Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)

Published online 23 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.702

Supply Chain Management for Sustainable

Products – Insights From Research Applying
Mixed Methodologies
Stefan Seuring*
University of Kassel, Department of International Management,
Steinstrasse 19, Witzenhausen 37213, Germany

ABSTRACT
The significant growth in the academic literature on sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM) can best be seen by the fact that three review papers have been published since
2007. In line with this, the question emerged – what distinguishes sustainable supply chain
management from ‘conventional’ supply chain management? Here, the strategy of supply
chain management for sustainable products proposed by Seuring and Müller (2008a) will
be discussed.
Against this background, this paper aims to develop a theory for sustainable supply chain
management. While other contributions are taken into account, this will be primarily based
on our own research spanning about 10 years and using multiple research methods. The
empirical methods employed include: (1) case studies, (2) action research, (3) Delphi study,
(4) survey research, and (5) literature reviews based on content analysis.
The paper will provide insights into what was learned from the different research projects
and how this has helped to gain a better and wider understanding of the field. This is
discussed further by presenting hypotheses which should help to further advance the theory
of supply chain management for sustainable products. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 8 March 2010; revised 19 September 2010; accepted 27 September 2010

Keywords: sustainability; supply chain management; sustainable supply chains; mixed-methodology research; theory

Introduction

S
USTAINABILITY IS NOW FIRMLY ESTABLISHED ON THE MANAGEMENT AGENDA. RELATED INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPTS HAVE
also received increasing interest, such as the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), where
in recent years a rapid increase in company initiatives and academic publications has occurred. Against such
a development, it might be asked whether this is just a fad that will soon disappear or whether the field is
maturing and related theoretical development is starting to catch up. One indication that researchers see this field as
a maturing one is the publication of three related literature reviews in 2007 and 2008 (Srivastava, 2007; Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Müller, 2008a).
* Correspondence to: Stefan Seuring, University of Kassel, Department of International Management, Steinstrasse 19, Witzenhausen 37213,
Germany. E-mail: seuring@uni-kassel.de

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
472 S. Seuring

The aim of this paper is to contribute to theoretical developments in SSCM, taking the normative strategy of
supply chain management (SCM) for sustainable products (Seuring and Müller, 2008a) as a starting point. After
the arguments of Weick (1995), this is seen as initiating theoretical development. Theories do not form all of a
sudden, but are often developed step by step, with a narrow line in disciplined reflexivity (Weick, 1999) between
including too much and being (overly) simplistic. This is seen as one of the tensions that occurs in building a theory.
Furthermore, theory building is dynamic in nature, leading Fabian (2000) to the conclusion that ‘even if research-
ers were to agree on the ontological validity of an objective reality, epistemological standards for testing that reality
could still be products of the social construction process’. In line with this, the present paper does not aim to report
the findings and results from a single research project. Rather it aims to summarize how the author conceptualizes
research on SSCM. This is based on about 10 years of related empirical research with a number of colleagues in
which a range of empirical research methodologies were employed. In this respect, the paper departs from the
conventional form of journal papers by reporting on continued efforts within one field of research.
The paper will be structured as follows. First, the concepts of theory and theory-building will be briefly intro-
duced. Next, a succinct literature review on SSCM is presented, mainly on the basis of recent literature reviews and
papers particularly concerning theory development in this research field. The next section reviews contributions in
which the author of this paper has been involved over the last 10 years and relates them to the research of other
workers on similar topics. Emphasis is placed on the application of different research designs. Against this
background, the components of theory are taken up, allowing a theory of SSCM to be outlined. The contribution of
the present paper is then briefly discussed.

Recent Theoretical Propositions in SSCM

Looking at SSCM as a now established field of academic research, a few examples of deliberate theory building
can be found. As a starting point, one contribution often mentioned in respective debates is the paper by Bowen
et al. (2001) in which the authors distinguish between ‘product based green supply’ and ‘greening the supply
process’. Bowen et al. (2001) conducted a survey, one key finding of which was that the construct ‘supply man-
agement capabilities’ has a positive correlation with product-based green supply. In line with this, the focus here
will be on green or sustainable products. Such a topic can concern both the forward chain (focused upon here)
as well as recycling or closed-loop SCM. Several frameworks and concepts within SSCM discuss this as a central
issue.
One key concept being used to assess the environmental impact of products is life-cycle assessment (LCA), which
has already been linked to SCM. Seuring (2004b) emphasized that life-cycle management adds a product-centred
perspective to the conventional supply chain literature. This allows one to identify areas of improvement for the
respective supply chain. Similar arguments are made in much of the literature on sustainable supply chains.
Related key contributions are literature reviews and a few conceptual papers, which will be summarized subse-
quently. Kleindorfer et al. (2005) mainly look at sustainable operations. Furthermore, their research has the major
limitation that it reviews papers from a single journal only. Still, the authors present a framework for ‘sustainability
in the extended supply chain’. In their paper they also mention green products and green processes and point to the
use of LCA. Srivastava (2007) chooses a rather general title for his paper ‘Green supply-chain management: a
state-of-the-art literature review’, but later mentions that he mainly looks at closed-loop supply chain issues. He
focuses mainly on the operations issue, while green design and green products only appear in a sideline of related
arguments. Beamon (2008) takes a wide perspective in her paper discussing a range of issues typically captured in
sustainability debates. Regarding products, she also emphasizes the need to ensure the availability of related raw
materials, where life-cycle design and closing the loop are at the top of the agenda. A somewhat similar analysis
centring around the demands of sustainability on the supply chain is presented by Halldórsson et al. (2009). As one
example, they suggest a ‘replacement sustainability strategy’ for SCM, where demand for sustainability dominates
the operation of the supply chain and might subsequently lead to a change in the structure of the supply chains,
such as a move towards more local suppliers. As one example, they mention locally grown and organic food which
is sold locally. This would change supply chain structures as additional criteria for the products are taken up in
fulfilling sustainability requirements.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 473

