in India for measuring and accounting variables affected
by sustainability. The primary research questions investigated in
this research are the following:
Q1: What are the key challenges in sustainability accounting,
measurements, and reporting following the triple bottom-line
approach?
Q2: How can action research help in identifying, measuring, and
reporting sustainability variables and its impacts on operations
in a multi-echelon supply chain for reliable accounting of its
variables?
Q3: What are the benefits of sustainability measurements, ac-
counting, and reporting to the business in the short-term and
long-term using action research?
The first question has been raised to investigate through liter-
ature review what challenges prevail in adoption of SMAR frame-
work by the organisations. At this stage of the research, one aspect
was clear that SMAR is not merely about collecting some quanti-
tative numbers and analysing them. There are a number of quali-
tative factors that need to be measured and accounted, which may
or may not be accurately represented in numbers. Further, it was
presumed that on-the-ground scenarios cannot be visualised
merely by conducting interviews, focussed discussions, or surveys.
For this reason, the action research method was chosen and
adopted as a methodology solution. Action research is conducted
by “deeply getting involved in the ongoing action” in a research
setting. The context of the second research question is about the
effectiveness of action research in identifying, measuring, and
reporting sustainability variables. The third question is about the
benefits of SMAR following action research in the short-term and
long-term. Before starting this study, it was assumed that action
research may be suitable for companies having lack of technolog-
ical innovations for SMAR. Hence, action research may be an
interim solution while the companies explore and invest in suitable
technology solutions for automation of measurements. This aspect
was investigated by analysing the outcomes of action research both
quantitatively and qualitatively.
The final target of this research was to examine an action
research approach to collecting tasks-level data related to sus-
tainability variables and estimating their statistically significant
effects on the performance of the sampled tasks. The importance of
this study is explained as the following with some background
provided by existing studies:
The manufacturing businesses in modern world are widespread
globally with the help of multi-country supply chains and
outsourcing (Christopher, 2015). The number of echelons in pro-
duction systems, transportation systems, warehousing systems,
and distribution systems are increasing given the complexities of
modern business systems (Christopher, 2015). Complexity in sup-
ply chain elements and their inter-relationships increase the chal-
lenges of implementing and monitoring sustainability practices in
the echelons as needed by the business (Govindan et al., 2015a,b).
In a multi-echelon supply chain system, sustainability management
and monitoring requires effective measurement approaches,
because many variables in action may not be visible using remote
monitoring and reporting systems (Hahn and Kuhnen, 2013;
Mahadi, 2012). Remote systems may only generate abstract infor-
mation of the status of sustainability at a high level, but may fail to
generate detailed accounting data and the existing gaps on the
ground that needs to be bridged. The sustainability practices
implemented at the levels of the operations in echelons needs to be
controlled and monitored locally through an approach that is closer
to the actors on the ground. This is essential for appropriate ac-
counting of sustainability variables in the organisation related to
economics, environmental protection, and people welfare. How-
ever, to collect data from the on-the-ground tasks executed by
actors, distributed sensors (like, Internet of Things: IoTs) and
massive-scale data collection and analysis systems (like, big data)
are needed (Marjani et al., 2017). While IoTs and big data are
essential components for measuring sustainability in operations
tasks, there should be a way for a manufacturing organisation to
begin the practice without investing in them for implementing a
process-based system to reach a defined level of maturity before
major investments are undertaken. This is the significance of the
topic of this research.
The objectives of this research are the following:
(a) To collect data through action research on selected sustain-
ability variables from a sample of transactions conducted by
automated machines and actors working in the echelons of a
multi-echelon supply chain.
(b) To measure the performance of the selected sustainability
variables and their interrelationships
(c) To highlight how the findings have helped in working out a
future action plan for identifying the critical sustainability
variables and improving them.
(d) To recommend how this approach can ensure effective
identification, measurement, accounting, and reporting of
sustainability practices in a multi-echelon supply chain.
The original contribution of this research is that it tests the ac-
tion research approach to implement a system of sustainability
measurement through interactive programmes with the actual
actors on the ground for identifying the existing sustainability
variables in action, and their impacts on the operating variables
within the context of an organisation. Such an approach may not
only provide detailed insight into the existing sustainability prac-
tices but also reveal how they are affecting operations, and what
improvements need to be carried out. Most importantly, this
approach can be useful in identifying and exploiting the opportu-
nities for local data collection by actors related to sustainability
measurements and accounting using a manual approach, which
can be later extended to automated systems using IoTs and big data
when the business case for investments in them is formulised.
2. Review of literature
The literature review was conducted in a structured manner by
selecting and reviewing current research studies on sustainability,
triple bottom-lines sustainability variables (related to economy,
environment, and empowerment), and the models for imple-
menting sustainability measurements, accounting, and reporting.
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
The key databases explored for sustainability articles were books,
journals related to sustainable development, economy, environ-
mental, and people empowerment variables related to sustain-
ability, clean production, measurements and accounting, and
reporting in Elsevier (Science Direct), Springer, Emerald, Wiley,
Taylor & Francis, MDPI, few others, the published research articles
by United Nations Development Programme, Global Reporting
Initiative, Indian Institute of Management, AIMS India, UK Gov-
ernment Publications, and many professional reports published by
companies like KPMG, Morgan Stanley, and Ernst & Young. Total
158 articles were shortlisted for further study based on the
following criteria:
(a) The article is related to sustainability, the variables associ-
ated with the three bottom-lines of sustainability (economy,
environment, and empowerment), and the models for
implementing sustainability measurements, accounting, and
reporting;
(b) The article is from a reputed source and is peer reviewed or
supervisory reviewed.
(c) The article is not a draft version or discussion paper.
(d) The variables discussed in the paper are in the context of
sustainability only. For example, there may be hundreds of
papers discussing operations efficiency but this research has
shortlisted the papers discussing operations efficiency
through sustainability.
The literature review is presented in three sections pertaining to
sustainability variables: 2.1: identifying; 2.2: measuring; and 2.3:
accounting and reporting. Sustainability in supply chain is an old
study area, but global awareness about the triple bottom-line
model of sustainability emerged in the past decade from the pub-
lications by UN/UNESCO, DEFRA (UK Govt.), other governments/
institutions, and academic studies conducted by some scholars
between 2006 and 2008 (examples, Seuring and Muller, 2008,
2008a). To cover the triple bottom-line model comprehensively,
literature from 2006 till now were reviewed. Apart from the pub-
lications by UN/UNESCO and DEFRA, articles were chosen primarily
from studies focussed on sustainability modelling and
measurements.
2.1. Identifying sustainability variables
Sustainability has many definitions, defined from the perspec-
tives of an organisation, a locality, a city, a country, a nation, and the
entire world (Christen and Schmidt, 2010). While sustainability at
various levels has its own importance, its idea is related to basic
humanity-related problems at these levels that may challenge ex-
istence in the medium or long-term horizons (Christen and
Schmidt, 2010). At a global level, sustainability has been defined
numerous times but a single complete scientific definition has not
evolved yet (Burger and Christen, 2011). Hence, for covering the
broader aspects of sustainability, it is presented as a model
comprising three broad areas: economics, environment, and
empowerment (social); a model popularly called triple bottom-line
(Burger and Christen, 2011; Christen and Schmidt, 2010;
Rauschmayer and Lessmann, 2013; UNESCO, 2006).
Some researchers link sustainability with capability develop-
ment in multiple areas that can contribute to one or more of these
three bottom lines in the sustainability model (Alkire, 2011;
Mahadi, 2012; Voget-Kleschin, 2013). There is a growing body of
knowledge on process and technology capability development for
sustainability in business organisations and their suppliers with a
variables-focussed approach, which may directly or indirectly in-
fluence operations and supply chain performance (Govindan et al.,
227
2013). Open loop (Ene and Ozturk, 2014) and closed loop
(Brandenburg et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2015) reverse logistics,
active measurement of carbon footprints aiming at variables-
focussed (model-driven) processes for vehicle routing (emissions
control) and wastes management (Kannan et al., 2012), and
achieving greenness through lean processes (Govindan et al.,
2015a,b) are examples of capability development approaches.
From these recent studies, it is evident that model-driven and
process-oriented capability development helps in integrating sus-
tainability with the regular operations framework of an organisa-
tion instead of treating it as a separate framework.
For variables-focussed approach (to build actionable models) for
sustainability capability building, an end-to-end framework
covering the variables comprehensively is needed. This is where
the triple-bottom-line model emerges in picture (Seuring and
Muller, 2008, 2008a). The triple bottom line model of sustainabil-
ity is useful for supply chain management given that modern
supply chains are globalised while the environmental, economic,
and social dimensions may be localised in the locations where the
echelons are located (Seuring and Muller, 2008, 2008a). As dis-
cussed by Brandenburg et al. (2014), while the studies on sustain-
ability models using triple bottom line (like, Govindan et al., 2014;
Seuring and Muller, 2008a; Palevich, 2012; Piercy and Rich, 2015;
Vermeulen and Ras, 2006) paved the way for model-based capa-
bility building, modern studies are needed to devise practical
models and methods to develop them for practical application. The
key triple bottom line variables reflecting sustainability challenges
in supply chain management are presented in Table 1:
2.2. Measuring sustainability variables
While many research studies have been conducted to identify
the challenges, the latest research opportunity is in building ca-
pabilities for addressing these challenges (Christopher, 2015;
Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Govindan et al., 2014; Hall, 2012;
Palevich, 2012; Pagell and Wu, 2009; Rechtschaffen, 2007; Seuring
and Muller, 2008, 2008a; Vermeer et al., 2010). One of the critical
capabilities required in this field is to measure sustainable practices
conducted by an organisation (Diabat and Govindan, 2011;
Govindan et al., 2014; Hall, 2012; Palevich, 2012; Pagell and Wu,
2009; Rechtschaffen, 2007; Seuring and Muller, 2008, 2008a;
Vermeer et al., 2010). Sustainability can be measured in a supply
chain by assessing the management commitment, awareness and
training of people at middle and lower management and at the
ground levels, documented framework, records maintained, sus-
tainability life-cycle formulation and operation, evidences of in-
ternal auditing and reviews, third-party assessment reports,
measurements of transactions, strategic relationships with sup-
pliers, and management/stakeholder reports (Cetinkaya, 2011; Hall,
2012; Palevich, 2012; Pagell and Wu, 2009; Rechtschaffen, 2007;
Seuring and Muller, 2008, 2008a; Vermeer et al., 2010).
An integrated viewpoint about measuring and accounting sus-
tainability in an organisation is not established empirically. How-
ever, the existing studies have presented a broad understanding
about how sustainability practices can be assessed in the organ-
isational processes and practices. The key theoretical findings in
this context are summarised as the following after a thorough re-
view and selection of key learning points of the literature by Bell
and Morse (2011), DEFRA (2006, 2013), Govindan et al. (2014),
Handfield et al. (2005); Hervani and Helms (2005), Hollos et al.
(2012), Hutchins and Sutherland (2008), Pagell and Wu (2009),
Seuring and Muller (2008, 2008a), UN (2008), UNESCO (2006), and
Vermeulen and Ras (2006):
228 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Table 1
Key triple bottom line challenges.

