08 219

Supply Chain Management versus

Sustainable Chain Management

Svensson, Göran (2007). “Supply Chain Management versus Sustainable Chain Manage-
ment”. EsicMarket, 129, pp. 219-237.

Abstract
The objective is to describe an extended approach to supply chain mana-
gement (SCM), termed ‘sustainable chain management’. The paper provi-
des a conceptual discussion of current definitions and approaches to SCM.
The concept of sustainable chain management is described and illustrated.
The approach connects the upstream and downstream elements of the
supply chain, as well as re-connecting the ‘before’ and ‘after’ elements (or
‘extremity elements’) of supply chains. A comprehensive and logical model
of sustainable chain management can be formulated and illustrated. This
model, which represents a supply chain as a ‘loop chain’ without loose
ends, overcomes the deficiencies of existing models of SCM by introducing
vertical integration of the elements and interfaces of SCM. The proposed
model has practical implications for best practice and sustainable mana-
gement of supply chains. The paper presents an innovative model for
SCM. The model has also implications for research in this area.

Keywords: Supply chain management, sustainable chain management,

channel, connect, reconnect.

JEL Code:

Göran Svensson
Professor. Oslo School of Management. Norway. E-mail: goran.svensson@set.hh.se

january · april 2008 · esic market [219]

220 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

Introduction
The significance of supply chain management (SCM) has been especially
apparent since the early 1990s, although the concept dates from the early
1980s (Oliver and Webber, 1982). The significance of SCM rests on the
dependencies that exist among elements in the supply chain from the point
of origin of a product/service to the point of consumption of that pro-
duct/service (Lambert et al., 1998; Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Stern,
1969; Alderson, 1965, 1957; McCammon and Little, 1965, Weld, 1916).
The point of origin in SCM usually refers to suppliers or manufacturers
(Carter et al., 1995; Ellram and Cooper, 1993; Novack and Simco, 1991),
whereas the point of consumption refers to consumers, customers, or end-
users (Min and Mentzer, 2000; Lambert et al., 1998; Jones and Riley,
1985).
The chain (or ‘channel construct’) has been defined by Bowersox and
Closs (1996) as the arrangement of intra-company units and extra-com-
pany agents and dealers (wholesale and retail) through which a commo-
dity, product, or service is marketed. In this channel construct, ‘depen-
dence’ is said to exist if a link or a bond exists between one or more
elements in relation to another in the channel (Lambert et al., 1998;
Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). In this regard, Svensson (2002) classified
the dependence between elements in channels into three principal catego-
ries (time-dependence, relational-dependence, and functional-dependence)
and three sub-categories (unidirectional/bi-directional, direct/indirect and
vertical/horizontal).
Although the term ‘supply chain management’ (SCM) was originally
introduced to represent a new approach to the management of integrated
marketing channels to replace traditional approaches that were considered
unsatisfactory and inadequate (Oliver and Webber, 1982), the underlying
ideas of SCM have a long history (Arnold and Faurote, 1919; Ford and
Crowther, 1923; Faurote, 1928). Nevertheless, despite the long history of
the ideas and the general acceptance of the approach, concerns about the
appropriateness of the current theoretical and managerial boundaries of

[220] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 221

SCM have been raised. In particular, it has been suggested that there is a
need for a broader and more comprehensive approach to the concept and
practice of SCM (Cooper et al., 1998; Svensson, 2002). Some time ago,
Levitt (1960) introduced the concept of ‘marketing myopia’ in warning
against the dangers of a narrow view of the environment. More recently,
Stock (2002) revisited the concept of ‘marketing myopia’ in arguing that
the potential of SCM might not be fully realised unless some pertinent les-
sons from logistics were noted and applied.
The present study adopts a similar view in contending that a myopic
view of SCM can inhibit the benefits and sustainability of SCM over time
and across contexts. The objective of this paper is, therefore, to describe
an extended approach to SCM termed sustainable chain management,
whereby a ‘circulation approach’ is taken to vertical components and
interfaces of supply chains.