Design / Innovation
Capability
• Beyond Lean & TQM
• Product Positioning
Managerial Orientation
Toward Sustainability
• Guardrail Value
• Alignment of
Environmental, Social
and Economic Goals
• Proactive and
Commitment
Integration
Having an Economically
Re-conceptualizing
Viable Supply Chain
Who is in the Supply-Chain
• NGO
• Competitors
• Trade Groups Sustainability Outcomes
• Simultaneous High
Performance on
Indicators of Economic,
Focus on Supply Base Environmental and
Continuity Social Performance
• Transparency
• Traceability
• Supplier Certification
• Decommodization
Rewards and Incentives
Intrinsic & Extrinsic
New Behaviors

Figure 1. A model of sustainable supply chain management practices (from Pagell and Wu, 2009, p. 52)

The review of Carter and Rogers (2008) is entitled ‘A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving towards new theory’. On p. 368 of that review they define SSCM ‘as the strategic, transparent integration
and achievement of an organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals in the systemic coordination of key
inter-organizational business processes for improving the long-term economic performance of the individual
company and its supply chains’. The framework is well in line with the ‘standard’ three-dimensional conceptual-
ization of sustainability management (e.g. Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002), but stays on a very general level. They
continue by mentioning a total of five propositions mainly addressing links between sustainability and SCM. Green
or sustainable products might form one related example, where the required external resources (e.g. raw materials)
have to be secured while not being available in a standard or commodified form (see the subsequently mentioned
example of organic cotton).
Another explicit effort at developing a theory is made by Pagell and Wu (2009). They build on 10 case studies of
leading companies in the SSCM field to identify related practices and build an overall framework (see Figure 1). The
framework contains two major elements related to products, which are further explained in the respective paper: (1)
the design and innovation capabilities for developing related products as well as (2) the implications for the supply
chain. These implications include changing patterns of supplier selection and supplier management and maybe a
re-conceptualization of who is in the supply chain.

The Contributions of Different Research Designs

A further literature review was published by Seuring and Müller (2008a). These authors label one strategy in SSCM
as ‘supply chain management for sustainable products’. This is presented as part of the literature review, which also
contains a full list of published papers in the field of SSCM up to 2007. Yet it is obvious that a researcher in a given
field over time carries the ‘burden’ or background of all the research conducted over the years. This kind of
pre-conceptualization is a normal part of the research process and so-called disciplined imagination (Weick, 1989)
and theory building through conceptual models (Meredith, 1993). Subsequent sections of this paper will be used to
explain how different research projects completed over a number of years contributed to this framework.
Within a single piece of research it might be difficult to employ different research methods. Many people would
agree that each different empirical research methodology have its strengths, but also its shortcomings. This has
been extensively discussed in related papers (e.g. Bryman, 2006). It is assumed here that a multi-method or
mixed-method approach is beneficial for related theory building as it allows one to overcome the disadvantages of
any single research method (Bryman, 2007). The respective sections will also point to the original publications,
where more details can be found, including theoretical issues, research methodology and findings. We then reflect

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
474 S. Seuring

on this development process over time, with the major aim of pointing out how the individual pieces of research
have contributed towards our understanding of the strategy for ‘supply chain management for sustainable
products’. Table 1 offers a summary of the related original research publications.
The timeline of the individual aspects discussed here roughly follows the related publications, which themselves
are mainly in line with the sequence of the single research project. We started with case studies due to a publicly
funded project (which was one of the major inherent justifications for this work at that time). Prior to 2000 only
a few papers on SSCM had been published (Seuring and Müller, 2008a, list 35 papers), and more exploratory
research seemed to fit the agenda quite well. Subsequently the methodological choices included some deliberate
planning, such as a Delphi study (Seuring and Müller, 2008b). Yet there were also individual research opportuni-
ties, such as conducting an action research project at Volkswagen (Koplin et al., 2007), where a researcher had to
be invited rather than being able to make a request for access. Within this project, a survey was also completed
(Beske et al. 2008) which will be mentioned later on. Summarizing these efforts, the mixture of research oppor-
tunities and deliberate application of different research methods was seen as appropriate and beneficial. Different
sources of data could be used, allowing access to a range of empirical insights. This allows for ongoing triangulation
(Jack and Raturi, 2006) and theoretical refinement.