S. Key triple bottom line challenges Citations

No.

A Economic challenges:
1. Reducing costs of operations Bebbington and Larrinaga (2014); Bebbington et al. (2007); Chan et al. (2014); Gimenez
et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Homayoun et al. (2016); Palevich (2012);
Piercy and Rich (2015); Slack et al. (2013); Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
2. Improving production efficiency Caniels et al. (2013); Chan et al. (2014); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014);
Homayoun et al. (2016); Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); Slack et al. (2013);
Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
3. Improving operations efficiency Caniels et al. (2013); Chan et al. (2014); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014),
2015; Homayoun et al. (2016); Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); Slack et al. (2013);
Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
4. Controlling and optimising inventory holding Caniels et al. (2013); Chan et al. (2014); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014),
2015; Homayoun et al. (2016); Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); Slack et al. (2013);
Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
5. Gaining profitability through sustainable supply chain operations Caniels et al. (2013); Christopher (2015); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014),
2015; Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
6. Identifying and reducing supply chain risks Caniels et al. (2013); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Homayoun et al.
(2016); Ivanov, 2018; Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich (2015); Seuring and Muller
(2008a)
7. Reducing beer gaming Hussain and Drake (2011); Shee and Kaswi (2016)
8. Reducing order batching and rationing Hussain and Drake (2011); Shee and Kaswi (2016)
9. Reducing Forrester (Bullwhip) effect Chen and Lee (2012); Hussain and Drake (2011); Shee and Kaswi (2016)
10. Improving demands and supplies forecasting Caniels et al. (2013); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Christopher
(2015); Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015)
11. Improving cost accounting (like, introducing activity-based costing) Bebbington and Larrinaga (2014); Bebbington et al. (2007); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015;
Christopher (2015); Palevich (2012)
12. Curbing variations in key performance metrics Bebbington and Larrinaga (2014); Bebbington et al. (2007); Christopher (2015); Gimenez
et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Palevich (2012);
Piercy and Rich (2015); Vermeer et al. (2010); Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
13. Vendor selection and management Caniels et al. (2013); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014),
2015; Seuring and Muller (2008a); So and Xu (2014)
14. Global Sourcing Caniels et al. (2013); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014),
2015; Seuring and Muller (2008a); So and Xu (2014)
B. Environmental challenges:
15. Reducing ozone depletion UN, 2008, 2014
16. Curbing activities and related emissions causing global warming Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Homayoun et al. (2016); Kleindorfer
(example, reducing fossil fuels and reducing non-renewable raw et al. (2005); Vermeulen and Ras (2006); UN, 2008, 2014; Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
materials)
17. Reducing carbon footprint Diabat and Govindan (2011); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015;
Homayoun et al. (2016); Kannan et al. (2012); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich
(2015); UN, 2015; Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
18. Lean practices and green standards in packaging, transit, storage, and Caniels et al. (2013); Diabat and Govindan (2011); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al.
distribution (2014), 2015; Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Palevich (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2015;
Vermeer et al. (2010); Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
19. Reducing and shielding radiations Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); UN, 2008, 2014, 2015
20. Better standards for handling hazardous materials Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); UN, 2015
21. Adopting environmental standards (like, ISO 14000 series and eco- Diabat and Govindan (2011); Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Seuring
labelling) and Muller (2008a); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2008, 2014;
Vermeer et al. (2010); Vermeulen and Ras (2006)
22. Reducing hazards caused by exposures to human beings Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Kleindorfer et al. (2005); UN, 2015
23. Reducing hazards caused by exposure to plants and animals Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; UN, 2008, 2014
24. Reducing deforestation and water consumption Govindan et al. (2014); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2008, 2014
25. Reducing pollution of air, land, and water Govindan et al. (2014); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2008, 2014
26. Protecting flora, fauna, and biodiversity Govindan et al. (2014); UN, 2008, 2014
27. Collaboration with suppliers regarding environment issues Caniels et al. (2013); Diabat and Govindan (2011); Govindan et al. (2014), 2015; Govindan
et al. (2013); Piercy and Rich (2015); So and Xu (2014)
C. Empowerment (social challenges)
28. Developing opportunities and caring for well being of local communities Govindan et al. (2014); Gimenez et al. (2012); Piercy and Rich (2015); Sherwood (2007)
29. Reducing unfair labour practices Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); UN, 2014
30. Ensuring high safety and security at the job Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); UN, 2014
31. Reducing exposure to harsh working conditions Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich
(2015); UN, 2014
32. Equal opportunities and rights to all Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2007, 2014
33. Reducing corruption UN, 2007, 2014
34. Educating, training and skilling as per demands of sustainability Gimenez et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2014); Piercy and Rich (2015); Sherwood (2007);
UN, 2014
35. Eliminating discrimination Govindan et al. (2014); Kleindorfer et al. (2005); Piercy and Rich (2015); UN, 2007