Relevance of sustainable chain management

The author believes that the recent UN-report on Climate Change 2007 –
The Physical Science Basis (IPCC WGI, 2007) will sooner or later force the
global society (e.g. the United Nations, the European Union, regional tra-
de agreements and governments) to impose practices of ‘sustainable chain
management’. It will affect the current concept of SCM. Currently, there
are a number of more or less isolated and to some extent replicated ele-
ments in literature that strive to address ‘sustainable chain management’,
such as: corporate social responsibility (e.g. Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002),
sustainable supply network management (e.g. Young and Kielkiewicz-
Young, 2001), supply chain environmental management (e.g. Lippman,
1999), green purchasing strategies (e.g. Min and Galle, 1997), environ-
mental purchasing (e.g. Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001), green marketing (e.g.
Crane, 2000), environmental marketing (e.g. Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995),
environmental marketing management (e.g. Peattie, 1995) and environ-
mental product differentiation (e.g. Reinhardt, 1999), reverse logistics
(Zikmund and Stanton, 1971), sustainability labeling schemes (e.g. DeBo-

january · april 2008 · esic market [221]

222 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

er, 2003), environmental management (Hoffman, 2000), life-cycle assess-

ment (Welford, 1999), ISO-14000-certifications (ISO, 2007), efficiency of
vertical integration (e.g. de Díez Vial, I., 2005) and business excellence
model (e.g. González and González (2006). Other generic elements con-
nected to ‘sustainable chain management’ are: product returns, source
reduction, recycling, material substitution, reuse of materials, waste dis-
posal, refurbishing, repair and re-manufacturing (Stock, 1998). The com-
mon denominator is that they all require an extended approach beyond
the restricted point-of-origin-and-end boundaries in descriptions of SCM
in literature, which in this paper will be referred to as ‘before’ and ‘after’
elements – so-called ‘extremity echelons’. In fact, the presented frame of
reference implicitly addressed the need for taking into consideration what
may be important beyond the point of origin-and-end boundaries affec-
ting green and sustainable purchasing, production and distribution (e.g.
Stock, 1998).
Therefore, this paper relates to these different elements of sustainability
and provides a conceptual framework of ‘sustainable chain management’
that may be a fundament to glue them together. At the end of the day, it aspi-
res to contribute to the stakeholder value in a broad sense (Freeman, 1984;
Fineman and Clarke, 1996; Banerjee et al., 2003; Waddock et al., 2002).
Stakeholder value is a broad concept and implies that a company has res-
ponsibilities and commitments to many different stakeholders, not just
investors or owners of the company, but also employees, customers, sup-
pliers, societies and the environment (Mathur and Kenyon, 1997). So, this
paper may make a contribution to the interfaces between purchasing, logis-
tics, physical distribution, marketing and environmental theories. For this
purpose, the approach of traditional SCM is broadened to highlight sustai-
nable elements of the concept. It is limited to vertical elements, while the
horizontal ones should not be ignored from a business point of view. In fact,
there is a lot of room for upstream and downstream collaboration amongst
competitors in a given supply chain or across supply chains, which in turn
may enhance aspirations of sustainable chain management.