Paper Research method Key findings

Seuring (2001) Single case study Need for joint initiatives to make the chain operationally feasible, focus on
(polyester) cost-related measures in production processes
Goldbach et al. (2003) Single case study Different modes of supply chain organization for (1) starting and (2)
(cotton) maintaining the supply chain. Coordination needs for overcoming
barriers, in particular when starting the supply chain
Seuring et al. (2004), Two case studies Measures implemented for reducing time and complexity, thereby avoiding
Seuring and (polyester and risk and improving performance in the respective supply chains. Supplier
Goldbach (2006) cotton) evaluation and monitoring as key measures
Seuring (2004a) Five cases (textile Five elements used for environmental supply chain management: (1)
and clothing physical basis, (2) conceptual basis, (3) actors, (4) cooperation, (5)
industry) objectives (reducing environmental impact/improving performance)
Koplin et al. (2007) Action research Proposing a sustainability concept for supply management comprising four
(automotive levels
industry)
Beske et al. (2008) Survey (automotive Environmental standards (mainly ISO 14001) already well implemented,
industry) while social standards (e.g. SA 8000) hardly used so far. Standards as
minimum requirements for risk minimization
Seuring and Delphi study with 1. Four major lines of research proposed: (1) pressures and incentives for
Müller (2008b) SSCM experts SSCM; (2) identifying and measuring impacts on SSCM; (3) supplier
management (particularly supplier–buyer interface); (4) supply chain
management
Seuring and Literature review/ 1. Conceptual framework for SSCM in three parts: (1) Triggers for
Müller (2008a) content analysis sustainable supply chain management: public administration, customers
and NGOs pressure companies, but also offer incentives. (2) Supplier
management for risks and performance. (3) Supply chain management
for sustainable products
Gold et al. (2010a) Literature review/ Testing the hypothesis from Bowen et al. (2001) on inter-organizational
content analysis resources in SSCM; systematic review of published case studies.
Importance of inter-firm resources and capabilities as key sources of
sustained competitive advantage

Table 1. An outline of different research designs employed over a period of 10 years

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 475

Case Study Research

Quite a number of publications about SSCM, and more than is usually the case in supply chain-related research,
build on case study research (Seuring, 2008). This might be justified by the inherent flexibility of case study
research, which is well suited for opening up a field of research; many papers published in the late 1990s and early
2000s argue accordingly. During this early stage of development, exploratory research was seen as useful for
opening up the field and crafting the first theoretical propositions.
About 10 years ago the manufacture of clothing products from organic cotton (Meyer and Hohmann, 2000;
Kogg, 2003; Goldbach et al., 2003) or environmentally improved polyester (Seuring, 2001) was researched. While
cotton and polyester are typical commodities, this is not the case if green product design criteria are an additional
requirement. Such sustainable products cannot be achieved without related efforts in supplier development and
improvement because adequate raw materials are rare. This was later extended by particular examination of
time-effects (Seuring et al., 2004) and related performance improvements (Seuring and Goldbach, 2006).
Yet before such improvements can be implemented, the environmental and the social criteria might have to be
defined. This is one of the strengths of life-cycle management, which has been integrated into SSCM in this respect.
On the conceptual side, Seuring (2004b) has argued for this point, while it has been applied in a number of case
studies (Pesonen, 2001; Hagelaar et al., 2004; Brent, 2005; Tan and Khoo, 2005). Recently, Solér et al. (2010)
stressed the importance of (LCA-based) environmental information sharing for improving product and supply
chain performance.
One key finding was the superior role and responsibility taken by the focal company. Environmental and social
criteria, both for the products and the production processes, are set or implemented by the focal company. In most
cases, the focal company also engages with suppliers and helps them to improve their business process, where
win–win situations for environmental and economic performance can be found (Seuring and Goldbach, 2006).
This is usually a consequence of aiming to introduce related sustainable products (Seuring, 2001). Case study-based
research has provided detailed insights into related efforts (for other examples see Vermeulen and Ras, 2006,
Teuscher et al., 2006, Kovács, 2008, and Müller et al., 2009a). In all cases the environmental (e.g. organic cotton)
and social (e.g. hours of work, freedom of unions) conditions might have to be defined where the focal company
either relies on established standards or defines them itself. Quite often this might be done in line with other
stakeholders (Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi, 2010), where public administrations, customers and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) play a major role. This was also identified as a key topic in the Delphi study by Seuring and
Müller (2008b). In line with this, pressure from stakeholders, as well as incentives for related initiatives, was
observed by other researchers (e.g. Preuss, 2001; Zhu et al., 2007).
The main obstacle in case-based research is straightforward; it relies on a very small number of cases, often just
a single case. The strength is that it allows data to be collected from more than one stage of the supply chain, i.e.
from focal companies as well as suppliers and/or customers. While this was not done on all occasions, case studies
still form the major body of empirical research, where such a supply chain wide approach is taken while other
research designs basically do not allow this (Seuring, 2008). A well-documented example is presented in the paper
by Kogg (2003), who went to Peru to interview participants from the cotton farmer to the final clothing producer
in an organic cotton supply chain.
Summing up, two key issues have been raised here. First, the use of life-cycle management related tools. The
second issue, clearly identified and already discussed at the time, are the barriers and supporting factors among the
focal company and its suppliers regarding how sustainable supply chain management might be achieved. Related
papers applying a multi-case approach are, for example, Preuss (2005) or Kovács (2008), while a survey method-
ology was used by, for example, Bowen et al. (2001) and Carter and Jennings (2002). This leads to the next research
method.

Survey Based Research

Survey based research plays a leading role in logistics and SCM. Several authors (e.g. Mentzer and Kahn, 1995)
found that usually about 40 to 50% of all papers in related publications rely on survey based research. Important
proponents of this approach in SSCM include Carter (e.g. Carter and Jennings, 2002), Bowen et al. (2001); Rao and
Holt (2005), Vachon and Klassen (2006a, 2006b), Zhu and Sarkis (2004) and Zhu et al. (2007). Almost all of them

