The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

Buyer and
Buyer and supplier perspectives supplier
on environmental initiatives perspectives

Potential implications for supply

chain relationships 1319
Monique Lynn Murfield Received 3 June 2016
Department of Management, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA, and Revised 7 November 2016
13 January 2017
Wendy L. Tate Accepted 13 January 2017
Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine managerial perspectives in both buyer and supplier firms
implementing environmental initiatives in their supply chains, and explore the impact of environmental
initiatives on buyer-supplier relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative, grounded theory approach is used as the
methodological approach to this research, including 15 in-depth interviews with managers from buyer
and supplier firms implementing environmental initiatives in their supply chains to gain multiple
perspectives of the buyer-supplier relationships.
Findings – The results suggest that implementing environmental initiatives within the supply chain changes
the buyer-supplier relationship from transactional to collaborative, shifting from a commodity-focused purchase
to a more strategic purchase as environmental initiatives are implemented.
Research limitations/implications – Although both buyer and supplier perspectives were considered,
matched dyads were not used; researchers should continue to provide a holistic perspective of the
phenomenon with dyadic data. Additionally, the use of a qualitative research approach suggests a lack of
generalizability of results, and therefore researchers should further test the propositions.
Practical implications – Implementing environmental initiatives within the supply chain may require
different approaches to supply management and development for long-term success. Suppliers should
recognize that the capability to implement environmental initiatives with their customers is a differentiator.
The nuances involved in managing the implementation of environmental initiatives between firms can be
better managed by collaboratively developing metrics specifically related to the environment.
Originality/value – Previous research in environmental supply chain management has examined drivers
and barriers of implementing environmental initiatives with suppliers, but fails to address the relationship
dynamics involved when implementing environmental initiatives between organizations. This research
begins to fill that gap.
Keywords Buyer-supplier relationships, Environmental sustainability, Grounded theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
With many products and processes outsourced, firms are not only held accountable for their
own actions but also for the social and environmental practices of their suppliers
(Cummins, 2016; Lee et al., 2014). This responsibility is increasing in importance as
companies outsource up to 80 percent (or more) of their cost of goods sold. The role of
purchasing in dealing with high risk or high profile issues such as corporate environmental
positioning and implementation of environmental initiatives has changed significantly over the
years (Krause et al., 2009). As regulations are implemented and environmental performance is
The International Journal of
tracked and reported, the purchasing function is now being tasked to improve the organization’s Logistics Management
environmental footprint (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). Vol. 28 No. 4, 2017
pp. 1319-1350
In global supply networks, a firm’s environmental performance relies heavily © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
on the environmental performance of its material, logistics, and service suppliers DOI 10.1108/IJLM-06-2016-0138
IJLM (Large and Gimenez Thomsen, 2011; Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Tate et al., 2011;
28,4 Dubey et al., 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). For example, it has been suggested that Scope
3 emissions, those from indirect upstream and downstream activities, can account for up to
70 percent of a firm’s carbon footprint (Cummins, 2016). As a boundary spanner
(Day and Wensley, 1983; Williams and Guinipero, 1994), purchasing creates inter-functional
and inter-organizational linkages crucial to implementing an environmental strategy within
1320 a firm and its supply chain (Min and Galle, 1997; Wu et al., 2014; Lintukangas et al., 2015)
and managing its overall environmental footprint.
The influence that environmental initiatives within the supply chain have on the
inter-firm relationship can differ considerably between buyers and suppliers, especially
when the issues are high profile, ambiguous, or have a potentially high performance impact
(Nyaga et al., 2010). Environmental strategy, regulations, initiatives, and performance
measurement fall within the high profile or high impact categories (Tate et al., 2010).
This research focuses on environmental initiatives implemented across the supply chain,
or between buyer and supplier firms, which are discussed simply as “environmental
initiatives” from this point forward, as they are discussed in the context of implementation
between buyers and suppliers. This research focuses on the influence of environmental
initiatives on buyer-supplier relationships by questioning:
RQ1. How do environmental projects or initiatives influence buyer-supplier relationships?
RQ2. How do high profile or high impact issues such as environmental initiatives influence
supplier relationship management and development?
These questions are addressed by first reviewing the research on the importance of
purchasing’s involvement in environmental initiatives, buyer-supplier relationships, and
environmental purchasing issues. Using a protocol that developed from insights in the
existing literature, 15 qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with managers at both
buyer and supplier organizations implementing environmental projects or initiatives. From
these interviews, some interesting results developed with indications that the relationships
between organizations change in nature due to the implementation of these initiatives.
While it may be common for companies to consider supplier segmentation and collaborate
with more strategic suppliers on initial efforts for environmental supply chain initiatives
(Vachon and Klassen, 2006, 2008), the results of this research suggest that when companies
work with suppliers or service providers that are not typically strategic, that implementing
environmental initiatives has the potential to shift relationships to be more strategic. There are
three inherent reasons for this adaptation – the alignment of environmental strategy and
initiatives across organizations, the level of risk inherent in environmental initiatives, and the
proclivity of both organizations to minimize the risk associated with these types of initiatives,
and finally the changes to performance metrics and measures.

Literature review
Importance of supply management in environmental initiatives
Research and practice have emphasized how supply management contributes to the
sustainability of firms and their supply chains (Andel, 2013; Dubey et al., 2015;
Krause et al., 2009; Lintukangas et al., 2015; Srivastava, 2007). Buyer firms can manage
their environmental footprint through collaborating with suppliers to design more
environmentally responsible products and processes (Carter and Carter, 1998; Lee and
Kim, 2012; Noci, 1997; Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001).
Additionally, purchasing managers are able to assess the organizational environment for
product and process change, and analyze materials for resource reduction programs
(Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Walker et al., 2012). For example, one example of an
environmental supply chain initiative is highlighted in a recent New York Times article, Buyer and
which suggests that Dannon is working directly with farms that supply milk for its yogurt supplier
products in order to provide transparency to consumers, improve their use of the land, and perspectives
decrease the environmental footprint of Dannon’s supply chain (Strom, 2016).
Research recognizes that firms’ need to consider the source of material inputs and
involve suppliers in the initial stages of product development to minimize the environmental
impact of the supply chain (Carter and Dresner, 2001; Pujari et al., 2003; Roome and Hinnells, 1321
1993). Much of the environmental purchasing research has focused on extending
environmental sustainability to suppliers through assessment (see review by Gimenez and
Tachizawa, 2012) and criteria for supplier selection and evaluation processes, including
those that are cost-driven, focus on suppliers’ environmental strategy, and examine the
commitment of potential suppliers (e.g. Handfield et al., 2002; Huang and Keskar, 2007;
Humphreys et al., 2003; Min and Galle, 2001; Wong et al., 2012).
As the focus switches away from by-products to raw material manufacturers,
competition among suppliers is also increasing; suppliers are often eager to work with
customers on innovative environmental solutions (Copeland, 2013). Research suggests that
firms are moving away from many transactional supplier relationships toward strategic
partnerships with key suppliers that incorporate environmental factors (Chkanikova, 2015;
Klassen and Vachon, 2003; Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Simpson and Power, 2005;
Vachon and Klassen, 2008). Buyer and supplier firms have to consider how these changes
will influence the more standard performance metrics of cost, quality, and service, and try to
balance those with environmental needs (Butner et al., 2008).

Buyer-supplier relationships and environmental initiatives

Buyer-supplier relationship research is vast in breadth and depth, with reviews
underscoring the dynamic and evolutionary nature of buyer-supplier relationships
(Daugherty, 2011; Palmatier et al., 2007; Terpend et al., 2008). Much scholarship has
centered on a categorization and portfolio approach to buyer-supplier relationships,
hinged on Kraljic’s (1983) seminal article. Kraljic (1983) pushed for purchasing to be
considered as a strategic function and be recast as supply management, though
researchers have just begun to extend this approach to environmentally sustainable
supply management (Chkanikova, 2015; Pagell et al., 2010).
Portfolio approach to managing supplier relationships. The purchasing portfolio model
suggests that organizations have limited resources and will not form strategic relationships
with all of their suppliers, as this would be difficult and costly to maintain (Kraljic, 1983).
Kraljic’s model suggests that supplier relationships vary based on the type of purchase or
category of spend, and that purchasing performance is enhanced when resources are
appropriately allocated (cf. Pagell et al., 2010). The model categorizes purchases into a
four-quadrant matrix based on the strategic importance of the purchase (based on value,
volume, and importance to firm’s key products and strategic objectives) and the supply risk
or complexity of the purchase, as shown in Figure 1.
Noncritical items are widely available from multiple suppliers and are often purchased in a
transactional manner. In contrast, bottleneck items are categorized by a high amount of supply
risk or complexity, meaning that few suppliers make the product, input, or provide a given
service. Bottleneck items have to be managed carefully to mitigate risks while minimizing the
costs of the supplier relationship. Leverage items are strategically important inputs to the
overall product or service but widely available. Finally, strategic items are very important to a
firm’s overall strategic objectives and profitability, and have a high degree of supply risk and
complexity. Strategic items should be purchased using a total cost of ownership approach and
managed through long-term strategic relationships with key suppliers (Kraljic, 1983).
IJLM High

28,4

Importance of purchase
Leverage Strategic

1322
Non- Bottleneck
critical

Figure 1. Low High

Portfolio relationship Supply base risk/complexity
management
Source: Kraljic (1983)