(a) Sustainability cannot be measured and accounted by col- full life cycle of a value chain by investigating the tasks in all
lecting data and analysing a few steps from the running the echelons.
processes. Sustainability can be measured by analysing the (b) The objectives and goals of sustainability should be stated
clearly and standardized throughout the organisation.
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
(c) The target of the organisation should be to achieve excel-
lence in sustainability practices in all the process stages in all
the echelons of a supply chain. The sustainability practices
should not be considered as separate from the running
supply chain processes.
(d) The organisation should ensure that crucial improvements in
the production of products, their usage by end-customers
and discarding/recycling of the products are carried out
continuously for achieving excellence in sustainability prac-
tices. This means that the focus should not only be on in-
house practices but also on the practices outside the orga-
nisation when the products leave the distribution systems.
(e) The management should be able to demonstrate clear
orientation towards excellence in meeting the triple bottom-
line objectives.
(f) A number of internal and external stakeholders should be
involved in the sustainability plans (examples are em-
ployees, local communities, activists, and government
authorities).
(g) The sustainability objectives should be integrated with the
overall supply chain objectives, like increasing market share,
time-to-market, demand pull, reducing costs, and customer
satisfaction.
(h) There should be appropriate system of controls for meeting
and maintaining the quality levels of measurable sustain-
ability targets.
(i) Sustainability practices in an organisation should be trace-
able, transparent, certifiable, and fit for accreditations.
(j) The good performers should be rewarded periodically.
(k) Sustainability behaviours should be instigated and diffused
throughout the organisation.
(l) Involvement of local communities and economic viability of
processes and tasks in all the echelons should be incorpo-
rated in the organisational sustainability plan.
(m) The management should identify clearly all indicators of
sustainability performance such that appropriate metrics
and their measures can be decided and employed in the
accounting process.
(n) Sustainability audits, corrections, and preventions should be
implemented culturally and systematically in the
organisation.
(o) The suppliers are trained and periodically communicated
about the sustainability standards followed in the organisa-
tion and suppliers' role in achieving and maintaining them.
(p) Supplier cooperation in maintaining sustainability quality
levels is evident.
Among all the points stated above, lifecycle assessment and
related process audits and improvements, and greening suppliers
are the key capabilities needed for measuring sustainability
(DEFRA, 2013; Diabat and Govindan, 2011; UN, 2007, 2008). The ISO
14040:2006 is one of the important standards followed for lifecycle
assessment and management of products (BSI, 2006; Diabat and
Govindan, 2011; ISO, 2012; Vermeer et al., 2010). This standard is
supported by other standards in ISO 14000 series for environment
compliance, self declarations and reporting, labelling, and verifi-
cations, and transparency (ISO, 2012; Vermeer et al., 2010) and
OHSAS 18001 and OHSAS 18002 standards for occupational safety
and health of employees.
Cooperation from suppliers, social empowerment of employees
and local communities, and involvement in the larger social targets
for achieving the triple bottom-line goals are key enablers for
building capabilities in this direction (Hollos et al., 2012; Hutchins
and Sutherland, 2008). Corporate responsibility towards ensuring
safety, protection from hazards, reduction of health risks, economic
229
uplifting of people, protection of natural resources, responsible
consumption, and managing the entire supply chain and product
life cycle towards achieving sustainability targets should be part of
the overall organisational objectives (Hutchins and Sutherland,
2008; Vermeulen and Ras, 2006; UN, 2007, 2008).
Sustainability objectives cannot be achieved by keeping them
outside the scope of business goals. The management needs to
integrate environmental goals, economic goals, and people goals
with all other business goals (Handfield et al., 2005). The intent of
achieving the sustainability goals should be mixed with the intent
of achieving business goals, and all the essential investments made
in the organisation should be done keeping the sustainability goals
in mind (Handfield et al., 2005). The organisation should identify
sustainability metrics and measure them by collecting and ana-
lysing data from the ground where the processes and tasks are in
action (Vermeulen and Ras, 2006). Using such metrics, the quality
of sustainability should be measured and enhanced continuously
along with other quality measurements made in the organisation
(Vermeulen and Ras, 2006). The management should formulate
clear strategy and direction for defining and achieving sustain-
ability targets along with other business targets (Vermeulen and
Ras, 2006). Strategic supplier relations, political support, institu-
tional support, laws and regulations, knowledge and expertise, and
above all, motivation and intent are key enablers for planning,
implementing, measuring, and improving sustainability goals and
targets in an organisation (Vermeulen and Ras, 2006).
2.3. Accounting and reporting sustainability variables
Sustainability accounting may be viewed as a total cost ac-
counting reflecting the overall costs a business loads on its stake-
holders (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). It comprises social and
environmental costing in addition to the regular financial ac-
counting carried out in the business organisations (Bebbington and
Larrinaga, 2014). Accounting of environmental and social costs is
based on the principle that society and environment are not free
services, and the businesses should pay the costs incurred in
availing these services (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). In addi-
tion, the consumption of these services is to be capped ensuring
their protection for future consumption (Bebbington and Larrinaga,
2014). However, it is not straightforward to apply traditional ac-
counting practices in sustainability accounting (Bebbington et al.,
2007; Gray, 2013; Jones, 2010). Traditional accounting has over
reliance on monetisation (any costing not quantifiable in monetary
terms is difficult to account) and on capitalistic worldview (which is
quite limited when benchmarked based on the requirements of
sustainability accounting) (Bebbington et al., 2007; Jones, 2010).
In addition, traditional accounting incorporates objective anal-
ysis only, and is highly focussed on cost benefit analysis and dis-
tribution of costs to various overheads (Bebbington et al., 2007;
Jones, 2010). There is a high reliance on monetary experts in ac-
counting having limited exposure to sustainability and account-
ability (Bebbington et al., 2007; Jones, 2010). Sustainability
accounting has many variables to be analysed subjectively and not
presentable in monetary terms (Bebbington et al., 2007; Gray,
2013; Jones, 2010). One way of monetising sustainability account-
ing was to introduce social, environmental, and economic taxation,
which was implemented but not as a complete solution
(Bebbington et al., 2007; GRI, 2011). The GRI sustainability ac-
counting and reporting framework was introduced in 2002 for
detailed data collection and reporting by companies. It is currently
updated to Version 3.1 in 2011 (GRI, 2011).
The GRI (2011) accounting and reporting guidelines require
strategy and profile formulation of the organisational triple
bottom-line objectives, the approach followed by the management
230 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
in meeting the objectives, and the performance indicators chosen
and applied that result in comparable and benchmarking-related
information about the organisational performance in meeting the
objectives. The reports should indicate year-on-year performance
improvements achieved by the reporting organisation through
longitudinal tracking of the performance indicators. The data and
information collected for tracking the performance indicators
should be made available to the board, stakeholders, regulators,
and special interest groups.
Islam (2010) argued that social and environmental accounting
and reporting research should focus on the ethical and account-
ability issues and the way the external consumption by an orga-
nisation should be charged. Currently, there is a lack of academic
research on useful and actionable sustainability reporting by or-
ganisations consuming environmental and social resources (Islam,
2010). DEFRA (2013) reporting guidelines are only for environ-
mental reporting. GRI (2011) integrated reporting guidelines are
the only directions available for reporting all the three areas of
sustainability. However, critics report that these guidelines at best
will help in developing weak sustainability profiles and only a
mean to respond to pressures with minimal compliance levels
(Azcarate et al., 2011; IRRC Institute, 2013; Islam, 2010; Smith and
Sharicz, 2011). Smith and Sharicz (2011: p. 78e79) argued that
GRI reporting guidelines can capture information from an organi-
sation about something being done in the sustainability area. The
guidelines do follow the materiality definition of consuming with
responsibility and saving for the future generations. However, it
cannot find out if the organisation is doing enough for ensuring
protection of future generations (Azcarate et al., 2011; Islam, 2010;
IRRC Institute, 2013; Smith and Sharicz, 2011).). At a deeper level,
Jones (2010: p. 134) presented the following basic contents of
sustainability accounting and reporting in the annual reports or
separate reports for sustainability compliance:
(a) The corporate philosophy towards protection of environ-
ment and responsible consumption
(b) The sustainability objectives and goals of the organisation
(c) Details of sustainability framework followed by the organi-
sation and its operations
(d) Human resources alignment with the sustainability objec-
tives and goals of the organisation
(e) Detailed separate specifications of the environmental, eco-
nomic, and social targets set by the organisation with a
report on how many have been met fully or partially, or have
not been met
(f) The specifications should be (but not limited to) the areas of
emissions (all possible forms relevant to the organisation),
waste disposal to water, land, and air, recycling, biodiversity
effects, and flora and fauna effects
(g) Detailed longitudinal compliance reports showing year-on-
year performance improvements in the key performance
indicators of the sustainability targets; comprehensive de-
tails should be provided on the possible effects on climate
change (example, tonnes of carbon dioxide release)
(h) Third party verification statements from interested com-
munities should be released on each of the report with
opinions on fairness and balanced representation of the
reports
Bebbington et al. (2007: p. 229e230) discussed that the orga-
nisation should also report the possible damages caused by their
activities on the environment, society, and economy. Some of the
possible reports, as suggested by Bebbington et al. (2007: p.
229e230), regarding impacts on environment, society, and econ-
omy may be the following:
(a) Environmental impacts:
i. Damages to the environment caused by the emissions
from the organisational assets and premises
ii. Wasteland and wastewater zones created by the organi-
sation that may no-longer be of any use for the mankind
iii. Damages caused by pollution, dust, noise, odours, and
visual nuisance caused by the organisational premises
iv. Diversion of human and animal footprints, and flying
paths of birds caused by the organisational activities
v. Any other damages to the environment that can be
observed directly or indirectly
(b) Social impacts:
i. Unemployment levels caused by the activities of the
organisation directly and indirectly
ii. Fair employment practices of the organisation
iii. Death and accidents caused by the activities of the
organisation directly and indirectly
iv. Health and safety challenges caused by the activities of
the organisation directly and indirectly
v. Perceived harmful impacts of the products and services of
the organisation
vi. Any other damages to the society that can be observed
directly or indirectly
(c) Economic impacts:
i. Dividends and taxes paid by the organisation
ii. Social investments made by the organisation for uplifting
the local communities
iii. Local infrastructure and other developments funded and
managed by the organisation
iv. Cost overheads paid to agents and contractors for the
organisational activities
The review of literature revealed the fundamental structure of
the triple bottom-line model, and the requirements, the measure-
ment, and reporting requirements of environmental, economical,
and social sustainability. This research presents an action research
approach for identifying the sustainability indicators, measuring
them, and reporting them in three sea food processing companies
in India. With the fundamental theoretical foundation in view, the
research methodology has been designed to achieve the objectives
stated in Section 1.0.
3. Research gap analysis
DEFRA (2013) presents an outline of what parameters should be
marked as relevant and measured in an organisation. DEFRA (2013)
defines process emissions, GHG emissions, supply chain emissions,
heat, steam, CHP, intensity, water contamination, biodiversity
contamination, and wastes release as the possible measurement
areas. However, they seem to be indicative at best. The fundamental
problem is that the organisations have been guided (by GRI, DEFRA,
and similar initiatives) to choose their respective performance in-
dicators that can be comparable over a period year-on-year
(Azcarate et al., 2011; Eccles et al., 2012; Islam, 2010; Smith and
Sharicz, 2011). However, there is no benchmark that determines
the level of performance of the organisation compared with other
organisations in the same industry (Eccles et al., 2012). There
should be industry-specific standardisation and benchmarks for
environmental and social performance indicators such that sus-
tainability performance of all the companies within the same in-
dustry can be compared objectively (Eccles et al., 2012).
IRRC Institute (2013: p. 5e6) reported that companies have not
yet formed credible and actionable ways for evaluating and
reporting material risks and mitigation strategies evolving from
sustainability-related risks and impacts. At the most, they have
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
formed methods to respond to regulatory compliance laws and
pressure groups using GRI's reporting guidelines with significant
but not very useful information. There is negligence in inter-
connecting sustainability risks with medium-to-long-term busi-
ness goals. Further, their responses to sustainability risks vary by
change in political pressures and intensity of lobbying by activists,
but there is a lack of standards, strategies, and tactics for sustain-
ability risk assessments, measurements, accounting, and reporting.
Smith and Sharicz (2011: p. 81) highlighted that there is a lack of
guidelines on alignment of sustainability objectives with business
objectives and the overall industrial objectives for sustainability.
Further, Govindan et al. (2014) presented the complexity of chal-
lenges in implementing and adopting sustainability practices. The
barriers reported in the study by Govindan et al. (2014) and their
rankings as per findings from Indian industries present a highly
complex picture of this challenge, which cannot be addressed
through a universal model. Citing the barriers reported by
Govindan et al. (2014), even an exhaustive model like Triple Bottom
Line appears to be insufficient. As they suggested, the best approach
is to locate the key barriers as applicable to a particular industry
and eliminate them through in-depth inward-focussed data
collection and analysis, as studied in this research.
Smith and Sharicz (2011) recommended that there should be an
action research study on exploring (and filling) gaps in sustain-
ability practices, capturing data on ongoing sustainability activities,
and reporting the performance levels in an organisation. The
organisation should begin measuring from the management's
desire, perspective, and focus on the environmental, economical,