[222] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 223

Supply chain management

There have been various definitions and approaches to SCM. Oliver and
Webber (1982) can be regarded as the originators of the term ‘supply chain
management’ when they used it to describe a new perspective on marketing
to replace the traditional approaches to managing integrated marketing
channels, which they regarded as unsatisfactory. Since then, many other
scholars have applied the concept of SCM in various ways (Jones and Riley,
1985, 1987; Houlihan, 1985, 1987; Snowdon, 1988). In particular, Stevens
(1989) and Jones and Riley (1987) have argued that the development of
integrated channels requires the management of business activities to be vie-
wed from three perspectives—(i) strategic; (ii) tactical; and (iii) operative.
Other authors have also made contributions to a better understanding
of the scope and structure of the concept of SCM. For example, Lummus
et al. (2001) contended that SCM includes logistics flows, customer-order
management, production processes, and the information flows necessary
to monitor all the activities at the supply-chain nodes. Mentzer et al.
(2000) felt that SCM is essentially about the management of inter-firm
relationships, and that an understanding of ‘partnering’ is crucial to the
development of successful retail supply-chain relationships. Chandra and
Kumar (2000) noted the importance of flexible organisational relations-
hips, total supply-chain coordination, improved inter- and intra-enterpri-
se communication, outsourcing of non-core competencies, built-to-order
manufacturing strategy, inventory management, and cost control.
Min and Mentzer (2000) saw SCM as being composed of two compo-
nents—an integrated business philosophy and implementation actions; these
authors emphasised that SCM extends the concept of ‘functional integration’
beyond a company to all the companies in the supply chain, and that each
member of a supply chain contributes to the competitiveness of the chain.
Chandrashekar and Schary (1999) also emphasised the integration and coor-
dination of business operations across organisational boundaries. Lambert et
al. (1998) contended that the objective of SCM is to maximise competitive-
ness and profitability for whole supply chain, including the end-customer.

january · april 2008 · esic market [223]

224 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

SCM has been perceived as a business philosophy that strives to inte-

grate the various business operations of companies in a channel. In this
regard, Bechtel and Jayaram (1997) argued that SCM crystallises the idea
of a ‘business ecosystem’ by providing a process framework that enables
companies to evolve together, rather than merely compete. Similarly, Coy-
le et al. (1996) concluded that the perspective of a supply chain recognises
that a company is, in a sense, in ‘partnership’ with its vendors and its cus-
tomers in bringing a product to market.
Harrington (1995) emphasised information flows in noting that SCM
deals with bi-directional flows of information that encompass all parties
from the supplier’s suppliers to the end-users. Carter et al. (1995) focused
on the flow of goods from suppliers to the ultimate consumers, noting that
the goal is to meet customer service objectives while minimising inventory
costs. Johannson (1994) emphasised the role of SCM as an operations
approach to procurement, observing that this requires all participants in
the supply chain to be properly informed.
Ellram and Cooper (1993) defined SCM in terms of the analysis and
management of the entire network, from the supplier through to the ulti-
mate customer, with a view to achieving the best outcome for the whole
system. Turner (1993) also saw SCM in terms of the links in a chain from
suppliers of raw materials, through the various levels of manufacturing, to
warehousing, and, finally, distribution to the final customer. Similarly,
Christopher (1992) perceived the supply chain as a network of organisa-
tions with upstream and downstream linkages that produce value in the
form of products and services for the ultimate consumer. Towill et al.
(1992) saw the supply chain as a system constituted by material suppliers,
production facilities, distribution services, and customers—linked together
via the forward flow of materials and the feedback flow of information.
Lambert (1992) regarded the supply chain as a single entity that aims to
satisfy the needs and wants of the ultimate consumer.
Cavinato (1992) perceived the supply chain as actively managed chan-
nels of procurement and distribution that add value along the product