The portfolio approach to purchasing has been applied to research on supplier involvement in
product design and development (Wynstra, 1998), supplier development (Handfield et al., 2000),
inter-functional interaction with suppliers (Gelderman and van Weele, 2002), and more recently
to sustainable sourcing (Krause et al., 2009; Pagell et al., 2010). Some research has critiqued the
portfolio approach due to its oversimplification of buyer-supplier relationships and its lack of
attention to network interdependencies (Dubois and Pedersen, 2002), product differences
(Ritter, 2000), the supplier’s side of the relationship (cf. Gelderman and van Weele, 2005;
Kamann, 2000), and the method for selection of variables (Nellore and Söderquist, 2000).
Despite critiques and updates of the model (e.g. Gelderman and van Weele, 2005; Gelderman
and van Weele, 2003; Olsen and Ellram, 1997), researchers continue to build and extend similar
models that apply to different contexts, including sustainable sourcing (Chkanikova, 2015;
Pagell et al., 2010).
The portfolio approach has interesting implications for managing environmental
initiatives with suppliers, as they are not all the same and require different approaches to
managing suppliers throughout implementation, yet there is little work in this area.
Chkanikova (2015) examined relationship management in sustainable sourcing in the food
retailing industry by conducting two case studies in Brazil; the data created a typology of
relationships and suggested that companies manage supplier relationships more
strategically when implementing green supply approaches in the food retailing industry.
Similarly, Pagell et al. (2010) used an inductive multiple case study approach and observed
that leaders in sustainable supply chain management more strategically managed
purchases that were typically considered leverage items. They emphasized that companies
implementing a sustainable sourcing strategy focus on supply base continuity and
explicitly called future researchers to “reevaluate and update the traditional approach to
purchasing portfolios to represent a lasting shift in emphasis to environmentally aware
sourcing decisions” (Pagell et al., 2010, p. 71). Nevertheless, while these two studies certainly
spur interest in the topic, there is more work to be done. The current research examines the
dynamic nature of buyer-supplier relationships and how the implementation of
environmental initiatives within the supply chain may change the way buyer-supplier
relationships are managed.
Dynamic nature of buyer-supplier relationships and environmental initiatives.
Environmental issues are dynamic and complex, creating uncertainty in buyer-supplier
relationships. Environmental regulations are constantly changing and inconsistent across
different regions of the world. Sometimes the supplier pushes environmental initiatives to Buyer and
the buyer due to industry demands, and such constant change causes extremely dynamic supplier
relationships (Porter, 2000; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). perspectives
Although buyer-supplier relationship research is vast, the impact of time and relationship
evolution is largely ignored (Medlin, 2004). Marketing researchers have examined relationship
dynamics through a life cycle approach, initially proposed by Dwyer et al. (1987). The life cycle
approach has been adopted to examine the relationship evolution across disciplines (e.g. Jap 1323
and Ganesan, 2000). Research by Autry and Golicic (2010) examined relationship-performance
spirals and suggested a cyclical element in supply chain relationships. Relationships and
interactions evolve over time (Medlin, 2004) but do not follow the set phases of a life cycle
(Dwyer et al., 1987).
As the business environment becomes more dynamic, firms focus on building more strategic
relationships (Achrol and Etzel, 2003; Beverland and Lindgreen, 2004) to better manage the flux.
Research is needed to address the dynamic nature of relationships and what this looks like in
the implementation of environmental initiatives between buyer and supplier firms. While
Gelderman and van Weele (2002) conducted a single case study to examine movement of
relationship strategies within the portfolio matrix, it was not specific to environmental
initiatives, which are complex and tend to either introduce risk into the organization, or are
implemented to reduce risk. Chkanikova (2015) recently examined relationship management
strategies used in sustainable purchasing in the food retail industry, but only examined two
cases in Swedish food supermarkets. Therefore, this research addresses this significant gap and
aims to examine both buyer and supplier perspectives on implementing supply chain
environmental initiatives, and potential implications for supply chain relationships.

Methodology
In-depth interviews were the primary form of data collection (McCracken, 1988). A grounded
theory approach was used because of its ability to generate a deep understanding of
phenomena in the early stages of research (e.g. Carter and Dresner, 2001; Flint and Golicic,
2009; Mollenkopf et al., 2007). Grounded theory is appropriate to examine complex situations
and social processes (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Mello and Flint, 2009), including this
research on dynamic buyer-supplier relationships.

Sampling and data collection

In-depth interviews were conducted with managers from both buyer and supplier firms
implementing supply chain environmental initiatives. This research includes non-dyadic
data from interviews with a total of 15 managers across four buyer firms and three supplier
firms. The idea was to understand different perspectives as they applied to the
implementation and execution of environmental initiatives within the supply chain.
As dictated through theoretical sampling, interpretations of initial interviews suggested
whom to interview next (Glaser, 1978). Therefore, all participants were not selected a priori.
Two initial buying firms were chosen because of their focus on sustainability and their
ability to provide access to multiple managers within the firm. Subsequently, two other
firms in different industries were contacted to provide diversity to the participating
managers. This design resulted in discussions with four buyer organizations and three
supplier organizations. The sample included a diverse set of firm sizes and industries
summarized in Table I. Collecting data across multiple industries “can be viewed
as a strength, in that the observed behaviors occurred across multiple contexts”
(Pagell et al., 2010, p. 60). A profile of individual interview participants is provided in Table AI.
Initial interview questions sought to identify hurdles and facilitators in the
implementation of environmental initiatives within firms and across supply chains, and
IJLM examine relationship dynamics throughout implementation (see Appendix 2). Each
28,4 interview lasted an average of one hour. The interview protocol was semi-structured to
allow flexibility for ideas to emerge from the participants (McCracken, 1988; Miles and
Huberman, 1984).

Data analysis
1324 Grounded theory requires constant interpretation and analysis among the stages of data
collection, coding, and theoretical development (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Interpretation
and analysis began early while interviews were still taking place and before formal coding
had begun (Glaser, 1988). Field notes and interview memos were used to track initial
interpretations and topics for further expansion (Bernard, 2006), and all interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with participant permission.
Theoretical coding was used, including initial open coding of meaningful concepts from
individual observations in the data (Bernard, 2006; Glaser, 1978); these individual concepts
were then expanded upon to identify common patterns and core categories (Glaser, 1978;
McCracken, 1988). Each interview was first coded individually, and patterns were then
identified across interviews. Examples of open codes and categories identified from more
detailed codes can be seen in the tables in the next section, with the individual drivers and
barriers grouped into higher level categories for example, and quotes provided to show the
linkage to the data and dynamism in the relationships.
As interview data were examined, other data sources were also incorporated, including
extant literature and secondary data. The results were validated by gathering publicly
available secondary data on successful environmental projects. This data were collected
from corporate social responsibility reports of organizations participating in supply chain
initiatives, found through sustainability organizations’ websites (e.g. GEMI, Sustainability
Consortium, and Carbon Disclosure Project). The type of relationship was noted in each
instance, and these examples are incorporated into the results according to the type of
initiative involved in the project. Finally, the trustworthiness of the research was evaluated
through criteria recommended by Flint et al. (2002), as detailed in Table AII.

Results and proposition development

Several compelling insights emerged from the data analysis (literature and interviews),
including why environmental initiatives were successful and how they were integrated
within firms across the supply chains. Success was often due to the ability to gather data
and assess performance. The initiatives generally focused on reducing exposure to
regulatory and financial risk. According to Kraljic (1983), risk can be redirected or reduced
by changing the nature of the relationship or the importance of the product/service to the
organization. “The core theme that emerged from the qualitative interview data was that
relationships between the buying and supplying firm changed because of the
implementation of environmental initiatives within the supply chain.”

Buying or supplying firm Industry Annual sales Number of employees

Buying firm A Industrial machinery and equipment $60.8 million 1,400

Buying firm B Information technology services $11.17 billion 43,000
Buying firm C Manufacturing – metals $23.70 billion 61,000
Table I. Buying firm D Office supply wholesalers $6.92 billion 29,000
Sample firm Supplying firm X Solid waste services and recycling $13.65 billion 43,500
and industry Supplying firm Y Environmental consulting services $70.00 million 250
characteristics Supplying firm Z Logistics service provider $2.04 billion 11,580
Implementation of environmental initiatives in buyer-supplier relationships Buyer and
There are several differences in the focus of environmental strategies between buyer and supplier
supplier firms. Buyer firms focus greatly on cost savings, regulatory compliance, perspectives
corporate image and reputation, and risk management. In contrast, supplier-initiated
environmental projects are often a means of competitive differentiation. Suppliers focus
on environmental projects as a branding and positioning tool, responding to buyers’
demands for environmental responsibility, which are largely driven by regulations. This 1325
also increases the buyers’ reliance on the suppliers’ expertise. Related to the portfolio
approach (Kraljic, 1983), this would indicate a reduced qualified supplier pool, introducing
complexity and additional risk into the sourcing process. Differences in the overall focus of
environmental strategies in buying and supplying firms are highlighted in Tables II and III
with exemplary quotes from the interview data.
As the transcripts were coded and analyzed, three themes related to the influence of
environmental initiatives on the buyer-supplier relationships emerged: integration of
initiatives within organizations and across the supply base, challenges with and importance
of performance measurement, and managing and assessing risk. Discussions of how to
integrate environmental initiatives focused on process changes, product changes, packaging
changes, and transportation changes. Significant concerns emerged regarding performance
metrics related to balancing the environmental needs of the buyer with cost, quality, and
service. Finally, issues of risk generally focused on the protection of brand and reputation,
stemming from environmental initiatives, as well as on how companies mitigate and
manage these risks. Each of these sub-themes is discussed next.
Integration of environmental initiatives. Although examples of internal environmental
efforts were initially provided, the discussion quickly progressed to how environmental
initiatives are being integrated across the supply chain, among customers, suppliers, and
service providers. The primary drivers of inter-organizational implementation of
environmental initiatives included financial impact, corporate culture, and the external
influence of customers and suppliers. Buyer and supplier managers discussed the influence of
efficiency and cost savings available through environmental initiatives. In addition to
motivating the implementation of environmental initiatives, the extra efficiency and cost
savings also allowed environmental initiatives to be used as a means of competitive advantage.
Corporate culture also drives environmental initiatives across supply chains, as
managers within buyer and supplier firms see environmental initiatives as the “right thing
to do.” Managers from buyer and supplier firms agreed that an innovative mindset between
supply chain partners helps to improve efficiency and minimize waste, reducing
environmental impact across the supply chain. Finally, tightening legislation causes many
traditionally reactive firms to become more environmentally proactive and extend
environmentally responsible practices and standards to the supply chain to mitigate
financial and supply risk (see Table IV ).
The participants also discussed several potential hurdles to the integration of
environmental initiatives across supply chain relationships. They noted internal factors to
explain a gap between strategic planning and operational implementation of environmental
initiatives, as well as a frequent lack of recognition of the benefits available through
environmental initiatives. Nevis, a Retail Inventory Manager within Buying firm B, was
somewhat ashamed to admit that the environment was not at the forefront of many
initiatives: “I mean, sometimes that’s a side benefit […] I could probably concoct an example
with environmental savings, [if] I was trying to make a pitch to someone but […]
[the environment] is probably not the initial focus […] I shouldn’t be proud to say that
I guess.” Similarly, several managers noted a lack of internal resources available to
implement and monitor such initiatives throughout the supply chain. The primary obstacles
to integrating environmental initiatives across the supply chain are summarized in Table V.
IJLM Focus of environmental
28,4 strategy Exemplary quotes

Focus on corporate Definitely we will […] absolutely leverage that as a win because I think the total
image and reputation number of miles that we reduced here over a year was in the millions, and we
pitched that hard from a PR perspective as an environmental win, reducing our
carbon footprint and so forth (Nevis)
1326 I mean it’s one of [the company’s] goals, mission statements is to be a good partner,
so where we’ve gone with environmental efforts, we’ve always gone beyond what
the requirement is, and my theory is okay, we know what the law says today, and
we know what the limits are in today’s world, but what are they going to be in 5 or
10 years or 20 years? (Sally)
From an environmental perspective because it is so sensitive, a lot of these projects
are done collaboratively. We still need to hold the suppliers responsible for their
outcomes, but we stay a lot closer because it has an impact not only our cost but
also our reputation and our sustainability (Bruce)
Cost savings Improving our backhaul utilization is helping from an environmental standpoint it’s
putting less trucks on the road because our truck was coming back from our store
anyway. […] Our initiatives with backhauls, the reverse logistics piece, all of these
drive significant dollar savings but at the same time each dollar also translates to
fewer trucks on the road and reduces our carbon footprint (Nevis)
I think we’ve learned over time that not paying attention to [the environment] costs
you on the back end. Obviously money is a driver, but I believe that [our] first
concern is to be a good steward of the environment and a good partner (Sally)
I said, let’s look at this a different way. You tell me how you can reduce my costs.
The door is open. Come back to me with your creative proposal how to reduce my
waste costs. They came back with a situation where there was no more money on the
table with the waste hauler, $100,000 worth of savings, and that proposal included
things like reducing the number of boxes you have on site and consolidating your
collection points, trash compactors for the things that could be compacted, so that
you reduce the number of hauls. […] Within a market where there is no money on
the table, they managed to find $100,000 savings. So that’s the creative thinking
we’re looking for. You guys are the experts. I’m gonna pull out all the stops. You tell
me how you’re going to perform this project safely, on time, and keep up with my
waste, and basically that [has] cemented our relationship (Sally)
Internally, you can see this is saving us a lot of money. An incredible amount, we’re
not wasting a bunch of packaging stuff. Externally, we ship out product,
consciously, that doesn’t have a lot of throw away stuff (Lars)
[Our LSP] initiated an auxiliary power unit that they attached that runs off the
battery that basically shuts down the engine but provides all the base electronics on
the engine. […] So Werner has gone out and at their cost put these units on all of
their dedicated tractor, and that’s a savings for us. It helps us make sure that we’re
only using fuel when we’re moving and when we’re not, we’ve got the vehicles shut
off, and it’s saving fuel and helping reduce the carbon footprint also (Dave)
Focus on compliance I’d say the environmental strategy is made up of probably 3 pieces. The first one
with regulations being compliance. You know, we have to be in compliance, and my function is to
make sure we are meeting all the rules and the regulations, and that includes the
new rules and regulations and what’s the impact they’re going to have on us. So
that’s probably the overarching one. The second one would be pollution
prevention, and then I guess the third piece would be within the function is to make
sure that our policies allow us to meet the regulations (Danny)
A few things in terms of purchasing’s role relative to [our company’s environmental
strategy. A prime responsibility is to make sure that [Buying Firm C] is covered in
terms of its liabilities, [and] the exposure that it has in terms of doing that work. We
Table II. engage suppliers to provide specific services to deliver the end products, and in
Focus of buying doing so, [Buying Firm C] needs to make sure that not only in terms of getting out
companies’
environmental
strategies (continued )
Focus of environmental
Buyer and
strategy Exemplary quotes supplier
end product that we also do it in a safe, cost effective, and so that we don’t end up in
perspectives
a legal battle as a result (Bruce)
[Our] goal is zero noncompliance. In other words, our interest is to be 100%
compliant with every aspect of our programs that we manage, [both] environmental
and safety aspects (Ken) 1327
Our fleet for example is […] a SmartWay fleet, which is a certification process that
we had to go through to validate our current fleet operations and show to them what
we’re doing for our green initiatives. It allows us to be rated by the EPA as a
SmartWay provider, and we have to certify ourselves every year now to keep our
certification. So we have to show our miles that we reduce, our miles that we drive,
our carbon footprint, our reduction in emissions, the type of fuel we use, low-sulfur
diesel. We have to update that quarterly to the EPA to keep our SmartWay
certification. That certification isn’t one of those you pay $500 and somebody hands
you something (Dave)
So for instance, we do not certify a product as environmentally preferable if it just
meets a particular ASTM standard for toys or something like that. We do look at the
environmentally preferable attribute of the product. So is it recycled content? Is it
energy star? Is it refillable? Is it biodegradable? Is it compostable, etc. The idea is that
our suppliers have to provide substantiation for these products, and sometimes I am
the most hated person when I keep bugging them about it, but it’s important,
particularly as the Federal Trade Commission is starting to enforce these things, and
so we’ve seen a number of companies get hit with that, so we are careful about our
claims, and we protect our manufacturers by making them do their due diligence too
(Sara)
Risk minimization So a couple of the savings elements really go around reduced obsolescence risk,
and the way that comes about is we expect that we will be doing returns not just to
our vendors but also to our own distribution center. So if our back-to-school season
[did not go as planned] so we could have an imbalance in the chain on certain
products […]. So putting in place this reverse logistics program allows us to avoid
the purchase from a vendor, just move the product back from those stores to our
distribution center and fill the stores that really need the product […] and it’s
allowing us to get rid of our overall inventory as a chain sooner than we would
have otherwise because now it’s going back to the faster moving stores (Nevis)
It’s pay me now or pay me more later. Whether it’s environmental, mechanical,
electrical, it’s just like good maintenance on your car or your home or anything
else. If you fix it, maintain it before it breaks bad and ugly, it won’t cost you as
much money. […] So part of [our] thought process and culture is to get on the front
end of that instead of on the back end because it’s always more expensive to try to
clean it up (Sally)
At the end of the day, procurement is all about understanding risks, putting the
appropriate steps in place to mitigate them. […] As far as environmental aspects
are concerned, the key is to understand at the start what are the objectives of this
overall project. So you start doing that [at the beginning], and this is where that
risk management comes in (Anthony)
I think everybody within [our company] has definitely an opinion that they want to
protect not only people but also environment in which we work in, they become
personal values that are in line with the organization. But ultimately, if you do not
[…] conduct your business in this manner there’s a high risk there of being able to
operate sustainably within the locations that you’re at. [There is an] organizational
desire to be around for the long-term (Bruce)
The idea is that we will look at a project before we initiate the work. We will
evaluate the risks that we see from an environmental compliance standpoint, from
a safety standpoint, and then we will put in place mitigating factors to manage
those risks (Ken) Table II.
IJLM Focus of environmental
28,4 strategy Exemplary quotes

Cost savings There’s a lot of material that goes to the landfills and there’s a lot of material that
would go to hazardous waste facilities that didn’t need to. […] So by putting
someone in the facility, we could save the facility money. If we come up with a
new way to get rid of material that will save [our customer] money, then we get
1328 50% of that cost savings (Steven)
As fuel started to climb, […] people were thinking green, people were talking
green, but I don’t believe that there was a tremendous amount of push towards
green, you know, from a fuel standpoint, [but] we have a tremendous amount of
fuel costs so […] we’re always looking at ways to do things with less fuel.
Because it just absolutely makes sense from a cost [perspective] (Tim)
Branding strategy We have [an environmental] knowledge base and network through [our upstream
and positioning tool; operations] that is beneficial to us because it gives us the ability to handle these
differentiation waste streams for the customer, and that’s a big benefit for the customer because
they get the benefit of this huge network through Waste [us as the service
provider] that they normally would not get because you know we talk to people
across the country. […] We’ve even got our own [area of the] website where we
can go out and post best [waste] management practices and get [ideas on] best
management practices and things of that nature. So […] we’ve got a lot of brain
power concentrated out there that’s all working toward basically the same goal
[and we] leverage that for customers (Steven)
As we go out [to specific customers that are] very big as far as the environment
goes, […] so as we talk about less truck loads going down the road [the
environmental] benefit is absolutely a big sell for us on various things we do (Tim)
Response to buyer The motivation is from, well it’s two or three-fold I guess. The one is us
demands challenging [ourselves] to become more efficient, [and] to be more green. It’s also
from our customers challenging us (Tim)
I mean there are a lot of companies that have touchy feely statements about what
the environment means to them but yet, that doesn’t really trickle down into their
core business at all. We’ve got other clients that say that they’re committed to the
environment and, they do things that make it so. We’ve got one client in
particular that they’ve taken their environmental compliance to a very significant
level as a part of their business, and they look [to us to help them] (Edward)
We don’t just send material to [waste] facilities, I guess the best way to describe it
is we have fiduciary duty to the customer to ensure that they get the best service
possible, so that would be the best price, you know, cheapest transportation,
cheapest disposal prices while still getting high quality service. […] So we have
to make sure that they’re not liable for any kind of regulatory violation based on
our activities, but we want to make sure they get the best service possible. […]
And then in spite of that, you’ve got, we don’t want to just dispose of material.
[Our customer] has a requirement that they have to landfill X percentage, and by
Table III. [a certain time] they want to be 0% or thereabouts landfill (Steven)
Focus of supplying Oh yes, [that customer] is pushing on biodiesel, […] anything he reads and sees
companies’ he throws it our way, and it’s good because it’s an extra set of eyes that is out
environmental there, and he’s looking for any way that we can be more fuel efficient, and just
strategies more green as we look towards moving forward (Tim)

There are many examples of successful implementation of environmental supply chain

projects manifested in this study’s findings. Buying firms generally discuss working with
“key” or strategic suppliers to develop process or product changes that benefit the
environment. Similar examples can also frequently be seen in public secondary sources and
trade sources. For example, Baxter partnered with FedEx to ship time-sensitive items with
specific temperature and handling requirements via ground transportation rather than air
transportation to significantly reduce cost and carbon emissions. FedEx allocated specific
Category Driver Description/Example
Buyer and
supplier
Financial Efficiency “We are continually looking at what drives the environment, what drives perspectives
impact efficiencies for us. Environmental strategy goes in the supply chain as well
because the more efficient I can make one truck or more turns I can do on
one truck, that pulls another truck off the road […]” (Tim)
Cost savings Environmental initiatives generate cost savings (e.g. reduced waste,
transportation costs and fuel savings, and network optimization) 1329
Competitive Reputation as a firm proactive with environmental initiatives and
advantage knowledge of regulations provides a competitive advantage
Market Environmental initiatives used as a branding tool to create a differential
differentiation advantage
Corporate Moral imperative Several firms talked about taking pride in environmental initiatives because
culture it is the “right thing to do”
Reputation Environmental initiatives are recognized as beneficial to firms’ reputations
Innovative An innovative mindset within firms helps drive constant idea generation
mindset regarding efficiency and waste elimination, which minimize environmental
impact
External Customer “Certainly we have customers asking about [green initiatives], but more
influence demand frequently we are seeing what they’re doing and we have to be responsive
to our customers, but we want to try to lead as well” (Sara)
Continuous Environmental initiatives are driven by a continuous improvement
improvement approach and as a means to provide new services to the market
Regulations Close monitoring from regulatory agencies encourages firms to practice
environmentally responsible practices and extend across supply chains
“The idea is that our suppliers have to provide substantiation for these
products, and sometimes I am the most hated person when I keep bugging
them about it, but it’s important” (Sara)
Supplier Suppliers and service providers are proactive in their approaches to Table IV.
innovation environmental initiatives, innovative, and willing to invest in Drivers of integration
environmental projects to help the supply chain of environmental
Risk Taking waste out of the system for environmental reasons also reduces supply chain
minimization obsolescence risk and financial risk initiatives

assets to move Baxter’s products in a timely, temperature controlled, and less than
truckload service. This is a practical example displayed proudly on both companies’
websites. FedEx is a key supplier for Baxter’s products.
Another example is FedEx working with its existing packaging suppliers to develop a
shipping package that used 100 percent recycled material vs virgin material. Once the
package was designed, FedEx worked closely with the suppliers to refine the production
process and reduce the overall cost of new packaging. To an organization like FedEx,
packaging is vitally important, but many suppliers can meet the necessary requirements.
Incorporating and changing the suppliers’ processes minimized the number of suppliers
capable of supporting their needs, moving them from a leverage supplier focused on cost
control to a strategic supplier focused on cost improvement and innovation. The results
from the interviews support from the illustrative cases in the public press, and the literature
help guide the first proposition:
P1. Implementation of environmental initiatives within the supply chain will be
positively impacted by aligned environmental strategies and goals between buyer
and supplier firms.
Environmental performance measurement. Significant discussion with the participants
centered on how to measure environmental performance. Incorporating environmental
performance measures into the supplier scorecard might have significant impacts
IJLM Category Barrier Description/example
28,4
Internal Lack of “From an inventory management side, we have not always kept the
factors recognition of environment in perspective. […] In some cases our merchants in their
environmental product selection definitely can claim environmental consciousness, […]
benefits but I certainly can’t sit here and claim that I’m making decisions from an
inventory standpoint with the environment in mind. I mean, sometimes
1330 that’s a side benefit […] but it’s just probably not the initial focus” (Nevis)
Lack of resources Implementing environmental supply chain initiatives often requires
resources not available internally to monitor implementation and
performance, and to encourage supplier development
Strategic vs “I think some of the operational people are probably what we would
operational consider front line or more in tune with reality and things that actually
perspectives happen, and then your strategic groups are more based on theory and
scenarios vs what actually can be done. [Initially] everybody nods their
heads and says yeah it looks good, and then they get out to the operation
and it fails” (Dave)
Internal resistance “When we come up with initiatives and have to get everyone else on board,
to change there’s more internal fighting than external” (Sally)
Initiatives not A focus on environmental initiatives within buyer and supplier firms is
transferred to often not transferred to supply chain partners; (i.e. some buyers discussed
supply chain no emphasis on environmental criteria in supplier selection methods; while
supplier discussed difficulty in transferring initiatives downstream)
Lack of intra-firm A lack of trust between functions can hinder the adoption of environmental
trust initiatives without tangible results to demonstrate viability of the project
External Suppliers Many suppliers not yet bringing ideas on environmental initiatives to the
factors table without a push from customers
Customer “We started looking at business that way and really pushed the supply
resistance chain […]. It’s something of a challenge because not all customers are as
open to having those discussions” (Tim)
Regulations Design specifications required in order to be more environmentally
Table V. responsible are often less efficient and more costly
Barriers to integration Communication Firms use different language when referring to environmental initiatives,
of environmental issues making it difficult to communicate with supply chain partners
supply chain Economic Market instability Unstable economic times and questionable market demand may cause
initiatives Factors environmental initiatives to be temporarily dropped from the radar

on the relationship. There is already a balance in trying to keep the supplier’s cost,
quality, and service at or above expected levels. Environmental criteria may
cause problems in other areas if not implemented and managed properly.
Buyers discussed how environmental metrics are incorporated into supplier selection
and evaluation, which is also tied into internal assessment, as well as how performance on
environmental initiatives is measured through joint development and gain sharing.
Table VI gives some exemplary quotes from the interviews to highlight these different
aspects of environmental performance measurement. One buyer describes some
of the benefits of holding employees, suppliers, and service providers to higher
environmental standards:
We set a higher standard and as a result you see companies moving and responding to that
safety standard. We do the same thing by asking them detailed questions regarding how they’re
going to manage a project to minimize environmental hazards or environmental risks. As a result
you see that […] overall they come in with great ideas that they incorporate on other projects that
allows [us] to benefit from their past experience. […] As a result of them having done this before,
the costs are lower [because] they plan for fewer down times because of safety or environmental
related problems.
Area of
Buyer and
assessment Exemplary quotes supplier
Supplier selection The environmental metrics should be in the specifications. That ought to be in there very
perspectives
and evaluation early. That’s not something you add on the back end. Some projects more than others will
have environmental metrics on the front end. […] On the back end doing the
specifications, they’ll determine where they want to, how they want to stage the waste,
how they want it packaged, how they want it labeled, how they want it collected. And 1331
that’s passed on to the contractor in the specifications as well, and then it becomes the
responsibility of the environmental department to make sure they’re following those
requirements (Sally)
So I want to understand how [the supplier does] everything, especially in the area of
sustainability, and I want to make sure that that lines up with [our] vision. So I’m very
interested in what they do and I spend a part of my time walking through that. When I
develop, for instance, the RFP at step 5, I probably will have a section for environmental
in the RFP around that, and it could be a selection criterion. […] Though not necessarily
an order qualifier, it might be an order winner if everything else is equal (Anthony)
Internal In my role as a manager and any manager within [Buying Firm C] is that you’re expected
assessment and to portray and also deliver against those types of values. Whether they’re specific in your
corporate performance measures or not. Because if they’re embedded in, well have I displayed
reporting management ability for our people, have I helped them assess risks from an
environmental and a safety perspective that will help them better perform? You know, so
it’s embedded in a number of other performance measures that I have that may not be
explicit or in black and white that you can say well there it is, it’s spelled out
environmental (Bruce)
We have corporate metrics which are goals that we’re setting out. Then we always have a
quarterly report, the water we use, the electricity and gas we use, landfill waste that we
have or the amount we recycle and non-compliance issues and those things. […]
We report those on a per plant basis within [our company]. All the EHS data is entered
into a corporate database, and then it can be aggregated (Danny)
We’re accountable for [environmental performance] all the way up to senior management
in the company, and if we have a safety or environmental incident we have to report that,
and it’s tracked. They also go back and they look at the history, and they want to see
programs that we have, not just, they don’t want to look at it and say, well how many
environmental incidents did you have in 2008? They want to say, okay, not only do we
want to see your plans on how you’re going to meet zero noncompliance. We have to put
together […] what we call a zero noncompliance plan [for every location], and that plan is
part of how we operate. Again, it’s subject to audit. We are audited just like any other
entity in [our company], and they can audit us for our compliance plans (Ken)
At the end of the year, I have to submit a management report, with an environmental
portion in this report. It’s rated [on whether we did] a good job in environmental, in other
typical areas (Lars)
We have an environmental group that is housed here. They’re currently at work on all of
our initiatives and what we’re responsible for, which involves reduced emissions,
greenhouse gases, [and] our overall carbon footprint. That is measured quarterly, and
then it is also put out in an annual report (Dave)
Joint initiative It’s a SmartWay fleet, which is a certification process that we had to go through to
measurement validate our current fleet operations and show to them what we’re doing for our green
initiatives. Um, it allows us to be rated by the EPA as what they call a SmartWay
provider, and we have to certify ourselves every year now to keep our certification. So we
have to show, you know, our miles that we reduce, our miles that we drive, our carbon
footprint, our reduction in emissions, um […] the type of fuel we use, low-sulfur
diesel. We have to update that quarterly to the EPA to keep our SmartWay
certification. […] (Dave) Table VI.
I do a monthly report of waste management and recycling for [our customer]. I keep track Environmental
of all of their disposal metrics out here, so I give them a monthly break down on the performance
measurement in
buyer-supplier
(continued ) relationships
IJLM Area of
28,4 assessment Exemplary quotes

number of shipments and the total tonnage of waste that has gone out per waste stream
every month. I let them know how much we recycled every month. I invoice them and it’s
a line item invoice so they can see every month where they’re spending money, where it’s
going to, what any kind of trending is, if the recycling is increasing or decreasing (Steven)
1332 Gain sharing If [our driver] ends the day in Chicago, and there’s none [of our] product to bring back,
[our carrier] team will source the network to see if [another customer] has a load that’s
heading back to Las Vegas, and they’ll pick that up and drive it back. This way the driver
isn’t running back empty, he’s actually generating revenue by pulling a load back. We
have a revenue share with [our carrier] based on that. So even if we’re bringing back a
load of [other companies’ products] we do a revenue share with “Supplier Z” based on
that (Dave)
We actually had a contractual requirement to meet the landfill goals and to assist them in
more recycling activities and part of the contract was based on the fact that [Buying Firm C]
doesn’t pay my salary. Part of my salary is paid by the cost savings that I find, so that was
very attractive to Alcoa that they would get this service that they weren’t having to pay for
it completely. So it gave us an incentive to find the waste streams that could be reduced, and
it kind of gave Alcoa a little bit of a safety valve there so they weren’t paying for someone
Table VI. who did just become a landfill company at that point (Steven)

These findings are consistent with the extant research on the benefits and performance
impacts of environmental purchasing, including a positive impact on net income (Carter
et al., 2000), cost avoidance, reduced risk, improved brand image, community health, and
shareholder value (Five Winds International, 2003). Research has also indicated that these
benefits are not often projected, but unexpectedly realized (Corbett and Klassen, 2006).
There is a connection between environmental initiatives and performance impacts, but
further research is needed to investigate how the benefits of environmental purchasing are
actually measured across buyer-supplier relationships and how to develop suppliers and
service providers to achieve greater impact from environmental purchasing practices.
Managers from both the buying and supplying firms discussed internal environmental
performance measurement that often drives tracking of environmental performance across
buyer-supplier relationships, which is consistent with the extant literature. This includes
tracking environmental criteria and performance for corporate annual reports and EPA
reporting. Examples of metrics assessed include compliance rates, emissions reduction, and
overall carbon footprint, in addition to reducing miles driven and fuel usage. After these
metrics were incorporated internally through performance pay and plans for continuous
improvement within the focal buying organizations, they helped facilitate the development
of supplier performance metrics.
Managers also stressed the importance of tracking environmental performance of buyer
and supplier organizations, and emphasized the necessity of data to justify environmental
initiatives. These managers would like to incorporate more environmental criteria in their
evaluation of suppliers and service providers, but they simply lack the resources to do so, as
is evident in this comment from Sara:
You’re probably familiar with what Wal-Mart is doing in terms of having their suppliers cut their
greenhouse gas emissions, and then that is part of the Wal-Mart carbon footprint. We have not
asked our suppliers for those kinds of numbers. Our scope, as we look at our carbon footprint, is not
to include our suppliers with that. However, what Wal-Mart does drives the market. So, as suppliers
to Wal-Mart start to work on those things, then we will see that as well. […] I’m the only person
[here] with environmental in her title, and to be quite honest with you, […] I just don’t have enough
time to do it.
The discussions with managers and the literature indicate that performance measurement Buyer and
that includes environmental criteria is critical. However, a recent review of performance supplier
metrics in green supply chain research revealed 2,555 different metrics across 445 articles, perspectives
only five of which were used more than 20 times, and none with a focus on implementation
in supply chain relationships (Ahi and Searcy, 2015). Therefore, it appears that practice is
leading research in this area, with organizations such as Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble
introducing environmental supplier scorecards and other mandatory sustainability metrics 1333
into supplier selection and management processes. Many companies like 3M, Eastman
Kodak, FedEx, and Dow Chemical have applied life cycle management principles
(or product-platform management) and metrics within their own facilities by incorporating
data from their suppliers. These efforts help align buyer and supplier firms to refine the
process, and focus on reducing environmental impact and life cycle costs. The ability to
collect, manage, and report on particular metrics relied on both buyer and supplier efforts,
as well as the involvement of third-party experts. Hence:
P2. Environmental performance metrics that are collaboratively developed between
buyer and supplier firms will help align and integrate the buyer and supplier firms’
implementation of environmental initiatives within the supply chain and increase the
strategic importance of the relationship.
Risk mitigation through buyer-supplier relationships. Highly connected with the discussion
on performance measurement of environmental initiatives was that around risk mitigation.
As can be seen by the quotes chosen for performance measurement examples in Table VI,
many of them also discuss risk, so these two areas are highly intertwined. For example,
firms discussed how suppliers’ bids are evaluated on the ability to manage and mitigate
project risk. This includes factors such as hazardous waste materials’ disposal, proper
project site clean-up, and compliance with environmental regulations. Several purchasing
managers stressed the importance of considering risk and environmental impact as part of a
total cost of ownership approach, focusing on compliance with regulations and on
developing proactive environmental initiatives with end of life concerns. One buyer
commented: “It’s pay me now or pay me later. It’s just like good maintenance on your car or
your home or anything else. If you fix it, maintain it before it breaks […] it won’t cost you as
much money later.” This proactive approach allows companies to mitigate environmental
non-compliance risks such as fines and damaged reputations through collaboration with
suppliers. Other examples are included in Table VII.
Additional discussion centered on purchasing’s role in implementing environmental
initiatives, and how risk mitigation is helping shape their sourcing strategies. One manager
explains: “I hold a perspective that procurement always should take into account total cost
of ownership. Costs are very easily seen as the pure dollar figure, and you know we’re
always choosing the cheapest. Well, sometimes the cheapest is sufficient, but you do
definitely need to make sure that you understood the risks and all of those other aspects,
including environmental issues.” Research also suggests that by proactively minimizing
their supply chain’s environmental impact, firms are reducing long-term supply risk,
liability risk, and environmental risk while building continuous improvement approaches
(Bowen et al., 2001).
Research suggests buyer-supplier relationships work to support inter-firm
coordination, implying direct positive impacts for facilitating environmental practices
and mitigating accompanying risk (Maloni and Benton, 1997; Walker et al., 2008). Not only
did several managers from buying firms discuss how addressing environmental concerns
with suppliers is part of their initial process in assessing both the project’s objectives and
supplier expectations, but suppliers also discussed their role in assisting their customers
IJLM Area of application Exemplary quotes
28,4
Shaping At the end of the day, procurement is all about understanding risks, putting the
environmental appropriate steps in place to mitigate them (Anthony)
sourcing strategy I think everybody within [our company] definitely has an opinion that they want to
protect not only people but also [the] environment in which we work in, [and] they
become personal values that are in line with the organization. But also, ultimately, if you
1334 do not provide this type of service or conduct your business in this manner, there’s a
high risk there of being able to operate sustainably within the locations that you’re at. So,
yeah, there’s personal and there’s organizational desire to be around for the
long-term (Bruce)
We’re not compromising on what we need to deliver from an environmental performance
perspective, but ultimately there still is a cost side to this to make sure that we deliver the
project financially viable. So a number of the items that we consider when we develop a
[sourcing] strategy is where that risk sits, costs, and also performance wise, and when I
talk performance it’s about not only delivering the end result but also the suppliers’
ability to manage the performance of subcontractors. […] I think as you go through and
make your assessment on what those risks are and whether you’re going to allocate them
to the prime, is that we may decide to do a very detailed evaluation of the
second tier (Bruce)
Compliance We report the number of environmental incidents that we have, their risk rank in terms
of low, medium, and high in terms of the risks related to those. We even report potential
noncompliance, i.e., those that are not deemed to be in noncompliance by the federal or
the state, but [our company] deems them significant enough that we would
report that internally. So, we even report in through [our] systems our potential
noncompliance (Ken)
I’d say the environmental strategy is made up of probably 3 pieces. The first one being
compliance. We have to be in compliance, and my function is to make sure we are
meeting all the rules and the regulations, and that includes the new rules and regulations
and what’s the impact they’re going to have on us. So that’s probably the overarching
one (Danny)
Supplier The first steps in the sourcing process, the [initial assessment of our needs] form the
evaluation basis of […] how much effort and what type of resources we need to allocate to this
and assessment opportunity. So the first step definitely has a large influence over the environmental risk
factors and a lot of the items that you may consider within the total cost of ownership
(Bruce)
We’ve also run into issues where those suppliers have not been able to manage the
deliverables or have not managed the costs appropriately and, […] collaboratively, I
suppose Alcoa holds the can at the end of the day. Not only for the solution but we also
pay the dollars, and the risk sits with us, so if something goes wrong in that
collaborative approach, sure the supplier may not get any more work, but ultimately
[our company] still has an exposure that we need to manage (Bruce)
They will prepare for us a very detailed bid document, and some of these can be 3 or 4
inches thick in terms of how they would conduct this project in order to meet our
specifications, and not only meet it but also how they’re going to manage the risks
related to their work. We will review that in terms of how they’re stating how they
would conduct the work to manage those risks and also how they would do it to
minimize cost, because another component of their proposal is the cost of doing the
work. So, we often do not pick the lowest bidder on a project. Any, you know, often you
think of procurement as how can you go out for bid and get the lowest cost, you know,
to do this. But often the stated bid on a project, the lowest bidder may not have the best
systems in place to manage risk. That risk is the risk related to health, safety,
environmental, as well as financial risks (Ken)
From an environmental perspective because it is so sensitive, a lot of these projects are
Table VII. done collaboratively. But, we’re not stepping away from that. We still need to hold the
Risk mitigation and
environmental supply
chain initiatives (continued )
Area of application Exemplary quotes
Buyer and
supplier
suppliers responsible for their outcomes, but we stay a lot closer because it has an perspectives
impact not only on our cost but also on our reputation and our sustainability (Bruce)
Supplier assisting We have fiduciary duty to the customer to ensure that they get the best service possible,
customers in risk so that would be the best price, cheapest transportation, while still getting high quality
mitigation service. But we have to go out to different disposal facilities and make sure that [our
customer] is getting the best price without putting them into a situation where, 1335
sometimes if you go to a cheap facility you get exactly what you pay for. […] So we have
to make sure that they’re not liable for any kind of regulatory violation based on our
activities, but we want to make sure they get the best service possible. […] And in spite
of that, we don’t want to just dispose of material, but they have a requirement that they
only want to landfill [a certain] percentage (Steven)
[Employees are] starting to realize that yeah, we’re not here to take their jobs, we’re just
here to get rid of waste. We’re here to make sure it goes out the door and everybody stays
in compliance, and go ahead and told them, if you’re in compliance you’re not getting fined,
if you’re not getting fined, you’re saving money. If you save money, you guys are making
money. It’s that simple. The less money, you know, hey, a $25,000 fine for noncompliance is
$25,000 they don’t have to go to whatever, projects, programs, bonuses, pay raises,
whatever (Steven) Table VII.

in risk mitigation through the implementation of environmental initiatives

within the supply chain. As explained in the examples shown in Table VII, managers
from supplier firms highlighted their “duty” to their customers in not only providing a
product or service at a good price and quality, but also in not creating any additional risk
or liability for their customers.
Some manufacturing processes generate significant hazardous waste, which has
special regulatory handling and disposal requirements. A supporting example from
secondary data is that Baxter worked with Veolia Environmental Services and regulatory
agencies to reduce the amount of hazardous material generated, improve the capability for
separating hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and develop better methods to recycle
and dispose of these materials throughout the manufacturing process. Baxter states that
“throughout the process, Veolia went above and beyond to enhance their existing health
and safety programs and improve the recycling operation.” Interestingly, the relationship
between Veolia and Baxter was initially mentioned as “collaborating with an external
waste management company.” The relationship changed from one that was new with
potential to a key strategic alliance because of Veolia’s initiative to help Baxter reduce
environmental risk.
Lockheed Martin collaborates with its chemical suppliers and transportation providers
to “right-size” its chemical deliveries. This tactic reduces waste, minimizes the opportunity
for spills, and improves facility safety by removing unnecessary chemicals. IBM has also
consistently worked with suppliers to mitigate risk surrounding environmental concerns.
They developed a system to environmentally evaluate suppliers, whereby performance
could be measured and results could be publicly disclosed. Data from the interviews,
literature, and practical examples indicate:
P3. Implementation of environmental initiatives within the supply chain helps reduce and
mitigate supply chain risk (i.e. liability risk, financial risk, brand and reputation risk).
According to Kraljic’s (1983) portfolio matrix approach, when additional measures are taken
to incorporate environmental criteria into supplier assessment in order to minimize
associated risks, this decreases the availability of qualified suppliers capable of delivering
products and services in an environmentally sustainable manner.
IJLM Changing buyer-supplier relationships due to the implementation of environmental initiatives
28,4 The qualitative data revealed that implementing environmental initiatives throughout the
supply chain can shift the nature of buyer-supplier relationships from largely transactional or
hands-off to key, strategic alliances. As previously discussed, integration, performance
measurement, and risk mitigation can help researchers and managers understand changes in
the buyer-supplier relationship during the implementation of environmental initiatives. Firms
1336 have limited resources and managers have varying amounts for different initiatives. Purchasing
managers typically adapt the buying and relationship strategy by segmenting the service or
commodity, based on how important the purchase is to the buying organization (value, volume,
and impact on strategic products) and the supply risk and complexity involved (Kraljic, 1983).
Moving from a relationship with low supply complexity to high supply complexity. Firm C
had several managers who shared experiences about implementing environmental projects
with suppliers and service providers. One relationship example involves the purchase of
waste disposal services, a particularly important purchase for this buying firm because of
its high spend, for which plenty of suppliers are available; therefore, the purchase would
initially be categorized as a leverage service according to Kraljic’s (1983) matrix. There is
significant environmental risk associated with the disposal of waste, particularly hazardous
waste. The buying firm identified an opportunity to minimize its environmental impact
through innovations in waste disposal and consequently built this into new requirements in
its request for bids of waste disposal services.
Firm C began introducing more environmental factors in its supplier selection process,
which decreased the number of suppliers capable of performing well on multiple
environmental criteria. The supplier became the buyer’s dependable resource for specific
knowledge on environmental innovations shifting the power dynamics of the relationship.
The implementation of environmental initiatives increased the risk associated with this
particular type of purchase, and the increased capabilities and introduction of performance
metrics reduced the available supply base, thereby increasing supply complexity.
The relationship with the service provider shifted from a more preferred supplier to a
strategic relationship with much inter-firm integration, aligned with P2.
Steven, who manages recycling for key customer accounts within a service provider of
Buying firm C, explained how his firm once provided Buying firm C with waste disposal
services but had lost the business. Upon the new request for bid from Buying firm C, this
supplier used the environmental initiatives as a means of differentiation and gained back
the business of Buying firm C. Brian’s supplier firm created innovative solutions to reuse
by-products, recycle more waste, and ultimately save costs by sending less waste to the
landfills. Additionally, collaboration increased across the relationship. For example, gain
sharing was implemented to share the benefits of the environmental initiatives. Steven is
now located on-site with Firm C to more strategically manage the relationship and promote
innovations through the waste disposal services his company provides.
The introduction of risk due to the type of environmental product or service being
purchased and the increased capabilities subsequently required changed the supply market
by increasing complexity, resulting from a decreased pool of capable suppliers, supporting P3.
Developing and implementing the performance metrics helped to align the environmental
strategy of both the buying and the supplying firm, supporting P1. Finally, the relationship
required more collaboration between the buying and supplying firm, and increased the
integration between the two organizations, supporting P2.
Moving from a low-value complex relationship to a high-value strategic relationship.
Another initiative concerned a consulting, project-oriented purchase of Firm C. Each project is of
fairly low importance primarily because the cost of the project is low relative to their total
purchasing spend. However, only a limited number of suppliers have the environmental
experience necessary for these projects. Therefore, the purchases are considered bottleneck items Buyer and
because of their smaller scope yet high supply complexity. Firm C sought a supplier that could supplier
provide environmental expertise for these specific projects and after working with Firm Y, began perspectives
to rely on the supplier quite heavily for its know-how and capabilities surrounding the
environmental aspects of the projects. Supplier Y was soon awarded many more projects because
of its demonstrated environmental expertise. Although each project was still specialized and may
individually be considered a bottleneck purchase, the relationship shifted to be more strategic 1337
because Buying Firm C consolidated its spending on more of these projects with Supplier Y.
Although the relationship shifts occurred for different reasons, both buyer-supplier
relationships in Buying firm C became more strategic and more closely managed, largely
because of the increased spending with the particular supplier. In both cases, the supplier
became involved in strategic decision making, including innovation, process improvement,
and process design. The environmental initiative drove the relationship change. The supplier
used its environmental expertise and capabilities to gain more business, and ultimately earned
the trust of the buying organization that lacked such knowledge resources internally.
The idea that more business was given to a capable supplier because of its ability to help
align its needs with those of the buying company helps support P1. Only a few suppliers could
satisfy the exacting demands of the buying company in terms of these initiatives,
supporting P3. In this particular case, part of the supplier’s job was to consider the overall
project life cycle; the supplier had clearly defined performance metrics in place. Therefore,
support for P2 was not caused by the implementation of environmental initiatives in this case.
Strengthening a strategic relationship. Another relationship discussed was already seen
as strategic prior to a focus on environmental initiatives as a large retailer had begun to
form a partnership with a specific logistics service provider (LSP). However, as the retailer
began to focus on eliminating waste and carbon emissions across its supply chain, it
challenged providers to supply customized logistics solutions with a particular focus on the
environmental impact of the supply chain. The retailer’s specialized needs and
environmental considerations limited the potential pool of providers, putting the purchase
in the strategic category of Kraljic’s (1983) matrix. Discussions with managers revealed a
very strategic relationship, which many managers referred to as a partnership.
Managers noted that the environmental initiatives are exciting because the companies
are “on new, innovative ground,” and committed to making a significant impact. This
collaborative approach generates momentum behind environmental initiatives, which
contributes to the success of their operational implementation across the supply chain.
Managers describe the commitment to this partnership as “doing whatever we need to do to
make things happen, knowing they’re out there […] taking a chance [on us] too.” The “roll
up your sleeves attitude” is what makes the buyer-supplier partnership work so well. While
the foundation of the relationship was essential in triggering the environmental initiatives,
the initiatives’ implementation equally strengthened the partnership.
While many of the environmental initiatives’ benefits are tangible (i.e. increased fuel efficiency
and cost savings), others are more recognizable when managers step back from day-to-day
operations, acknowledging that environmental initiatives can have unanticipated system-wide
and relational benefits. For example, managers noted that environmental initiatives facilitated
collaboration and “good team-building” among supply chain partners. While strengthening the
retailer’s relationship with the LSP, the implementation of environmental initiatives also helped
systematically improve inter-organizational processes, as Nevis commented:
This has been a great learning experience for us, all of us, because it’s new ground, and for the first
time we’re actually doing more negotiating than we normally do. We negotiated how the savings
would be shared [from this environmental initiative]. And so, it’s definitely new ground for us in our
supplier/customer relationship.
IJLM The transportation and logistics industry is dynamic. Many companies have aligned
28,4 themselves with the EPA Smartway program (Ellram and Golicic, 2015). Others are looking
to incorporate carbon minimization into their services. Selling more services to buying
organizations is helping logistics providers move from a short term to a strategic
relationship as they introduce innovative carbon reduction initiatives into the
buyer-supplier relationship.
1338
Discussion and literature integration
As is common in the constant comparison approach utilized in grounded theory research
(e.g. Flint, Gammelgaard, Manuj and Pohlen, 2012; Flint, Gammelgaard, Randall and
Mello, 2012; Carter and Dresner, 2001; Richey et al., 2010), this section integrates the extant
literature with the results of the current research. This research suggests opportunities for
theoretical development in several areas of literature. The next sections will focus on
theoretical development in the area of environmental supply management and how
environmental supply management can provide a competitive advantage for firms. We then
examine dynamic buyer-supplier relationships and performance implications of
environmental supply management.

Environmental supply management: theory development

Environmental supply management and its impact on the triple bottom line remains poorly
understood. This research has incorporated existing literature on both buyer-supplier
relationship dynamics and environmental initiatives, extending both areas of literature by
highlighting the complexity of dynamic relationships between buyers and suppliers,
specifically in relation to implementing environmental initiatives across the supply chain.
Also, this research identifies suppliers’ environmental initiatives as order qualifiers and as
potential order winners. As organizations segment and allocate the management of their
purchasing personnel, suppliers that have already positioned themselves as an
environmental differentiator will receive additional business over time.
Wong et al. (2015) conducted a literature review to examine research on integrating
environmental management into supply chains and developed a theoretical model of green
supply chain integration practices, one of which is supplier green supply chain integration.
They found four components important for integrating environmental practices with
suppliers: exchange of environmental information with suppliers, collaboration, assistance
and supplier development, and process integration with suppliers. The current research
supports the exchange of information and collaboration with suppliers but has not
examined supplier development and process integration, a fruitful direction for future
research. Overall, environmental supply management is a way to better mitigate and
manage risk. Purchasing aims to ensure an uninterrupted flow of organizational supply that
is both efficient and effective. Managing environmental initiatives helps to adapt to or avoid
these unexpected disruptions.

Environmental supply management: relationship and performance implications

This research suggests that environmental initiatives can change the nature of buyer-supplier
relationships. In a review of buyer-supplier relationship research, Terpend et al. (2008) found
that while the research had focused on ways in which companies were extracting value out of
buyer-supplier relationships, it was largely cross-sectional. Consequently, they suggested
more longitudinal research and for researchers to consider the dynamic nature of
relationships, how they “develop and fall apart, and how contextual conditions may affect the
development of buyer-supplier relationships” (Terpend et al., 2008, p. 42). However, there still
has not been a focus on the dynamic nature of relationships (an exception includes Autry and
Golicic, 2010). This research begins to fill that gap, and suggests that implementing Buyer and
environmental initiatives may influence the development of buyer-supplier relationships. supplier
Within the context of managing environmental initiatives, researchers have examined perspectives
how relationships may be managed differently within a portfolio of supplier relationships
(e.g. Pagell et al., 2010) but have not examined how buyer-supplier relationships may shift
over time across the portfolio of relationships. Results of this research suggest that buyer-
supplier relationships can shift over time when environmental initiatives are implemented 1339
and integrated across firms for several reasons: an increase in supply complexity as the
need for suppliers with environmental expertise decreases the qualified pool of suppliers, an
increase in supply complexity as the risk that must be managed is increased, and an
increase in complexity as environmental performance metrics are introduced. Recent
research on performance measurement in environmental supply chain management
suggests there is still very little focus on consistent metrics that can be used to assess the
performance of environmental initiatives across the supply chain (Ahi and Searcy, 2015),
and research is still very exploratory (e.g. Björklund et al., 2012; Bulsara et al., 2016).
Similarly, a literature search for risk management specific to environmental supply chain
management only resulted in two examples (e.g. Wang et al., 2012; Teuscher et al., 2006),
neither of which are focused on supply chain relationships. Therefore, there is still
significant opportunity for further research.
Understanding relationships’ evolution requires examining what causes the relationship
to change; in this case, the environmental capabilities required of suppliers are shifting how
the relationship is managed. Recent research by Lee et al. (2014) used three case studies to
examine how environmental requirements are passed up the supply chain and suggest that
there is a “green bullwhip effect” at play in managing environmental requirements. Similar
to the concept of the bullwhip effect by Lee et al. (1997), which focused on the distortion of
customer demand information, Lee et al. (2014, p. 39) suggest that “environmental
requirements also change significantly at times, and are passed along the supply chain to
varying degrees.” They find significant variation as demands for new environmental
capabilities are passed upstream, and as time to comply with such demands is compressed,
the “green bullwhip effect” is initiated (Lee et al., 2014). With just three cases comprising
their study, additional research in this area is essential, and has interesting linkages to the
current research. Because there is no data across multiple tiers of companies’ supply chains
in the current research, it is impossible to determine whether something similar shifts the
buyer-supplier relationships when environmental initiatives are implemented, but is an
interesting avenue for future research.

Implications and conclusions

Theoretical implications
This research makes several contributions to theory and existing research. First,
considering the dynamic nature of buyer-supplier relationships and the potential changes
that come to inter-organizational relationships upon implementing environmental initiatives
is crucial both theoretically and academically. A research review revealed little on the
complexity of dynamic relationships, particularly in the context of environmental initiatives,
a gap which this research begins to fill. This research extends the buyer-supplier
relationship literature to examine dynamic environments and projects with higher risk.
Additionally, this research advances earlier work on performance spirals in buyer-supplier
relationships (Autry and Golicic, 2010), suggesting that inter-organizational relationships and
interactions evolve through the implementation of environmental initiatives. Much more work
is needed on the dynamic nature of relationships particularly as it relates to initiatives that are
not necessarily aligned across a buying and supplying firm. As governmental regulations are
changing, products are innovated, and the supply base continues to grow and develop,
IJLM longitudinal studies of buyer-supplier relationships are essential to really understand the
28,4 influence of environmental supply chain initiatives.
Finally, the results of this work further advance portfolio theory to address
environmental initiatives and better understand their influence on relationships. This
research helps us understand how risk can be minimized through the implementation of
environmental initiatives in supply chain relationships and that relationships may change
1340 due to a changing process or initiative. As more companies segment products, services, and
customers in order to determine how best to manage suppliers, future research can explore
how and which suppliers should be segmented into different categories and which
managerial techniques such categories require.

Managerial implications
This research has several implications for managers in both buying and supplying firms. First,
the results suggest that with the implementation of environmental initiatives and practices,
suppliers need to be managed and developed differently for long-term success because of the
dynamic nature of both the relationships and the environmental initiatives. Regulations are
constantly being updated, and buying organizations are changing their location decisions and
supply base size. The buyer needs to understand how to best move from a transactional to a
more strategic relationship, especially surrounding environmental initiatives.
Second, suppliers should recognize that the capability to implement environmental
initiatives with their customers is a differentiator and order winner, or at a minimum an
order qualifier. As buyers rely on the knowledge and experience of suppliers to implement
environmental initiatives across the supply chain, the supplier must adapt its environmental
strategies and initiatives to maintain the business. Buyers are ultimately responsible for the
actions of their suppliers, and therefore must better align their environmental strategies
with their suppliers’ in order to monitor the environmental impact of their supply chain.
Examples of this practice include Apple and Nike, whose suppliers are held to higher
environmental standards. Additionally, suppliers should recognize that their location,
processes they employ and transportation services they select greatly influence their
environmental impact and what they pass on to their customers in the form of Scope 3
emissions (Cummins, 2016). Therefore, anything suppliers can do to minimize their
environmental impact and differentiate themselves on environmental capabilities will
provide them with a competitive advantage, as suggested by the results of this research.
Third, managing the implementation of environmental initiatives between firms involves
nuances that can be better controlled by collaboratively developing metrics specifically related to
the environment. Many firms are leading in this area and have incorporated environmental (and
social) metrics into their scorecards, using different metrics such as waste, water, and carbon
emissions as real order qualifiers, winners, and a true differentiator. Firms who are further along
the continuum of development in measuring environmental supply chain initiatives are working
on joint initiative measurement and gain sharing relative to environmental initiatives across the
supply chain, as shown through several examples in this research.
Finally, much of the discussion in this research centered on risk minimization and mitigation
through environmental supply chain initiatives. Firms should recognize the focus on compliance
with regulations in buyer firms, and the role that supplier firms and service providers can have
in assisting buyers with such compliance. Firms are seeking to minimize risks through
environmental supply chain initiatives by focusing on compliance, and the impact of improperly
managing environmental supply chain issues on firms’ brand image and corporate reputations.

Limitations and future research opportunities

The notable results of this work come with some limitations. First, this research used
qualitative interviews with managers in buying and supplying firms to illuminate the
perspective of both buying and supplying firms, which is a daunting challenge in supply Buyer and
chain research (Daugherty, 2011). However, these were not matched dyads, and current supplier
examples from the public press supplemented this research, which is a limitation of this perspectives
work. Additionally, although qualitative interviews yield rich examples and results, their
generalizability is limited (McGrath, 1982). Future research should aim to build more dyadic
research toward a more holistic perspective of supply chain phenomena, including using
matched dyads in both qualitative and quantitative empirical approaches. Dyadic research 1341
could be particularly helpful in further exploring performance measurement of
environmental initiatives across the buyer-supplier relationship, as well as how
environmental requirements are passed up the supply chain relative to a potential “green
bullwhip effect” (Lee et al., 2014).
Second, although this research asked participants about their relationships over the
period of implementation of environmental initiatives, it was still each manager’s particular
perspective from that snapshot in time. Future research should seek to examine this
phenomenon from a longitudinal perspective, as it would be interesting to examine how
relationships continue to evolve after the successful implementation of environmental
supply chain initiatives. Specifically, quantitative research using objective longitudinal
measures as suggested by Terpend et al. (2008) could test some of the propositions put forth
in this research.
In sum, sustainability is a growing area of interest for both academics and practitioners.
This research looked specifically at environmental initiatives implemented across buyer-
supplier relationships and identified several research opportunities at the intersection of
these two significant research streams. Future research may also consider more detailed
nuances of the phenomenon, such as how supplier segmentation and the type or complexity
of the environmental initiative may alter the results of this research. Other opportunities
include examining the social aspects of sustainability as part of the triple bottom line
approach many companies are now taking, and the role of buyer-supplier relationships in
managing such initiatives.

References
Achrol, R.S. and Etzel, M.J. (2003), “The structure of reseller goals and performance in marketing
channels”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 146-163.
Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2015), “An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
sustainable supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 360-377.
Andel, T. (2013), “General Mills releases its sustainable supply chain strategy”, Materials Handling &
Logistics News, April 30, available at: www.mhlnews.com/transportation-amp-distribution/
general-mills-releases-its-sustainable-supply-chain-strategy (accessed April 30, 2013).
Autry, C.W. and Golicic, S.L. (2010), “Evaluating buyer-supplier relationship-performance spirals: a
longitudinal study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 87-100.
Bernard, H.R. (2006), “Field notes: how to take them, code them, manage them”, Research Methods in
Anthropology, 4th ed., AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Beverland, M. and Lindgreen, A. (2004), “Relationship use and market dynamism: a model of
relationship evolution”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-858.
Björklund, M., Martinsen, U. and Abrahamsson, M. (2012), “Performance measurements in the greening
of supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001), “The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 174-189.
Bulsara, H.P., Qureshi, M. and Patel, H. (2016), “Green supply chain performance measurement: an
exploratory study”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 476-498.
IJLM Butner, K., Gueder, D. and Hittner, J. (2008), “Mastering carbon management: balancing trade-offs to
28,4 optimize supply chain efficiencies”, available at: www-05.ibm.com/de/automotive/downloads/
mastering-carbon-management.pdf (accessed September 11, 2013).
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing:
initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 659-684.
1342 Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasing’s role in environmental management: cross-functional
development of grounded theory”, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 12-27.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R. and Grimm, C.M. (2000), “Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an
empirical investigation”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
Chkanikova, O. (2015), “Sustainable purchasing in food retailing: interorganizational relationship
management to green product supply”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 478-494.
Copeland, E. (2013), “Nike accelerates to sustainability by partnering with Bluesign”, available at:
www.supplychaindigital.com/procurement/nike-accelerates-to-sustainability-by-partnering-
with-bluesign (accessed July 18, 2013).
Corbett, C. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending the horizons: environmental excellence as
key to improving operations”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 5-22.
Cummins, C. (2016), “You, too, can master supply chain emissions”, available at: www.greenbiz.com/
article/youtoocanmastersupplychainemissions (accessed May 11, 2016).
Daugherty, P.J. (2011), “Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and suggested
research agenda”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 16-31.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1983), “Marketing theory with a strategic orientation”, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 79-89.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Samar Ali, S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between leadership,
operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for
green supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160 No. 2, pp. 120-132.
Dubois, A. and Pedersen, A.C. (2002), “Why relationships do not fit into purchasing portfolio models – a
comparison between the portfolio and industrial network approaches”, European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Dwyer, F., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer-seller relationships”, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Ellram, L.M. and Golicic, S.L. (2015), “Adopting environmental transportation practices”,
Transportation Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 55-88.
Five Winds International (2003), “Green procurement: good environmental stories of North
Americans”, available at: www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=
1180 (accessed October 19, 2008).
Flint, D., Gammelgaard, B., Manuj, I. and Pohlen, T.L. (2012), “A reviewer’s guide to the grounded
theory methodology in logistics and supply chain management research”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 42 Nos 8/9, pp. 784-803.
Flint, D., Gammelgaard, B., Randall, W.S. and Mello, J.E. (2012), “Grounded theory: an inductive method
for supply chain research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 Nos 8/9, pp. 863-880.
Flint, D.J. and Golicic, S.L. (2009), “Searching for competitive advantage through sustainability:
a qualitative study in the New Zealand wine industry”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 841-860.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), “Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired Buyer and
value change in a business-to-business context”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, supplier
pp. 102-117.
Gelderman, C.J. and van Weele, A.J. (2002), “Strategic direction through purchasing portfolio
perspectives
management: a case study”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 30-37.
Gelderman, C.J. and van Weele, A.J. (2003), “Handling measurement issues and strategic directions in
Kraljic’s purchasing portfolio model”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 207-216.
1343
Gelderman, C.J. and van Weele, A.J. (2005), “Purchasing portfolio models: a critique and update”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 19-28.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 531-543.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), “Theoretical sampling”, Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of
Grounded Theory, The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, pp. 36-54.
Glaser, B.G. (1988), “The roots of grounded theory”, Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, pp. 21-34.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine Publishing Company,
Hawthorne, NY.
Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S. (2002), “Applying environmental criteria to supplier
assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Handfield, R.B., Krause, D.R., Scannell, T.V. and Monczka, R.M. (2000), “Avoid the pitfalls in supplier
development”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Huang, S. and Keskar, H. (2007), “Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 510-523.
Humphreys, P., Wong, Y. and Chan, F. (2003), “Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier
selection process”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 138 Nos 1/3, pp. 349-356.
Jap, S.D. and Ganesan, S. (2000), “Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: implications for
safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 227-245.
Kamann, D.J.F. (2000), “Matrices, cubes and triangles in purchasing”, Proceedings of the 9th
International IPSERA Conference, London.
Klassen, R.D. and Vachon, S. (2003), “Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on
plant-level environmental investment”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 336-352.
Kraljic, P.M. (1983), “Purchasing must become supply management: how managers can guard against
material disruptions by formulating a strategy for supply”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61,
pp. 109-117.
Krause, D.R., Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2009), “Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain
management: introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing management”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 18-25.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as a supply chain management issue”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. S1, pp. S45-S62.
Large, R.O. and Gimenez Thomsen, C. (2011), “Drivers of green supply management performance:
evidence from Germany”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 176-184.
Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997), “Information distortion in a supply chain: the bullwhip
effect”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 546-558.
Lee, K.-H. and Kim, J.-W. (2012), “Green new product development and supplier involvement: strategic
partnership for green innovation”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable
Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 290-304.
IJLM Lee, S.-Y., Klassen, R.D., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2014), “The green bullwhip effect: transferring
28,4 environmental requirements along a supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 156, October, pp. 39-51.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), “Establishing trustworthiness”, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 289-331.
Lintukangas, K., Hallikas, J. and Kähkönen, A.-K. (2015), “The role of green supply management in the
development of sustainable supply chain”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
1344 Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 321-333.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
McGrath, J.E. (1982), “Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas”, in McGrath, J.E.,
Martin, J. and Kula, R.A. (Eds), Judgement Calls in Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly
Hills, CA, pp. 69-102.
Maloni, M. and Benton, W. (1997), “Supply chain partnerships: opportunities for operations research”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 419-429.
Medlin, C.J. (2004), “Interaction in business relationships: a time perspective”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 185-193.
Mello, J. and Flint, D.J. (2009), “A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984), “Focusing and bounding the collection of data”, Qualitative
Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 27-48.
Min, H. and Galle, W. (1997), “Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 10-17.
Min, H. and Galle, W. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of us firms”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 9/10, pp. 1222-1238.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean and global supply chain
strategies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-41.
Mollenkopf, D.A., Russo, I. and Frankel, R. (2007), “The returns management process in supply chain
strategy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8,
pp. 568-592.
Nellore, R. and Söderquist, K. (2000), “Portfolio approaches to procurement: analyzing the missing link
to specifications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 245-267.
Noci, G. (1997), “Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s
environmental performance”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 103-114.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010), “Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer
and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Olsen, R.F. and Ellram, L.M. (1997), “A portfolio approach to supplier relationships”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-113.
Pagell, M., Wu, Z. and Wasserman, M.E. (2010), “Thinking differently about purchasing portfolios: an
assessment of sustainable sourcing”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 57-73.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P. and Grewal, D. (2007), “A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical
perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71
No. 4, pp. 172-194.
Porter, M.E. (2000), “Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global
economy”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-134.
Pujari, D., Wright, G. and Peattie, K. (2003), “Green and competitive: influences on environmental new Buyer and
product development performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 657-671. supplier
Richey, R.G., Roath, A.S., Whipple, J.M. and Fawcett, S.E. (2010), “Exploring a governance theory of perspectives
supply chain management: barriers and facilitators to integration”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 237-256.
Ritter, T. (2000), “A framework for analyzing interconnectedness of relationships”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 317-326. 1345
Roome, N. and Hinnells, M. (1993), “Environmental factors in the management of new product
development: theoretical framework and some empirical evidence from the white goods
industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 12-27.
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Strom, S. (2016), “Yogurt buyers send Dannon back to the farm”, New York Times, April 26, p. B2,
available at: www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/business/yogurt-buyers-send-dannon-back-to-the-
farm.html?_r=0 (accessed 11 May 2016).
Tate, W.L., Dooley, K.J. and Ellram, L.M. (2011), “Transaction cost and institutional drivers
of supplier adoption of environmental practices”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 6-16.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M. and Kirchoff, J.F. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reports: a thematic
analysis related to supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Terpend, R., Tyler, B.B., Krause, D.R. and Handfield, R.B. (2008), “Buyer-supplier relationships: derived
value over two decades”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 28-55.
Teuscher, P., Grüninger, B. and Ferdinand, N. (2006), “Risk management in sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM): lessons learnt from the case of GMO-free soybeans”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the
role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
Valle, R.S., King, M. and Halling, S. (1989), “An introduction to existential-phenomenology thought in
psychology”, in Valle, R.S. and Halling, S. (Eds), Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in
Psychology, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain
management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Walker, H., Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T. and Spencer, R. (2012), “Sustainable procurement: past, present
and future”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 201-206.
Wallendorf, M. and Belk, R.W. (1989), “Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic research”,
in Hirschman, E.C. (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 69-84.
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W. and Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012), “A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk
assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 595-606.
IJLM Williams, A.J. and Guinipero, L.C. (1994), “The cross-functional imperative: the case of marketing and
28,4 purchasing”, International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 29-33.
Wong, C.W.Y., Lai, K., Shang, K., Lu, C. and Leung, T. (2012), “Green operations and the moderating
role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm performance”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 283-294.
1346 Wong, C.Y., Wong, C.W. and Boon-Itt, S. (2015), “Integrating environmental management into supply
chains: a systematic literature review and theoretical framework”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-68.
Wu, T., Jim, Wu, Y.-C., Chen, Y.J. and Goh, M. (2014), “Aligning supply chain strategy with corporate
environmental strategy: a contingency approach”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 220-229.
Wynstra, J.Y.F. (1998), “Purchasing involvement in product development”, PhD thesis, Eindhoven
Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green
supply chain practices and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45
Nos 18/19, pp. 4333-4355.
Zsidisin, G. and Siferd, S. (2001), “Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory development”,
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.

Further reading
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations,
purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-487.
Appendix 1 Buyer and
supplier
perspectives
Pseudonyms Descriptors

Lars President of North American operations for Buying Firm A; 3 years of experience in current
position but 10+ years of experience in related supply chain positions; responsible for 1347
overseeing all internal operations, supply management and logistics
Jackie Mid-level procurement Agent for Buying firm A; 2 years of experience in current position, and
previous experience in similar roles; responsible for managing suppliers and coordinating
procurement needs to meet needs of operations within one facility
Trisha Category Purchasing Manager within Buying firm B; 19 years of purchasing experience
Anthony Director of Supplier Quality and Sustainability within Buying firm C; 3 years of experience in
current role, and 15+ years of experience in related director-level supply management positions
Sally Buyer within Buying firm C; has been in related roles with this company for almost 20 years,
with a range of responsibility in commodity management, services, and environmental buying
Bruce Global Procurement Manager in Capital Expenditure for Buying firm C; 2 years in this role, but
has been with the company 11 years in procurement; responsible for managing supplier
contracts and leveraging strategic supplier relationships for capital expenditures and
asset remediation
Ken Director of Environmental Remediation for Buying firm C; has been with the company 15 years
and is responsible for overseeing the management of environmental liabilities tied to current
and past projects and facilities
Danny Environmental Manager of Operations for Buying firm C; has been with the company
34 years in seven different positions related to environmental and health management
within the company
Richard Remediation Manager for Buying firm C. He has been in the position for 7 years and is
responsible for coordinating all remediation activities, overseeing compliance with regulations
and laws for current and abandoned facility sites
Steven Manages specialty recycling for key customers, within a Supplier Firm X. Has 23 years of
experience in the area
Edward Engineer for Supplier firm Y, a company that specializes in environmental projects, and has
over 20 years of experience within this area
Nevis Retail Inventory Manager at Buying firm D; has substantial experience in supply chain roles
and has been in current position for 5 years; responsible for operational coordination of
inventory and demand-supply planning between suppliers, through distribution centers,
to retail stores
Sara Environmental Compliance Director at Buying firm D; has 8 years of experience in current
role and is responsible for managing all environmental initiatives, day-to-day activities,
and communication both internally and externally
Dave Logistics and Transportation Director for Buying firm D; has been with the company for
13 years and is responsible for managing all inbound and outbound flows and storage, as well
as coordination with supply chain partners regarding logistics services Table AI.
Tim Senior director in logistics for Supplier firm Z; has been in the current position for 6 years; Summary of interview
responsible for all dedicated customer service and logistics management participants
IJLM Appendix 2. Interview guide
28,4

1348
Appendix 3 Buyer and
supplier
perspectives
Trustworthiness criteria Methods of addressing criteria in this research References

Credibility Triangulation of findings with artifacts and other data Lincoln and Guba
The degree to which the sources, such as company websites, brochures, etc. (1985), Miles and 1349
findings are believable and Summary reports provided to all participants for Huberman (1984)
are adequate feedback
representations of the data Result: emergent models were modified and expanded so
as to satisfy participants’ interpretations
Transferability Theoretical sampling Lincoln and Guba
The extent to which Thick descriptions obtained from participants (1985), McCracken
findings from one context Exceptions are limited (1988)
will be applicable in another Result: theoretical concepts emerged directly from the
context data and were represented by all participants
Dependability Participants discussed activities and initiatives related Lincoln and Guba
The extent to which the to a specific project in a certain time/place as well as (1985)
findings are unique to a those experienced at the company over a period of time
time, place, or situation; the Result: found consistency across participants regardless
consistency of findings of specific examples
Confirmability Bracketing interviews were performed prior to Lincoln and Guba
The extent to which the additional data collection to avoid bias from a priori (1985), Miles and
findings are supported by conceptualizations Huberman (1984),
the data from participants Preliminary findings were reviewed by a co-researcher Valle et al. (1989)
and phenomenon; avoiding who acted as an auditor
research biases Result: emergent models and interpretations will be
refined and expanded
Integrity Researchers built rapport with participants prior to Wallendorf and Belk
The quality of the data asking deeper questions; the interviews were (1989)
collected; the extent professional, non-threatening, and confidential
interpretations are Result: the participants did not seem to evade any topic
influenced by participant of discussion
misinformation
Fit Overlapping – previously addressed through means cf. Flint et al. (2002),
The extent to which the used to address credibility, confirmability, and Strauss and Corbin
findings fit within the area dependability (1990)
of study Result: ideas were described in detail; participants went
beyond an anecdotal level to describe interactions that
were important to understanding the phenomenon
Understanding Summary of findings have been presented to cf. Flint et al. (2002),
Degree to which participants to ensure they reflect their intended stories Strauss and Corbin
participants buy into results Overview of findings was presented to colleagues and (1990)
as representations of their select practitioners for review and feedback
reality Result: feedback was considered to determine buy-in
Generality Interviews were of sufficient duration and depth to elicit cf. Flint et al. (2002),
Extent to which findings multiple complex aspects of the phenomenon Strauss and Corbin
elicit multiple facets of the Result: multiple aspects of the phenomenon were (1990)
phenomenon discovered
Control Some of the concepts that emerged from the data are cf. Flint et al. (2002),
Extent to which participants aspects that involve interaction and therefore influence Strauss and Corbin Table AII.
influence aspects of theory between the participants (1990) Evaluating
Result: participants influence internal and external trustworthiness of
relationships and implementation processes research and findings
IJLM About the authors
28,4 Dr Monique Lynn Murfield is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Miami
University. She holds a PhD Degree in Logistics from the University of Tennessee. Her research
focuses on buyer-supplier relationship issues, including environmental supply chain management and
supplier accommodation of customers, and supply chain challenges of omni-channel retailing.
Dr Monique’s work has been published in various journals such as the Journal of Business Logistics, the
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Industrial Marketing
1350 Management, the Marketing Management Journal, and the Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal. Dr Monique Lynn Murfield is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
murfieml@miamioh.edu
Wendy L. Tate, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain
Management, Haslam College of Business, University of Tennessee. Her research focuses on different
areas of strategic sourcing including, offshoring and reshoring; services purchasing, and sustainability
in the supply chain. She teaches undergraduates, MBA, PhD students strategic and global supply
management with an emphasis on financial implications on the supply chain. Her work has been
published in many different outlets, academic and practitioner. She serves on the Boards of many
journals and is Co-editor-in-chief at the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.