and social concerns, proceed to measuring the ability of the lead-
ership teams in translating the desire, perspective, and focus into
individual departmental actions, and finally measure the reinforc-
ing cycles of the actions and the organisational learning captured in
the process of managing the reinforcing cycles (Smith and Sharicz,
2011).
This research is intended to address the problem of complexity
in identifying, measuring, and accounting sustainability practices in
a supply chain, and integrating them with operations. The sug-
gested approach shall be very useful when the management is
remote, the processes are manual and standalone, and there are no
credible methods for remote accounting of the sustainability vari-
ables in the ongoing transactions on the ground carried out by the
field actors. In the existing systems, supervisors on the field may
send periodic abstract reports to the remote managers, but the
reports may not provide sufficient insight into the actual practices
and the level of sustainability accounting maintained by the actors.
This is because; the reports may be based on daily experiences and
related perceptions of the supervisors instead of a structured
research-based approach comprising of structured data collection,
analysis, and modelling. Further, if the data is collected through
interviews or surveys, it may provide experience-based insight only
and the actual transactions may not be accounted. Action research
is a method in which, the actual transactions occurring on the
ground can be observed closely through interactive programmes
with the actors, and samples can be collected from on-the-ground
transactions (Avison et al., 1999).
This research has explored the role of action research in
measuring and accounting sustainability in a multi-echelon supply
chain for enhancing capabilities pertaining to the triple bottom-line
goals. The role of action research shall be similar to variables-
focussed reverse logistics modelling presented in the studies by
Govindan et al. (2015) and Kannan et al. (2012). However, it will be
inward focussed on creating a customised model specific to orga-
nisations in an industry with an assumption that all the barriers
reported by Govindan et al. (2014) may not be applicable to every
industry. In practice, the models may differ by industry, by
231
organisation type, or by other distinguishing factors. A statistically
significant relationship found for one industry may not apply for
others. But the approach for collecting data and forming the models
using action research can be replicated by any organisation. This is
the novel contribution of this study.
4. Research objectives and framework
The research objectives were introduced in Section 1.0. The
framework followed for this study (Fig. 1) involved identifying the
sustainability variables, identifying their measures, identifying the
ways to account and report them, collecting data on the measures,
conducting the statistical analyses, identifying the model re-
lationships, and finally highlighting how this approach can help any
organisation to achieve a capabilities approach for achieving sus-
tainability, and use sustainability as a way to improve operations
performance. This research first highlights all the findings specific
to the three seafood manufacturing companies studied in India, and
then presents how this approach helped in solving the barriers
faced by this company in implementing an effective sustainability
accounting and reporting system, and how this system can be
improved in future when the companies adopt automation of data
collection using IoTs and Big Data.
5. Solution methodology
The research methodology adopted in this research is qualita-
tive with data triangulation and the method adopted is action
research. Qualitative methodology is viewed as reciprocal of
quantitative methodology (Somekh et al., 2005; Trochim and
Donnelly, 2006), but in some studies it has been mixed with
quantitative methodology through methodology triangulation and
data triangulation (Saunders et al., 2011). In methodology trian-
gulation, selected methods under both the methodologies are
mixed, and in data triangulation the research method chosen is one
of those under qualitative methodology with primary data mixed
appropriately (both qualitative and quantitative data) (Saunders
et al., 2011). This research has adopted qualitative methodology
with data triangulation because of the following two factors:
(a) Sustainability in supply chains is a new research area that
currently lacks established grounded theories backed with
past data. This area needs new theories through exploratory
studies, which require inductive approach of learning.
(b) In qualitative methodology, there are no preconceptions
about the outcomes given the lack of established theories,
and the study is conducted with an open-ended approach
(without any hypotheses) with a mission to delve deep into
the concepts (Trochim and Donnelly, 2006).
This research was conducted in unlisted sea food manufacturing
plants with little published data or report on their sustainability
practices. The method of action research was chosen because the
research questions 2 and 3 demand this method. In an organisation
with little published data or report on sustainability practices, it
was decided that action research is a suitable method to collect
field data and measure and analyse the level of sustainability
practices, and devise a reporting mechanism as an outcome of this
research.
Generally, it is viewed that qualitative method trades off gen-
eralisability with achievement of in-depth data and information
about the subject matter explored. However, in this research gen-
eralisability is desired to some extent and hence data triangulation
is preferred. There have been two sets of data collected in this
research:
232 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
Fig. 1. The framework for conducting this study.
(a) Descriptive textual data from field interviews during the
action research process.
(b) Numerical data collected from the transactions measured by
the researcher during the process of action research.
Action research, also called participatory research, allows the
researcher to participate in the research setting with the subjects
for investigating the concepts being studied and also develop the
applications of the findings during the study itself (Noffke and
Somekh, 2005). In this method, the researcher gets hands on
experience on the events in progress in the research setting by
handling or observing the ongoing transactions or remaining in-
teractions with the individuals carrying out the transactions for
prolonged periods. Thus, action research offers plenty of opportu-
nities for collecting numerical (quantitative data) from the ongoing
transactions if the study is conducted for sufficiently long periods
(Noffke and Somekh, 2005; Saunders et al., 2011).
Action research allows the researcher to get involved in the
research setting with the participants and learns through collective
experience than mere collecting data from experiences (like in-
terviews or surveys) (Avison et al., 1999). Action research is a
lengthy and deeply involved study process in which, exploration is
done through hands on practice on certain selected transactions
and all experiences on the ground are recorded (Hindle et al., 1995;
Whyte, 1989). It results in highly reliable and valid outcomes
(Hindle et al., 1995; Whyte, 1989). However, threats of researcher's
bias and discrimination needs to be managed effectively (Hindle
et al., 1995; Whyte, 1989). In this research, an action research
plan has been prepared for executing in five locations of a multi-
echelon supply chain of manufacturing or retail organisation with
their permission. Sustainability in these locations has been tested
on the site with the help of a sustainability checklist prepared with
the help of a detailed literature review. The observations in this
checklist have been filled through action research on the sites by
working onsite with the employees. The outcomes have been
analysed with the help of literature and a report has been docu-
mented in the data presentation and analysis section. The findings
shall be useful for incrementing the academic body of knowledge in
this context and also helping the management of the organisation
to know the gaps and take appropriate steps in implementing the
triple bottom-line model.
The data collection approach followed in this study is to collect
both observational and transactional data from the field. The
researcher has chosen three organisations in India (one in the state
of Maharashtra and two in the state of Goa) for active action
research studies. In this research, the researcher has conducted
interactive sessions with supply chain agents handling transactions
relevant to these objectives. All the three organisations are in
manufacturing and distribution of processed food products related
to sea foods. The three organisations are interlinked forming parts
of an integrated supply networking. The researcher could not
obtain permissions to handle the transactions but achieved per-
missions to have monitoring sessions with employees handling
those transactions. Each monitoring session lasted for a full work-
ing day allowing the researcher to collect observations as well as
numerical data about the transactions handled throughout the day.
The observations were made about the following objectives of tri-
ple bottom line ensuring sustainability in the supply networking
under study:
(a) Operations Time: time taken per task is recorded from input
time till output time in the process and used as a measure of
operations efficiency
(b) Cost of operations: time taken per task is multiplied with an
average cost of labour per hour added with the fixed cost of
operation of that transaction as advised by the supervisor
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
(c) Procurement process: number of sustainability checks per-
formed in each purchase transaction
(d) Losses: number of materials wasted per transaction and
number of reworks in the whole day of working
(e) Environmental hazards (emissions and consumption of nat-
ural resources): number of checks carried out per task for
environmental protection in the full day of operation
(f) Safety measures: number of safety checks per task per-
formed during the full day of operation and number of vio-
lations recorded during the day
(g) Green standards: Number of green standards per task fol-
lowed in packaging, transit, storage, and distribution trans-
actions during the working day
(h) Unfair employment practices: number and nature of unfair
employment practices recorded per task during full day of
operations
(i) Local community employment: number of employees
employed in different departments from the local
communities
(j) Gender balance in employment: number of employees from
each gender employed in different departments
The researcher had targeted to conduct up to 15 interactions
during the action research process covering 15 echelons (de-
partments) of the supply networking of the three organisations.
The data has been collected by taking permissions from the su-
pervisors of the departments studied for taking down transactional
observations in the echelon. The supervisors provided support by
deploying staff to identify the key transactions and their starting
times, process times, and closing times.
The data collected has been analysed through descriptive sta-
tistics, MANOVA tests, multiple regressions, and through in-
terpretations of the observations, both textual and of the statistical
results. The data sets has been normalised by converting them into
multi-scale data (Sekaran, 2003). This can be achieved by identi-
fying the minimum and maximum values of a data set and then
dividing the data range into equal parts equal to the number of
levels in a scale (Sekaran, 2003). Such a scale is called interval scale
(Sekaran, 2003). This normalised data set has not only helped in
comparing the descriptive statistics data but has also helped in
exploring relationships among the variables using multiple
regression analysis and MANOVA testing (Sekaran, 2003). The test
results are interpreted qualitatively because there is no hypothesis
testing in this research.
Given that this is primarily a qualitative research with mixed
data (data triangulation) these analyses have not been conducted
for proving or rejecting pre-defined hypotheses. However, the
research has identified some key relationships that shall be useful
to explore new theories and make recommendations for further
studies. Knowledge of relationships will help in identifying the key
changes needed in the supply networking for significant en-
hancements in sustainability. They will help in defining the future
course of actions for these three companies and also for food pro-
cessing supply chain industries in general. Given that the study is
being conducted in a developing country, the findings may be
useful for further studies in other developing nations in the world.
6. Results and discussion
The data collection involved monitoring programmes in 15 de-
partments of the three companies in five locations. A total of 343
records were generated for eight variables selected based on rele-
vance to the business under study. However, only 300 records could
be included for ensuring completeness of data. The variables and
their encoding are as the following:
233
(a) Operations Time (OP_TIME): A record of observation of time
taken in minutes by the actor in the transaction sampled
(b) Cost of operations (OP_COST): As decided in a meeting with
the supervisors, the per-minute labour rate was considered
as Rs.1 and the other costs per transaction varied from Rs.
600 to Rs. 900 depending upon the echelon. The formula
used was (OP_EFF*1) þ other costs related to the transaction.
(c) Sustainability checks per procurement transaction
(SUS_CKS): Number of sustainability checks carried out by
the actor in a procurement order placed
(d) Losses of materials (LOSSES): Materials lost during a trans-
action (like preparing a fish package or processing a batch of
fishes before they can be packaged)
(e) Environmental hazards (ENV_HAZ): steps taken by the actor
in preventing environmental hazards (example, additives for
preservation and prevention of emissions and odour,
contamination-resistant packaging, and carefully testing if
any fish has a disease or contamination that can spread in an
entire batch)
(f) Safety measures (SAFE_MEAS): Safety measures followed by
the actors for self protection and protection of co-workers
(example, protecting wearing, maintaining safe distances,
and knowing the safety instructions)
(g) Green standards (GRN_STD): Green standards followed by
the actor (like, using environmental friendly packing mate-
rials, preventing wastage of water, using naturally decom-
posing disposables, and following a defined process for
cleaning of dirt and contaminants)
(h) Unfair employment practices (UNF_EMPL): Numbering the
unfair employment practices, like poor wages, long shift
hours, employment of adolescents, and poor working
conditions
In addition, gross data has been collected about employment of
local communities and gender balance in the supply chain. Overall,
about 78% workers are from the local communities, and approxi-
mately (decimals rounded to nearest whole number) 64% males
and 36% females are employed by the organisation. The data
collection ground rules followed in the research are as the
following:
(a) The data collection is not about investigating non-
compliances existing in the organisations studied.
(b) The data collection is about investigating on-the-ground
activities practiced by these organisations that affect sus-
tainability in any of the three areas (economics, environ-
ment, and empowerment).
(c) Each activity affecting sustainability is counted while
collating the data for accounting. Following are the examples
of a count of sustainable activity pertaining to a variable:
i. The employee knows a particular safety rule.
ii. The employee is having essential protective wearing
while performing a task.
iii. The employee is maintaining safe distance from the
hazardous objects and machinery while performing a
task.
iv. No. of safety checks performed per task.
v. Wastage of raw materials (like fishes, ice, protection
chemicals, etc.) in a task.
vi. Packing with green standards is used in a packing task.
vii. Any technique/process/step used to prevent emissions
(each of these counted separately).
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics analysis of the data
sets. The data comprises mean, standard deviation, minimum and
234 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Table 2
Descriptive statistics analysis of the data sets.