[224] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 225

flow from original raw materials to final customer by concentrating on

relational factors rather than transactional factors. Lee and Billington
(1993) referred to networks of manufacturing and distribution sites that
procure raw materials, transform them into intermediate and finished pro-
ducts, and finally distribute the finished products to customers.
Scott and Westbrook (1991) stated that the supply chain is the chain
linking each element of the production and supply processes from raw
materials through to the end customer. Similarly, Novack and Simco
(1991) stated that SCM covers the flow of goods from the supplier
through the manufacturer and distributor to the end-user. Langley and
Holcomb (1992) saw SCM as focusing attention on the interactions of
channel members to produce an end product or service that provides best
comparative value for the end-user. Stevens (1990) saw SCM as being con-
cerned with the flow of material from suppliers, through the value-adding
processes and distribution channels, to customers. Ritchie (1990) conside-
red the supply chain to be a single entity and argued that the end perfor-
mance of delivering satisfaction to customers is only as good as the wea-
kest link in the supply chain. Ellram and Cooper (1990) perceived SCM as
an integrating philosophy to manage the total flow of a channel from sup-
plier to ultimate customer. Houlihan (1988) argued that SCM covers the
flow of goods from supplier through manufacturer and distributor to the
end-user, and Houlihan (1987) stated that SCM strives to balance a range
of business operations, including promotion, sales, distribution, and pro-
duction. Jones and Riley (1985) concluded that SCM deals with the total
flow of materials from suppliers through to the end-users.
This review of opinions and definitions suggests that SCM is a business
philosophy that strives to integrate the activities, actors, and resources of
channels from the point of origin to the point of consumption. This means
that SCM involves different kinds of dependencies in and between com-
panies in channels from manufacturers/suppliers to customers/consumers.
More recently, a broader and more complex approach to SCM has been
proposed, incorporating a wider variety of business functions (Levy and Gre-

january · april 2008 · esic market [225]

226 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

wal, 2000). For example, although Mentzer et al. (2001) had a relatively com-
prehensive view of SCM as a systemic and strategic coordination of traditio-
nal business functions within a particular company and across businesses wit-
hin the supply chain, the focus of SCM according to this definition was still
on a particular channel from the point of origin to the point of consumption.
Explicit reference to other channels plays no part in this conception of SCM.
Svensson (2002) has argued that horizontal issues should be included in con-
ceptions of SCM. According to this view, SCM is a business philosophy that
should incorporate operative, tactical, and strategic considerations in addres-
sing the overall bi-directional dependencies of activities, actors, and resources
from the point of origin to the point of consumption in and between chan-
nels. However, this paper is limited to discuss the vertical elements of SCM.

Sustainable chain management

The complexity in supply chains relates to generic components (such as actors,
activities, and resources) and generic interfaces (such as interaction, coordina-
tion, cooperation, and competition). Taken together, these components and
interfaces shape the notion of sustainable chain management. The approach
of sustainable chain management is contrasted with SCM in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sustainable Chain Management versus

Supply Chain Management

Sustainable Chain Management

Before Point-of-Origin Point-of-Consumption After

Supply Chain
Management

[226] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 227

As mentioned previously, SCM tends to focus on the connection of ele-

ments from the point of origin to the point of consumption (see Figure 1).
This means that the boundaries and extensions of channel elements in
SCM resemble the classic and traditional structure of elements in distri-
bution/marketing channels (Alderson, 1957, 1965; Weld, 1916). The ele-
ments prior to the point of origin (for example, actors and activities asso-
ciated with the utilisation of re-cycled resources) and the elements
following the point of consumption (for example, actors and activities
associated with the subsequent re-cycling of used resources) are rarely ack-
nowledged. The connections between these ‘before’ and ‘after’ elements,
which can be referred to as the ‘extremity elements’, are not usually ack-
nowledged in SCM.
In contrast, the boundaries and extensions of sustainable chain mana-
gement take into account the ‘re-connection’ of these loose ends by consi-
dering the extremities of the points of origin and consumption—that is,
the ‘before’ and ‘after’ elements in channels. In effect, sustainable chain
management ‘bends’ the channel to achieve re-connection of the loose
ends, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Connection and reconnection of the extremity elements

Extremity
Elements

Point-of- Point-of-
Origin Consumption

Although Figure 2 provides a useful overview of the main principle

of sustainable chain management (by reconnecting the point of con-
sumption with the point of origin), a more accurate representation of

january · april 2008 · esic market [227]

228 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

sustainable chain management would also include the elements of the

supply chain itself (as envisaged in traditional SCM). If this is done, as
shown in Figure 3, a full representation of the concept of sustainable
chain management is obtained. As shown in Figure 3, the point of ori-
gin is connected with the point of consumption by the elements of the
supply-chain elements. In turn, the point of consumption is then recon-
nected with the point of origin by the ‘extremity elements’. The overall
chain is thus depicted as a ‘loop chain’, without loose ends, which ena-
bles the achievement of sustainable chain management over time and
across contexts.