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
476 S. Seuring

do research on an instrumental level, testing against the performance implications of related initiatives. While they
use a range of different constructs, evidence has been found for a positive correlation among green supply chain
initiatives and economic performance. This is also found with regard to economic criteria and supply chain
integration (Vachon and Klassen, 2006a) and cooperation (Sharfman et al., 2009).
Our own survey (Beske et al., 2008) mainly looked at the status of implementation of environmental and social
standards in the automotive industry. Key findings included that environmental standards were implemented
across most companies in the industry and were already demanded from suppliers. The high degree of implemen-
tation does not allow a competitive advantage to be reached. In contrast, the adoption of social standards was barely
evident. Hence companies did not demand that suppliers implement them, which is explained by the simple fact
that buyers did not implement them themselves. Across a range of these studies it was observed that environmental
and social standards serve as minimum requirements which have to be fulfilled to stay in the market. Orders are
won against economic performance, i.e. product- and delivery-related criteria, measured in conventional terms such
as quality, speed and dependability of deliveries, flexibility in volume and product changes and resulting costs
(White, 1996). However, research output on corporate social responsibility in supply chains has now gained
momentum (e.g. Maloni and Brown, 2006; Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi, 2010; Hall and Matos, 2010).

Action Research
Action research is rarely applied in supply chain and logistics research. Within the literature review (Seuring and
Müller, 2008a) it was not even used as one of the research methodology categories, but was just counted among
related case studies. Yet there are important methodological differences. Action research relies on a more social
constructivist paradigm of research, where the aim is to change practice while conducting research. To our
knowledge, the paper of Koplin et al. (2007) is the only action research paper so far in the overall body of literature.
It has to be admitted that the research methodology is not appropriately described within this particular paper, but
it had already been documented in Koplin (2005).
The survey of Beske et al. (2008) served the purpose of informing the action research project on the current status
of implementation of environmental and social standards, as already explained. The theoretical research was
informed further by other survey research, such as the need for ‘lean and green’ supplier development (King and
Lenox, 2001; Simpson and Power, 2005) and an increasing need for communicating with suppliers (Rao, 2005;
Holt, 2009; also Thun and Müller, 2010).
The research took place from 2003 to 2005, and was subsequently followed up within the respective company
(Volkswagen) where implementation is ongoing. Based on sustainability and supply (chain) management literature,
but deeply rooted in the action research process, a framework for sustainable supply management was developed.
Central outcomes of the project deepened the understanding of how supplier evaluation, monitoring and develop-
ment can be implemented into the overall sourcing process. This also includes that environmental and social
demands are communicated to suppliers.

Delphi Study
Having seen so many papers and observed an increasing number of researchers working on single issues, an expert
survey based on the Delphi method seemed an excellent opportunity to identify key issues and challenges in SSCM
(Seuring and Müller, 2008b; also for the methodology). The project was completed in 2006. Again, it seems to be
the only study so far in the field that applies this research approach. Looking directly at the findings, only two
relevant aspects for this paper will be discussed:
1. Supplier management (particularly addressing issues at the supplier–buyer interface): according to this topic,
supplier evaluation and development emerged as the most important topics, which is well in line with findings
already mentioned.
2. Supply chain management (dealing with issues across all companies involved in the supply chain): this item
emphasizes cooperation and partnerships among the different actors of the supply chain, where chain-wide
communication was identified as one of the most relevant issues.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 477

Figure 2. Mixed methodology research in SSCM

Hence, this research summarized several of the already mentioned arguments and supported that these aspects
form part of a related framework.

Literature Review Based on Content Analysis

This research project started with an invitation to give a presentation on ‘supply management and sustainability’ at
a German conference in 2003. It actually developed into a major research effort on SSCM. While a first version of
the paper was published in 2004 in a German language edited volume, the need for a more detailed assessment was
required. This continued until the main paper (Seuring and Müller, 2008a) was accepted for publication. Hence,
the time span covers many of the other projects mentioned so far, which is yet another indication of the inter-
relatedness of such research efforts. Finally, a total of 191 papers were included within the review. For the
methodology, it is more appropriate to talk about applying content analysis, where a mixture of quantitative and
qualitative elements was applied. Individual dimensions and categories of analysis were chosen (e.g. higher costs
for organic products, communication needs with suppliers) for the dimension ‘pressures and incentives’ as well as
‘barriers and supporting factors’. This was part of the quantitative analysis, in which it was counted whether related
issues are mentioned in a paper. Accompanying this, the papers were read and excerpted, offering more qualitative
insights.
The particular contributions of the different research methods employed over time are highlighted in Figure 2.
It contains most of the elements which will be used subsequently in discussing elements of the theory of SSCM.
It is emphasized again that each research approach has its strengths and weaknesses, but the overall insight gained
by combining them moves much beyond what would be achieved by just a single method.

Theorizing SSCM
We now use all of the research together to theorize on SSCM. Hence, the theoretical components as outlined above
will now be applied to the particular stream of literature on SCM for sustainable products. Yet, before doing so, it
is necessary to take a look at the term ‘theory’ itself.

Terminology – Components of Theory

In academic research, theory is a much used term. Most academics would agree that their work relates to the
building of theories. Concerning sustainability, there is now a debate on whether this constitutes its own field of
research, thereby establishing ‘sustainability science’ (e.g. Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006). While quite different
positions exist on what a ‘good’ theory is and how it is built, beyond a particular paradigm most researchers would

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
478 S. Seuring

‘Good’ theory
Component Purpose of this step Common question virtues emphasized

Definition of variables Defines who and what is included and Who? What? Uniqueness,
what is specifically excluded in the definition conservation
Limiting the domain Observes and limits the conditions by when When? Where? Generalizability
(antecedent event) and where the
subsequent events are expected to occur
Relationship model Logically assembles the reasoning for each Why? How? Parsimony, fecundity,
relationship for internal consistency internal consistency,
abstractness
Theory predictions and Gives specific predictions. Important for Could the event occur? Empirical tests,
empirical support setting the conditions in which a theory Should the event occur? refutability
predicts. Tests model by criteria to give Would the event occur?
empirical verification for the theory.
The riskiness of the test is an important
consideration