N Range Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Operations Time 300 21.00 22.2467 4.16055 .465 .141 -.151 .281
Cost of operations 300 320.00 850.9133 119.07671 #1.219 .141 -.317 .281
Sustainability checks per transaction 300 7.00 6.5033 1.06479 1.313 .141 3.788 .281
Losses of materials 300 4.00 1.4167 1.25498 .236 .141 #1.203 .281
Environmental Hazards 300 4.00 2.9500 1.07300 .198 .141 -.512 .281
Safety measures 300 5.00 3.0733 1.08561 .580 .141 -.225 .281
Green standards 300 5.00 3.1200 .98429 .414 .141 -.643 .281
Unfair employment practices 300 4.00 2.4667 .87833 .281 .141 -.377 .281
Valid N (listwise) 300

maximum values, skewness, and kurtosis. Skewness refers to the
bend of the data towards the minimum and maximum values and
kurtosis refers to the height of the normal curve of the data.
The data ranges and standard deviation from the mean are not
significant. This means that while the practices and perception of
standards vary by actor, the outcomes are consistent and can be
standardized. As revealed through discussion with the supervisors,
the supply chain echelons are following localised sustainability
guidelines, largely defined and controlled at the ground level by the
supervisor based on high-level directives issued by the higher
management.
The ranges of cost of operations, operations time, losses of
materials, and Sustainability checks per transaction practices need
to be highlighted as they are longer than other variables. Their
standard deviations from the means, relative to the values of their
respective means are also higher than the others. The operations
Time (time taken in completing a transaction) varies because the
samples have been taken from different echelons. However, varia-
tions in wastages and unfair employment practices vary by actors
significantly. Variations in wastages may be because of lack of
adequate training and differences in skills of the actors. Unfair
employment practices vary because of differences in exposure of
the employees, while the practice of poor wages is common among
all employees.
To investigate the relationships among all these variables, two
tests are conducted: MANOVA test and Multiple Regression test. In
MAVONA and regression tests, the significance of relationships
between unfair employment practices, Sustainability checks per
procurement transaction, Safety measures, Environmental Hazards,
and Green standards taken as independent variables, and opera-
tions time, cost of operations, and loss of materials taken as
dependent variables is tested. The MANOVA test is conducted to
study the effect of each independent variable on the group of
dependent variables treating them as a set of variables. On the
other hand, multiple regression tests are conducted to study the
effect of independent variables as a group on the dependent vari-
ables individually. The results are presented in Tables 3e7 (only the
statistical significant parts are shown here; the complete raw tables
are presented in Appendix A). The following significant relation-
ships between variables/groups are found to be significant in both
MANOVA and regression tests (observations to be made in the
significance columns of all these test reports):
(a) Safety measures as an independent variable has statistically
significant effects on the group of the three dependent var-
iables: operations time, cost of operations, and loss of ma-
terials (Table 4). The significance is at p ¼ 0.045 at 95%
confidence interval in Pillai's Trace, Wilks' Lambda, and
Hotelling's Trace, and p ¼ 0.007 in Roy's largest root (four
multivariate tests conducted by SPSS). This is a reliable
statistical significance as it is confirmed by four different
multivariate tests conducted in MANOVA.
(b) Unfair employment as an independent variable has statisti-
cally significant effects on the group of the three dependent
variables: operations time, cost of operations, and loss of
materials (Table 4). The significance is at p ¼ 0.007, 0.005,
and 0.004 at 95% confidence interval in Pillai's Trace, Wilks'
Lambda, and Hotelling's Trace, respectively, and p ¼ 0.000 in
Roy's largest root (four multivariate tests conducted by SPSS).
This is a reliable statistical significance, as well, as it is
confirmed by four different multivariate tests conducted in
MANOVA.
(c) In Table 4, the MANOVA tests have been conducted to
observe the effects on individual variables in a group when
all the variables in the group are active simultaneously.
Table 4 reflects statistically significant influence of safety
measures on operations time, and influence of unfair
employment on operations time, cost of operations, and
losses of materials.
(d) An interesting observation in Table 4 is the joint influence of
Sustainability checks per procurement transaction and
environmental hazards on cost of operations.
(e) Table 5 presents the results of multiple regression tests on
operations time. Only Sustainability checks per procurement
transaction has a statistically significant relationship with
operations time.
(f) Table 6 presents the results of multiple regression tests on
cost of operations. Sustainability checks per procurement
transaction, environmental hazards, unfair employment
practices and losses of materials have statistically significant
impacts on cost of operations.
(g) Table 7 presents the results of multiple regressions on losses
of materials. Environment hazards and unfair employment
practices have statistically significant impacts on losses of
materials.
From the data analysis, it is evident that safety measures
(mean ¼ 3.0733; SD ¼ 1.08561) is influencing operations time
(mean ¼ 22.2467; SD ¼ 4.16055) with statistical significance of
p ¼ 0.12; unfair employment (mean ¼ 2.4667; SD ¼ 0.87833) is
influencing operations time (mean ¼ 22.2467; SD ¼ 4.16055) with
statistical significance of p ¼ 0.057, cost of operations
(mean ¼ 850.9133; SD ¼ 119.07671) with statistical significance of
p ¼ 0.048, and losses of materials (mean ¼ 1.4167; SD ¼ 1.25498)
with statistical significance of p ¼ 0.037; and sustainability checks
per procurement transaction (mean ¼ 6.5033; SD ¼ 1.06479) and
environmental hazards (mean ¼ 2.9500; SD ¼ 1.07300) are collec-
tively influencing cost of operations (mean ¼ 850.9133;
SD ¼ 119.07671) with statistical significance of p ¼ 0.058. The ac-
tion research outcomes based on the sample collected helped in
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
Table 3
MANOVA with four multivariate tests conducted in SPSS.
Table 4
MANOVA tests of between subject effects.
establishing clear causal relationships in the sustainability frame-
work of the test organisations. The multiple regressions reflect that
sustainability checks per transaction increases the operations time
(p ¼ 0.06) and hence, increases the cost of operations (p ¼ 0.00).
From the multiple regressions analysis in Table 6, it is observed that
there is statistically significant relationship of cost of operations
with four other variables measured in this research (Sustainability
checks per procurement transaction at p ¼ 0.000, Environmental
Hazards at p ¼ 0.019, Unfair employment practices at p ¼ 0.015, and
Losses of materials at p ¼ 0.000). This may be because these vari-
ables are having significant impact on the overall cost per
235
transaction. It may be noted that the wages per minute calculated is
Rs 1, as per the inputs by the supervisors. This means the average
labour cost is Rs. 60 per hour and Rs. 600 for a 10 h shift. Hence, a
25 min transaction adds only Rs. 25 to the transaction while the
other costs (including sustainability costs) per transaction vary
between Rs. 600 to Rs. 900. This is the reason that the sustainability
variables have statistically significant relationships with operations
time, as well as with the cost of operations. The scenario may be
different in developed countries having much higher labour cost
per transaction thus dwarfing the effects of sustainability costs. One
fact that should be kept in mind that average of Rs. 1 per minute is
236 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Table 5
Multiple regression test with dependent variable as operations time.

Table 6
Multiple regression test with dependent variable as cost of operations.

Table 7
Multiple regression test with dependent variable as losses of materials.

not perceived as a sufficient wage and hence has been counted as new findings evolved from this study, which could be possible only
one of the unfair labour practices in this research. A balance needs through an action research approach.
to be managed in this aspect, as well. These statistical findings are The results reflect that accounting for compliance of
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
sustainability standards and on-the-ground testing of safety mea-
sures help each other in achieving operations effectiveness, and
they are collectively needed for ensuring prevention of environ-
mental and workplace hazards (IRRC Institute, 2013; UN, 2014,
2015; Vermeer et al., 2010). The results also indicate the unfair
employment practices (affecting cost of operations at p ¼ 0.015 and
losses of materials at p ¼ 0.002) may be affecting overall operations
significantly (UN, 2014) thus causing indirect losses to the business.
However, most importantly, the lack of sustainability checks (poor
mean at only 6.5033 checks identified for testing) performed dur-
ing procurement have statistically significant relationships with
operations performance (operations cost at p ¼ 0.000 and time
taken at p ¼ 0.06) (Govindan et al., 2013). This is an important
finding because it reflects an indirect impact of procurement de-
cisions on operations performance later (that is, effects of partici-
pation and green certification of suppliers as mentioned in the
studies by Bala et al., 2008; Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Caniels
et al., 2013). The checks for sustainability during procurement
should be focussed on the critical attributes based on pre-
determined checklist following a standard (Bala et al., 2008;
Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Caniels et al., 2013). The attributes in
the checklist may be determined using sampling of transactions, as
demonstrated in this research using the action research approach.
As stated in the methodology section, the supervisors were
interviewed before conducting the interactive sessions for collect-
ing numerical data from the transactions. The textual data collected
revealed the following facts:
(a) The management is committed towards sustainability.
(b) The organisation is governed by the sustainability laws
defined by Environment Protection Act 1986, NGT rules and
guidelines (formulated and communicated periodically), In-
dian Fisheries Act (1897), Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act 1974, and Wild Life Protection Act (1972) as
applicable for seafood industries.
(c) In addition, the organisation is governed by the food and
beverages safety regulations as applicable in India.
(d) Based on the applicable norms and regulations, the man-
agement has issued high-level directives to all middle-level
managers and field supervisors.
(e) The field supervisors have implemented the directives by
translating them into sustainability norms in coordination
with the middle-level managers.
(f) The workers are provided periodic trainings and workshops
about safety rules, environment protection rules, and green
compliance.
(g) The norms currently lack rules of employment (like wages
and local community employment) as the focus is more on
environment protection (as per applicable laws), food safety,
and employee safety.
(h) Stakeholder involvement is currently limited to internal
managers and employees and regulatory authorities.
(i) The suppliers have been given basic training on sustainability
practices. In addition, they are also bound by the applicable
sustainability laws.
(j) Currently, there is no standard mechanism to audit supplier
compliance. The suppliers produce evidences of their regu-
latory compliances, which is entrusted.
This research discovered high significance of sustainability
checks in procurement, safety checks, and unfair employment.
These three variables are critical in the triple bottom-line frame-
work of sea food industry in India. Given the vast scope of the triple
bottom-line sustainability framework, implementing, managing,
and operating it through a separate sustainability program will be a
237
massive overhead for an organisation. As multiple research studies
have proposed, sustainability framework should be integrated with
the overall business framework and operations processes of an
organisation (Handfield et al., 2005; Hutchins and Sutherland,
2008; UN, 2007, 2008; Vermeulen and Ras, 2006). These studies
have recommended formulating the sustainability objectives
within the scope of business objectives. In this way, it would be
easier to achieve the desired quality by defining the quality in-
dicators and measuring them as a part of the business performance
measurement system (Vermeulen and Ras, 2006). The second
important aspect is to ensure sustainability in the entire life cycle of
a supply chain including procurement, production operations, lo-
gistics operations, and distribution (DEFRA, 2013; UN, 2007, 2008).
The third important aspect is to follow international standards
(like, ISO 14000 and OHSAS 18000 series) for planning, imple-
menting, operating, measuring, and improving the overall frame-
work of sustainability (ISO, 2012; Vermeer et al., 2010). The
standards present guidelines on forming a structured and complete
framework of sustainability capability achievement and excellence
comprising of management commitment, awareness and training
of people at middle and lower management and at the ground
levels, documented framework, records maintained, sustainability
life-cycle formulation and operation, evidences of internal auditing
and reviews, third-party assessment reports, measurements of
transactions, strategic relationships with suppliers, and manage-
ment/stakeholder reports (Cetinkaya, 2011; Hall, 2012; Palevich,
2012; Pagell and Wu, 2009; Rechtschaffen, 2007; Seuring and
Muller, 2008, 2008a; Vermeer et al., 2010).
The fourth important aspect is to engage suppliers in the overall
sustainability framework through strategic supplier agreements,
training, and orientation (Govindan et al., 2013; Hollos et al., 2012;
Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008). The fifth important aspect is to
engage all interested stakeholders in the organisational sustain-
ability framework. This aspect also involves ensuring compliance to
laws and regulations. The sixth aspect is that an organisation
should be focussed on developing capabilities and excellence for
achieving sustainability in partnership with its suppliers and other
contributing partners (Alkire, 2011; Mahadi, 2012; Voget-Kleschin,
2013). The seventh aspect is that the organisation should clearly
identify and document all the economic, environment, and social
challenges related to triple bottom-line model and threats arising
from not achieving them (Seuring and Muller, 2008, 2008a; So and
Xu, 2014; Vermeulen and Ras, 2006; UN, 2007, 2008, 2010).
The theoretical findings by existing research studies on
measuring sustainability presented in Section 2 are dependent
upon these seven aspects. Given that sustainability covers all the
echelons of a supply chain, data from all the echelons should be
collected through automated means or through reports entered by
the local managers. However, if data collection is not complete then
action research is a way to collect data directly from transactions
that are not generating any data for sustainability measurements in
their present states. This is where action research is an effective
approach. In this research, action research was conducted through
interactions in 15 echelons of the supply chain of Maharashtra and
Goa-based sea food companies. The interactions were carried out to
collect data directly from the running transactions in those 15
echelons.
The current acts and laws for sustainability in India are old that
are largely focussed on protection of environment, natural re-
sources, and biodiversity (KPMG, 2014; Tiwari et al., 2018). The laws
do not cover all the areas of the triple bottom-line framework. From
this study, it is revealed that the orientation of Indian seafood in-
dustry is more towards regulatory pressures and pressures from
environmental activists. The other compliances occur by virtue of
internal corporate sustainability and social responsibility objectives
238 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
defined by individual organisations. In this research, the evidences
point towards management commitment, directives, trainings and
orientation, and essential compliances implemented at the ground
level. However, sustainability is not viewed as an opportunity for
defining and achieving better supply chain strategies, competitive
advantages, and customer satisfaction. This is evident from the fact
that there are no measures and compliances defined for involving
supply chain strategists and customers as stakeholders. In addition,
it is also revealed that the supply chain has not adopted an
appropriate standard (like, standards from ISO 14000 series and
OHSAS 18001/18002) for implementing and operating sustain-
ability practices.
Finally, this study could also identify the relevant barriers to
achieving sustainability in the three seafood companies studied. In
the study by Govindan et al. (2014), 47 barriers to implementing
sustainability in supply chains were discussed. Out of 47, 26 barriers
were found to have high rankings following the analytical hierarchy
process. Given the complexity of such a model, Govindan et al.
(2014) recommended identification of the relevant barriers and
eliminate them. This study also discovered the most relevant bar-
riers causing poor implementation of sustainability and their per-
formance issues. The approach can be adopted as a regular process
for periodic data collection and analysis of the performance levels
of sustainability variables and their statistically significant in-
fluences on operations. Later, the process can be upgraded to
continuous data collection and monitoring through a business case
for investing in automated systems (like IoTs and big data).
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Following the action research approach, this study could explore
the key barriers to implementation of sustainability, the relevant
sustainability variables, and their impacts on the operations vari-
ables in three Indian seafood companies. The action research
method could discover the following findings from the companies
studied:
(a) Integration of sustainability practices in the echelons is not
evident.
(b) The practices reflected lack of standards.
(c) There is inadequate motivation to improve and achieve
excellence through capability development.
(d) Sustainability practices are followed primarily for legal and
regulatory compliance.
(e) Well defined sustainability objectives are missing.
(f) Tasks related to sustainability are treated as added tasks
loaded upon the business-related tasks.
(g) In the long-term, quality of sustainability may reduce
because of problems, like increase of complacency and
corruption.
(h) The statistical analysis revealed impact of sustainability
checks during procurement and safety checks on the overall
operations performance.
(i) The statistical analysis also revealed that unfair employment
has resulted in reduction of quality and compliance in the
jobs thus impacting operations performance and also
causing losses of materials.
(j) Sustainability practices are not consistent in all the echelons.
(k) The management is committed to sustainability, but their
focus is primarily legal and regulatory compliance.
(l) Lack of standards implies higher emphasis on the knowl-
edge, skills, and actions taken by the supervisors for
completing the sustainability-related tasks.
(m) Involvement of stakeholders is limited to legal and regula-
tory compliance.
(n) Suppliers are trained but not involved and audited actively.
The trust on suppliers is again linked with the latter's legal
and regulatory compliance only.
The statistical analysis of data collected from action research
resulted in useful findings. It was found that the cost of operations
was statistically significantly influenced by poor sustainability
checks per procurement transaction, environmental hazards, unfair
employment practices, and losses of materials. Further, unfair
employment practices was found as influencing losses of materials
in addition to increasing cost of operations. Lack of sustainability
checks per transaction increases both operations cost and time.
These findings clearly indicate an operations performance over-
head because of poor sustainability practices, which need to be
accounted while implementing triple bottom-line operations.
While sustainability existed to some extent in the organisations
studied, the seven important aspects covered in Section 5 were
found as inadequate. The organisations are not availing the true
benefits of sustainability to the business because the overall stra-
tegic directions and alignment with business objectives are
missing. The top management may like to consider undertaking the
controls directly and define clear strategic directions for defining
the most relevant triple bottom-line objectives and integrating
them with the business objectives. Sustainability may be used to
achieve a brand image of the company through active involvement
of all stakeholders and suppliers. Viewing sustainability as a
compliance problem only may affect the long-term sustainability of
the business and the environment in which, the business is
operating.
The novel contribution of this research is the approach followed
to examine the sustainability variables and their influence on op-
erations in semi-automated or manual processes. The action
research approach to collect data from field actors for sustainability
accounting, and reporting the results through model creation using
multivariate statistical methods can be used by even the industries
running manual and standalone processes. In the evolving world of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT), the in-
dustries having manual processes may be left behind in the quest
for sustainability accounting. These industries do have a future of
deploying sensors at various processes such that data can be
collected automatically and analysed in a centralised server system.
However, to even think of a roadmap for AI and sensors-enabled
sustainability, measurements, accounting, and reporting in future,
a manual system and cultural orientation for sustainability ac-
counting and reporting needs to be in place. This research presents
how an organisation largely dependent upon manual and isolated
processes with manual working can implement sustainability ac-
counting. Sea food processing industry is an ideal place to explore
action research as this industry is built upon manual workforce and
human skills in cleaning, processing and packaging of fishes with
little involvement of machines. After the action research results in
opportunities for performance improvements through sustain-
ability measurements, a business case can be formulated to
implement sophisticated technologies for continuous data collec-
tion and analysis.
This research has some limitations, as well. Studying sustain-
ability in an organisation running old manual processes with no
formal knowledge and skills related to the subject is very chal-
lenging. Explaining the context to the supervisors and the field
actors was difficult as they were used to a manual work environ-
ment where the so called non-compliances to sustainability stan-
dards are viewed as business-as-usual. In absence of any automated
data generators, the data collection process required close obser-
vation of the manual processes and recording the details needed for
the data analysis. It was a time consuming process with only
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244 239