Figure 3. Sustainable chain management–connecting upstream/

downstream supply chain elements and re-connecting
extremity elements

Before
Point of Extremity
Origin Elements

Re-connecting

Upstream After

Connecting

Supply Point of
Chain Elements Consumption
Downstream

[228] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 229

Sustainable chain management not only requires a holistic view of the

components (actors, activities, and resources) of the supply chain that goes
beyond the points of origin and consumption, but also requires a holistic
view of the interfaces (interactions, coordination, cooperation, and com-
petition) of the supply chain that goes beyond the points of origin and
consumption. Sustainable chain management is thus concerned with the
total circulation of the components in the different interfaces. Moreover,
sustainable chain management has neither a beginning nor an end; by
adopting the shape of a ‘loop chain’, it connects the upstream and downs-
tream elements of SCM, as well as reconnecting the ‘before’ and ‘after’ ele-
ments (or ‘extremity elements’).

Concluding reflections
The original focus of SCM was on the supply chain from the point of ori-
gin to the point of consumption (Oliver and Webber, 1982; Jones and
Riley, 1985; Houlihan, 1985, 1988; Ellram and Cooper, 1990; Scott and
Westbrook, 1991). Some authors have emphasised the entire supply chain
(Mentzer et al., 2001; Cooke, 1997; Turner, 1993; Cavinato, 1992), whe-
reas others have focused on a limited part of it (Davis, 1993; Giunipero
and Brand, 1996; MacBeth and Ferguson, 1993). More recent develop-
ments from Cooper et al. (1998) have included: (i) recognition that the
supply chain is a network of multiple businesses and relationships, rather
than merely being a chain of one-to-one business relationships; and (ii) a
focus on the ‘reverse’ supply chain (or ‘demand chain’) from the point of
consumption to the point of origin.
Despite these and other developments, difficulties remain with existing
formulations and approaches to SCM. In particular, they ignore the re-
connection that should exist in sustainable chain management between the
point of consumption and the point of origin via the ‘extremity elements’
that follow the point of consumption and precede the point of origin. Such
a reformulation of SCM is required to address the question of the total cir-
culation of components and interfaces in and between channels. It is thus

january · april 2008 · esic market [229]

230 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

insufficient and simplistic to do no more than match supply and demand

between the points of consumption and origin in channels; rather, a re-
definition and broadening of the boundaries of SCM with a view to achie-
ving a ‘total circulation’ approach is required for best practice in SCM. It
should be noted that the introduced framework is limited to the vertical
elements of sustainable chain management, where the horizontal ones bet-
ween chains provide an arena for further development and research. As
illustrated in Figure 3, the present study has provided a model of sustai-
nable chain management, with significant implications for best practice
and future research in this area.
Sustainable chain management thus represents a significant broadening
of the theoretical foundation of SCM. As such, it has the potential to
improve theory generation and best practice in SCM in the future. It also
has implications for the sustainable recycling of resources and the conser-
vation of valuable energy resources. For example, it implicitly connects to
the recent UN-report (IPCC WGI, 2007, p. 2), which describes progress in
understanding of human and natural drivers of climate change, observed
climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projec-
ted future climate change. It is contended that the research findings from
science presented in this report regarding the projected future climate chan-
ge on Earth should and will impact current views on SCM. This UN-report
should impact future business practices and forthcoming theory generation
in the field of SCM. Therefore, taking into account the conclusions of the
UN-report, concerns about the appropriateness of current SCM-approa-
ches of business practices and theory generation may be raised.

References
ALDERSON, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action; A
Functionalist Approach to Marketing Theory, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
Homewood, Illinois.
– (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior: A Functionalist Theory of Mar-
keting, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.

[230] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 231

ARNOLD, H. L. and FAUROTE, F. L. (1919), Ford Methods and the

Ford Shops, The Engineering Magazine Company, New York.
BANERJEE, S. B., IYER, E. S. and KASHYAP, R. K. (2003), “Corporate
Environmentalism: Antecedents and Influence of Industry Type”, Jour-
nal of Marketing, Vol. 67, April, pp. 106-122.
BOWERSOX, D. J. and CLOSS, D. J. (1996), Logistical Management -
The Integrated Supply Chain Process, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
New York.
BECHTEL, C. and JAYARAM, J. (1997), “Supply Chain Management: A
Strategic Perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 15-34.
CARTER, J. R., FERRIN, B. G., and CARTER, C. R. (1995), “The effect
of less-than-truckload rates on the purchase order lot size decision”,
Transportation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 35-44.
CAVINATO, J. L. (1992), “A Total Cost/Value Model for Supply Chain
Competitiveness”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.
285-301.
CHANDRA, C. and KUMAR, S. (2000), “Supply Chain Management in
theory and practice: a passing fad or a fundamental change”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, No. 100/3, pp. 100-113.
CHANDRASHEKAR, A. and SCHARY, P. B. (1999), “Toward the Virtual
Supply Chain: The Convergence of IT and Organization”, Internatio-
nal Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10. No. 2, pp. 27-39.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1992), Logistics: The strategic issues, Chapman and
Hall, London.
COOKE, J. A. (1997), “In This Issue”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 3.
COOPER, M. C., LAMBERT, D. M. and PAGH, J. D. (1998), “Supply
Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics”, Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
COYLE J. J., BARDI, E. J. and LANGLEY, Jr. C. J. (1996), The Manage-
ment of Business Logistics, West Publishing Company, St Paul.

january · april 2008 · esic market [231]

232 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

CRANE, A. (2000), “Marketing and the Natural Environment: What

Role for Morality?”, Journal of Macro Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.
144-154.
DE BOER, J. (2003), “Sustainability Labelling Schemes: the Logic of
Their Claims and Their Functions for Stakeholders”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 254-264.
DE DÍEZ VIAL, I. (2005), “Vertical integration, market imperfections,
firm attributes and industry changes”, ESIC Market, No. 122, Sep-
tiembre-Diciembre, pp. 119-148.
DYLLICK, T. and HOCKERTS, K. (2002), “Beyond the Business Case for
Corporate Social Responsibility”, Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-141.
DAVIS, T. (1993), “Effective Supply Chain Management”, Sloan Mana-
gement Review, Summer.
ELLRAM, L. M. and COOPER, M. C. (1993), “Characteristics of Supply
Chain Management and the Implications for Purchasing and Logistics
Strategy”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4, No.
2, pp. 13-24.
– (1990), “Supply Chain Management, Partnerships and the Shipper-
Third Party Relationships”, International Journal of Logistics Mana-
gement, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1-10.
FAUROTE, F. L. (1928), “Planning Production Through Obstacles, Not
Around Them: The key-note of ‘straight-line thinking’ applied to the
new Ford Model”, Factory and Industrial Management, February, pp.
302-306.
FINEMAN, S. and CLARKE, K. (1996), “Green Stakeholders: Industry
Interpretations and Response”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
33, No. 6, pp. 715-730.
FORD, H. and CROWTHER, S. (1923), My life and my work, William
Heinemann, London.
FREEMAN, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Appro-
ach, Pitman, London/Boston.

[232] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 233

GIUNIPERO, L. C. and BRAND, R. R. (1996), “Purchasing’s Role in

Supply Chain Management”, International Journal of Logistics Mana-
gement, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 29-37.
GONZÁLEZ SÁNCHEZ, M. and GONZÁLEZ LADRÓN DE GUEVA-
RA, F. (2006) “Identification of SME Clusters based on the Quality in
Business Management and Information Management. Excellence Pro-
file, Strategic Alignment of the Clusters, and Balanced Scorecard”
ESIC Market, No. 123, Enero-Abril, pp. 165-188.
HARRINGTON, L. (1995), “Logistics, Agent for Change: Shaping the
Integrated Supply Chain”, Transportation and Distribution Manage-
ment, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 30-34.
HOFFMAN, A. J. (2000), Competitive Environmental Management: A
Guide to the Changing Business Landscape, Island Press, Washing-
ton.
HOULIHAN, J. B. (1988), “International Supply Chains: A New Appro-
ach”, Management Decision, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 13-19.
– (1987), “International Supply Chain Management”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol.17,
No. 2, pp. 51-66.
– (1985), “International Supply Chain Management”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 15,
No. 1, pp. 22-38.
HÅKANSSON, H. and SNEHOTA, I. (1995), Developing Relationships
in Business Networks, Routledge, London.
ISO (2007), Website of International Organization for Standardization,
www.iso.org.
IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report (2007), “Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policymakers”, Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1-21.
JOHANNSON, L. (1994), “How Can a TQM Approach Add Value to
Your Supply Chain?”, Total Quality Environmental Management, Vol.
3, No. 4, pp. 521-530.

january · april 2008 · esic market [233]

234 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

JONES, T. C. and RILEY, D. W. (1987), “Using Inventory for Competiti-

ve Advantage through Supply Chain Management”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 17,
No. 2, pp. 94-104.
– (1985), “Using Inventory for Competitive Advantage Through Supply
Chain Management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Materials Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 16-26.
LAMBERT, D. M. (1992), “Developing a customer-focused logistics stra-
tegy”, Asia Pacific International Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 12-19.
LAMBERT, D. M., COOPER, M. C. and PAGH, J. D. (1998), “Supply
Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportuni-
ties”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 1-19.
LANGLEY, C. J. Jr. and HOLCOMB, M. C. (1992), “Creating Logistics
Customer Value”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.
1-27.
LEE, H. L. and BILLINGTON, C. (1993), “Material Management in
Decentralized Supply Chains”, Operations Research, Vol. 41, No. 5,
pp. 835-847.
LEVITT, T. (1960), “Marketing Myopia”, Harvard Business Review,
July/August, pp. 45-56.
LEVY, M. and GREWAL, D. (2000), “GUEST EDITORS’ OVERVIEW
OF THE ISSUE Supply Chain Management in a Networked Eco-
nomy”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 415-429.
LIPPMAN, S. (1999), “Supply Chain Environmental Management: Ele-
ments for Success”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 175-182.
LUMMUS, R. R., KRUMWLEDE, D. W. and VOKURKA, R. J. (2001),
“The relationship of logistics to supply chain management: developing
a common industry definition”, Industrial Management & Data Sys-
tems, No. 108/8, pp. 426-431.

[234] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 235

MACBETH, D. K. and FERGUSON, N. (1993), Partnership Sourcing –

An Integrated Supply Chain Chain Management, London, Pitman
Publishing.
MATHUR, S. S. and KENYON, A. (1997), Creating Value: Shaping
Tomorrow’s Business, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
MCCAMMON, B. C. and LITTLE, R. W. (1965), “Marketing Channels:
Analytical Systems and Approaches”, In Schwartz, G. (Ed.), Science in
Marketing, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
MENTZER, J. T., DEWITT, W., KEEBLER, J. S., MIN, S., NIX, N. W.,
SMITH, C. D. and ZACHARIA, Z. G. (2001), “Defining Supply
Chain Management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.
1-25.
MENTZER, J. T., MIN, S. and ZACHARIA, Z. G. (2000), “The Nature
of Interfirm Partnering in Supply Chain Management”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 549-568.
MIN, H. and GALLE, W. P. (1997), “Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends
and Implications”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 33, No.
3, pp. 10-17.
MIN, S. and MENTZER, J. T. (2000), “The role of marketing in supply
chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 765-787.
NOVACK, R. A. and SIMCO, S. W. (1991), “The Industrial Procurement
Process: A Supply Chain Perspective”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 145-167.
OLIVER, R. K. and WEBBER, M. D. (1982), “Supply-chain manage-
ment: logistics catches up with strategy”, In Christopher, M. (1992),
Logistics: The strategic issues, Chapman & Hall, London, pp.
63-75.
PEATTIE, K. (1995), “Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting
the Green Challenge”, Pitman, London.
REINHARDT, F. L. (1999), “Bringing the Environment Down to the
Earth”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 149-157.

january · april 2008 · esic market [235]

236 08 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management

RITCHIE, P. (1990), “McDonald’s: A Winner Through Logistics”, Inter-

national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 21-24.
SCOTT, C. and WESTBROOK, R. (1991), “New Strategic Tools for
Supply Chain Management”, International Journal of Physical Distri-
bution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 23-33.
SHARMAN, G. (1984), “The rediscovery of logistics”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 84. No. 5, pp. 71-79.
SHETH, J. N. and PARVATIYAR (1995), “Ecological Imperatives and the
Role of Marketing”, in Polonsky, M. J. and Mintu-Wimsatt, T. (Ed.),
Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory and Research,
Haworth Press, New York.
SNOWDON, M. (1988), “Moving Towards a Single Market”, Inter-
national Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp.
643-655.
STERN, L. W. (1969), “Distribution Channels: A Social System Approach
to the Study of Marketing”, In Stevens, W. D. (Ed.), Social Responsi-
bility of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago.
STEVENS, G. C. (1990), “Successful Supply-Chain Management”, Mana-
gement Decision, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 25-30.
– (1989), “Integrating the Supply Chain”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Materials Management, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp.
3-8.
STOCK, J. R. (2002), “Marketing myopia revisited: lessons for logistics”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 12-21.
– (1998), “Development and Implementation of Reverse Logistics Pro-
grams”, (ed.) Council of Logistics Management.
SVENSSON, G. (2002), “The Theoretical Foundation of Supply Chain
Management: A Functionalist Theory of Marketing”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32,
No. 9, pp. 734-754.

[236] january · april 2008 · esic market

 supply chain management versus sustainable chain management 08 237

TOWILL, D. R. (1997), “The seamless supply chain – The predator’s stra-

tegic advantage”, International Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 37-56.
TOWILL, D. R., NAIM, M. M. and WIKNER, J. (1992), “Industrial
Dynamics Simulation Models in the Design of Supply Chains”, Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 3-13.
TURNER, J. R. (1993), “Integrated Supply Chain Management: What’s
Wrong with This Picture?”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 12,
pp. 52-55.
WADDOCK, S. A., BODWELL, C. and GRAVES, S. B. (2002), “Respon-
sibility: the New Business Imperative”, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 132-149.
WELD, L. D. H. (1916), The Marketing of Farm Products, The Macmi-
llan Company, New York.
WELFORD, R. (1999), “Life Cycle Assessment”, in Welford, R. (Ed.),
Corporate Environmental Management 1: Systems and Strategies,
Earthscan Publication, London.
YOUNG, A. and KIELKIEWICZ-YOUNG, A. (2001), “Sustainable
Supply Network Management”, Corporate Environmental Strategy,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 260-268.
ZIKMUND, W. G. and STANTON, W. J. (1971), “Recycling Solid Was-
tes: A Channels of Distribution Problem”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
35, July, pp. 34-39.
ZSIDISIN, G. A. and SIFERD, S. P. (2001), “Environmental Purchasing:
A Framework for Theory Development”, European Journal of Pur-
chasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 61-73.

january · april 2008 · esic market [237]