Table 2. A general procedure for theory building and the empirical support for a theory (Wacker, 1998, p. 368)

agree on four components constituting a theory (Reynolds, 1971; Wacker, 1998): (1) definitions of terms or variables,
(2) a domain where the theory applies, (3) a set of relationships of variables, and (4) specific predictions (factual
claims).
Wacker (1998) offers explanations for these components as summarized in Table 2. The related terminology is
taken up here. Yet this in itself does not guarantee that a ‘good’ theory is developed. Hence, it is not assumed that
a final theory would be proposed, but rather a first step towards theorizing is taken, which Weick (1989) calls
disciplined imagination and later disciplined reflexivity (1999). Sustainability related research has not been con-
cerned so much about theory development, and few accounts exist, although Welford (1998), for example, asked
about this more than 10 years ago. Two different steps are taken towards the stated objective of this paper. First, a
summary of theoretical propositions is presented. Second, the insights gained from different empirical research
methods are highlighted. In both cases the subsequent selection of papers is based on the criteria that they aim to
present a literature review or kind of overview of the topic for the first part, while being related to the research work
of the author for the second part. Hence, the selection is somewhat subjective and might be challenged, but allows
related arguments to be put forward. As mentioned above, there is no agreed way of building theory (Fabian, 2000).

Definition of SSCM and Related Variables

The first issue is to provide a definition. ‘Sustainable SCM is the management of material, information and capital
flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while integrating goals from all three
dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, which are derived from customer
and stakeholder requirements. In sustainable supply chains, environmental and social criteria need to be fulfilled
by the members to remain within the supply chain, while it is expected that competitiveness would be maintained
through meeting customer needs and related economic criteria’ (Seuring and Müller, 2008a).
Based on this definition, key variables need to be identified. In line with ‘conventional’ SCM, focal companies
play a key role. As the definition states, they cooperate with suppliers to fulfil customers’ needs. Yet here is a first
departure for SSCM. As additional actors, stakeholders play an important role (Seuring and Müller, 2008b), and
integrating them into the supply chain for SSCM (Pagell and Wu, 2009) requires a different approach to SCM
(Beamon, 2008; Halldórsson et al., 2009). This can best be seen from the view of the customers themselves, who
move into an extended role. They not only expect the focal companies to deliver on time, in full at the required
quality but they further place additional environmental and social demands on the focal company, which is also
done by governments or public administrations as well as NGOs. This is summarized in Table 3, where the roles
of the different actors are outlined.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 479

Actors Associated variables Related objectives

Focal company Relationships to suppliers and
customers (supply chain
management)
Suppliers and non-end Relationship with focal
customer companies company
Stakeholder groups Exert pressure and offer incentives
(government, for related conduct on focal
customers, NGOs) companies. Relationships
among focal companies and
suppliers and customers chain
Fulfilling orders, ensuring economic supply chain performance.
Defining and monitoring environmental and social
performance criteria
Cooperation and integration for supply chain performance.
Fulfilling environmental and social criteria
Fulfilling additional (normative/ethical) stakeholder
requirements of environmentally and socially extended
supply chain performance

Table 3. Actors in SSCM

Limiting the Domain

One central question for every theory is where it applies and where it does not. This can be likened to delimiting
the system boundaries and asking what is different in SSCM compared with conventional SCM. One issue
frequently pointed out, in particular in the case study literature mentioned above but also confirmed in the Delphi
study, is chain-wide communication. Hence, the supply chain taken into consideration for SSCM is in line with
what Mentzer et al. (2001) have termed the ultimate supply chain, where all links are taken into account. In SCM
the limit is usually the sourcing of commodity type products, where a market-based transaction would be seen as
superior to SCM (Williamson, 2008). Consequently, third-party logistics service providers as well as suppliers of
minor items would not be integrated into efforts to design and optimize the supply chain. Examples of such
extended coordination are presented in case studies, for example on organic cotton and other agriculturally based
supply chains, where focal companies need to cooperate even with farmers – normally considered as being too far
away for direct interaction – otherwise they would not have access to the required raw materials for their sustainable
products (Meyer and Hohmann, 2000; Seuring, 2001, 2004a; Goldbach et al., 2003; Kogg, 2003; Pesonen, 2001).
Yet, this asks for the limits of SSCM. Can environmental and social standards also be obeyed when purchasing
minor parts? It becomes obvious that even if a focal company tries to raise its corporate responsibility by imple-
menting environmental and social standards for all purchasing issues, the transaction costs plus purchasing price
incurred for purchasing a minor item cannot exceed the value of the good itself. It would be very challenging, for
example, for office paper or flowers, which might not even be related to the final product (see Haake and Seuring,
2009, for a more detailed discussion; also Walker and Preuss, 2008, for sourcing from small businesses). In line
with Halldórsson et al. (2009) a ‘replacement strategy’ of SCM might be needed, not just oriented on conventional
performance criteria. In contrast, a different kind of SCM might be need to be started for sustainability require-
ments, but not integrating them at a marginal level. While the relationship model, theory predictions and empirical
support are listed as separate elements of the theory, they are obviously interrelated and depend on the aggregation
of findings.