approximate values obtained. The choice of variables to be inves- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.200.

tigated was based on feasibility of what could be collected from the
field actors. Hence, this study was insufficient and needs to be
treated as an evidence-based proof of concept. For applying this
approach in practice, additional ways of data collection need to be
explored to ensure that the essential variables defined in the
relevant standards can be measured.
Acknowledgements:
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. How-
ever, we are very much grateful to Integral University for providing
us an environment and support to complete our research work.
Manuscript Communication Number (MCN): IU/R&D/2019 e MCN
000652 office of research and development, Integral University,
Lucknow.
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Appendix A. questionnaire for supervisors interviewed
before the monitoring sessions
(a) What is the level of management commitment towards
implementing sustainability?
(b) What are the applicable regulations that you follow?
(c) How the sustainability norms are decided in your
organisation?
(d) How do you implement the sustainability norms?
(e) How do you measure sustainability in your organisation?
(f) How do you involve stakeholders of sustainability?
(g) How do you train and audit sustainability practices of your
suppliers?
Appendix A. MANOVA test results (raw tables from SPSS)

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at

Table 7
Results of Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb

a
Intercept Pillai's Trace .987 1984.406 3.000 80.000 .000 5953.219 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .013 1984.406a 3.000 80.000 .000 5953.219 1.000
Hotelling's Trace 74.415 1984.406a 3.000 80.000 .000 5953.219 1.000
Roy's Largest Root 74.415 1984.406a 3.000 80.000 .000 5953.219 1.000
SUS_CKS Pillai's Trace .226 .953 21.000 246.000 .523 20.009 .729
Wilks' Lambda .790 .940 21.000 230.267 .539 18.869 .693
Hotelling's Trace .248 .928 21.000 236.000 .556 19.482 .712
Roy's Largest Root .130 1.527c 7.000 82.000 .170 10.686 .605
ENV_HAZ Pillai's Trace .150 1.080 12.000 246.000 .378 12.956 .620
Wilks' Lambda .856 1.069 12.000 211.952 .388 11.277 .542
Hotelling's Trace .161 1.057 12.000 236.000 .398 12.683 .607
Roy's Largest Root .085 1.739c 4.000 82.000 .149 6.956 .510
SAFE_MEAS Pillai's Trace .287 1.734 15.000 246.000 .045 26.013 .917
Wilks' Lambda .735 1.741 15.000 221.246 .045 23.919 .884
Hotelling's Trace .332 1.739 15.000 236.000 .045 26.085 .917
Roy's Largest Root .212 3.483c 5.000 82.000 .007 17.414 .896
GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .101 .714 12.000 246.000 .738 8.563 .413
Wilks' Lambda .902 .704 12.000 211.952 .747 7.436 .353
Hotelling's Trace .106 .695 12.000 236.000 .755 8.345 .401
Roy's Largest Root .067 1.365c 4.000 82.000 .253 5.461 .408
UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .310 2.365 12.000 246.000 .007 28.375 .961
Wilks' Lambda .710 2.442 12.000 211.952 .005 25.645 .936
Hotelling's Trace .381 2.496 12.000 236.000 .004 29.951 .970
Roy's Largest Root .291 5.975c 4.000 82.000 .000 23.898 .980
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ Pillai's Trace .381 1.193 30.000 246.000 .233 35.784 .928
Wilks' Lambda .662 1.183 30.000 235.492 .244 34.665 .916
Hotelling's Trace .447 1.172 30.000 236.000 .255 35.156 .921
Roy's Largest Root .234 1.922c 10.000 82.000 .054 19.216 .829
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS Pillai's Trace .132 .945 12.000 246.000 .502 11.344 .548
Wilks' Lambda .873 .932 12.000 211.952 .516 9.829 .473
Hotelling's Trace .140 .917 12.000 236.000 .530 11.006 .532
Roy's Largest Root .073 1.493c 4.000 82.000 .212 5.971 .444
SUS_CKS * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .171 .994 15.000 246.000 .462 14.914 .645
Wilks' Lambda .836 .988 15.000 221.246 .469 13.596 .590
Hotelling's Trace .187 .980 15.000 236.000 .477 14.697 .636
Roy's Largest Root .112 1.840c 5.000 82.000 .114 9.198 .601
SUS_CKS * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .284 1.226 21.000 246.000 .230 25.743 .860
Wilks' Lambda .738 1.225 21.000 230.267 .232 24.558 .836
Hotelling's Trace .326 1.221 21.000 236.000 .234 25.640 .857
Roy's Largest Root .187 2.192c 7.000 82.000 .043 15.345 .792
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS Pillai's Trace .236 .779 27.000 246.000 .777 21.032 .691
Wilks' Lambda .781 .767 27.000 234.284 .791 20.144 .663
Hotelling's Trace .259 .756 27.000 236.000 .805 20.405 .671
Roy's Largest Root .112 1.024c 9.000 82.000 .428 9.214 .474
ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .254 .947 24.000 246.000 .538 22.718 .767
(continued on next page)
240 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Table 7 (continued )

