See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329066838

A systematic review of sustainable supplier management for analytical and

behavioral decision making

Conference Paper · November 2018

DOI: 10.14488/ENEGEP2018_TI_ST_268_536_35760

CITATIONS READS

0 10

2 authors, including:

Mayra Oliveira Ramos

Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba (Unimep)
21 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Phd Doctoral View project

Business Management - Gestão de Negócios View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mayra Oliveira Ramos on 10 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of

sustainability-related supplier risk management
Eliciane Maria da Silva a, *, Mayra Oliveira Ramos b, Anthony Alexander c,
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour d
a
Unimep e Methodhist University of Piracicaba, Department of Production Engineering, Rodovia Luís Ometto Km 24(SP 306), Santa Ba
rbara d’Oeste, SP,
13451-900, Brazil
b
Unimep e Methodhist University of Piracicaba, Department of Production Engineering, Rodovia Luís Ometto Km 24(SP 306), Santa Ba
rbara d’Oeste, SP,
13451-900, Sa ~o Paulo, Brazil
c
University of Sussex Business School, Dept. of Operations and Information Systems, Jubilee 112, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, United Kingdom
d
Montpellier Business School, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, Montpellier, 34080, France

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

Article history: This article conducts a literature review that finds three dominant topics; supplier selection, supplier
Received 7 November 2018 development and supplier evaluation for sustainability-related supplier risk management (SSRM). It also
Received in revised form brings together rationalist decision models with behavioral models. The main contributions and dis-
7 October 2019
coveries of our review are: (a) we propose a four stage typology combining a number of decision making
Accepted 8 October 2019
Available online xxx
frameworksapplied for the first time to understanding SSRM; (b) we found that multi-criteria decision
models (MCDM) as the most prevalent, but with an increasing use of fuzzy heuristics; (c) a significant
Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes quantity of articles had an approach on sustainability risk centered on ethical business conduct issues,
and corporate social responsibility (CSR) is employed can be considered an emerging topic. We therefore
Keywords: propose a future research agenda targeted at enriching a prescriptive decision analysis where both
Sustainable supply chain ramifications - rationalist and behavioral - are blended to encapsulate both psychological and political
Decision making sources of behavioral bias and distortion, in order to better define the complex contexts of and ambi-
Behavioral guities in problem formulation in rationalist models.
Risk management
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Analytical model
Supplier selection

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. Major types of decision analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. Literature review typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Research methodology and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Analysis and findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.1. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2. Structured content analysis: findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2.1. Stage A: formulating the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2.2. Stage B: definition of research type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2.3. Stage C: developing and combining models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2.4. Stage D: communicating criteria to suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5. Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elicianems@gmail.com, eliciane.silva@unimep.br (E.M. da
Silva), mayraolira@gmail.com (M.O. Ramos), Anthony.Alexander@sussex.ac.uk
(A. Alexander), c.chiappetta-jabbour@montpellier-bs.com (C.J.C. Jabbour).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
2 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx

5.1. Implications for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

5.2. Managerial implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.3. Research limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

1. Introduction 2014; Freitas and Magrini, 2013; French et al., 2009; Hirsch and
Meyer, 2010). Various examples combining both the behavioral
Sustainable supply chain management contributes to improved and rationalist approaches are found across the sustainable oper-
company performance due to its potential to reduce exposure to ations and decision-making literature. Hirsch and Meyer (2010)
certain types of risk (Dubey et al., 2015; Mani et al., 2018). While developed a decision-making model employing game theory,
supplier risk management (SRM) considers the risk of wrongdoing transaction cost economics and the constructs of reputation and
by suppliers (Canzaniello et al., 2017), risks are increasingly being ethical values. This has helped explain how ethical considerations
linked to sustainability. These range from environmental impacts, act as drivers in reducing behavioral uncertainty in terms of a
such as the link between the palm oil supply chain and the partner’s opportunistic behavior, empirically informed by research
extinction of certain primates, to the unethical treatment of into a large drugstore chain and its suppliers.
workers found in sweatshop manufacturing and informal mining. However, new decision-modeling tools and concepts addressing
The broad umbrella of ‘sustainable and responsible business’ ex- the characteristics of social and environmental sustainability could
tends the idea of sustainable risk across a whole range of social, be developed by future researchers. Where some literature reviews
environmental and governance areas, where even the perception of have covered a broad scope of work on decision analysis in sus-
wrongdoing can damage a company’s reputation. tainable supply chain management (Alexander et al., 2014), the
External stakeholders both within and beyond the supply chain current paper reviews the complementary topic of decision models
(Svensson et al., 2018) such as consumers, the general public, leg- in SRM. Furthermore, recent literature reviews considering SRM do
islators, investors, etc. all exert influence on companies in terms of not analyze sustainability-related supplier risk management. For
their social and environmental impact. Negative impacts, such as example, Behzadi et al. (2018) provide a systematic literature re-
harmful pollution or unethical working practices, may result in view of risk management for agribusiness supply chains. These
reputational damage, even if they occur in the supply chain and not authors identify traditional risk sources, such as technology fail-
within the focal firm. This exposes companies to an increased risk ures, weather/pest conditions and spot price uncertainty. They
profile (Hajmohammad and Vachon, 2016; Hartmann and Moeller, classify the mitigation strategies into the concepts of robustness
2014). and resilience, which form part of classical supply chain risk
Examples of firms affected by this kind of reputational damage management.
include premium brands such as Zara, Apple and Nestle
’s KitKat, Meanwhile, Rafi-Ul-Shan et al. (2018) analyze the literature
whose supply chains have all been alleged to involve unsustainable within a specific context and considering aspects of sustainability
practices (Hofmann et al., 2014). In this context, it is critical to and risk management. Although they argue that the nature of
understand how SRM theory interprets and reflects the various sustainability-related risks is distinctive and therefore traditional
issues of sustainability within supply chains. We will consider the risk management may not be sufficient, the authors do not elabo-
role of decision analysis in SRM as a means to understand how such rate or create a new framework for SSRM. However, they do identify
risk exposure might lead to certain decisions about risk mitigation. gaps in the risk management processes within the fashion indus-
In order to investigate this relationship, we use the term try’s supply chains and the context for agile, responsive and
sustainability-related supplier risk management (SSRM). These demand-driven supply chains are also analyzed. Hamdi et al. (2018)
decision models are primarily concerned with supplier evaluation, analyze 343 research articles published between 2004 and 2014 in
supplier selection and supplier development. the field of supplier selection and supply chain risk management.
Risk management strategies are developed by both suppliers However, the authors do not consider the risk management process
and buyers, with buyers specifying requirements and suppliers for sustainability and they classify the quantitative, qualitative and
demonstrating that they meet them. A significant aspect of this is hybrid approaches to supplier selection in the stages of the classical
the buying firm’s risk perception, which stems from the existing risk management process: risk identification, risk measurement,
buyer-supplier relationship (Foerstl et al., 2010) and involves sense- risk assessment, risk evaluation, and risk control and monitoring.
making and bounded rationality as to what constitutes a possible In light of the existing gap in the discussion concerning risk
sustainability risk (Roehrich et al., 2014) and the nature of stake- management processes and sustainability, this article undertakes
holder pressure (Hajmohammad and Vachon, 2016). Factors such as an extensive literature review which identifies three primary
trust, reputation and ethical values are important elements of topics: supplier selection, supplier development and supplier
informal governance in cooperative relationships (Ga €chter et al., evaluation for SSRM. This paper also combines rationalist decision
2004; Hirsch and Meyer, 2010; Nooteboom, 1996). Furthermore, models with behavioral models. Our study, therefore, expands on
these are important factors which supplement abstract models in the findings of French and Geldermann (2005), Ritchie and Brindley
decision analysis; psychological or political bias can distort how (2007) and Hofmann et al. (2014). French and Geldermann (2005)
decisions are made in reality, and these factors help us understand study the unstructured and unpredictable qualities of decision-
decision-making under normative, rational circumstances. making in relation to environmental issues; Ritchie and Brindley
Behavioral decision analysis, concerned with the social and (2007) provide a framework for examining risk management in a
psychological aspects of how decisions are made in practice, is supply chain context; and Hofmann et al. (2014) provide a
therefore as relevant in modeling sustainability issues as norma- description of how sustainability issues in supply chains materi-
tive, rational, quantitative decision models are (Alexander et al., alize as risks for focal firms. Following this, in the current study we

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
will seek to answer the following research question:
How is decision modeling used within firms as part of
sustainability-related supplier risk management?
This article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the
theoretical background for SRM and SSRM, as well as the major
types of decision analysis which serve as the background for the
proposed literature review typologies. Section 3 describes the
research methodology and processes. Section 4 gives the findings
and analysis, presenting a descriptive analysis of our selected
sample of papers and categorizing the articles based on the stages
of the decision process for SSRM. Finally, the concluding remarks
cover suggestions for future studies, limitations of the research, and
implications for practitioners and researchers.
2. Theoretical background
SRM has evolved into one of the most active fields in supply
chain management research due to outsourcing, global sourcing
and economic turbulence. The majority of studies on SRM
concentrate on upstream risks; identifying problems with supply
quality, delivery failures and financial issues (Manuj and Mentzer,
2008). The common feature of these risks is that they generally
materialize due to a disruption somewhere in the supply chain,
which subsequently obstructs the flow of materials, funds, or in-
formation in the supply chain (Bode et al., 2011). Therefore, SRM
focuses on mitigating risks to suppliers from supply chain disrup-
tions (such as poor quality, employee strikes, vendor bankruptcy,
delivery delays and so on) through three main tasks: (a) specifying/
identifying sources of risk and vulnerabilities; (b) measurement/
assessment of risk severity and occurrence level; and (c) risk con-
trol and monitoring (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Manuj and
Mentzer, 2008; Norrman and Jansson, 2004). Furthermore, the
risk mitigation strategies can be both proactive (prior to the
disruption) and reactive (post-disruption).
Some studies on SRM overlap with work on decision modeling.
Yoon et al. (2018) apply a traditional SRM approach to develop a
decision model considering quantitative and qualitative risk factors
in supplier selection and evaluating the efficacy of alternative risk
mitigation strategies. Ferreira et al. (2018) conduct a risk analysis of
the Brazilian Shipbuilding Industry by identifying, assessing and
evaluating potential risks, finally producing a risk profile for the
industry. Machado et al. (2018) analyze how companies develop
mitigation capabilities within their supply chains in order to reduce
the negative impacts of counterfeiting. Sawik (2019) proposes a
portfolio approach, which combines decisions made before, during
and after a disruption, to help decide on primary and recovery
suppliers, and relocate the plants at greatest risk of disruption.
Meanwhile, the rising demand for sustainability in supply
chains means that companies are increasingly adopting social and
environmental criteria in addition to minimum legal requirements
(Hanim et al., 2017; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Trkman et al.,
2016). These social and environmental criteria often aim to
address related risks in the supply chain, such as human rights
abuses or litigation over pollution and its subsequent reputational
damage (Roehrich et al., 2014). As such, the topic of sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) is increasingly linked to SRM.
Matten (1995) provides early examples of this connection in his
work on environmental risk management in business, while
Teuscher et al. (2006) examines social risk management in the
soybean supply chain.
As an emerging concept in the literature, a specific definition of
SSRM is provided by Hofmann et al. (2014, p. 168): “a condition or a
potentially occurring event within a focal firm’s supply chain that may
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
3
provoke harmful stakeholder reactions”. The risks stem from, " … (i)
social issues (related to working conditions and compensation); (ii)
ecological issues (input-related aspects, such as energy consumption,
or resource utilization, as well as production output-related aspects,
such as emissions and recycling) and (iii) ethical business conduct
issues (corruption and business connections to dubious individuals or
firms)."
This definition of SSRM sees risk as being inherently linked to
stakeholder reaction, and so actual problems occurring in a supply
chain are not a precondition for negative impact. Stakeholders’
mere perception of risk in the supply chain can be enough to de-
mand the application of risk mitigation policies (Giannakis and
Papadopoulos, 2016; Hofmann et al., 2014). Therefore, there is
often an inherently behavioral aspect to risk mitigation strategies.
Considering stakeholders’ perceptions may demand more proac-
tive anticipation of risks on grounds of social psychology, and not
merely mathematical rationalism. Within decision theory, the
process of considering psychological bias alongside rational anal-
ysis is referred to by French et al. (2009) as prescriptive decision
modeling. For SSRM, supplier selection, development and evalua-
tion decisions act as risk mitigation strategies (e.g. Sawik, 2013).
These require time and financial resources, in the form of supplier
audits, development of ethical or environmental codes of conduct,
and commitment to the community. This impact on firm resources
justifies the use of good decision modeling, and this modeling must
consider the importance of both behavioral and rational aspects.
2.1. Major types of decision analysis
As discussed by Alexander et al. (2018), various categorizations
of the different types of decision contexts have been developed
over the years, ranging from ‘structured’ to ‘unstructured’, ‘tame’,
‘messy’, ‘clock-like’ and ‘cloud-like’. Each of these corresponds to
epistemological issues around how clearly cause and effect can be
determined. Decision makers may develop quantitative models
that “are based on a set of variables that vary over a specific domain,
while quantitative and causal relationships have been defined be-
tween these variables” (Bertrand and Fransoo, 2002, p.242). This
falls into the domain of the classical scientific method, where a
relationship between a dependent and an independent variable can
be demonstrated clearly and robustly. Such models are also clas-
sified as normative, and are “used … to explore how [someone]
should make a decision” (French et al., 2009) based on rational
behavior (Raiffa, 1994).
In contrast to this rational approach, behavioral decision
modeling is known as empirical because it describes how people
perform decision-making. This theoretical distinction was first
coined in Simon’s 1947 study on the limited capacity of people to
make rational decisions based on fully accurate information,
referred to as bounded rationality (Simon, 1947). In order to create a
definitive model, the rational/normative and behavioral/empirical
models are combined in ‘prescriptive decision models’, which seek
to unify these approaches, accounting for bias or behavioral con-
cerns, including values, preferences, beliefs and judgments, as well
as a rationalist decision-making process (French et al., 2009 #1893;
Bell, 1988 #2080). Despite being the optimum approach in
decision-making practice and a significant area of research in de-
cision theory, this combined approach is under-examined in terms
of SSCM and SRM/SSRM.
In traditional economic theory, normative models assume that
the decision maker has knowledge of the problem, as well as a clear
vision and sufficient skills to make a rational choice. For instance,
the decision maker can optimize supplier selection decision-
making by weighing up their various options (Rubinstein, 1998).
In their literature review of supplier selection decision-making, De
4 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
Boer et al. (2001) found several normative rational models, such as
analytic hierarchy protocol (AHP), analytic network protocol (ANP),
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and multi-integer linear
programming (MILP). Wu and Barnes (2011) observed a trend for
models combining a fuzzy set approach and analytic hierarchy/
network processes (AHP/ANP), so that uncertainty regarding
certain variables could be included in a rationalist decision model.
These authors add empirical evidence to the decision-making
literature, showing that more prescriptive strategies that combine
qualitative and quantitative optimization approaches are needed.
Descriptive models have been discussed in the operations
management field (OM) (Bendoly et al., 2010) and in the supplier
selection process (Kull et al., 2014). Indeed, behavioral OM, soft
operations research (OR), and behavioral economics all align with
Simon’s (1947) work in addressing the reality that decision makers
have cognitive limitations in processing information that affects
their decisions (Gino and Pisano, 2008). Kull et al. (2014), for
example, conduct a supplier selection behavioral experiment with
practicing managers under conditions of uncertainty, exploring
sources of bounded rationality and cognitive biases. By considering
the level of risk perceived by decision-makers, they show that
contingent pay decreases risk perceptions through the perception
of increased supplier control. Hence, the risk propensity of man-
agers increases preference for a supplier with less certain out-
comes, regardless of perceived risk. Including aspects of manager
performance measurement therefore significantly changes risk
appetite due to subtle psychological effects.
2.2. Literature review typology
In this literature review, the papers are categorized according to
a four-stage process of decision formulation, created through the
synthesis of French and Geldermann (2005), Hoffman et al. (2014)
and Ritchie and Brindley (2007)’s frameworks (see Fig. 1). The four
stages are: (a) formulation of the problem; (b) definition of research
type (method of decision modeling); (c) development and combi-
nation of models; and (d) communication of criteria to suppliers.
Fig. 1. Overview of the decision-making process in sustainability-related supplier risk
management.
Source: Adapted from French and Geldermann (2005) and Hofmann et al. (2014);
Ritchie and Brindley (2007).
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
A starting point for this research is the increasing emphasis on
SSRM, particularly in supplier selection, which has become a critical
issue faced by companies. In order to address its social and envi-
ronmental impact, firms are looking to eliminate these risks in their
supply chains, and hence deselect suppliers that pose a high risk
and focus on those that have low risk sustainability performance, or
are pioneering in the adoption of sustainable management prac-
tices. To understand the process of supplier selection in relation to
SSRM we synthesized Ritchie and Brindley (2007) and Hofmann
et al.’s (2014) frameworks, both of which start by identifying the
sources of risk. This is Stage A, and covers the processes of
formulating the problem and identifying the expectations of
stakeholders (Hofmann et al., 2014). Furthermore, French and
Geldermann (2005) explain that in terms of sustainability the
contexts are potentially complex or even chaotic, with difficulties in
bounded rationality. These include lack of information regarding
the structure or performance of a supply network, uncertainty of
long term cause and effect, and a social context that includes
cognitive behavioral factors affecting the decision-making of mul-
tiple stakeholders, including customers, consumers, employees,
suppliers, investors and so on.
In the second stage of the decision process, Stage B, which de-
fines the research type, French and Geldermann (2005) show how
unstructured contexts can be studied using behavioral approaches,
such as judgment. The necessary information for analysis is also
determined, to enable the final output of operational instructions
(Hofmann et al., 2014). Therefore, Stage B categorizes decision-
making as both empirical and behavioral, as normative and
rational. Together, these form a typology for classifying the research
literature, with the addition of a category for purely conceptual
papers on decision-making in SSRM. Table 1 presents the categories
of the literature review, showing where each type of research is
used.
Stage C, the third stage, develops and combines the decision
processes in SSRM (Fig. 1), as well as establishing principles for a
prescriptive decision model in order to enable optimum evaluation
of the options.
The fourth stage, Stage D, focuses on communicating criteria to
suppliers and evaluating supplier compliance (Hofmann et al.,
2014) (Fig. 1). It includes, amongst other activities, responding to
suppliers, sharing information, agreeing on performance standards,
undertaking regular joint reviews, developing relationships, and
potentially conducting supplier development or deselecting sup-
pliers (Ritchie and Brindley, 2007). Therefore, if after defining the
performance evaluation criteria and communicating with sup-
pliers, the buyers decide to conduct supplier development or
deselect suppliers, this is a risk mitigation process. To do so on the
basis of sustainability criteria is hence a risk mitigation process in
SSRM. In some circumstances, suppliers may have the opportunity
to improve their performance and can therefore be re-audited at a
pre-assigned point. However, some focal firms may simply choose
to look elsewhere. The divide between supplier development and
supplier deselection based on social criteria was evident in the
aftermath of the Rana Plaza disaster, with some firms increasing
their level of investment in the capacity of suppliers to improve
their sustainability performance, while other firms pulled out of the
country entirely (Clarke-Sather and Cobb, 2019).
Decision-making problems include supplier evaluation, selec-
tion and development. Supplier evaluation involves differentiating
a set group according to their levels of compliance, while in sup-
plier selection establishing evaluation criteria is important for
screening potential new suppliers, preventing non-compliant
suppliers from entering the supply base, or deselecting existing
suppliers from the supply base, reducing risk exposure. Supplier
development refers to situations where non-compliant suppliers
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 1
Definition of research type and decision analysis.

Behavioral empirical Studies using descriptive models in primarily unstructuredecomplex or unstructuredechaotic contexts
(Alexander et al., 2014; Kull et al., 2014). These studies include cognitive factors or social context in SSCM
(Bendoly et al., 2010; French and Geldermann, 2005; Simon, 1960)
Rational normative Studies using normative models in primarily structured-complicated and structured-simple contexts. Decision
makers have knowledge of the problem, clear vision and sufficient skills to optimize supply chain related
decisions (Rubinstein, 1998)
Behavioral empirical and rational normative Studies presenting prescriptive decision making that includes the combination of descriptive and normative
(prescriptive decision making) models (French et al., 2009).
Conceptual paper Studies with a conceptual framework and/or theoretical review without empirical research.

Table 2
Research protocol.

Language: English only

Date range: No limit was set on the date range, but no papers were found from before 2004. The final updated set of data for the review was compiled
in May 2018, so papers published after this date are not included.
Search fields: Search terms were applied to Titles, Abstracts and Keywords.
Databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct
Search terms: (“sustainability” OR “sustainable”) AND (“decision making” AND “risk” AND “supplier”) AND (“behavi*" AND “supply chain” AND “sustainability”
OR “reputation” OR “ethical”)

Exclusion Criteria: a) Semantic relevance

b) Relevance to the research problem

are assisted in improving their performance in order to mitigate Three databases were selected for data collection: Web of Sci-
potential risks, or supplier capacity or capability is improved to ence, Science Direct and Scopus, providing a comprehensive range
meet strategic goals. of academic papers. The two exclusion criteria were based on the
We use the four stages of decision-making, which formulate, work of Alexander et al. (2014): semantic relevance and relevance
analyze and enact the risk management process, using various to the research problem. Semantic relevance is related to the
potential decision support systems, to provide a structure for the different meanings words have depending on context; for example,
literature review, below. ‘sustainable’ and ‘supply’ can capture articles that refer to sus-
tainability in energy supply, water supply or even funding, meaning
that such articles had to be excluded. Relevance to the research
3. Research methodology and procedures
problem refers to the need to read some documents in full in order
to determine their relevance to the topic, as this may not be clear
Literature reviews seek to summarize existing research by
from the title or abstract. The articles selected for this review
identifying patterns, themes and issues as well as helping to
include those that describe the decision-making processes related
identify the conceptual content of the field and furthering theory
to sustainability and supplier risk management in detail, and do not
development (Seuring and Müller, 2008). Levy and Ellis (2006)
include those that merely refer to these themes in passing, such as
similarly define a literature review as sequence of steps for col-
including these concerns in the ‘implications for future research’ as
lecting, comprehending, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating
part of a list of possible future studies.
published research to provide a firm foundation for a topic. The
Initially, 235 articles were identified. After reading these and
objective of this review process is to add to the overall body of
using the exclusion criteria, 47 articles were ultimately selected for
knowledge by using a synthesis of concepts from decision theory to
the review. Table 3 shows the number of articles published in each
examine SSRM decision modeling research in a novel way. Litera-
journal, with the Journal of Cleaner Production and the Interna-
ture reviews are increasingly popular among researchers, as they
tional Journal of Production Economics being the most prolific in
not only capture past trends but also indicate the potential future
this area.
direction of a research field. Some of the most highly cited articles
in top operations management journals are literature reviews (such
as Govindan et al., 2015), pointing to their usefulness in establish- 4. Analysis and findings
ing foundations for future research.
Following the systematic approach of Tranfield et al. (2003), a This section will begin by presenting a descriptive analysis of the
primary search was conducted using the protocol described in sample of papers. Thereafter, it will categorize the articles based on
Table 2. This initial research helped to establish the research the stages described above.
question, as well as the basic terminology and key words for this
article. Our primary references were: March and Shapira’s (1987)
4.1. Descriptive analysis
seminal text on risk management; Seuring (2013); Zsidisin (2003)
and Brandenburg et al., 2014 review of normative models in sus-
The publications included in this review date from 2004 to 2018.
tainable supply chain management (SSCM); Alexander et al.’s
Fig. 2 shows the number of articles published each year. While no
(2014) review of normative and empirical decision models in
start date was set for the search, the first article on SSRM decision
SSCM (although not SRM); Foerstl et al. (2010); and finally,
modeling was published in 2004,1 and since 2014 engagement with
Hajmohammad and Vachon’s (2016) work on SSCM and SRM. We
then identified the relevant fields of knowledge, keywords and
criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles. After this, we sum- 1
Matten (1995) deals with environmental risk management in commercial en-
marized the data using the four-stage process outlined above. terprises, but without a detailed focus on decision modeling for supply chain
Finally, we outlined the results and discussion. management.

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
6 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 3
List of journals and number of papers.
Journals
Journal of Cleaner Production
International Journal of Production Economics
International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management
Journal of Business Ethics
International Journal of Production Research
European Journal of Operational Research
Computers and Industrial Engineering
Journal of Supply Chain Management
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Business Strategy and the Environment
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Journal of Operations Management
Applied Soft Computing
Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research
Sustainability
Business Ethics: A European Review
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
this subject has increased significantly (Fig. 2). The 47 articles
published between the years 2004 and 2018 include a large number
from the Journal of Cleaner Production, which accounts for 33% of
the total, as well as the International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics (22%). The years 2017 and 2018 stand out as having the
highest number of publications (10) on the subject, followed by
2016 with 9, suggesting a growing number of research papers on
this topic. It is also important to highlight that the number of ar-
ticles included for 2018 does not represent the whole year, and a
further increase may have occurred subsequent to data collection.
Among the 47 articles analyzed, the top 10 most cited authors
were identified (See Table 4), with the Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion publishing the top two most cited articles (Govindan et al.,
2013; Hsu and Hu, 2009). The third most citied paper, Kannan
et al. (2014) was published in the European Journal of Opera-
tional Research.
The top contributing countries, their organizations and the
number of published papers is shown in Table 5. This result dem-
onstrates that SSRM has attracted organizations and research
centers from around the globe. Germany has the largest number of
9 reflecting clear distinctions in emphasis between environmental,
4 social factors.
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1
Fig. 2. Number of papers per year.
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
N. Authors
16 Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018), Song et al. (2017), Rostamzadeh et al. (2018), Sancha et al.
(2016), Sancha et al. (2016), Zimmer et al. (2017), Leppelt et al. (2013), Vahidi et al. (2018),
Yawar and Seuring (2018), Hsu et al. (2013), Jakhar (2015), Yazdani et al. (2017),
Govindan et al. (2013), Hatami-Marbini et al. (2017), Hsu and Hu (2009) and
Kannan et al. (2015).
9 Yadlapalli et al. (2018), Awasthi et al. (2018), Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016), Klassen
and Vereecke (2012), Lima-Junior and Carpinetti (2016), Grimm et al. (2014), Chen and
Baddam (2015), Dey et al. (2015) and Govindan, Shankar and Kannan (2016).
1 Busse et al. (2017).
2 Ehrgott et al. (2011) and Piercy and Lane (2007).
2 Wu et al. (2017) and Lu et al. (2007).
2 Qin et al. (2017) and Kannan et al. (2014).
1 Cheraghalipour and Farsad (2018).
1 Hajmohammad and Vachon (2016).
1 Husgafvel et al. (2015).
2 Mavi et al. (2017) and Foroozesh et al. (2018).
1 Hofmann et al. (2014).
1 Foerstl et al. (2010).
1 Cousins et al. (2004).
1 Wilhelm et al. (2016).
1 Zarbakhshnia et al. (2018).
1 Sen et al. (2016).
1 Wang et al. (2017).
1 Hirsch and Meyer (2010).
1 Tavana et al. (2017).
1 Hashim et al. (2017).
publications on the subject (17), followed by China (11), the United
Kingdom (10), and Iran (9). While academic institutions did not
generally indicate a strong focus on this research topic, the Uni-
versity of Paderborn and the University of Sussex produced 2
publications each.
The 47 articles were also classified according to research design
(See Table 6). Almost half of the papers used more than one type of
research design; 21 articles used mathematical modeling alongside
a case study. For example, Awasthi et al. (2018) developed mathe-
matical models based on multiple-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) and fuzzy logic techniques for sustainable supplier se-
lection, and tested the model by applying it to an electronics
manufacturing company. Meanwhile, Govindan et al. (2016) used a
Delphi study to collect common CSR practices, and developed a
mathematical supplier selection model which was then validated
by a case study.
To distinguish SSRM from SRM research, it is important to
consider the definitions of sustainable development across the
papers. The typical conceptualization has three balanced compo-
nents: economic, environmental and social (Mello et al., 2017).
Using only environmental and social factors as a basic definition for
SSRM leads to the exclusion of articles on SRM that deal solely with
economic issues (assuming no differentiation between economic
sustainability and conventional economic performance measures).
10 10 Articles within the set were thus divided into categories
social and economic issues (see Table 7). 12 articles dealt with all
three topics, followed by papers that only address environmental
issues (11 articles), with slightly fewer works focusing solely on
4.2. Structured content analysis: findings
The following section describes the findings and analysis of four
stages of the SSRM decision process as described in Fig. 1. We
categorized each article based on these stages (see Table 8) and a
detailed analysis of the papers for each stage is presented below,
covering the use of theory and other aspects of the papers.
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Table 4
Most cited authors.

Author Journal Citations

Govindan et al. (2013) Journal of Cleaner Production 349

Hsu and Hu (2009) Journal of Cleaner Production 256
Kannan et al. (2014) European Journal of Operational Research 248
Hsu et al. (2013) Journal of Cleaner Production 235
Grimm et al. (2014) International Journal of Production Economics 206
Klassen and Vereecke (2012) International Journal of Production Economics 196
Lu et al. (2007) International Journal of Production Research 187
Foerstl et al. (2010) Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 173
Wilhelm et al. (2016) Journal of Operations Management 133
Qin et al. (2017) European Journal of Operational Research 129

Table 5
Contributions by country.

Country Organizations Papers per organization Total number of papers

Germany Bundeswehr University 1 17

European Business School (EBS) 1
Faculty of Economics and Management 1
Fraunhofer Center for Applied Research on Supply Chain Services 1
Fraunhofer Center for Applied Research on Supply Chain Services 1
Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg 1
Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg 1
German Graduate School of Management and Law (GGS), 1
Hamburg University of Technology 1
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 1
Otto Beisheim School of Management 1
Supply Chain Management Institute 1
Technische Universitat Bergakademie Freiberg 1
University for Business and Law 1
University of Kassel 1
University of Paderborn 2
China Beihang University 1 11
Hong Kong Polytechnic University 1
Nanjing Normal University 1
Northwestern Polytechnical University 1
Shanghai Jiao Tong University 1
Shanghai University 1
Shanghai University, 1
Sichuan University Chengdu 1
Southeast University 1
University of Science & Technology of China 1
Wuhan University of Technology 1
United Kingdom Aston Business School 1 10
Aston University 1
Brunel University 1
De Montfort University 1
Queen’s University of Belfast 1
The University of Manchester 1
The University of Warwick 1
University of Southampton 1
University of Sussex 2
Iran Allame Tabataba’i University Business School 1 9
Amirkabir University of Technology 1
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology 1
Islamic Azad Universit 1
Islamic Azad University (IAU) Qazvin branch, 1
Shahed University 1
University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran 1
University of Tehran 2

4.2.1. Stage A: formulating the problem
In terms of theories used in the 47 articles selected, Stage A
predominantly focuses on corporate social responsibility (CSR),
which is utilized in 8 papers. Agency theory (AT), transactional cost
theory (TCT), buyer-supplier relationships (BSR) and stakeholder
theory (ST) were employed in three papers each (Table 9). Most
papers did not employ any specific organizational theory to
formulate SSRM decision-making problems. In addition, 14 papers
centered on ethical business conduct issues (Table 9). However,
ethical issues were not regarded as a specific theoretical concept,
but rather as a contextual phenomenon. Instead, these papers are
viewed as describing ethical issues as differences arising from the
political and economic contexts in different countries (Torres-Ruiz
and Ravindran, 2018). These issues have the potential to affect firm
location decisions (Husgafvel et al., 2015), and involve social and
financial and economic risks (Foroozesh et al., 2018; Giannakis and
Papadopoulos, 2016), as well as aspects of social practices (Dey
et al., 2015) and social sustainability aspects (Hatami-Marbini

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
8 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 6
Distribution of articles for each research design.

Research design No. of articles Select references

Mathematical modeling and case study 21 (Awasthi et al., 2018; Song et al., 2017; Cheraghalipour and Farsad, 2018;
Hashim et al., 2017; Mavi et al., 2017; Rostamzadeh et al., 2018;
Foroozesh et al., 2018; Zimmer et al., 2017; Vahidi et al., 2018;
Hsu et al., 2013; Sen et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Yazdani et al., 2017;
Jakhar, 2015; Qin et al., 2017; Govindan et al., 2013; Hatami-Marbini et al., 2017;
Hsu and Hu, 2009; Kannan et al., 2014, 2015; Lu et al., 2007; Tavana et al., 2017)
Case study 7 (Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran, 2018; Foerstl et al., 2010; Klassen and Vereecke, 2012;
Grimm et al., 2014; Leppelt et al., 2013; Yawar and Seuring, 2018; Giannakis
and Papadopoulos, 2016)
Survey and hypothetical cases 4 (Yadlapalli et al., 2018; Sancha et al., 2016a, 2016b; Ehrgott et al., 2011)
Mathematical modeling 3 (Lima Junior et al., 2014; Chen and Baddam, 2015; Wu et al., 2017)
Conceptual framework 3 (Hajmohammad and Vachon, 2016; Hofmann et al., 2014; Cousins et al., 2004)
Action research 1 Dey et al. (2015)
Conceptual framework and case study 1 Wilhelm et al. (2016)
Delphi study, mathematical modeling and case study 1 Govindan et al., 2018
Design science approach 1 Busse et al. (2017)
Theoretical model 1 Piercy and Lane (2007)
Theoretical framework 1 Hirsch and Meyer (2010)

Table 7 a supplier on time may be seen as unethical, but cannot be equated

Sustainability dimensions.
Sustainability dimensions Number of papers (N ¼ 47)
Environmental, Economic and Social 12
Environmental 11
Environmental and Social 10
Social 8 example, Yadlapalli et al. (2018) employ environmental, social and
Environmental and Economic 4 economic criteria for supplier selection in apparel manufacturing
Economic and Social 2
et al., 2017; Tavana et al., 2017).
Some authors categorize SSRM risk factors using the three-pillar
concept of sustainability which includes environmental, social and
economic factors (Foroozesh et al., 2018; Song et al., 2017; Vahidi
et al., 2018). Others see it in terms of operational disruptions
caused by equipment failure, bankruptcy, poor planning and
scheduling, product design flaws, problems with inventories or
stock-outs (Cheraghalipour and Farsad, 2018; Foroozesh et al.,
2018; Rostamzadeh et al., 2018; Vahidi et al., 2018). Some authors
focus on the risks of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or
recycling (Rostamzadeh et al., 2018), using social and environ-
mental life cycle analysis to better understand impact and in-
ventories on a product-specific level (Zimmer et al., 2016). The
ethical and unethical behavior of suppliers (Chen and Baddam,
2015; Foroozesh et al., 2018; Hofmann et al., 2014; Husgafvel
et al., 2015) and IT related risks are also cited by some authors to
be inherent to SSRM (Rostamzadeh et al., 2018). It should be noted
that while several sustainability criteria related to SRM are included
in this list, there is a wide variety and some inconsistency in the
naming of concepts. This lack of clarity and consistency may be a
barrier to further development in this field. For instance, not paying
with ethical transgressions such as worker human rights abuses,
which may also be described as socially unsustainable. Such clas-
sifications are problematic given the absence of formal, unambig-
uous definitions.
The papers also link a range of other theories to SSRM. For
using agency theory concepts. Goal conflict, information asymme-
try and risk aversion are used to develop a framework using these
client-agent concepts in relation to sustainability performance.
Mavi et al. (2017) study sustainable supplier selection for third-
party reverse logistics providers using product life cycle and
reverse logistics concepts. Qin et al. (2017) develop a model for
green supplier selection, using various concepts such as green
product innovation criteria, green image, use of environmentally
friendly technology, resource consumption, green competencies,
environmental management, quality management, total product
life cycle cost, pollution production and staff environmental
training.
Foroozesh et al. (2018) consider risk management as one of a
number of criteria in sustainable supplier selection in
manufacturing services, alongside transparency, strategy and cul-
ture, following the model of SSCM developed by Carter and Rogers
(2008). They further evaluate SSRM using six categories: cost,
quality, deliverability, technology, productivity and service. These
are typical supplier selection criteria applied to firms involved in a
sustainability-related sector. Chen and Baddam (2015) consider
only ethical and unethical factors in supplier selection. The
distinction between these two papers lies in whether supplier se-
lection includes sustainability criteria as part of a risk management

Table 8
Authors according to the four stages of the decision process in SSRM.

Authors Stages No.

(Busse et al., 2017; Cousins et al., 2004; Ehrgott et al., 2011; Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016; Hajmohammad and Vachon, 2016; A 9
Hofmann et al., 2014; Piercy and Lane, 2007; Wilhelm et al., 2016; Yawar and Seuring, 2018)
(Foerstl et al., 2010; Hirsch and Meyer, 2010; Yadlapalli et al., 2018) A and B 3
(Awasthi et al., 2018; Chen and Baddam, 2015; Cheraghalipour and Farsad, 2018; Foroozesh et al., 2018; Govindan et al., 2018; A, B and C 27
Hashim et al., 2017; Hatami-Marbini et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2013; Hsu and Hu, 2009; Jakhar, 2015; Kannan et al., 2014, 2015;
Lu et al., 2007; Mavi et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2017; Rostamzadeh et al., 2018; Sancha et al., 2016; Sen et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017;
Tavana et al., 2017; Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran, 2018; Vahidi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2017; Yazdani et al., 2017;
Zarbakhshnia et al., 2018; Zimmer et al., 2017)
(Dey et al., 2015; Govindan et al., 2013; Lima Junior et al., 2014) A, B, C and D 3
(Grimm et al., 2014; Husgafvel et al., 2015; Klassen and Vereecke, 2012; Leppelt et al., 2013; Sancha et al., 2016b) A, B and D 5

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Table 9
Theoretical approaches and supply chain sustainability (SCS) issues as risks.

Authors Theoretical approaches SCS Issues as Risks

RBV AT TCT BSR CSR RDT ST PM Env Soc Econ Eth

Yadlapalli et al. (2018) X X X X X X X

Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018) X X X X
Busse et al. (2017) X X X
Awasthi et al. (2018) X X X
Song et al. (2017) X X X
Cheraghalipour and Farsad (2018) X X X
Hajmohammad and Vachon (2016) X X X X X
Hashim et al. (2017) X
Husgafvel et al. (2015) X X
Mavi et al. (2017) X X X
Rostamzadeh et al. (2018) X
Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) X X X X X
Hofmann et al. (2014) X X X X X
Foerstl et al. (2010) X X X X X
Cousins et al. (2004) X
Sancha et al. (2016b) X X X
Ehrgott et al. (2011) X X
Klassen and Vereecke (2012) X X
Foroozesh et al. (2018) X X X X
Lima Junior and Carpinetti (2016) X X
Sancha et al. (2016a) X
Zimmer et al. (2017) X
Grimm et al. (2014) X X X
Leppelt et al. (2013) X X X X X
Vahidi et al. (2018) X X X
Wilhelm et al. (2016) X X X
Zarbakhshnia et al. (2018) X X
Chen and Baddam (2015) X X
Yawar and Seuring (2018) X
Hsu et al. (2013) X
Piercy and Lane (2007) X X X
Sen et al. (2016) X
Wang et al. (2017) X
Hirsch and Meyer (2010) X X X
Jakhar (2015) X X
Wu et al. (2017) X X X X
Yazdani et al. (2017) X X
Qin et al. (2017) X
Dey et al. (2015) X X X
Govindan et al. (2013) X X X X
Govindan et al., 2018 X X X
Hatami-Marbini et al. (2017) X X X X X
Hsu and Hu (2009) X
Kannan et al. (2015) X X X
Kannan et al. (2014) X
Lu et al. (2007) X
Tavana et al. (2017) X X X X
TOTAL 2 3 3 3 8 1 3 2 36 32 20 14

Note: RBV: resource-based view; AT: agency theory; TCT: transitional cost theory; BSR: buyer-supplier relationship; CSR: corporate social responsibility; RDT: resource
dependency theory; ST: stakeholder theory; PM: purchase management; Environmental; Social; Economic; and Ethical.

process, or whether supplier selection decisions incorporating risk
management processes happen to be applied to firms in industries
associated with sustainability (clean energy, recycling, etc.). These
articles highlight the distinction between sustainability as a crite-
rion in risk management, versus sustainability as a description of a
type of business. While the first refers to encouraging incumbent
firms to improve the sustainability performance of their supply
chains, the latter refers to firms which contribute more specifically
to the meeting of major sustainability challenges, such as clean
energy and water.
Several papers use CSR and stakeholder theory to investigate
how stakeholders can help identify sustainability risks within
supply chains (Busse et al., 2017; Foerstl et al., 2010; Govindan et al.,
2018; Hofmann et al., 2014). Stakeholders can be classed as either
internal or external. Internal stakeholders include managers, em-
ployees, and owners, while external stakeholders include both
those within the supply chain, such as suppliers and clients, and
those beyond the supply chain such as market and societal stake-
holders (Svensson et al., 2018). Hofmann et al. (2014) present sets of
stakeholder expectations that vary across different contexts. This
underlines the importance of specific contexts when developing
SSRM, and hence the significance of how a decision-making prob-
lem is formulated. How normative, rationalist models are applied to
specific decision-making problems is thus very important, as
contextual and behavioral influences may be insufficiently
acknowledged. Problem formulation, the selection of decision-
making models, and the nature of bounded rationality (Simon,
1947; Roehrich et al., 2014) thus play a large role, and deserve
greater attention in future research.
CSR concepts have been used in supplier development in order
to improve capabilities, as well as in monitoring and collaboration
processes, leading to environmental and social outcomes regarded
as performance factors (Klassen and Vereecke, 2012; Wu et al.,
2017; Yawar and Seuring, 2017). Social issues are analyzed in

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
10 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
relation to a supplier’s social misconduct, such as in wholesale price
contracts (Wu et al., 2017), product safety in children’s toys, faulty
automobile design, food contamination, labor practices and use of
certification standards (SA8000) (Klassen and Vereecke, 2012).
Yawar and Seuring (2018) conclude that addressing social issues as
a performance criterion can improve economic performance and
should be handled jointly as strategic and SRM concerns. The im-
pacts of supplier development on social outcomes illustrate the
strategic significance of SSRM. Governmental and institutional
structures for supply chains can also affect the viability and suc-
cesses of supplier development strategies, suggesting a further
need to focus on the supply chain’s external stakeholders.
Finally, three papers employ agency theory in order to under-
stand the supply chain relationship, highlighting the importance of
behavioral factors. Yadlapalli et al. (2018) conclude that the degree
to which environmental, economic and social performance is
weighted varies according to the intensity of the problem. Those
related to conflicting goals and risk aversion slightly decrease the
firm’s economic performance. Meanwhile, a buyer firm’s invest-
ment in auditing, training, and joint efforts leads to a significant
improvement in the firm’s social and environmental performance.
Hajmohammad and Vachon (2016) argue that agency theory could
be employed as a control mechanism by buyers to decrease or
mitigate supplier misconduct in terms of labor standards, ecolog-
ical issues, or other sustainability-related concerns. This enables
buyers to use both the reactive and proactive strategies for SSRM.
The authors develop a theoretical framework based on resource
dependency theory, agency theory and risk perception. The
behavioral decision-making issue of managers’ perception of risk,
as well as the level of buyer and supplier interdependence, can
affect supply managers’ approach to SSRM.
Similarly, Wilhelm et al. (2016) focus on the involvement of first
tier suppliers in the achievement of sustainability compliance
among higher tier suppliers’ operations. The authors use agency
theory and institutional theory to understand the different contexts
and conflicts of first-tier suppliers’ responses to focal firms’ sus-
tainability requirements.
4.2.2. Stage B: definition of research type
In Stage B (Fig. 1), the articles are classified as empirical,
behavioral studies, normative, rational studies, or conceptual
studies. Papers using prescriptive decision analysis are identified;
these papers use both empirical behavioral models and normative
rational models in order to account for bias (French et al., 2009).
Further classification of structured and unstructured decision
contexts is described by the Cynefin framework (Alexander et al.,
2018; Kurtz and Snowden, 2003), which notes the need for fit be-
tween the decision context and the type of decision-making
method applied. Table 10 shows the number of articles found for
each type of research.
Articles classified as behavioral, empirical studies may use
qualitative research to understand the decision-making process,
but adopt quantitative, statistical approaches to evaluate causal
relationships. Rational, normative articles generally use quantita-
tive methods with structured data, in the tradition of classical
operational research. Conceptual papers focus on explaining or
describing the phenomenon under study and discussing the use of
theory. Of the 47 articles selected, 31 are classified as rational and
normative (examples include Awasthi et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2007;
Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran, 2018). Three articles are classified as
being behavioral, empirical, and rational normative studies
(Govindan et al., 2018; Hirsch and Meyer, 2010; Wu et al., 2017);
these combine unstructured and structured data, and take a pre-
scriptive decision-making approach. Finally, three articles are
classified as conceptual papers (Hajmohammad and Vachon, 2016;
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
Table 10
Type of research.
Type of research (and decision analysis) Number of papers (N ¼ 47)
Empirical behavioral 9
Empirical behavioral and Normative rational 3
Normative rational 32
Conceptual paper 3
Cousins et al., 2004; Piercy and Lane, 2007) and nine as behavioral
empirical studies (for example, Yadlapalli et al., 2018).
4.2.3. Stage C: developing and combining models
The articles classified as being relevant to Stage C develop and
employ computational methods to support modeling and decision
analysis, using the appropriate analytical techniques. In some cases,
when accounting for context and combined with other theories,
these also generate prescriptive models for decision-making.
Through analysis of the selected articles, we determined that
the majority of Stage B studies are normative, rational articles that
employ MCDM techniques, and are concerned with supplier se-
lection or evaluation (Table 11). These articles also demonstrate an
increase in the use of hybrid techniques; for example, 13 articles
used fuzzy logic along with analytical models of MCDM, such as
AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order of
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and SWARA (Step-wise
Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis). This may suggest that the de-
mand for novel contributions to research prompts new combina-
tions of methodological techniques. It is not necessarily clear to
what extent these decision-making models are applied to SSRM in
practice, suggesting an important piece of future research on the
practical application of decision-making models for SSRM.
Furthermore, the prevalence of normative MCDM suggests an
under-appreciation of Stage A in SSRM, and this presents a clear
research gap in the consideration of behavioral factors in SSRM,
such as managerial risk perception. While this is a significant topic
within the interdisciplinary field of decision analysis, it appears
under-represented in the consideration of sustainability and risk in
supply chains.
Decision-making in the real world often involves subjective
human preferences. SCM in particular is strongly influenced by
interpersonal relationships, and subject to numerous sources of
cognitive and social bias, as discussed by Carter et al. (2007) and
Kaufmann et al. (2009). As human judgment and preference is both
vague and complex, and decision makers often cannot estimate
their preferences accurately, decision-making can be affected by
problems of bounded rationality even when using formal processes
of analysis (Govindan et al., 2013; Simon, 1947, 1960; Simon, 1960b).
Incorporating uncertainty, such as through the use of fuzzy
logic, into decision-making models is one approach to solving these
issues. For example, Lu et al. (2007) use AHP to evaluate green
suppliers, but combine this with fuzzy logic in order to reduce
subjective bias in the design of a weighting system. The DEMATEL
(Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) technique seeks
to determine cause and effect within complex systems. Hsu et al.
(2013) use this technique to recognize influential criteria in order
to improve management and mitigate carbon risks across the
supply chain. Meanwhile, Song et al. (2017) identify the risk factors
and critical relationships of various sustainability criteria in SSCM
in conjunction with Rough Set Theory. This approach resembles the
inclusion of fuzzy logic, a common way of dealing with inaccurate
information. Hatami-Marbini et al. (2017) also use fuzzy logic in
combination with DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) in order to
assess the risks inherent in using sustainability criteria in supplier
evaluation. Sen et al. (2016) propose a new decision-support
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Table 11
Decision making techniques.

Decision making technique Authors Number of papers (N ¼ 47)

FUZZY AHP (Zimmer et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2007) 2

FUZZY TOPSIS (Kannan et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2013) 2
FUZZY SWARA (Zarbakhshnia et al., 2018; Mavi et al., 2017) 2
AHP Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018) 1
ANP Hsu and Hu (2009) 1
BWM Cheraghalipour and Farsad (2018) 1
FUZZY DEA Hatami-Marbini et al. (2017) 1
ROUGH SET THEORY-DEMATEL Song et al. (2017) 1
DEMATEL Hsu et al. (2013) 1
FUZZY AXIOMATIC DESIGN Kannan et al. (2015) 1
FUZZY FMEA Foroozesh et al. (2018) 1
FUZZY MOM Hashim et al. (2017) 1
GAME THEORY Hirsch and Meyer (2010) 1
TODIM Qin et al. (2017) 1
FUZZY AHP-VIKOR Awasthi et al. (2018) 1
FUZZY TOPSIS Sen et al. (2016) 1
FUZZY TOPSIS-CRITICS Rostamzadeh et al. (2018) 1
FUZZY SWARA-MOORA Mavi et al. (2017) 1
FUZZY DELPHI- DEMATEL -ANP-PROMETHEE Govindan et al., 2018 1
SCOR and FUZZY-TOPSIS Lima Junior and Carpinetti (2016) 1
SEM and FUZZY AHP - MOLP Jakhar (2015) 1
QFD-AHP Dey et al. (2015) 1

system using fuzzy TOPSIS to consider environmental risks and
resilience criteria in order to solve supplier selection problems.
4.2.4. Stage D: communicating criteria to suppliers
Stage D (Fig. 1) refers to the process of communicating with
suppliers. Five articles focus on supplier performance results:
Foerstl et al. (2010); Husgafvel et al. (2015); Sancha et al. (2016);
Klassen and Vereecke (2012); and Lima Junior and Carpinetti
(2016). Foerstl et al. (2010) note that some companies set mini-
mum compliance standards; however, these performance mea-
sures tend to be specific in terms of evaluated items, geographical
location of supplier and manufacturing process. Therefore, the
questions of whether the indicators identified sufficiently address
supplier sustainability risks, and whether this process successfully
impacts on the performance results and reputation of the buying
company, must be further addressed.
In their Finnish study of factory-level indicators, Husgafvel et al.
(2015) point out that some legislation is specifically national in
scope. It can thus be difficult to make international comparisons.
The authors conclude that to achieve a high level of social perfor-
mance, firms must engage in proactive initiatives and social in-
novations. For example, it is advisable for firms to align social
practices and audit social risks within supply chains, as well as
communicating actions on social responsibility requirements to
direct suppliers, sub suppliers and workers. Furthermore, firms
should seek to establish a code of conduct signed by officials, and
publish reports on policies or actions developed in the local com-
munity with suppliers and sub-suppliers. Finally, companies should
display their factory safety and health performance compared with
the industry average. These are all examples which fall under the
umbrella of communication as part of the sustainability risk miti-
gation and management process.
Klassen and Vereecke (2012) see social issues in the supply
chain as being related to internal process and product design, and
state that monitoring, collaboration and innovation capabilities
mitigate risks and improve firms’ performance. In contrast, Sancha
et al. (2016) examine whether factors such as product complexity
and the relational factors of stability and adaptation affect sup-
pliers’ commitment to adopt environmental measures where they
have explicit or implicit contracts. In other words, higher flexibility
and complexity can lead to problems. Results show that high
product complexity demands explicit control by buyers, due to the
higher probability of incidents and problems occurring. Explicit
contracts force an increased commitment to environmental issues
in highly stable relationships, especially long-term partnerships. In
these kinds of relationships, suppliers have greater flexibility in
environmental decision-making and can make investments for
improved performance, such as complying with environmental
standards.
5. Final remarks
The final section discusses implications for theory and practice,
as well as outlining some limitations of the review. This research
intended to address the literature gap of decision modeling for
SSRM and to combine normative, rationalist decision models with
empirical, behavioral approaches.
Fig. 3 shows that (a) the rational, normative models for decision-
making are dominant among the 47 studies analyzed, although
more recent studies show an increase in the use of prescriptive
decision analysis that combines the behavioral and rational models
(Jakhar, 2015; Reimann et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2017; Yang and Xiao,
2017); Yazdani et al. (2017). It was also noted that (b) studies
increasingly use more than one technique for decision analysis,
generally adding a method that addresses less structured decision
contexts, such as Fuzzy TOPSIS (Lima Junior and Carpinetti, 2016),
and the environmental dimension is clearly dominant in the arti-
cles studied, with less attention given to the social aspects. It was
found that (d) MCDM was the most frequently used decision
technique among the articles studied, with fuzzy logic the most
commonly used addition in combined models, being present in 13
articles. Across the articles, (e) various theoretical perspectives are
used within the decision support models for SSRM. The articles also
showed that (f) CSR and stakeholder theory were often analyzed
together, and finally (g) CSR was commonly used in the context of
specific sectors.
From these findings, a number of implications for theory and
practice emerge. Literature reviews can be useful for generating
academic insights, identifying research gaps, and demonstrating
future trends to managers which may assist in decision support
systems which will benefit their business (Gold and Seuring, 2010).

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
12 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Systematisation of the main findings of this research.

5.1. Implications for research making for sustainability.

The fundamental contribution of this work is to shed light on
the state of the previous published literature by considering a
largely neglected angle: the link between decision theory and
SSRM (Bode and Wagner, 2015). Several implications emerge.
The first implication for theory is based on Pagell and
Shevchenko (2014)’s suggestion that the future of sustainable
supply chain management theory relies on innovation in the
methodology of forthcoming research. Innovation in decision
modeling that addresses the complexity inherent in SSRM such as
the combination of MCDM and fuzzy logic techniques appear to be
a growing research topic. While methodological diversity is
important, many studies in SRM still do not see sustainability
criteria in supplier selection and evaluation as risks. Other types of
risk assessment techniques used in SRM such as Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis (FMEA) are under-represented or even absent in
terms of sustainability. These methods account for severity and
impact in the evaluation of a decision problem, factors not present
in MCDM evaluations. Another technique, Value Focused Decision
Analysis (VFDA), contrasts with the Alternatives Focused Decision
Analysis (AFDA), including MCDM. VFDA is based on an acceptable
outcome, and thus allows researchers or practitioners to discount
any alternatives presented, whereas AFDA demands that one option
must be chosen out of a pool of options; the purpose of this decision
process is to determine the best option. The development of these
alternative decision models in a supplier risk context will have
implications for sustainability, and are clearly an innovative
approach for SSCM given their absence to date.
We require additional conceptual work to address risk assess-
ment factors in relation to problems’ complexity, developing the
issues put forward by French and Geldermann (2005) on decision-
The current field of decision modeling for SSRM is dominated by
normative mathematical modeling and the extent of behavioral
bias in organizations’ consideration of the sustainability-related
risks in their supply chains is little understood. This study found
that understanding uncertainties and the complex context of
decision-making problems in SSRM involved conceptual develop-
ment using organizational theories such as CSR (Klassen and
Vereecke, 2012), stakeholder theory (Busse et al., 2017), agency
theory (Yadlapalli et al., 2018), and buyer-supplier relationships
(Sancha et al., 2016). Future studies on SSRM decision modeling
could develop theories in relation to the specific context of sus-
tainability in supply chains. For example, future work could ascer-
tain the relative effectiveness of organizational processes which are
used to measure performance and control supply chains, via sys-
tems such as codes of conduct, ISO14000, ISO26000 and SA8000
standards, or internal standards, such as auditing (corporate sus-
tainability standards (CSS).
Agency theory is particularly relevant for understanding control
in SSRM by defining which actors have power and motivation to
influence the supply chain. The traditional view is that buyers
delegate work to suppliers, and through the use of control mech-
anisms reduce suppliers’ opportunistic behavior (Eisenhardt, 1989).
However, a better understanding of the behavioral decision-
making factors at work may improve performance in this area.
Similarly, stakeholder theory can be used to identify stakeholders
with power and motivation, and thus highlight obvious risks in the
chain, adapting risk mitigation strategies as a result of stakeholder
risk perception. Sarkis et al. (2011) provide a list of organizational
theories relevant to SSCM, and this list could be readily applied to
decision-making in SSRM.
In this review, we also found a lack of research linking the social

Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
and economic dimensions of sustainability. Furthermore, there is
scope for more robust scrutiny of the theoretical foundations of the
three-pillar concept in sustainable development (Hofmann et al.,
2014; Svensson, 2009). Notably, the low volume of research on
the social dimensions of SSRM decision modeling highlights the
need for greater connections between the worlds of decision
modeling and social sustainability. The prevalence of papers in the
Journal of Cleaner Production and International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, which focus on environmental issues and
manufacturing issues respectively, suggest that social sustainability
decision modeling work is not included in the scope of either of
these journals.
Additionally, further studies could further develop the final
stage of our framework. Future studies might develop reports for
stakeholders, focusing on communication and interaction to enable
better decision-making and subsequent actions, in line with
decision-making approaches such as soft system methodology,
where plural perspectives are acknowledged (Alexander et al.,
2018). Given the diverse set of groups and individuals that this
may include, each with different sustainability criteria, clarity in
terms of desired performance and related perception of risk is vital
(Ritchie and Brindley, 2007). Combining risk management, stake-
holder theory and group decision-making theory may offer a
fruitful avenue for future theory development.
5.2. Managerial implications
While this research shows that academic work on SSRM may
neglect social issues, it is not clear whether managers do this in
practice. Social sustainability issues such as child labor, unsafe
working conditions and modern slavery are mainstream issues in
commercial supply chain management. Practice may be running
ahead of theory in this regard. However, the key implication of this
research for managers is the importance of the link between sus-
tainable supplier selection and other organizational initiatives,
such as strategy. Stakeholder engagement is a strategic manage-
ment concept, and corporate social responsibility is often
addressed as a reputation management and public affairs issue
(Petersen and Lemke, 2015). These two areas may often be weakly
linked to supply chain management and risk management, and
indeed in many large enterprises may be handled by entirely
different departments. Managers should consider the synergies
between sustainable supplier selection, evaluation and develop-
ment and other factors that may affect firms’ strategic performance.
Supplier selection and deselection as part of SSRM could be
addressed as a core issue in reputation management, if it is not
already. To better understand the competitive implications of risk
management in the context of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment, managers may benefit from a better appreciation of the
behavioral aspects at play in decision-making. While Carter et al.
(2007) provided a taxonomy of these biases in the practice of
supply chain management, there has been insufficient develop-
ment of this in terms in relation to SSRM. Assisting managers to be
aware of bias can help provide more effective, rational (normative)
decision modeling, as described by the technique of prescriptive
decision modeling (French et al., 2009).
5.3. Research limitations
Our study’s main limitation lies in its focus on decision
modeling and risk management in sustainable supply chain studies
and the fact that it does not include wider research on supply chain
risk management or modeling for risk management in general. It
concentrates only on certain approaches to decision-making pro-
cesses included in the relatively small body of relevant literature,
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
13
and does not consider other areas of decision modeling and risk. A
wider study could review non-sustainability risk modeling for
supply chains, or look at risk modeling and sustainability in other
areas such as finance, insurance or decision analysis in order to
better meet the demand for greater theoretical and methodological
innovation to advance the field of SSCM.
As with any literature review, topics outside of the scope of the
review always provide grounds for a new, wider study. Yet, while
such limitations suggest directions for future research, there are
also a number of other areas for focus, such as implications for
methodology. For example, it is important to develop both quali-
tative and quantitative research in this field, focusing on the use of
mixed research methodologies (Dubey et al., 2015). There is also a
need to review works in languages other than English, in order to
further the innovative research needed to address the challenges of
sustainability and supply chains (Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Alexander, A., Kumar, M., Walker, H., 2018. A decision theory perspective on
complexity in performance measurement and management. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 38 (11), 2214e2244.
Alexander, A., Walker, H., Naim, M., 2014. Decision theory in sustainable supply
chain management: a literature review. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 19,
504e522.
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., Gold, S., 2018. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier se-
lection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195,
106e117.
Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M.J., Olsen, T.L., Zhang, A., 2018. Agribusiness supply chain
risk management: a review of quantitative decision models. Omega 79, 21e42.
Bendoly, E., Croson, R., Goncalves, P., Schultz, K., 2010. Bodies of knowledge for
research in behavioral operations. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19 (4), 434e452.
Bertrand, J.W.M., Fransoo, J.C., 2002. Operations management research methodol-
ogies using quantitative modeling. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 241e264.
Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J., Ellram, L.M., 2011. Understanding responses to
supply chain disruptions: insights from information processing and resource
dependence perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 54 (4), 833e856.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 233 (2), 299e312.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J., Wagner, S.M., 2017. Extending the supply
chain visibility boundary: Utilizing stakeholders for identifying supply chain
sustainability risks. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 47 (1), 18e40.
Canzaniello, A., Hartmann, E., Fifka, M.S., 2017. Intra-industry strategic alliances for
managing sustainability-related supplier risks: motivation and outcome. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 47 (5), 387e409.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5),
360e387.
Carter, C.R., Kaufmann, L., Michel, A., 2007. Behavioral supply management: a tax-
onomy of judgment and decision-making biases. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 37 (8), 631e669.
Chen, J.-Y., Baddam, S.R., 2015. The effect of unethical behavior and learning on
strategic supplier selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 167, 74e87.
Cheraghalipour, A., Farsad, S., 2018. A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection
and order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: a
case study in plastic industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 118, 237e250.
Clarke-Sather, A., Cobb, K., 2019. Onshoring fashion: worker sustainability impacts
of global and local apparel production. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1206e1218.
Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Bowen, F., 2004. The role of risk in environment-
related supplier initiatives. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24 (6), 554e565.
De Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P., 2001. A review of methods supporting supplier
selection. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 7 (2), 75e89.
Dey, P.K., Bhattacharya, A., Ho, W., 2015. Strategic supplier performance evaluation:
a case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 166, 192e214.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Samar Ali, S., 2015. Exploring the relationship between
leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental
performance: a framework for green supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 160,
120e132.
Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L., Carter, C.R., 2011. Social sustainability in
14 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
selecting emerging economy suppliers. J. Bus. Ethics 98 (1), 99e119.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case-study research. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 14 (4), 532e550.
Ferreira, F.d.A.L., Scavarda, L.F., Ceryno, P.S., Leiras, A., 2018. Supply chain risk
analysis: a shipbuilding industry case. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 21 (5), 542e556.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Managing supplier sustain-
ability risks in a dynamically changing environment-Sustainable supplier
management in the chemical industry. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 16 (2), 118e130.
Foroozesh, N., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Mousavi, S.M., 2018. Sustainable-supplier
selection for manufacturing services: a failure mode and effects analysis model
based on interval-valued fuzzy group decision-making. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 95 (9e12), 3609e3629.
Freitas, A.H.A., Magrini, A., 2013. Multi-criteria decision-making to support sus-
tainable water management in a mining complex in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 47,
118e128.
French, S., Geldermann, J., 2005. The varied contexts of environmental decision
problems and their implications for decision support. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (4),
378e391.
French, S., Maule, J., Papamichail, N., 2009. Decision Behaviour, Analysis and Sup-
port. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ga€chter, S., Herrmann, B., Tho€ ni, C., 2004. Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-
economic background: survey and experimental evidence. J. Econ. Behav. Or-
gan. 55 (4), 505e531.
Giannakis, M., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Supply chain sustainability: a risk manage-
ment approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 455e470.
Gino, F., Pisano, G., 2008. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf. Serv.
Oper. Manag. 10 (4), 676e691.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., 2010. Supply chain and logistics issues of bio-energy produc-
tion. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19 (1), 32e42.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345e354.
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015. Reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
240 (3), 603e626.
Govindan, K., Shankar, M., Kannan, D., 2018a. Supplier selection based on corporate
social responsibility practices. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 200, 353e379.
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S., Sarkis, J., 2014. Critical factors for sub-supplier man-
agement: a sustainable food supply chains perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152,
159e173.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., 2016. Mitigation, avoidance, or acceptance? Man-
aging supplier sustainability risk. J. Supply Chain Manag. 52 (2), 48e65.
Hamdi, F., Ghorbel, A., Masmoudi, F., Dupont, L., 2018. Optimization of a supply
portfolio in the context of supply chain risk management: literature review.
J. Intell. Manuf. 29 (4), 763e788.
Hanim, A.-R.S., Novita, S., Ariffin, R.G.R., Ramayah, T., 2017. The impact of sustain-
able manufacturing practices on sustainability performance: empirical evi-
dence from Malaysia. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 37 (2), 182e204.
Hartmann, J., Moeller, S., 2014. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Re-
sponsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior. J. Oper. Manag. 32
(5), 281e294.
Hashim, M., Nazam, M., Yao, L.M., Baig, S.A., Abrar, M., Zia-ur-Rehman, M., 2017.
Application of multi-objective optimization based on genetic algorithm for
sustainable strategic supplier selection under fuzzy environment. J. Ind. Eng.
Manag-Jiem 10 (2), 188e212.
Hatami-Marbini, A., Agrell, P.J., Tavana, M., Khoshnevis, P., 2017. A flexible cross-
efficiency fuzzy data envelopment analysis model for sustainable sourcing.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2761e2779.
Hirsch, B., Meyer, M., 2010. Integrating soft factors into the assessment of cooper-
ative relationships between firms: accounting for reputation and ethical values.
Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 19 (1), 81e94.
Hofmann, H., Busse, C., Bode, C., Henke, M., 2014. Sustainability-related supply
chain risks: conceptualization and management. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 23 (3),
160e172.
Hsu, C.-W., Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier
selection using analytic network process. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2), 255e264.
Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., Chen, S.-H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a
carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain man-
agement. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 164e172.
Husgafvel, R., Pajunen, N., Virtanen, K., Paavola, I.L., Paallysaho, M., Inkinen, V.,
Heiskanen, K., Dahl, O., Ekroos, A., 2015. Social sustainability performance in-
dicators - experiences from process industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8 (1), 14e25.
Jakhar, S.K., 2015. Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision model for a
sustainable supply chain of an apparel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 391e413.
Kannan, D., Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2014. Selecting green suppliers based
on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics
company. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233 (2), 432e447.
Kannan, D., Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., 2015. Fuzzy Axiomatic Design approach
based green supplier selection: a case study from Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 96,
194e208.
Kaufmann, L., Michel, A., Carter, C.R., 2009. Debiasing strategies in supply man-
agement decision-making. J. Bus. Logist. 30 (1), 85e106.
Klassen, R.D., Vereecke, A., 2012. Social issues in supply chains: capabilities link
responsibility, risk (opportunity), and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1),
103e115.
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
Kleindorfer, P.R., Saad, G.H., 2005. Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Prod.
Oper. Manag. 14 (1), 53e68.
Kull, T.J., Oke, A., Dooley, K.J., 2014. Supplier selection behavior under uncertainty:
contextual and cognitive effects on risk perception and choice. Decis. Sci. J. 45
(3), 467e505.
Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J., 2003. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a
complex and complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42 (3), 462e483.
Leppelt, T., Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., 2013. Sustainability management
beyond organizational boundariesesustainable supplier relationship manage-
ment in the chemical industry. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 94e102.
Levy, Y., Ellis, T.J., 2006. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature re-
view in support of information systems research. Inf. Sci. 9, 181e211.
Lima Junior, F.R., Carpinetti, L.C.R., 2016. Combining SCOR® model and fuzzy TOPSIS
for supplier evaluation and management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 174, 128e141.
Lima Junior, F.R., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R., 2014. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP
and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21,
194e209.
Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to green
supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res.
45 (18e19), 4317e4331.
Machado, S.M., Paiva, E.L., da Silva, E.M., 2018. Counterfeiting: addressing mitigation
and resilience in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 48 (2),
139e163.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Delgado, C., 2018. Enhancing supply chain performance
through supplier social sustainability: an emerging economy perspective. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 195, 259e272.
Manuj, I., Mentzer, J., 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (3), 192e223.
March, J.G., Shapira, Z., 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking.
Manag. Sci. 33 (11), 1404e1418.
Matten, D., 1995. Strategy follows structure: environmental risk management in
commercial enterprises. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 4 (3), 107e116.
Mavi, R.K., Goh, M., Zarbakhshnia, N., 2017. Sustainable third-party reverse logistic
provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 91 (5), 2401e2418.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (1), 117e127.
Mello, T.M.d., Eckhardt, D., Leiras, A., 2017. Sustainable procurement portfolio
management: a case study in a mining company. Production 27.
Nooteboom, B., 1996. Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control
model. Organ. Stud. 17 (6), 985e1010.
Norrman, A., Jansson, U., 2004. Ericsson’s proactive supply chain approach after a
serious sub-supplier accident. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 34 (5),
434e456.
Pagell, M., Shevchenko, A., 2014. Why research in sustainable supply chain man-
agement should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 44e55.
Petersen, H.L., Lemke, F., 2015. Mitigating reputational risks in supply chains. Supply
Chain Manag.: Int. J. 20 (5), 495e510.
Piercy, N.F., Lane, N., 2007. Ethical and moral dilemmas associated with strategic
relationships between business-to-business buyers and sellers. J. Bus. Ethics 72
(1), 87e102.
Qin, J., Liu, X., Pedrycz, W., 2017. An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision
making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environ-
ment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 258 (2), 626e638.
Rafi-Ul-Shan, P.M., Grant, D.B., Perry, P., Ahmed, S., 2018. Relationship between
sustainability and risk management in fashion supply chains: a systematic
literature review. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 46 (5), 466e486.
Raiffa, H., 1994. The prescriptive orientation of decision making: a synthesis of
decision analysis, behavioral decision making, and game theory. In: Ríos, S.
(Ed.), Decision Theory and Decision Analysis: Trends and Challenges. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell.
Reimann, F., Kosmol, T., Kaufmann, L., 2017. Responses to supplier-induced dis-
ruptions: a fuzzy-set analysis. J. Supply Chain Manag. 53 (4), 37e66.
Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., 2007. Supply chain risk management and performance, a
guiding framework for future development. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 27 (3),
303e322.
Roehrich, J.K., Grosvold, J., Hoejmose, S.U., 2014. Reputational risks and sustainable
supply chain management: decision making under bounded rationality. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 34 (5), 695e719.
Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M.K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., Nobar, H.B.K., 2018.
Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated
fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 651e669.
Rubinstein, A., 1998. Modeling Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Sancha, C., Wong, C.W.Y., Gimenez Thomsen, C., 2016. Buyeresupplier relationships
on environmental issues: a contingency perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
1849e1860.
Sancha, C., Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., 2016a. Achieving a socially responsible supply
chain through assessment and collaboration. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1934e1947.
Sancha, C., Wong, C.W.Y., Gimenez Thomsen, C., 2016b. Buyeresupplier relation-
ships on environmental issues: a contingency perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
1849e1860.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics
130 (1e15).
Sawik, T., 2013. Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega
 E.M. da Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (xxxx) xxx
(United Kingdom) 41 (2), 259e269.
Sawik, T., 2019. Disruption mitigation and recovery in supply chains using portfolio
approach. Omega 84, 232e248.
Sen, D.K., Datta, S., Mahapatra, S.S., 2016. A TODIM-based decision support frame-
work for G-resilient supplier selection in fuzzy environment. Asia Pac. J. Oper.
Res. 33 (5).
Seuring, S., 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
management. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (4), 1513e1520.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699e1710.
Simon, H.A., 1947. Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization, first ed. ed. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Simon, H.A., 1960b. The New Science of Management Decision. Harper & Brothers,
New York, NY, US.
Song, W., Ming, X., Liu, H.-C., 2017. Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable
supply chain management: a rough strength-relation analysis method. J. Clean.
Prod. 143, 100e115.
Svensson, G., 2009. The transparency of SCM ethics: conceptual framework and
empirical illustrations. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 14 (4), 259e269.
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Hogevold, N., Padin, C., Sosa Varela, J.C., 2018. Developing a
theory of focal company business sustainability efforts in connection with
supply chain stakeholders. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 23 (1), 16e32.
Tavana, M., Yazdani, M., Di Caprio, D., 2017. An application of an integrated
ANPeQFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.
20 (3), 254e275.
Teuscher, P., Grüninger, B., Ferdinand, N., 2006. Risk management in sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM): lessons learnt from the case of GMO-free
soybeans. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 13 (1), 1e10.
Torres-Ruiz, A., Ravindran, A.R., 2018. Multiple criteria framework for the sustain-
ability risk assessment of a supplier portfolio. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4478e4493.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14 (3), 207e222.
Trkman, P., Oliveira, M.P.V.d., McCormack, K., 2016. Value-oriented supply chain risk
management: you get what you expect. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (5),
1061e1083.
Vahidi, F., Torabi, S.A., Ramezankhani, M.J., 2018. Sustainable supplier selection and
order allocation under operational and disruption risks. J. Clean. Prod. 174,
1351e1365.
Please cite this article as: da Silva, E.M et al., A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier
risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808
View publication stats
15
Wang, K.Q., Liu, H.C., Liu, L.P., Huang, J., 2017. Green supplier evaluation and se-
lection using cloud model theory and the QUALIFLEX method. Sustainability 9
(5).
Wilhelm, M.M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., Paulraj, A., 2016. Sustainability in multi-tier
supply chains: understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier.
J. Oper. Manag. 41, 42e60.
Wu, C., Barnes, D., 2011. A literature review of decision-making models and ap-
proaches for partner selection in agile supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 17
(4), 256e274.
Wu, Y., Li, H., Gou, Q., Gu, J., 2017. Supply chain models with corporate social re-
sponsibility. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1e28.
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S., Gunasekaran, A., 2018. Socially responsible governance
mechanisms for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
196, 135e149.
Yang, D., Xiao, T., 2017. Pricing and green level decisions of a green supply chain
with governmental interventions under fuzzy uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 149,
1174e1187.
Yawar, S.A., Seuring, S., 2017. Management of social issues in supply chains: a
literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes.
J. Bus. Ethics 141 (3), 621e643.
Yawar, S.A., Seuring, S., 2018. The role of supplier development in managing social
and societal issues in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 227e237.
Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E.K., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., 2017. Integrated
QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 142,
3728e3740.
Yoon, J., Talluri, S., Yildiz, H., Ho, W., 2018. Models for supplier selection and risk
mitigation: a holistic approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (10), 3636e3661.
Zarbakhshnia, N., Soleimani, H., Ghaderi, H., 2018. Sustainable third-party reverse
logistics provider evaluation and selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed
fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria. Appl. Soft Comput. 65, 307e319.
Zimmer, K., Fro €hling, M., Schultmann, F., 2016. Sustainable supplier management - a
review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and
development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (5), 1412e1442.
Zimmer, K., Fro €hling, M., Breun, P., Schultmann, F., 2017. Assessing social risks of
global supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to
supplier selection in the German automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 149,
96e109.
Zsidisin, G.A., 2003. A grounded definition of supply risk. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 9
(5e6), 217e224.