Relationship Model, Hypothesis and Predictions

The conceptual framework of ‘supply chain management for sustainable products’ is illustrated in Figure 3. The
individual elements will be discussed in the next sections. There are six main elements integrated into the
frameworks. Customers have to value the functions that a certain product provides, since even a perfectly green or
sustainable product would not survive in the marketplace if this is not the case. Customer preferences might move
to green products, as is the case with organic food. A second driver in this direction might be related legislation. Yet
these issues are usually outside of SCM, but of course form part of related developments in sustainability
management.
Sustainable products represent the second element. The supply chain employed for their production and
distribution inherently carries environmental and social burdens, and impacts and requirements defined in

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
480 S. Seuring

Figure 3. Supply chain management for sustainable products (from Seuring and Müller, 2008a, p. 1706)

Figure 4. Building hypotheses for SCM for sustainable products

life-cycle assessment and management have been discussed in related literature (Pesonen, 2001; Brent, 2005). In
all cases, the strength of the approach of quantifying environmental impacts and taking a product design perspec-
tive early in a product’s life-cycle (both the environmental as well as the market related one) are pointed out.
This leads to the first hypothesis connecting the different elements of the framework with each other, as
illustrated in Figure 4:
• H1: Criteria based on life-cycle management are frequently used in SSCM to define benchmarks for product- and
process-related (allowed) environmental impacts.
As a consequence, the focal companies confer the life-cycle assessment-based criteria onto the suppliers, who are
required to fulfil them:
• H2a: Focal companies aiming for sustainable products impose related environmental (life-cycle assessment)
based criteria on their suppliers.
• H2b: Focal companies aiming for sustainable products impose related social criteria on their suppliers.
Further elements of the framework have to build on the focal company as well as suppliers, and therefore the
supply chain as a whole. Here one key issue is that longer supply chains might have to be managed both to have
access to raw materials and to be able to manage environmental and social issues in the supply chain.
• H3: Focal companies aiming for sustainable products have to deal with more tiers of the supply chain than those
aiming for conventional products, often up to the raw materials stage.
This leads to an increasing need for supplier development and monitoring. This might not be fulfilled by focal
companies only; intermediaries such as certifiers play a major role in ensuring that related environmental and social

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 481

criteria are met. Except for some parts of the related literature on organic food supply chains, the role of interme-
diaries in supply chains seems rather neglected so far (Albersmeier et al., 2009). They play a central role in ensuring
the legitimacy of related certification schemes, such as those of the Marine Stewardship Council or the Forest
Stewardship Council (Müller et al., 2009b). These thoughts lead to the fourth hypothesis:
• H4: Intermediaries (such as certifiers) increase the efficiency and effectiveness of supply chain coordination.
Moving on to the relationships with suppliers, the need for more and enhanced communication and cooperation
along the supply chain has already been emphasized.
• H5: For sustainable products, increased communication and cooperation about environmental and social issues
is required across all partners in the supply chain.
To achieve sustainable products, focal companies will have to collaborate with suppliers (Seuring and Müller,
2008b). This might extend to having to consolidate their supply base (Pagell and Wu, 2009) or even developing the
supply base first (Kogg, 2003).
• H6: Focal companies have to commit to supplier development (lean and green suppliers) for SSCM.
These hypotheses represent a first set of ideas for follow-up research. Incorporating the hypotheses into the
framework (Seuring and Müller, 2008a) illustrates which parts of the framework need to be elaborated further. For
fitting into a particular piece of empirical research, though, the hypotheses must still be sharpened and specifically
moulded.
The central prediction based on all these elements and their interrelation would of course be that transferring
SCM for sustainable products into corporate practice would allow companies to realize sustainable products by
fulfilling a wider set of performance objectives. The importance of cooperation has been particularly assessed by
Sharfman et al. (2009), who also see this as a central means for achieving improved performance. Another example
are two papers by Gold et al. (2010a,b), which use the subset of case studies from the comprehensive literature
review by Seuring and Müller (2008a). Employing a contingency analysis based on the constructs from Chen and
Paulraj (2004) and Seuring and Müller (2008a,b), they provide evidence for the great importance of communica-
tion with suppliers as well as supplier evaluation (Gold et al., 2010b).

Discussion
This paper takes an unconventional route as it moves beyond presenting a single, specific research endeavour as is
usually the case. Compared with earlier contributions, particularly Carter and Rogers (2008) and Seuring and
Müller (2008a), this paper offers a much richer description of how different research methods have contributed to
theorizing on SSCM. The Carter and Rogers’ (2008) framework offers a valuable outline of related issues but falls
short in presenting related variables. Both the sustainability- and the SCM-related conceptualization stay on a rather
general level. As one example on the sustainability side, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) offered a more detailed
analysis of issues related to the business case for sustainability. Part of the framework of Seuring and Müller
(2008a) forms the major background for the theoretical arguments here, but a much richer account of the empirical
research that has been conducted and how this informed the framework is presented. Further, it allows integration
of some of the issues raised by other researchers, such as the need for a different kind of SCM (Beamon, 2008;
Halldórsson et al., 2009) in an extended supply chain (Kleindorfer et al., 2005) where the demand for sustainability
dominates traditional business wisdom. While product-related issues are mentioned by other researchers (Bowen
et al., 2001; Srivastava, 2007; Pagell and Wu, 2009), the framework offers more detailed insights into the elements
and relationships required in SSCM. These issues emphasize the contribution made by this paper.
A second look at theory development is required. Despite the many references made to how empirical and desk
research have informed the framework, there remains the element of theory construction by disciplined imagina-
tion (Weick, 1989), in which a tension between sound theoretical formulation and the integration of dynamic
components can be found (Fabian, 2000). Weick (1989) even warns against being too mechanistic in theory
construction, but encourages thought experiments. Research and theorizing (Weick, 1995; Meredith, 1993; Wacker,