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb

Wilks' Lambda .765 .940 24.000 232.626 .548 21.773 .741

Hotelling's Trace .285 .933 24.000 236.000 .557 22.389 .757
Roy's Largest Root .168 1.717c 8.000 82.000 .107 13.737 .708
ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .231 .760 27.000 246.000 .800 20.527 .677
Wilks' Lambda .784 .753 27.000 234.284 .808 19.778 .653
Hotelling's Trace .256 .747 27.000 236.000 .816 20.158 .664
Roy's Largest Root .151 1.373c 9.000 82.000 .214 12.357 .623
SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .196 1.145 15.000 246.000 .317 17.177 .725
Wilks' Lambda .812 1.158 15.000 221.246 .306 15.940 .680
Hotelling's Trace .223 1.169 15.000 236.000 .297 17.541 .735
Roy's Largest Root .173 2.838c 5.000 82.000 .021 14.189 .815
SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .135 .644 18.000 246.000 .863 11.597 .466
Wilks' Lambda .868 .648 18.000 226.759 .859 10.980 .437
Hotelling's Trace .149 .652 18.000 236.000 .856 11.735 .470
Roy's Largest Root .123 1.684c 6.000 82.000 .135 10.102 .610
GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .146 .840 15.000 246.000 .633 12.597 .552
Wilks' Lambda .859 .833 15.000 221.246 .641 11.469 .500
Hotelling's Trace .157 .826 15.000 236.000 .649 12.384 .541
Roy's Largest Root .099 1.620c 5.000 82.000 .164 8.102 .538
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .028 .754a 3.000 80.000 .523 2.263 .205
Wilks' Lambda .972 .754a 3.000 80.000 .523 2.263 .205
Hotelling's Trace .028 .754a 3.000 80.000 .523 2.263 .205
Roy's Largest Root .028 .754a 3.000 80.000 .523 2.263 .205
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .053 .489 9.000 246.000 .881 4.400 .239
Wilks' Lambda .948 .481 9.000 194.850 .887 3.502 .191
Hotelling's Trace .054 .473 9.000 236.000 .892 4.261 .232
Roy's Largest Root .031 .844c 3.000 82.000 .474 2.533 .226
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .031 .840a 3.000 80.000 .476 2.521 .225
Wilks' Lambda .969 .840a 3.000 80.000 .476 2.521 .225
Hotelling's Trace .032 .840a 3.000 80.000 .476 2.521 .225
Roy's Largest Root .032 .840a 3.000 80.000 .476 2.521 .225
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .010 .262a 3.000 80.000 .852 .787 .098
Wilks' Lambda .990 .262a 3.000 80.000 .852 .787 .098
Hotelling's Trace .010 .262a 3.000 80.000 .852 .787 .098
Roy's Largest Root .010 .262a 3.000 80.000 .852 .787 .098
ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .035 .476 6.000 162.000 .826 2.855 .190
Wilks' Lambda .965 .473a 6.000 160.000 .828 2.838 .189
Hotelling's Trace .036 .470 6.000 158.000 .830 2.821 .188
Roy's Largest Root .033 .892c 3.000 81.000 .449 2.675 .237
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244 241

Table 7 (continued )

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb

a
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 . .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Pillai's Trace .000 .a .000 .000 . . .
Wilks' Lambda 1.000 .a .000 81.000 . . .
Hotelling's Trace .000 .a .000 2.000 . . .
Roy's Largest Root .000 .000a 3.000 79.000 1.000 .000 .050

a. Exact statistic.
b. Computed using alpha ¼ .05.
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Design: Intercept þ SUS_CKS þ ENV_HAZ þ SAFE_MEAS þ GRN_STD þ UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ þ SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS þ SUS_CKS * GRN_STD þ SUS_CKS *
UNF_EMPL þ ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS þ ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD þ ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL þ SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD þ SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL þ GRN_STD *
UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD þ SUS_CKS *
SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL þ ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD þ ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL þ ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD *
UNF_EMPL þ SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ *
GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL þ ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL þ SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD *
UNF_EMPL.

Table 8
Tests of between subjects effects (raw tables from SPSS)

Source Dependent Type III Sum of df Mean F Sig. Noncent. Observed

Variable Squares Square Parameter Powerb

Corrected Model Operations Time 4032.547a 217 18.583 1.333 .067 289.248 .999
Cost of operations 3.183E6 217 14669.356 1.139 .251 247.102 .996
Losses of 344.350d 217 1.587 1.028 .451 223.097 .990
materials
Intercept Operations Time 35096.476 1 35096.476 2517.417 .000 2517.417 1.000
Cost of operations 5.216E7 1 5.216E7 4049.027 .000 4049.027 1.000
Losses of 98.702 1 98.702 63.947 .000 63.947 1.000
materials
SUS_CKS Operations Time 136.459 7 19.494 1.398 .217 9.788 .560
Cost of operations 82856.860 7 11836.694 .919 .496 6.432 .373
Losses of 6.961 7 .994 .644 .718 4.510 .261
materials
ENV_HAZ Operations Time 78.516 4 19.629 1.408 .239 5.632 .420
Cost of operations 13813.560 4 3453.390 .268 .898 1.072 .106
Losses of 8.330 4 2.082 1.349 .259 5.397 .403
materials
SAFE_MEAS Operations Time 218.795 5 43.759 3.139 .012 15.694 .858
Cost of operations 82355.409 5 16471.082 1.279 .281 6.393 .432
Losses of 6.646 5 1.329 .861 .511 4.306 .294
materials
GRN_STD Operations Time 57.684 4 14.421 1.034 .395 4.138 .313
Cost of operations 11490.882 4 2872.721 .223 .925 .892 .096
Losses of 6.008 4 1.502 .973 .427 3.892 .295
materials
UNF_EMPL Operations Time 133.834 4 33.458 2.400 .057 9.600 .667
Cost of operations 129071.017 4 32267.754 2.505 .048 10.019 .688
Losses of 16.606 4 4.152 2.690 .037 10.759 .724
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ Operations Time 152.961 10 15.296 1.097 .374 10.972 .535
Cost of operations 243567.288 10 24356.729 1.891 .058 18.907 .821
Losses of 10.297 10 1.030 .667 .751 6.671 .323
materials
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS Operations Time 21.806 4 5.452 .391 .815 1.564 .136
Cost of operations 70347.354 4 17586.839 1.365 .253 5.461 .408
Losses of 7.008 4 1.752 1.135 .346 4.541 .342
materials
SUS_CKS * GRN_STD Operations Time 20.421 5 4.084 .293 .916 1.465 .119
Cost of operations 72285.355 5 14457.071 1.122 .355 5.611 .380
Losses of 11.879 5 2.376 1.539 .187 7.696 .514
materials
SUS_CKS * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 185.732 7 26.533 1.903 .079 13.322 .721
Cost of operations 116005.383 7 16572.198 1.286 .267 9.005 .518
Losses of 7.572 7 1.082 .701 .671 4.906 .284
materials
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS Operations Time 122.163 9 13.574 .974 .468 8.763 .451
Cost of operations 52599.391 9 5844.377 .454 .901 4.083 .209
Losses of 13.990 9 1.554 1.007 .441 9.064 .466
materials
ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD Operations Time 180.634 8 22.579 1.620 .132 12.957 .676
(continued on next page)
242 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244

Table 8 (continued )

Source Dependent Type III Sum of df Mean F Sig. Noncent. Observed

Variable Squares Square Parameter Powerb

Cost of operations 44729.577 8 5591.197 .434 .897 3.472 .191

Losses of 9.666 8 1.208 .783 .619 6.262 .340
materials
ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 133.851 9 14.872 1.067 .396 9.601 .493
Cost of operations 60272.019 9 6696.891 .520 .856 4.679 .238
Losses of 9.225 9 1.025 .664 .739 5.977 .305
materials
SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Operations Time 39.177 5 7.835 .562 .729 2.810 .198
Cost of operations 100527.487 5 20105.497 1.561 .180 7.804 .520
Losses of 12.878 5 2.576 1.669 .151 8.344 .552
materials
SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 137.121 6 22.854 1.639 .147 9.835 .596
Cost of operations 1610.651 6 268.442 .021 1.000 .125 .055
Losses of 3.162 6 .527 .341 .913 2.049 .141
materials
GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 63.481 5 12.696 .911 .478 4.553 .310
Cost of operations 29110.307 5 5822.061 .452 .811 2.260 .164
Losses of 10.695 5 2.139 1.386 .238 6.929 .466
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 10.899 1 10.899 .782 .379 .782 .141
Cost of operations 3377.023 1 3377.023 .262 .610 .262 .080
Losses of 1.166 1 1.166 .756 .387 .756 .138
materials
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 32.931 3 10.977 .787 .504 2.362 .213
Cost of operations 14215.737 3 4738.579 .368 .776 1.104 .119
Losses of 2.421 3 .807 .523 .668 1.569 .153
materials
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Operations Time 22.550 1 22.550 1.618 .207 1.618 .242
Cost of operations 6788.282 1 6788.282 .527 .470 .527 .111
Losses of .130 1 .130 .085 .772 .085 .060
materials
ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 5.963 1 5.963 .428 .515 .428 .099
Cost of operations 1128.079 1 1128.079 .088 .768 .088 .060
Losses of .194 1 .194 .126 .724 .126 .064
materials
ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time 18.741 2 9.371 .672 .513 1.344 .160
Cost of operations 502.112 2 251.056 .019 .981 .039 .053
Losses of 2.420 2 1.210 .784 .460 1.568 .179
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244 243

Table 8 (continued )

Source Dependent Type III Sum of df Mean F Sig. Noncent. Observed

Variable Squares Square Parameter Powerb

ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * UNF_EMPL Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .

Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
SUS_CKS * ENV_HAZ * SAFE_MEAS * GRN_STD * Operations Time .000 0 . . . .000 .
UNF_EMPL Cost of operations .000 0 . . . .000 .
Losses of .000 0 . . . .000 .
materials
Error Operations Time 1143.200 82 13.941
Cost of operations 1056349.390 82 12882.310
Losses of 126.567 82 1.543
materials
Total Operations Time 153650.000 300
Cost of operations 2.215E8 300
Losses of 1073.000 300
materials
Corrected Total Operations Time 5175.747 299
Cost of operations 4239599.747 299
Losses of 470.917 299
materials

a. R Squared ¼ .779 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .195).

b. Computed using alpha ¼ .05.
c. R Squared ¼ .751 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .091).
d. R Squared ¼ .731 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .020).

References Statistics, Department of Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs, Crown Copyright,
pp. 1e100.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the imple-
Alkire, S., 2011. The Capability Approach and Human Development. Oxford Poverty
mentation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55,
& Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford [online], Retrieved from.
659e667 (Elsevier).
http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-HDCA-SS11-Intro-to-the-
Eccles, R.G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J., Serafeim, G., 2012. The need for sector-specific
Capability-Approach-SA.pdf. (Accessed 18 April 2016).
materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Bank Am. J. Appl. Corp.
Avison, D., lau, F., Myers, M., Nielsen, P.A., 1999. Action Research: to make academic
Finance 24 (2), 8e14 (Morgan Stanley Publication).
research relevant, researchers should try out their theories with practitioners in
Ene, S., Ozturk, N., 2014. Open loop reverse supply chain network design. Procedia
real situations and real organization. Commun. ACM 94e97.
Soc. Behav. Sci. 109, 1110e1115 (Elsevier).
Azcarate, F., Carrasco, F., Fernandez, M., 2011. The role of integrated indicators in
Garg, P., 2017. Development of sustainability reporting index (SRI) with special
exhibiting business contribution to sustainable development: a survey of sus-
reference to companies in India. Decision 44 (4), 259e273 (Springer).
tainability reporting initiatives. Spanish Accounting Rev. 14, 213e240. Science
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., Rodon, J., 2012. Sustainable operations: their impact on the
Direct.
triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 149e159 (Elsevier).
Bala, A., Munoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Ysern, P., 2008. Experiences with greening sup-
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015a. Lean, green and
pliers. The Universitat Auto'noma de Barcelona. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1610e1619
resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive struc-
(Elsevier).
tural modeling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 15e34 (Springer).
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., 2014. Accounting and sustainable development: an
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014. Barriers analysis for green
exploration. Account. Org. Soc. 39, 395e413 (Elsevier).
supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., 2007. Accounting technologies and sustainability
hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555e568 (Elsevier).
assessment models. Ecol. Econ. 61, 224e236 (Elsevier).
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
Bell, S. Dr, Morse, S., 2011. Sustainable development indicators: the Tyranny of
measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line
methodology revisited. Consilience: J. Sustain. Dev. 6 (1), 222e239.
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345e354 (Elsevier).
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015b. Reverse logistics and closed-loop
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J.
supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Oper. Res. 233, 299e312 (Elsevier).
240, 603e626 (Elsevier).
BSI, 2006. International Standard: Environment Management Lifecycle Assessment:
Gray, R., 2013. Back to basics: what do we mean by environmental (and social)
Principles and Framework, pp. 1e26. BS ISO/IEC 14040:2006.
accounting and what is it for? Crit. Perspect. Account. 24, 459e468 (Elsevier).
Burger, P., Christen, M., 2011. Towards a capability approach of sustainability.
GRI, 2011. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines", Version 3.1. Global Reporting
J. Clean. Prod. 19 (8), 787e795 (Elsevier).
Initiative, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 3e195.
Caniels, M.C.J., Gehrsitz, M.H., Semeijn, J., 2013. Participation of suppliers in
Hahn, R., Kuhnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of
greening supply chains: an empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers.
results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research.
J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19, 134e143 (Elsevier).
J. Clean. Prod. 59, 5e21 (Elsevier).
Chan, H.K., Wang, X., Raffoni, A., 2014. An integrated approach for green design:
Hall, P., 2012. USAID Environmental Compliance Reporting. Global Environment
life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and environmental management accounting. Br. Account.
Management Support, pp. 1e13.
Rev. 46, 344e360 (Elsevier).
Handfield, R., Sroufe, R., Walton, W., 2005. Integrating environmental management
Cetinkaya, B., 2011. Developing a sustainable supply chain strategy. In: Cetinkaya, B.,
and supply chain strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 14, 1e19 (Wiley InterScience).
Cuthbertson, R., Ewer, G., Klaas-Wissing, T. (Eds.), Book Chapter: Sustainable
Hervani, A., Helms, M., 2005. Performance measurement for green supply chain
Supply Chain Management: Practical Ideas for Moving towards Best Practice.
management. Benchmarking Int. J. 12 (4), 330e353 (Emerald).
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 17e55.
Hindle, T., Checkland, P., Mumford, M., Worthington, D., 1995. Developing a
Chen, L., Lee, H.L., 2012. Bullwhip effect measurement and its implications. Oper.
methodology for multidisciplinary action research: a case study. J. Oper. Res.
Res. 60 (4), 771e784 (INFORMS).
Soc. 46 (4), 453e464 (Palgrave MacMillan).
Christen, M., Schmidt, S., 2010. A Formal Framework for Theories of Sustainability.
Hollos, D., Blome, C., Foerstl, K., 2012. Does sustainable supplier co-operation affect
Sustainability Research Program, University of Basel, Switzerland, pp. 1e16.
performance? Examining implications for the triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod.
Christopher, M., 2015. Logistics & Supply Chain Management, fifth ed. Prentice Hall
Res. 50 (11), 2968e2986 (Taylor & Francis).
Financial Times, London: Pearson Education.
Homayoun, S., Al-Thani, F.F.J., Homayoun, S., 2016. A sustainability accounting: case
DEFRA, 2006. Environmental Key Performance Indicators: Reporting Guidelines for
study on exploration, production and midstream activities at maersk oil. Int. J.
UK Businesses. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pp. 1e76.
Energy Econ. Policy 6 (1), 20e27.
DEFRA, 2013. Sustainable Development Indicators. Sustainable Development
Hussain, M., Drake, P.R., 2011. Analysis of the bullwhip effect with order batching in
244 K. Tiwari, M.S. Khan / Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 225e244
multi-echelon supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (8), 797e814
(Emerald).
Hutchins, M.J., Sutherland, J.W., 2008. An exploration of measures of social sus-
tainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
1688e1698 (Elsevier).
IRRC Institute, 2013. Integrated Financial and Sustainability Reporting in the United
States. Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute (IRRCI), pp. 1e290.
Islam, A., 2010. Social and Environmental accounting research: major contributions
and future directions for developing countries. J. Asia-Pac. Centr. Environ.
Accoun. 16 (2), 27e43 (University of South Australia).
ISO, 2012. Environmental Labels and Declarations: How ISO Standards Help. In-
ternational Standards Organisation, pp. 1e28.
Ivanov, D., 2018. Structural dynamics and resilience in supply chain risk manage-
ment. In: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science,
265. Springer, NY.
Jones, M.J., 2010. Accounting for the environment: towards a theoretical perspective
for environmental accounting, and reporting. Account. Forum 34, 123e138
(Elsevier).
Kannan, D., Diabat, A., Alrefaei, M., Govindan, K., Yong, G., 2012. A carbon footprint
based reverse logistics network design model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 67,
75e79 (Elsevier).
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations
management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (4), 482e492.
KPMG, 2014. Corporate sustainability: drivers and enablers. In: India Sustainability
Conclave 2014. KPMG and FICCI, pp. 1e24.
KPMG, 2015. Currents of Change-The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility
Reporting-2015. KPMG Group, pp. 2e48.
Kumar, K.S.V., Devi, V.R., 2015. Sustainability reporting practices in India: challenges
and prospects. In: Twelfth AIMS International Conference on Management, 2-5
January 2015, IIM, Kozhikode 1712-1717. The Association of Indian Management
Scholars (AIMS).
Laskar, N., Maji, S.G., 2016. Corporate sustainability reporting practices in India:
myth or reality? Soc. Responsib. J. 12 (4), 625e641 (Emerald).
Mahadi, A., 2012. Adopting the Capabilities Approach in Developing a Global
Framework for Measuring Sustainable Development. Published Master Thesis.
Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, pp. 1e71.
Majumdar, U., Rana, N., Sanan, N., 2017. Responsible business rankings: India's top
companies for sustainability and CSR 2017. IIM Udaipur and Futurescape 6e58.
Marjani, M., Nasaruddin, F., Gani, A., Karim, A., Hashem, I.A.T., Siddiqa, A., Yaqoob, I.,
2017. Big IoT data analytics: architecture, opportunities, and open research
challenges. IEEE Access 5, 5247e5261.
Noffke, S., Somekh, B., 2005. Action research. In: Somekh, B., Lewin, C. (Eds.), Book
Chapter: Research Methods in Social Sciences. Sage Publications, London,
pp. 89e96.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag.
45 (2), 37e56.
Palevich, R., 2012. The Lean Sustainable Supply Chain. FT Press, Worldwide.
Piercy, N., Rich, N., 2015. The relationship between lean operations and sustainable
operations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (2), 282e315.
Rauschmayer, F., Lessmann, O., 2013. The capability approach and sustainability.
J. Human Dev. Capabilities 14 (1), 1e5 (Routeledge).
Rechtschaffen, C., 2007. Shining the spotlight on European Union environmental
compliance. Pace Environ. Law Rev. 24 (1), 161e186.
Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2011. Research Methods for Business
Students, fifth ed. Prentice Hall, London.
Sekaran, U., 2003. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, fourth
ed. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699e1710 (Elsevier).
Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008a. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management
e a Delphi study. In: Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 17. Wiley
InterScience, pp. 455e466.
Shee, H., Kaswi, S., 2016. Behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect: multinational vs.
Local supermarket retailers. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 9 (1), 1e14.
Sherwood, P., 2007. A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of the Impact of Special Events:
the Development of Indicators. Published PHD Thesis. Centre for Hospitality
and Tourism Research, Victoria University, pp. 1e355.
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Johnston, R., 2013. Operations Management, seventh
ed. Pearson, , UK.
Smith, A.C., Sharicz, C., 2011. The shift needed for sustainability. Learn. Organ. 18 (1),
73e86. Emerald.
So, S., Xu, H., 2014. A conceptual framework for adopting sustainability in greening
the supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 19 (4), 491e510 (Inderscience).
Somekh, B., Burman, E., Delamount, S., Meyer, J., payne, M., Thorpe, R., 2005.
Research communities in social sciences. In: Somekh, B., Lewin, C. (Eds.), Book
Chapter: Research Methods in Social Sciences. Sage Publications, London,
pp. 1e14.
Tiwari, K., Khan, M. S. Dr, Bharti, P.K., 2018. Sustainability accounting and reporting
for supply chains in India-State-of-the-Art and research challenges. IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 404, 1e7.
Trochim, W.T., Donnelly, J., 2006. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog
Publishing Inc, OH.
United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 2006.
Framework for the UN DESD International Implementation Scheme. Document
no. ED/DESD/2006/PI/1 [online], p. 1-46, available at. http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0014/001486/148650E.pdf. (Accessed 18 April 2016).
UN, 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies,
third ed. Economic and Social Affais, United Nations, New York & Geneva,
pp. 1e99.
UN, 2008. Measuring Sustainable Development" Report of the Joint UNECE/OECD/
Eurostat Working Group on Statistics for Sustainable Development. United
Nations, New York and Geneva, pp. 1e124.
UN, 2014. Measuring Sustainable Development", Prepared in Cooperation with the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Statistical
Office of the European Union (Eurostat). United Nations, New York & Geneva,
pp. 1e226.
UN, 2015. Supply Chain Sustainability: A Practical Guide for Continuous Improve-
ment. UN Global Compact Office and Business for Social Responsibility,
pp. 1e68.
Vermeer, D., Clemen, B., Michalko, A., Nguyen, D., Noyes, C., Akella, A., Bunting, J.,
2010. An Overview of Ecolabels and Sustainability Certifications in the Global
Marketplace", Corporate Sustainability Initiative. Nicholas Institute for Envi-
ronmental Policy Solutions. Duke University [Online], Available at. https://
center.sustainability.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/ecolabelsreport.
pdf. (Accessed 18 April 2016).
Vermeulen, W.J.V., Ras, P.J., 2006. The challenge of greening global product chains:
meeting both ends. Sustain. Dev. 14, 245e256 (Wiley InterScience).
Voget-Kleschin, L., 2013. Employing the capability approach in conceptualizing
sustainable development. J. Human Dev. Capabilities 14 (4), 483e502
(Routeledge).
Whyte, W.F., 1989. Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action
research. Socio. Forum 4 (3), 367e385 (Springer).