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
482 S. Seuring

1998; Welford, 1998; Fabian, 2000) need such efforts. In this respect it is not assumed that a final theory is
proposed, but the framework might be called a ‘mid-range theory’ (Weick, 1989), i.e. one that needs further
improvement and revision. I call on the imagination of other researchers to develop new research projects and
hypotheses and even critique of the framework or its rejection. It seems almost obvious that research efforts
assessing single elements for this conceptual framework would have to dig deeper to develop related hypotheses or
constructs before they can be tested in a research project. While this relates to a rather positivistic perception of
theory and empirical research, efforts based on a constructionist perspective (such as ethnography or action
research) would, of course, be very welcome. This might also be one approach that allows a more dynamic
perspective to be built (see Gold et al., 2010a).

Conclusions
The paper provides insights into how different research projects over a period of about 10 years have contributed to
the current understanding of SSCM. A range of different research methods have been used to gain diverse insights.
In line with a philosophy of science that is open to a range of ontological and epistemological positions, no single
research method is seen as being superior to any other, but they are rather seen as complementing each other.
The strategy of ‘supply chain management for sustainable products’ is elaborated beyond the presentation in
Seuring and Müller (2008a), particularly by (1) portraying the single research projects that influenced and informed
them but also (2) by outlining a limited set of hypotheses that can be derived from them. Future research is called
upon to challenge the framework and therefore drive SSCM further.

Acknowledgement
It is acknowledged again that this paper might rely on and refer to only a limited number of publications in the field and
overemphasize personal contributions. I have to mention that this is not the work of one researcher, nor even that of a single
research group. Of course, many papers and other publications have been read, not only for the literature review; many
conferences have been attended; and papers have been presented both to other researchers and practitioners and a number of
reviews (both positive and negative) have been obtained. Last, but not least, related ideas have been incorporated into the
teaching of different groups of students at various universities, at which valuable feedback was also gained. All of this constitutes
the research process, which all too often is presented in a pleasant, linear manner. Yet following wrong routes and exploring
dead-ends is part of the learning process, not only for the individual researcher but also for the research community. This is
acknowledged here together with thanks to the many known and unknown people involved through comments, discussion and
reviews.

References
Albersmeier F, Schulze H, Spiller A. 2009. Evaluation and reliability of the organic certification system: perceptions by farmers in Latin
America. Sustainable Development 17(5): 311–324.
Beamon BM. 2008. Sustainability and the Future of Supply Chain Management. Operations and Supply Chain Management 1(1): 4–18.
Beske P, Koplin J, Seuring S. 2008. The Use of Environmental and Social Standards by German First-tier Suppliers of the Volkswagen AG.
Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management 15(2): 63–75.
Bowen FE, Cousins PD, Lamming RC, Faruk AC. 2001. The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations
Management 10(2): 174–89.
Brent A. 2005. Integrating LCIA and LCM Evaluating environmental performances for supply chain management in South Africa. Management
of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 16(2): 130–142.
Bryman A. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1): 97–113.
Bryman A. 2007. Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 8–22.
Carter CR, Jennings, MM. 2002. Logistics Social Responsibility – An Integrative Framework. Journal of Business Logistics 23(1), 145–180.
Carter CR, Rogers DS. 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving towards new theory. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38(5): 360–387.
Chen IJ, Paulraj A. 2004. Towards a Theory of Supply Chain Management: the Constructs and Measurements. Journal of Operations Management
22(2): 119–150.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Products 483

Dyllick T, Hockerts K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11(2): 130–141.
Fabian FH. 2000. Keeping the tension – Pressures to keep the controversy in the management discipline. Academy of Management Review 25(2)
350–371.
Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P. 2010a. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corporate
Social Responsibility & Environmental Management 17(4): 230–245.
Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P. 2010b. The constructs of sustainable supply chain management – a content analysis based on published case studies.
Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal 7(2): 114–137.
Goldbach M, Seuring S, Back S. 2003. Coordinating Sustainable Cotton Chains for the Mass Market – The Case of the German Mail Order
Business Otto. Greener Management International 43: 65–78.
Haake H, Seuring S. 2009. Sustainable Procurement of Minor Items – Exploring Limits to Sustainability. Sustainable Development 17(5):
284–294.
Hagelaar GJLF, van der Vorst JGAJ, Marcelis WJ. 2004. Organizing Life Cycles in Supply Chains. Linking Environmental Performance to
Managerial Designs. Greener Management International 45: 27–42.
Hall J, Matos, S. 2010. Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 40(1/2): 124–147.
Halldórsson A, Kotzab H, Skjott-Larsen T. 2009. Supply Chain Management on the crossroad to sustainability: a blessing or a curse? Logistics
Research 1(2): 83–94.
Holt D. 2009. An empirical study of green supply chain management practices amongst UK manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 20(7): 933–956.
Jack EP, Raturi AS. 2006. Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management Research News 29(6):
345–357.
King AA, Lenox MJ. 2001. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental
performance. Production and Operations Management 10(3): 244–256.
Kleindorfer PR, Singhal K, Van Wassenhove LN. 2005. Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management 14(4):
482–92.
Kogg B. 2003. Greening a cotton-textile supply chain. A case study of the transition towards organic production without a powerful focal
company. Greener Management International 43, 53–64.
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K. 2006. Sustainability science – building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1(1): 1–6.
Koplin J. 2005. Integrating environmental and social standards in supply management in an action research project. Kotzab H, Seuring S,
Müller M, Reiner G. (eds). Research methodologies in supply chain management 381–396.
Koplin J, Seuring S, Mesterharm M. 2007. Incorporating sustainability into supply policies and supply processes in the automotive industry –
The case of Volkswagen. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(11): 1053–1062.
Kovács G. 2008. Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15): 1571–1578
Lund-Thomsen P, Nadvi K. 2010. Global Value Chains, Local Collective Action and Corporate Social Responsibility: a Review of Empirical
Evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment 19(1): 1–13.
Maloni MJ, Brown ME. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics
68(1): 35–52.
Mentzer JT, Kahn KB. 1995. A framework of logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics 16(1): 231–251.
Mentzer JT, DeWitt W, Keebler JS, Min S, Nix NW, Smith CD, Zacharia ZG. 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business
Logistics 22(2): 1–25.
Meredith J. 1993. Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 13(5): 3–11.
Meyer A, Hohmann P. 2000. Other thoughts; other results? – Remei’s bioRe organic cotton on its way to the mass market. Greener Management
International 31: 59–70.
Müller C, Vermeulen WJV, Glasbergen P. 2009a. Perceptions on the Demand Side and Realities on the Supply Side: a Study of the South
African Table Grape Export Industry. Sustainable Development 17(5): 295–310.
Müller, M, Gomes dos Santos, V, Seuring, S. 2009b. The contribution of environmental and social standards towards ensuring legitimacy in
supply chain governance, Journal of Business Ethics 89(4): 509–523.
Pagell, M, Wu, Z. 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. Journal
of Supply Chain Management 45(2): 37–56.
Pesonen HL. 2001. Environmental management of value chains. Greener Management International 33: 45–58.
Preuss L. 2001. In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener manufacturing. Journal of Business Ethics 34(3–4): 345–59.
Preuss L. 2005. Rhetoric and Reality of Corporate Greening: a View from the Supply Chain Management Function. Business Strategy and the
Environment 14(2): 123–139.
Rao P. 2005. The greening of suppliers in the South East Asian context. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(9): 935–945.
Rao P, Holt D. 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 25(9): 898–916.
Reynolds PD. 1971. A primer in theory construction. Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, IN.
Seuring S. 2001. Green Supply Chain Costing – Joint Cost Management in the Polyester Linings Supply Chain, Greener Management
International 33: 71–80.
Seuring S. 2004a. Integrated Chain Management and Supply Chain Management – Comparative Analysis and Illustrative Cases. Journal of
Cleaner Production 12(8–10): 1059–1071.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
484 S. Seuring

Seuring S. 2004b. Industrial ecology, life-cycles, supply chains – differences and interrelations. Business Strategy and the Environment 13(5):
306–319.
Seuring S. 2008. Assessing the Rigor of Case Study Research in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management – An International
Journal 13(2): 128–137.
Seuring S, Goldbach M. 2006. Managing Sustainability Performance in the Textile Chain. Schaltegger, S, Wagner M. (eds.). Sustainable
Performance and Business Competitiveness, Greenleaf Publishing, 466–477.
Seuring S, Müller M. 2008a. From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Journal of
Cleaner Production 16(15): 1699–1710.
Seuring S, Müller M. 2008b. Core Issues in Sustainable Supply Chain Management – A Delphi Study. Business Strategy and the Environment
17(8): 455–466.
Seuring S, Goldbach M, Koplin J. 2004. Managing Time and Complexity in Supply Chains – Two Cases from the Textile Industry. International
Journal of Integrated Supply Management 1(2): 180–198.
Sharfman MP, Shaft TM, Anex RP. 2009. The road to cooperative supply-chain environmental management: trust and uncertainty among
pro-active firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 18(1): 1–13.
Simpson D, Power DJ. 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 10(1): 60–68.
Solér C, Bergström K, Shanahan H. 2010. Green Supply Chains and the Missing Link Between Environmental Information and Practice.
Business Strategy and the Environment 19(1): 14–25.
Srivastava SK. 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1):
53–80.
Tan RBH, Khoo HH. 2005. An LCA study of a primary aluminium supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(6) 607–618.
Teuscher P, Grüninger B, Ferdinand N. 2006. Risk management in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM): Lessons learnt from the
case of GMO-free soybeans. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(1): 1–10.
Thun J-H, Müller A. 2010. An empirical analysis of green supply chain management in the German automotive industry. Business Strategy and
the Environment 19(2), 119–132.
Vachon S, Klassen RD. 2006a. Extending green practices across the supply chain – The impact of upstream and downstream integration.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26(7): 795–821.
Vachon S, Klassen RD. 2006b. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the package printing industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14(6/7): 661–71.
Vermeulen WJV, Ras PJ. 2006. The challenge of greening global product chains: meeting both ends. Sustainable Development 14(4): 245–256.
Wacker JG. 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal
of Operations Management 16(4): 361–385.
Walker H, Preuss L. 2008. Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses: Public sector perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16(15): 1600–1609.
Weick KE. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 516–531.
Weick KE. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3): 385–390.
Weick KE. 1999. Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 797–806.
Welford R. 1998. Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: postmodern perspectives and the need for
a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment 7(1): 1–12.
White GP. 1996. A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related performance measures for manufacturing. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 16(3): 42–61.
Williamson OE. 2008. Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 44(2):
5–16.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J. 2004. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: drivers and practices. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14(5): 472–86.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH. 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15(11–12): 1041–1052.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 471–484 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse