Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Incorporating social aspects in sustainable supply chains: Trends and

future directions
Marta Elisa Bubicz*, Ana Paula Ferreira Dias Barbosa-Po

voa, Ana Carvalho
Instituto Superior T

ecnico, Centre for Management Studies (CEG-IST), University of Lisbon, Portugal

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

Article history: The social dimension of sustainability in supply chains has grown in importance in both academic and
Received 12 March 2018 industrial communities. This article aims to understand how social dimension has been incorporated in
Received in revised form supply chain management research in the past years and what research gaps still exist. For this purpose,
28 June 2019
a systematic literature review is performed where 621 articles are analysed considering a set of cate-
Accepted 29 June 2019
Available online 12 July 2019
gories that include: research methodology; social dimension; social analysis focus; supply chain entities;
traceability and transparency; uncertainty and risk; industrial activity sector. A cross-analysis between
Handling editor. Charbel Jose Chiappetta categories is presented, revealing that social sustainability concerns have been increasingly addressed
Jabbou along the years, but further research still needs to be performed to achieve more inclusive social supply
chains. N-Vivo Software is used to perform the content analysis. The main research gaps and trends
Keywords: regarding social concerns in supply chains are identified and systematised into a framework that can be
Sustainable supply chains used to integrate social aspects in supply chains. Based on the latter, a research agenda is defined tar-
Social sustainability geting concerned researchers and practitioners to attain the sustainable supply chains.
Systematic literature review
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Previous literature reviews on social sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Research approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Step 1: Material collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Step 2: Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Step 3: category selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Step 4: Material evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Bibliometric analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Evolution towards supply chains social aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Soc 1- when have been published the articles covering social aspects in supply chains? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Soc 2- who has been working in social aspects in supply chains? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Social sustainability in supply chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Soc 3- What type of analysis were the authors conducting to assess social aspects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Soc 3.1 Employed Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Soc 3.2 social dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3. Soc 3.3 social analysis focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4. Soc 3.4 supply chain entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.5. Soc 3.5 traceability and transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.6. Soc 3.6 uncertainty and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Soc 4- Where have the authors been applying the social assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: martabubicz@edu.ulisboa.pt (M.E. Bubicz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.331
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

5.2.1. Soc 4.1 geographic location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.2.2. Soc 4.2 activity sector of companies in case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.3. Soc 4.3 size of the companies in the case studies: Large Companies/Small and Medium (SME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Social sustainability in perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Framework e trends and proposals for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.1. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2. Social Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.3. Social Analysis Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4. Supply Chain Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.5. Traceability and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.6. Uncertainty and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.7. Activity sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.8. Companies’ dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.9. Geographic Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.9.1. Future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.9.2. Implications for theory and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1. Introduction Specifically, organisations must balance the three dimensions

based on their activity sector, size, geographic location, capabilities,
In the current economic context, the long-term success of any government policies, cultural norms, and institutional structures
organisation should be built not only on profitability but also on its (Tate et al., 2010; Ciliberti et al., 2011; Closs et al., 2011; Chaabane
contribution to the future of people and planet. As the supply et al., 2012; Spetic et al., 2012; Meckenstock et al., 2015).
chains are essential systems of organisations, the consideration of As stated by the European Commission “the economic crisis and
sustainability at the supply chain level has been recognised as an its social consequences have to some extent damaged consumer
emerging area that needs to be studied systematically (Carter and confidence and levels of trust in business” (European Commission,
Rogers, 2008; Barbosa-Po
voa et al., 2018). Organisations must 2011). To leverage this new and important area, the European
embrace sustainability and implement it along their supply chains, Commission is promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
as a part of a long-term strategy that seeks competitive advantage described as “to create favorable conditions to sustainable growth,
(Levesque, 2012). responsible business behavior and durable employment generation
The application of the sustainability concept in the supply chain in the medium and long term” (European Commission, 2011). As
(SC) becomes a fundamental issue for the successful management stated in the H2020 strategy, sustainable development is an EU
of organisations. However, this is not an easy task as measurements target to which all the stakeholders and companies should signif-
of sustainability performance are not tranquil, and currently, no icantly contribute (H2020, 2016). As more corporations commit to
models exist that fully translate all sustainability aspects (Lee, 2010; sustainability and CSR policies, there is an increasing pressure to
Sarkis et al., 2010). Some of the main factors that showcase its consider social impacts throughout supply chains (Hutchins and
complexity have been identified by the scientific community are as Sutherland, 2008). Although the social sustainability dimension is
follows: (1) the concept of sustainability and the way it is measured slowly growing in business communities, the scientific community
does not present a clear and consensual definition (Spetic et al., still avoids the usage of social indicators as they are subjectively
2012); (2) sustainability is sub-divided into economic, social and perceived and hard to evaluate (Ruiz-Mercado et al., 2012; Mota
environmental dimensions, which creates complexity; (3) various et al., 2015, 2018).
and often conflicting stakeholders expectations must be taken into The considerations mentioned above lead to the urgency of
account to evaluate; and (4) there must exist a robust and trans- analysing and evaluating the previous work regarding social as-
parent relationship between all the entities along the SC, both pects in supply chains. Thus, in this article, we present a systematic
upstream and downstream (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009; Gold review that aims to understand how social dimension has been
et al., 2010b; Wolf, 2011; Meckenstock et al., 2015). treated in supply chains. We explore the contributions of different
Despite these complexities, organisations are becoming more SC tiers to achieve sustainability and the benefits of using new
aware of the environmental and social impacts caused by their technologies to support such concerns. This information appears to
activity and seek to adopt sustainable practices. The main reason be relevant to comprehend how social sustainability has been
for this strategy realignment is the pressure imposed by the approached in supply chains. However, in our knowledge, this
stakeholders, such as consumers, workers, environmental agencies, cross-referencing has not been yet approached in depth. Thus, in
communities, NGOs and public regulation (Vermeulen and Seuring, this work, we aim to define a general framework to assess the social
2009; Tate et al., 2010; Sarkis et al., 2012; Zimmer et al., 2017). To dimension in supply chains.
define a sustainable strategy for SC, organisations need to consider To achieve the above-defined goals, the following research
the three dimensions of sustainability in their primary goals questions drive the present work:
(Seuring and Mller, 2008a; Yawar and Seuring, 2017): 1) maxi- RQ1 What is the state of research at the interface between social
mizing profit along the SC; 2) minimise environmental impacts; sustainability and supply chain management?
and 3) improve the well-being of stakeholders and society RQ2: What future directions researchers and practitioners should
(Hediger, 2010; Chaabane et al., 2012; Gopalakrishnan et al., 2012). follow to achieve an inclusive sustainable supply chains’ analysis,
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
where social aspects are fully integrated?
To answer these questions, this article aims to present the past
trends in this field and to identify future guidelines in this research
field. More specifically, a general framework illustrating how to
integrate social aspects in sustainable supply chains is proposed as
well as a roadmap for future research is defined.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 analyses
the previous literature reviews addressing the social dimension of
sustainability in supply chains and acts as the background for the
remaining analysis. Section 3 presents the used research method-
ology. Further, Section 4 describes the development of a descriptive
analysis of articles studied while Section 5 presents the main re-
sults and discussion of the literature review. Section 6 discusses the
research outcomes and proposes a framework for driving a research
agenda on social sustainability in supply chain research. Finally,
Section 7 summarises the main conclusions.
2. Previous literature reviews on social sustainability
Recently, a set of reviews have been published addressing the
social dimension of sustainability in supply chains. Sixteen reviews
were identified, and the selection criteria were based on the
rapport of sustainability review articles in supply chains that
exclusively addressed the social dimension or have a specific sec-
tion for the theme (see Table 1). The time horizon of this selection
was from 2008 to 2018.
From Table 1, it is patent that from 2015 onwards, the focus on
social SC research has widened and indeed, there is an increasing
interest of the academic community on addressing the social con-
cerns within supply chains. The first reviews pointed out a need to
understand the dimensions of sustainability in supply chains and
their impacts in a more conceptual way (Ashby et al., 2012; Huang
et al., 2013; Zorzini et al., 2015; Eriksson and Svensson, 2015), fol-
lowed by reviews that employ different methodologies (special
attention to quantitative models) to tackle social issues (Seuring,
2013; Brandenburg et al., 2014; Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015;
Barbosa-Po
voa et al., 2018).
In recent years, a few researchers have observed a tendency for a
conceptual exploration of the different meanings of social sus-
tainability and how these approaches have been treated (Abbasi,
2017; Nakamba et al., 2017). Additionally, in the last three years,
other researchers have explored the close relationship between the
concepts of social sustainability and CSR (Feng et al., 2017; Yawar
and Seuring, 2017; Kühnen and Hahn, 2018). This seems to be a
significant trend as CSR appears as a broader form of addressing
social concerns. Thus, it encompasses not only the supply network
but also society in the context of both local and global supply chains
including the involvement of various stakeholders. Moreover, it
incorporates both economic and environmental factors, addressing
the three dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way (Feng
et al., 2017; Ciccullo et al., 2018).
Brandenburg et al. (2014) and Seuring (2013), that analyse the
use of quantitative models to build sustainable supply chains, some
authors such as Feng et al. (2017) and Abbasi (2017) present a
broader analysis, as the link between CSR and SC, which results in a
largest number of articles analysed, (n ¼ 628) and (n ¼ 462)
respectively.
Recent reviews have also identified the need of looking to the
different tiers in the chain, indicating that researchers should now
look at the supply chain as a whole. Most of such publications were
focused on the internal scope of focal organisations. One example is
the analysis by Nakamba et al. (2017) where the authors studied
different tiers, but the analyses did not identify what tiers were
considered. Barbosa-Po
voa et al. (2018) also call attention for the
fact that often the existent works exploring the label of “sustainable
3
supply chain” do not address the supply chain as a whole, instead
focus into a single supply chain activity, namely production. Thus,
the need to have a holistic view on sustainable supply chains is
recognised, and within this, the study of the social concern has still
an ample space to be explored.
When the authors approach the different tiers of the chain and
associated management strategies, for sustainability some points
appear as critical. First, the longer the chain, the greater the need
for transparency, especially with the involvement of various
stakeholders, portrayed by authors such as Abbasi (2017), Yawar
and Seuring (2017), Ko €ksal et al. (2017), Mejías et al. (2016),
Zorzini et al. (2015), and Eriksson and Svensson (2015). According
to these authors, collaboration among the various stakeholders as
suppliers or clients as well as NGO's and local communities are
essential to minimise the economic, environmental and social risks.
In many cases, there is a transfer of responsibilities as operations
are moved to regions with less control (Abbasi, 2017) or laws for
environmental and social protection are rare. Second, in addition to
collaboration, the authors mention the Information and Commu-
nication Technologies (ICT) as important tools to increase trace-
ability and transparency (Mejías et al., 2016), as well as to minimise
uncertainties and risks (Yawar and Seuring, 2017). This is a strategy
of shared control that is not imposed as a tool of control and
pressure, but rather of collaboration and commitments made by all
the entities that make up the chain, especially through CSR actions.
It begins to outline a more global vision and a concern to look
carefully at all levels of the chain.
Being recognised that a holistic view of the supply chain is
necessary when targeting sustainability, and knowing that a few
authors have studied this aspect in their reviews, this paper ex-
plores this enlarged SC view, targeting specifically how social as-
pects have been considered within supply chains. Although the
previous authors have presented a scattered view of the topic, their
work lacks a multi-dimension and a cross-relation analysis be-
tween categories. Further, we analyse different methodologies used
by the authors that can promote the development of this enlarged
view. Additionally, we identify the industrial sectors where real
case-studies are conducted that explore this view. This investiga-
tion allowed us to ascertain on which methods appear as more
adequate and what type of supply chains are more critical when
dealing with social concerns. As mentioned before, exploring a SC
holistic view implies understanding the role of the different supply
chain entities (tiers) and how their relationship has been explored
towards social inclusion. One of the key contributions of this review
is to identify the used approaches considered as categories of
analysis that contribute to this holistic view and explore their
interrelation using a cross-referencing. For example, aspects such
as transparency and traceability are mentioned in some review
papers, however, its linkage to sustainable supply chain (SSC) has
not been explored. However, when social aspects target social in-
clusion, transparency and traceability together come into the pic-
ture. Both support the identification and control of main gaps and
noncompliance observed along the chain, where codes of conduct
are not enough.
Additionally, knowing that the presence of uncertainty and
associated risk influences the decision process when considering a
social target, in this paper, the reviewed articles are also analysed in
terms of uncertainty and risk.
In the sample of the 621 articles, where different sustainability
goals are considered, a smaller sample of 52 papers focusing only
on the social concern on supply chains is also studied. In this way,
we aim to conclude on how much the social dimension treatment
coincides or differs if studied in a broad sustainability context
versus a single focused social context.
In conclusion the main contributions of this paper can be
4 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Table 1
Literature reviews on sustainability social dimension in supply chain management.

Author Year Journal Focus/approach Dimension Type n Time Title

papers horizon

Kühnen and 2018 Journal of Cleaner Focus on indicators for social life cycle CSR LR 141 2003 Systemic social performance measurement:
Hahn Production measurement e2015 Systematic literature review and explanations on
the academic status quo from a product life-cycle
perspective
Jia et al. 2018 Journal of Cleaner This review focus on the SSCM in CSR and LR 85 2000 Sustainable supply chain management in developing
Production developing countries context SSCM e2016 countries: An analysis of the literature
Ciccullo et al. 2018 Journal of Cleaner Integration of lean, agile and sustainable Env. and LR 73 2001 Integrating the environmental and social
Production supply chain management, addressing Social e2017 sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply
Social and Economic dimensions chain management paradigms: A literature review
and future research directions
Barbosa- 2018 European Journal An Operational Research Perspective on Env. and LR 220 1999 Opportunities and challenges in sustainable supply
Po
voa et al. of Operational SSC Social e2016 chain: An operations research perspective
Research
Feng et al. 2017 Journal of Cleaner CSR for SCM CSR LR 628 1997- Corporate social responsibility for supply chain
Production 2017/3 management: A literature review and bibliometric
analysis
Nakamba 2017 Supply Chain How social sustainability is considered in Social LR 109 2007- How does social sustainability feature in studies of
et al. Management: An the study of supply chain management 2017/4 supply chain management? A review and research
Int. Journal agenda
Yawar and 2017 Journal of Exploring Social Issues, Actions and CSR LR 142 2000 Management of Social Issues in Supply Chains: A
Seuring Business Ethics Performance Outcomes e2013 Literature Review Exploring Social Issues, Actions
and Performance Outcomes
€ ksal et al.
Ko 2017 Sustainability Social SSCM in the Textile and Apparel Social LR 45 2005 Social Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the
Industry e2016 Textile and Apparel IndustrydA Literature Review
Abbasi 2017 European Themes and challenges for SSC: an Social RP 462 2012 Towards socially sustainable supply chains ethemes
Business Review overview of the main definitions and e2016 and challenges
terminologies related to social
sustainability in SC
Quarshie et al. 2016 Journal of The state of research in journals “Supply SCSR LR 12 2007 Sustainability and corporate social responsibility in
Purchasing & chain management” and “Business ethics e2013 supply chains: The state of research in supply chain
Supply journal" management and business ethics journals
Management
Mejías et al. 2016 Int. Journal of Op. Best way to implement sustainable Log. Soc LR 194 1990 Efficiency and sustainability through the best
& Production practices Resp. e2010 practices in the Logistics Social Responsibility
Management framework
Ahi, P. and 2015 Measuring Metrics used in the literature to measure Social RP 445 until Measuring social issues in sustainable supply chains
Searcy (b) Business social issues in SSC 2012
Excellence
Brandenburg. 2015 Annals of SSCM in quantitative models Env. and LR 185 1994 Sustainable supply chain management: a modelling
and Rebs Operations Social e2014 perspective
Research
Eriksson and 2015 Supply Chain Elements affecting social responsibility in CSR RP 97 2009 Elements affecting social responsibility in supply
Svensson Management: An supply chains e2013 chains
International
Journal
Zorzini et al. 2015 Int. Journal of Op. Socially responsible sourcing - State of art Social LR 157 1997- Socially responsible sourcing: reviewing the
& Production 2013/4 literature and its use of theory
Management
Brandenburg 2014 European Journal Quantitative models for SSCM, approach Env and LR 134 1994 Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain
et al. of Operational analysis Social e2012 management: Developments and directions
Research
Huang et al. 2013 Int. Journal of Additive manufacturing and its societal Social LR n.a. 1980 Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a
Advanced impact e2011 literature review
Manufacturing
Technology
Seuring 2013 Decision Support Review of modelling approaches in SSCM Env and LR 36 1997 A review of modelling approaches for sustainable
Systems Social e2010 supply chain management
Ashby et al. 2012 Supply Chain Sustainability research within SCM Env. and RP 134 1983 Making connections: a review of supply chain
Management: An Social e2011 management and sustainability literature
Int. Journal
Seuring and 2008 Journal of Cleaner Focused on how sustainable supply Env. and LR 191 1994 From a literature review to a conceptual framework
Müller (b) Production chains are addressed in research Social e2007 for sustainable supply chain management

summarised as follows: research methodology; social dimension; social analysis focus;

- to provide a comprehensive and categorised review on what is
the state of research at the interface between social sustain-
ability and supply chain management;
- to analyse a set of important categories e exploring cross-
referencing e that should be considered when social inclusion
is a target in supply chains. Such categories are: employed
supply chain entities treated; traceability and transparency
strategies; uncertainty and risk analysis; industrial activity
sector analysed;
- to understand how the above categories are treated by the au-
thors when their objective is to address the different sustain-
ability goals or when the focus is only on the social goal;
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
- to identify the main research gaps and trends when addressing
the social concern in supply chains;
- to propose a general framework illustrating how to integrate
social aspects in sustainable supply chains;
- to propose a research agenda for future research in the field.
3. Research approach
As stated above the present research develops a systematic
literature review on sustainability in SC, focusing on the social as-
pects. The results aim to bring valuable insights to identify the gaps
and trends that contribute to the development of knowledge
(Tranfield et al., 2003), in this case, the insights are related to how
social concerns have been treated in supply chain management
research. To ensure the quality of the literature review and meth-
odological rigor, the research methodology employed by Tranfield
et al. (2003) is adapted in this work. Four sequential steps were
followed, which are summarised as follows:
3.1. Step 1: Material collection
In this step, we specify the unit of analysis and the collected
material. The material collection is defined and delimited based on
the following criteria:
Only articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed
journals and proceedings, between 2008 and 2018 are analysed.
The focus of the present work envelops the research work of the
past ten years.
Forward, reverse and closed-loop supply chains are considered
in the analysis.
The selection of articles is obtained from an exhaustive search
using Thomson Reuters Web of KnowledgeSM, and Science
Direct Data Bases.
The keywords used in a first level in the search were “supply
chain” and “sustainability” on titles, keywords and abstracts.
The outcome was the creation of a database containing 1403
articles on sustainability in SC. Then a refined search was con-
ducted to the first sample of papers using as keywords “social”
and “Corporate Social Responsibility”. Further, a sample of 621
articles addressed Social Dimension was obtained. N-Vivo soft-
ware was then used to identify patterns and word correspon-
dences between keywords, through a content analysis, on the
four social aspects (Human Rights, Labor Condition, Society and
Product Responsibility). All papers were coded as a node, linking
and coding with the following words: “Sustainability”, “Social”,
“Society”, “Right”, “Working”, “Labour” and “Labor” and “Prod-
uct”. An auto coding function was carried out combining these
nodes automatically. The results were new codes, where new
standards and themes were found (see Appendix 1). The third
author, not involved in the first analysis, performed the same
steps to guarantee results reliability.
With the objective of understanding how the social aspects have
been treated within the articles addressing only the Social
Dimension, a reduced sample was identified. This resulted from
the latest sample where a systematic reading was carried out. As
a result, a sample of 52 articles was identified addressing only
the sustainability social dimension. The main focus of these
articles is also identified.
The data collection and content analysis were carried out from
5
June 2017 to July 2018 and February to March 2019.
3.2. Step 2: Descriptive analysis
To better understand the scope of the collected articles in the
previous step, a 4 W's social (Soc) analysis (When, Who, What,
Where) was applied to systematise and bring-up relevant infor-
mation to the discussion.
First, a descriptive content analysis of the selected articles was
performed to obtain the relevant data using as drivers the following
questions:
Soc 1) When have been published the articles covering social as-
pects in supply chain?
Soc 2) Who has been working in social aspects in supply chain?
For the first question, an annual distribution of the articles was
performed. To answer the second question, the distribution was
also performed by the journal and their publishing agency. This
analysis is presented in section 4.
3.3. Step 3: category selection
Following the descriptive analysis, to address the first research
question where the aim is to understand how social sustainability
aspects have been incorporated into sustainable supply chain
management research, a category selection was performed. Section
2 presents the selection process of the relevant reviews that fol-
lowed the 4 W's analysis. Two main questions were defined:
Soc 3) What type of analysis were the authors conducting to assess
social aspects?
Soc 4) Where have the authors been applying the social
assessment?
According to Tranfield et al. (2003), literature reviews should be
replicable, however, the content analysis process has an interpre-
tation and may bring some subjectivity. A systematic and trans-
parent process was applied to promote replicability and reliability.
Further, the validation was done with software and by using the
methods proposed by several researchers to ensure the impartiality
and objectiveness of this work. Besides, the reliability was ensured,
as explored in by Carter and Easton (2011), by selecting all cate-
gories before the analysis of the articles according to the rules
proposed by Mayring (2008). Such categories were defined mainly
based on the analysis of previous reviews in the topic and by
running N-Vivo software on the article sample (see Section 2).
Within question Soc 3, several analyses were conducted to
classify the content of the social articles according to nine cate-
gories: methodology; social dimensions; social analysis; supply
chains tiers; traceability and transparency strategies; uncertainty
and risk analysis. The categories involve the following:
1) Employed Methodology: This category includes methods: a)
Research Methodology Design (Qualitative versus Quantitative
analysis) - Case study (example, analysis, application and
quantitative), Literature Review, Modelling, Survey, and Con-
ceptual Theory; b) Data Collection Method e Questionnaire/
Structured Interview, Experts/Open-ended Interview, Report-
ing, Focus Group, and Delphi Study; c) Data Analysis Method -
Content analysis; Factor analysis; Sensitive analysis, and Cross-
case Analysis.
2) Social Dimensions: Labor Conditions (LC); Human Rights (HR);
Society (S); Product Responsibility (PR).
3) Social Analysis Focus: Sustainability Reports and Standards;
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Social Supply Chain
6 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Management (SSCM); Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA);
Social Footprint; List of Indicators; Generic Social; Framework
(own, other authors or own and other authors).
4) Supply Chain Entities: Supplier; Production/Service provider;
Focal organisation; Consumer; All Supply Chain entities (sup-
plier-production-consumer); Reverse Logistics activities.
5) Traceability and Transparency: This category was identified by
the bibliometric analysis, which calls for the existence of an ICT
system in place.
6) Uncertainty and Risk: Uncertainty and risk were analysed aim-
ing to understand how such aspect may influence the con-
struction of a social inclusive supply chain.
Furthermore, to answer question Soc 4, three main categories
were considered: supply chain main sector studied; the size of the
main company; geographic location Of the case study.
7) Supply Chain Activity Sector: This analysis follows Portuguese
Classification of Economics Activities standard (CAE), in accor-
dance with Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the
European Community (NACE) (European Commission, 2008).
8) Size of the companies: Large Companies/Small and Medium
(SME).
9) Geographic Location: Case studies were identified by countries.
The authors were identified by affiliation institutions per con-
tinents. This analysis is presented in section 5.
3.4. Step 4: Material evaluation
In this step, the assessment of the sample of papers and critical
analysis was performed. This allows identifying the research trends
and main gaps existing in the area. Based on this analysis, a future
research agenda is proposed that embraces a holistic view on how
social aspects should be addressed in supply chains. This is trans-
lated into the research agenda framework presented in section 6.
Fig. 1 presents the above-developed research methodology and
showcases the objectives, methods, tools used and the sections
where the results are discussed for each step.
Fig. 1. Structure of the research methodology.
4. Descriptive analysis
In order to better understand the main characteristics of the
sample of articles, three main analysis was performed. First, a
bibliometric analysis was performed allowing to understand the
most common focus of a study within the identified sample. Then,
the time evolution of the papers addressing sustainable supply
chains was performed, and the focus on the social component was
identified, answering the question Soc 1. Finally, the distribution of
the articles by the journal and their publishing agency is presented
aiming to answer the question Soc 2.
4.1. Bibliometric analysis
A bibliometric analysis was carried out to identify the word
correspondence and the relation between the keywords “Sustain-
ability” and “social” (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). “Sustainability” had
38.771 occurrences, especially related to “Supply chain”, “com-
pany”, “performance”, “supplier” and “management”. The word
“Social” registered 31.605 occurrences where the main associated
words were: “business”, “control”, “communication”, “behavior”
and “security”.
From this analysis, it can be seen that the business performance
is always at stake when addressing sustainability within supply
chains and the focus on the different supply chain entities, trans-
lated through the “suppliers” word is an observed trend. It supports
our previous conclusion that the need for developing a more ho-
listic approach where sustainable supply chains are identified as a
crucial requirement. Moreover, when the social focus is addressed
within supply chains, this calls for a business goal coupled with the
need for controlling the supply chain guaranteeing security and
accounting for different supply chain behaviours contexts. The
need to explore communication tools is a clear trend.
4.2. Evolution towards supply chains social aspects
Fig. 4 shows a timeline including 1403 articles covering sus-
tainability issues and 621 articles encompassing social dimension.
The difference between the total number of articles and social
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Fig. 2. Keywords and words correspondence for “sustainability” in the 621 papers sample.
articles is equivalent to the number of articles that cover environ-
mental and/or economic aspects.
Taking as a basis the study by Elkington (1997), where the au-
thors claim that the three dimensions of sustainability in a TBL
approach should be treated in an interrelated way, it is observed
from our analysis that there is an increasing concern towards this
aim. Although the economic and environmental aspects are evi-
denced in many studies, the social aspects have only recently been
valued and integrated as fundamental for sustainable development.
Interestingly, when looking at the chronology of the discussed
research, it seems to reveal an evolution presented in Fig. 5.
Till the year 2000, the dimensions of sustainability were
addressed mostly isolated. From 2000 onwards, several authors
started studying simultaneously two dimensions, being Environ-
mental and Economic the main ones. In some cases, social aspects,
although strongly related to the environmental dimension were
addressed but its comprehension was quite limited. However, so-
cial sustainability has then been gaining prominence in research,
and the recognition of its importance to the economic balance of
the organisations is getting clear (e.g. Busse et al., 2016; Gaviglio
et al., 2016; Ahi and Searcy, 2015a; Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen,
2009; Bastian and Zentes, 2013). Although this tendency has been
observed, social sustainability is still understudied and requires
further investigation.
4.2.1. Soc 1- when have been published the articles covering social
aspects in supply chains?
The number of articles in the social dimension of sustainability
started to raise approximately from 2008 after the increase of the
7
so-called SC sustainability publications (see Fig. 4). This fact might
be explained by the growing concerns and actions undertaken
worldwide and more specifically in the European Union. In 2011,
the European Commission released an action agenda for the period
2011e2016 regarding CSR. The press release was available some
years before (around 2009) and the public presentation of this
agenda (2011) coincided with a growing awareness from practi-
tioners and researchers on defining the best social responsibility
strategy. This increasing awareness towards social aspects indicates
that this is an emergent field with great potential to be explored by
researchers to contribute to the establishment of good practices
that can be successfully used by practitioners.
4.2.2. Soc 2- who has been working in social aspects in supply
chains?
The 621 articles encompassing social aspects were grouped by
types of journals and shown in Fig. 6. Journal of Cleaner Production
constitutes 18,4% of total published articles addressing social con-
cerns in supply chains. The journal is based on the concept of
‘Cleaner Production’ that aims to prevent the production of wastes
while increasing efficiencies in the usage of energy, water, re-
sources and human capital. These results show that social concerns
on supply chains have been gaining importance when building
cleaner systems.
Moreover, the social dimension and the interrelationship with
cleaner production systems is evident, which may also indicate that
clean production nowadays depends on a better balance between
the three dimensions of sustainability.
8 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Fig. 3. Keywords and words correspondence for “social” in the 621 papers sample.

Fig. 4. Annual distribution of publications from 2008 to 2018.

5. Social sustainability in supply chains
After understanding the main characteristics of the collected
articles, the next step is to comprehend how the researchers have
been addressing the social component when managing supply
chains. This will allow answering in detail the first research ques-
tion of this work. For this purpose, a critical analysis of the pub-
lished articles was performed. A summary of the results obtained
from the analysis and assessments of the articles is presented in
Appendix 2.
5.1. Soc 3- What type of analysis were the authors conducting to
assess social aspects?
To answer to this question, several categories were used to
analyse the articles (see Section 3- Step 3).
5.1.1. Soc 3.1 Employed Methodology
Fig. 7 translates the main results of this analysis. It can be seen
that social aspects have been mainly analysed through qualitative
approaches. The published works typically lead to the development
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500 9

Fig. 5. Systematic representation on the approaches evolution towards sustainable supply chains.

Fig. 6. Sustainability Social Dimension approach published per journal from 2008 to 2018.

of frameworks that try to explain the integration of social sus-
tainability in the supply chain (e.g. Carter and Rogers, 2008; Cruz,
2009; Hediger, 2010; Huq et al., 2014; Gualandris et al., 2014).
Only 237 articles have explored quantitative approaches (see
Appendix 3) and, in most cases, a few of them have been associated
with a qualitative methodology.
The detailed analysis revealed that among several methodolo-
gies the Case Study (n ¼ 297) is the most applied methodology
followed by Modelling (n ¼ 164) and Literature Review (n ¼ 125)
(see Fig. 7). In fact, excluding the modelling methodology, all the
remaining methodologies are more conceptual and, consequently,
exploratory. This is an indication that the literature of social sus-
tainability in SCs is still in a stage where there is the need to
systematise information.
To better understand how the data has been collected and
treated, deeper analysis of these aspects was performed. The results
are presented in Fig. 8. Regarding the Data Collection methods,
Questionnaire/Structured Interviews (n ¼ 88), Panels of Experts/
open-ended Interviews (n ¼ 65) and Reporting (n ¼ 63) were the
most applied methods, especially related to the Case Studies. This
reinforces the fact that authors are still trying to understand the
Social Dimension. The main type of Data Analysis Methods used
were Content Analysis (n ¼ 57), Factor Analysis (n ¼ 35), Sensitivity
Analysis (n ¼ 26) and Cross-Case Analysis (n ¼ 19).
10 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Fig. 7. Research methodologies employed in the social articles.

Fig. 8. Data Collection and Data Analysis Method applied on social articles.

5.1.2. Soc 3.2 social dimension
To provide an insight on the social dimension in supply chains
that authors have been targeting as a priority, the articles were
classified according to four social aspects proposed by the GRI
(Global Reporting Initiative): Labor Conditions (LC), Human Rights
(HR), Society (S), and Product Responsibility (PR) (GRI, 2011) (see
Fig. 9). These four aspects were identified across the researched
period. In general, the addressed aspects have been treated in
different proportions over the years.
From 2008 to 2018, it may infer that the Labor conditions
category is a top category and has been almost constant across the
years. Authors have suggested practical actions that are mainly
related to Labor Condition (full form?) aspects and Health and
Safety (H&S) to increase social responsibility. This tendency shows
that authors have been primarily focusing on organisations’ inter-
nal factors that concerns to social sustainability. LC aspects are
usually related to quantitative data, and therefore it becomes easier
to define indicators to monitor its performance.

Fig. 9. Distribution (%) of the social aspects present in the social articles e Labor Conditions, Human Rights, Society, and Product responsibility e per year.
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
The society aspect is also one of the top categories. As social
aspects are interrelated, it is essential to point out that they can be
evaluated from a global perspective in the context of society.
Several companies have been facing various problems in terms of
their public image, due to negative impacts on the community and
human rights (e.g. Nike, Hewlett&Packard, Starbucks, Toyota,
Walmart). For example, Lee (2010) have analysed how these com-
panies have been assessing social aspects. The author concluded
that despite the previous occurrences, the main focus of social
assessment persists in LC aspects and the companies keep per-
sisting in neglecting society and human rights considerations. A
growing concern on the impact that organisations have on the
surrounding communities is observed, indicating that researchers
are now starting to change their focus from an internal perspective
to an external perspective.
Product Responsibility is the aspect that got less attention over
the years. This may be justified by the fact that in previous years,
European and US regulators have enforced strict rules on some
products responsibility (e.g. WEEE and EC, 1830/2003). This has
been controlled and not much attention has been given to this
aspect.
Finally, the aspect of Human Rights has constantly been
addressed across the years, exhibiting the concern of society when
analysing this aspect of Social Dimension.
Given the complexity of the topic, the interrelation with
multiple-dimensions and the methodology applied, most of the
articles deals with two or three social aspects. It is important to
emphasise that the Social Dimension covers all the four aspects and
ideally, all should be approached together, even if different
importance levels are allocated to them. Moreover, it is possible to
verify that the consideration of these four aspects together is rarely
approached, both in qualitative and quantitative methodologies
(see Appendix 4).
5.1.3. Soc 3.3 social analysis focus
When looking into the social analysis focus, (see Section 3), it
can be concluded that social sustainability has been analysed in
different ways. This is shown in Fig. 10 where the most common
focus is identified per year.
Many papers explored an analysis in which they do not specify
the source of information. These cases were classified as Generic
Analysis. The other approaches that have been used mostly are
Frameworks developments; CSR e Corporate Social Responsibility
Fig. 10. Distribution of social articles by focus of social analysis per year.
11
practices development; SSCM - strategies and practices definitions
related to Sustainable Supply Chain Management; identification of
Social Indicators; Frameworks analysis of the Sustainability Reports
and Standards; Social Life Cycle Assessment; and Social Footprint
assessment. Most of the studies have not explored a specific social
analysis (n ¼ 193), which means that there is no particular data set
or topic in the analysis performed. Besides, there is an effort to
explain how social aspects have been and or should be addressed as
the development of explanatory frameworks is one of the most
used analysis (n ¼ 179). This is a symptom of a lack of consensus
between researchers about what is the best approach to assess the
social dimension in SCs.
In Fig. 10, it can be seen that over time the generic analyses tend
to decrease, while more specific analyses have grown. The SSCM
concept was strongly embedded in 147 articles where many au-
thors have addressed the importance of creating and operating
Sustainable Supply Chains. But such analysis tends to treat only a
part of the SC entities, or even show that the companies have not
yet incorporated these practices under both internal and external
activities, as stated in a recent review by Barbosa-Po
voa et al.
(2018).
On the other hand, the CSR Focus has been consistently present
over the years in the analysis performed. Many authors have
pointed out social responsibility acts as a driver for the achieve-
ment of long-term economic performance and have explored
within this context of the CSR practices (n ¼ 143 papers). It is a
consensus that the CSR should consider actions along the chain in a
holistic way pointing out the importance of embed CSR practices
through the entire organisation, which should include subsidiaries
abroad and offshore suppliers (Bebbington et al., 2008; Ali et al.,
2012; Hsueh, 2014; Perry et al., 2015).
Social indicators have been proposed in several publications
(n ¼ 70) and has decreased the quantity of analysis in recent years.
It is also worth noting that Singh et al. (2009) and Simo ~ es et al.
(2014) provides a list of general dimensions of measurement to
classify and evaluate indicators. However, it is still lacking a
consensus in the research community regarding on how to assess
the social dimension.
Fifty (n ¼ 50) out of 621 articles include research work related to
sustainability reports and standards. For companies, reporting so-
cial performance is critical to assess their current sustainability
status and communicate that information to their stakeholders.
(Lozano and Huisingh, 2011; Zhu et al., 2016). However, according
12 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
to Simo ~es et al. (2014), the difference between the ways and pri-
orities of companies and researchers in the social sustainability
evaluation is clear. It can be noted that in recent years there are few
studies focus on Sustainability Reports analysis. The standards
addressing the social dimension of sustainability and analysed in
the articles were the ISO 26000, GRI, SA 8000 and AA 1000.
Finally, there was a small number of articles resorting to social
footprint (n ¼ 5) and S-LCA (n ¼ 17) along the years. Although many
authors recognise the importance of using specific analyses, they
are still under-explored. The social footprint quantitatively de-
scribes how the organisations activities can impose different im-
 
pacts on social sustainability (Cu cek et al., 2012). On the other hand,
S-LCA is a methodology that assesses the product impact in a social
and sociological context, involving all production and consumption
process (UN, 2009). Social LCA supplements life cycle costing tools
and the environment-oriented LCA to support management de-
cisions towards all the three dimensions of sustainability. It is done
by systematizing data (often subjective) and reporting the positive
and negative social impacts in product life cycles, from cradle to
gate (Benoît et al., 2010). These are relatively new approaches to
analyse social sustainability performance that require an enormous
amount of data from the organisations, which might be the reason
for their low representativeness.
When performing a cross-referencing between the methodol-
ogy applied in the articles and the Social Analysis Focus addressed
(Fig. 11), ‘Case Studies’ are the most used methodology firstly by
papers classified as using a Generic focus (n ¼ 75) followed by a
Framework (n ¼ 73), CSR (n ¼ 69) and SSCM (n ¼ 70) focus. Opti-
misation/Modelling is the second most applied methodology,
especially with SSCM (n ¼ 47) Social Analysis focus. The literature
lacks when it comes to discussing social indicators, social footprint
and S-LCA, which should be further explored as they could bring
new contributions to a social sustainability theory.
5.1.4. Soc 3.4 supply chain entities
To analyse how broad and integrated has been the analysis of
social sustainability in supply chains, the articles were analysed
according to the SC entities (see Fig. 12). These were divided into:
Supplier; Production/Service Provider; Consumer; All forward
Supply Chain Entities (supplier-producer-consumer); and Reverse
Fig. 11. Interrelation between Methodology used and Type of Social Analysis.
Logistics Entities. Additionally, an entity called “Focal Organisation”
was considered, being this a company that manages the entire
supply chain and can range from suppliers to producers or service
providers (Lambert and Cooper, 2000).
Several authors mention the supply chain as a whole (n ¼ 199)
in a general way without effectively addressing the complexity of
relations between entities (Barbosa-Po
voa et al., 2018;
Brandenburg et al., 2014; Norris et al., 2014; Gold and Heikkurinen,
2013). Other authors study the focal organisation and its treatment
towards social aspects. Suppliers' selection and procurement ac-
tivities have been the second most quantified issues throughout the
years, followed by production activities, leaving the downstream
analysis in a second plan. There were also some cases (n ¼ 55) that
specifically included reverse logistics entities. For example,
Nikolaou et al. (2013) proposed a framework of performance in-
dicators for measuring reverse logistics social responsibility based
on the Triple Bottom Line approach, considering the four social
categories as mentioned previously. One aspect that stands out is
when reverse logistics are considered, the articles deal with this
area in an isolated form and not in an integrated way in the SC. The
authors haven't seen this activity as recommended by some inter-
national guidelines (e.g. EU Waste Framework Directive, 2008/98/
EC, and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC),
where a system's SC approach should be followed, meaning that
responsibility should be shared throughout the chain. Few re-
searchers such as Lee and Lam (2012), Koh et al. (2012) and Sudarto
et al. (2016) address reverse logistics integrated with the forward
chain (closed loop supply chain). This integration is extremely
important as one of the requirements for SCs to be sustainable is to
have a close collaboration between all SC entities (Gold et al.,
2010a; Wolf, 2011; Busse, 2016). Furthermore, although some pa-
pers discussed the issue by considering consumer level, the number
is small with the focus on the upstream level meaning looking
especially to suppliers.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that different supply
chain echelons have been considered as the main focus when a
social analysis is performed. However, one of the goals of this article
is to explore the linkages along to the different echelons. This
exploration is performed in the next section by analysing the
supply chain boundary on social analysis.
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500 13

Fig. 12. Distribution of social articles by SC entities.

5.1.4.1. Soc 3.4.1 supply chain boundary on social analysis.
According to Table 3, some authors began to integrate the second
and third SC tiers as well as specific situations in these tiers when
studying social concerns within the supply chain (Fig. 13).
An in-depth analysis in these cases shows that the majority of
these publications are related to CSR, focusing mainly on the four
aspects of the social dimension of sustainability, with more
emphasis on Human Rights and Labor Conditions (e.g. Aßla €nder
et al., 2016; Eriksson and Svensson, 2016) (see Table 2). When
looking into the different tiers, the authors claim the need for a
shared responsibility along the chain to better achieve
sustainability.
5.1.5. Soc 3.5 traceability and transparency
From the result of an initial word count in the articles, an
important issue that has been noted, when the different supply
chain tiers are considered, is the increasing concerns on controlling
the supply chain activities. Managing the SC activities can be done
by exploiting Transparency and Traceability strategies that are
prevalent in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
Analysis of the papers shows that over the years traceability of
products has been addressed especially in the sector of food supply
chains (see Table 3). Traceability in this sector is due to European
food safety directives which made necessary to trace the raw ma-
terials for food industrialization. Currently, there is a growth on
using traceability in other industrial sectors as well, mainly caused
by stakeholder's pressure for greater transparency in supply chains
to minimise negative social and environmental impacts (Stindt,
2017). Several authors emphasised on using Information and
Communication Technologies to support traceability and trans-
parency along the chain that consequently helps them to under-
stand better the consequences at different levels of the chain. The
use of new technologies can facilitate both the implementation and
control of actions at the various levels of the chain where Codes of
Conduct are often not enough with current audit methods.
Although the use of ICT is not highly discussed in the papers pub-
lished, there is a growing number of publications that deal with this
issue (see Table 3).
Although several authors identify the need for greater trans-
parency and traceability along the chain, most of them do not
present specific solutions. This is understandable since some of the
technologies that support traceability and transparency are still in
the stage of maturation where its implementation along the chain
is difficult and costly. A good example of the success of the use of
technologies to guarantee transparency and traceability was pre-
sented by Wang and Yue (2017) where Internet of Things tech-
nology was applied to dairy production, enabling real-time
information. Using these technologies, it is possible to reduce the
risk of loss “by creating a supply-chain system with a focus on
visibility, traceability, accountability and empowerment”. They can

Fig. 13. Number of papers covering different SC tiers.

14 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Table 2
Articles that consider different tiers of suppliers along the chain crossing by the Type of Social Analysis.

Suppliers boundary Type of Social Analysis

Year Author 1st tier 2nd tier 3rd tier Multi- Mention the need to CSR SSCM Framework List of S- Sust. Rep. & Generic
supplier supplier supplier tiers consider all Indicators LCA Std.

2008 Beske et al. x x

Sigala x x
Kov
acs x x
Svensson x x

2009 Andersen and Skjoett- x x

Larsen
Preuss x x
Mueller et al. x x x
Vurro et al. x x

2010 Tate et al. x x x x

Lee x x x x x
Isaksson et al. x x x x x
Foerstl et al. x x x
Benoit et al. x x x x
Adivar et al. x x
Ni et al. x x x x

2011 Wolf x x x
Seuring x x x
Ciliberti et al. x x x x
Choi & Linton x x x x x x x

2012 Kogg and Mont x x x x

Giunipero et al.
Min and Kim
Azevedo et al.
Vermeulen and Kok
Awudu and Zhang.
Sheu and Chen
Bouchery et al.
x x x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x
x x x x
x x

2013 Hsu et al. x x x x x

Harms et al. x x x
Lemke and Petersen x x x
Winter and Knemeyer x x x
Cruz x x
Grimm et al. x x x
Bastian and Zentes x x
Lee and Kashmanian x x x
Gold and Heikkurinen x x x
Leppelt et al. (a) x x x
Leppelt et al. (b) x x x x x
Kull et al.

2014 Spence and Rinaldi x x

Govindan et al. (a)
Govindan et al. (b)
Hsue
Sarkis and Dhavale
Huq et al.
Tachizawa and Wong
Turker and Altuntas
Marshall et al.
Norris et al.
Grob and Benn
Burritt and Schaltegger
Martínez-Jurado and
Moyano-Fuentes
Tajbakhsh and Hassini
Devika et al.
x x x x
x x x
x x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x

2015 Eriksson and Svensson x x x

Berning and Venter x x
Freise and Seuring x x
Lee and Gereffi x x
Gold et al. x x x
Gualandris et al. x x x
Zorzini et al. x x
Perry et al. x x x
Petersen and Lemke x x
Xia et al. x x x
Yu x x
Mota et al. x x
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500 15

Table 2 (continued )

Suppliers boundary Type of Social Analysis

Year Author 1st tier 2nd tier 3rd tier Multi- Mention the need to CSR SSCM Framework List of S- Sust. Rep. & Generic
supplier supplier supplier tiers consider all Indicators LCA Std.

Meckenstock et al. x x
Hsueh x x

2016 Mani et al. x x

Mejías et al. x x x
Quarshie et al. x x
Formentini and Taticchi x x x
Sutherland et al. x x
Wilhelm et al. (a) x x x
Wilhelm et al. (b) x x x
Azevedo et al. x x x
Brockhaus et al. x x x
Eriksson and Svensson x x x x
Chkanikova x x
Da Giau et al. x x
Grimm et al. x x
Khan et al. x x
Khurana and Ricchetti x x x x
Letizia and Hendrikse x x x
Aßla€nder et al. x x
Haghighi et al. x x
Govindan et al. x x
Azevedo et al. x x x
Miret et al. x x

2017 Li et al. x x x
Nematollahi et al. (b) x x x
Akan et al. x x
Alsamawi et al. x
Abbasi x x
Fontana and Egels-Zande
n x x
Costa et al. x x
Das and Shaw x x
Li et al. x x
Ko€ ksal et al. x x
Koh et al. x
Popovic et al. x x
Pedram et al. x x
Nematollahi et al. (a) x x
Zimmer et al. x x
Wang and Yue x x

2018 Awasthi et al. x x

Chen and Pei x x
Jacob-John x
How and Lam x x
Govindan et al. x x
Foerstl et al. x x
Hasan and Avami x x
Hannibal and Kauppi x
Ding et al. x x x
Mota et al. x x
Koksal et al. x x
Martins et al. x x
Macchion et al. x x x
Meinlschmidt et al. x x
Moretto et al. x x x
Orjuela-Castro et al. x x x
Raj et al. x x x
Ramezankhani et al. x x x
Zhou et al. x x x

help to promote supply chain integration and may play an impor-
tant role to achieve sustainability supporting better management of
the natural and human resources (Babu and Mohan, 2018).
Nevertheless, to better understand the role of these technologies to
achieve sustainability along the chain, a further investigation is
needed to better identify and understand how this can be done and
how to account for the different supply chains stakeholders’
characteristics.
5.1.6. Soc 3.6 uncertainty and risk
Given the growing importance of issues such as social dimen-
sion risk and uncertainty in supply chains, it was defined in this
work as a category of analysis. It is important to note that sus-
tainability risk assessment has a broader dimension when
compared to a traditional view, as it encompasses the social and
environmental dimensions. The traditional risk assessment refers
to factors that prevent companies from achieving their economic
goals. But supply chain sustainability risk assessment should
16 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Table 3
Trends for sustainability social dimension research exploring Traceability and Transparency.

Year Author Issue

2009 Toh et al. ICT; Traceability and Transparency

2010 Darmanata et al. Transparency; IT
2011 Wolf IT; Transparency
Wognum et al. Traceability and Transparency
Lehmann et al. IT; Traceability and Transparency
Closs et al. IT; Traceability
2012 Wittstruck and Teuteberg IT; Transparency
Vermeulen and Kok Traceability and Transparency
Liu et al. Traceability and Transparency
2013 Forsman-Hugg et al. Traceability and Transparency
Grimm et al. Lack of information and Transparency; Traceability
Bastian Zentes ICT; Traceability and Transparency
Banterle et al. Traceability Systems
Urquhart and Acott Traceability and Transparency
Kolk Traceability and Transparency
2014 Li et al. (a) IT Systems; Traceability and Transparency
Marshal et al. Traceability and Transparency
Turker and Altuntas ICT; Traceability and Transparency
Fayet and Vermeulen Traceability and Transparency
McMurray et al. IT; Traceability and Transparency
Li et al. (b) IT Systems; Traceability and Transparency
2015 Bostrom et al. Traceability and Transparency
Erikson and Svensson Traceability and Transparency for social sustainability
Zhang et al. ICT for SSC; Transparency
Gold et al. Traceability and Transparency
Gutierrez and Morgan Traceability and Transparency
Gardetti and Muthu Traceability and Transparency
Kozlowski et al. Traceability and Transparency
2016 Cerchione and Esposito IT e Changes and opportunities
Da Giau et al. Traceability; Sustainability Web-based Communication
Erikson and Svensson Traceability and Transparency
Giannakis and Papadopoulos Traceability and Transparency
Karaosman et al. IT; Transparency
Rodriguez et al.(b). IT; Transparency
Khurana and Ricchetti Traceability and Transparency
Mejías et al. ICT; Traceability and Transparency
2017 Babu et al. Transparency; ITC
Bechtsis et al. IT System - Data Sharing for Sustainable SC
Beitzen-Heineke et al. Traceability and Transparency
Alsamawi et al. Transparency and Traceability; IT System for CSR management
Gould et al. Traceability - lack
Distelhorst et al. IT lack to manage data (labor)
Levesque IT; Transparency for less negative impact
Murmura et al. Transparency
Wang and Yue IOT e Internet of Things for information sharing; Transparency; Traceability
Stindt AI - Artificial Intelligence; ITC; Transparency
Searcy Traceability and Transparency
2018 Awasthi et al. Transparency e Technologies and complex SC configurations
Babu et al. IT by reducing the environmental hazards; Transparency to create a trust and responsibility along SC
Chen et al. IT; Transparency, Collaboration
Hussain et al. Innovation & Technological Advancements; Information Sharing
How and Lam Big Data
Foerstl et al. IT e Information sharing; Stakeholder collaboration
Tang ICT for creating economic and social value
Koksal et al. Transparency - lack of control along SC
Jadhav et al. ICT for collaboration along the SC
Kot IT e Information sharing, efficiency of communication and transparency along the SC
Neutzling et al. IT e for sustainability innovation and collaboration in SC; Communication and information sharing; Transparency
Pakdeechoho and Sukhotu Lack on traceability; Information sharing for sustainable products
Wang et al. IT for information sharing; Traceability
Sendlhofer and Lernborg ICT e Digital-training - labour rights knowledge; Transparency; collaborative relationships in SC;
Gupta et al. Big Data Analytics (BDA) - Information sharing; Collaboration

include the three sustainability dimensions being defined as “the
ability of a company to understand and manage its economic,
environmental and social risks in the supply chain” (Carter and
Rogers, 2008). Additionally, the presence of uncertainty is linked
to risk, which is mainly related to external resources dependence. A
sustainability perspective should then be aligned with the different
factors that may be uncertain when looking into the three pillars of
sustainability (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003).
Based on the above setup an analysis was performed and 212
papers where identified that addressed “Risk”, “Uncertainty” and
“Risk and Uncertainty” (see Appendix 5). Several researchers have
recognised the need to control or identify risk and uncertainty
factors, however, they only mention the risk and/or uncertainty but
without depth and/or identification of the risk/uncertainty
involved (Murmura et al., 2017; Da Giau et al., 2016; Sancha et al.,
2016). Most of the studies presented in Fig. 14 that consider Risk,
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Fig. 14. Uncertainty and Risk analyses addressed in social articles.
developed a CSR study where the risk associated with environ-
mental and social damages is identified. Noncompliance with
Codes of Conduct as well as economic instability are negative im-
pacts that generate high risk for companies are addressed in articles
such as Leppelt et al. (2013b), Sancha et al. (2016) and Zimmer et al.
(2017). Petersen and Lemke (2015) deepen the theme and charac-
terise the types of reputational risk and its impacts along the chain.
Although the focus is on the social dimension, the results show a
close relationship with the environmental dimension and how
much environmental damage impact socially and economically.
Risk concerns linked to the supplier's identification and selection
when the goal is to achieve sustainability (Song et al., 2017).
Transparency in the processes along the supply chain is a critical
factor, mentioned by some authors as a key point to minimise the
risk and uncertainties (Wu et al., 2017; Giannakis and
Papadopoulos, 2016; Bastian and Zentes, 2013). Uncertainty ana-
lyses, often related to the demand, as in Mota et al. (2018) and
Awudu and Zhang (2012), also evoke in many cases the risks related
to sustainability, especially on social issues such as job creation and
local development. Summarizing, most analyses focus on the in-
ternal business environment, especially in what directly affects
profitability or reputation, with few analyses looking at external
social impacts, such as job creation, social risk and local develop-
ment, treated by some authors as Mota et al. (2018); Winter and
Lasch (2016) and Stamford and Azapagic (2011).
5.2. Soc 4- Where have the authors been applying the social
assessment?
The last group of results concerns social articles where a case
study methodology has been followed and the authors mention the
geographic location of the case studies’, and the size of the com-
panies, and/or the activity sector of the SC specified in the case
study. There were 66 case studies that either did not meet these
requirements or provided information that was not applicable.
Thus, only 231 out of the 297 (previous Fig. 7) case study articles
were selected.
5.2.1. Soc 4.1 geographic location
5.2.1.1. Soc 4.1.1 case studies location. The geographic location of
Case Studies is displayed in Fig. 15. Although they are typically
distributed by country, some case studies involved more than one
country. There were two countries standing out with a higher
number of organisations analysed: U.S.A. (n ¼ 39) and U.K. (n ¼ 29).
17
These countries were also the ones with more authors performing
research on social SC that indicate a strong effort to raise the social
aspects of sustainability to the same level of environmental and
economic aspects (see Fig. 15).
5.2.1.2. Soc 4.1.2 authors’ geographic location. The geographic
location of the institutions where the authors were affiliated was
also analysed. The results were discriminated by continent (North
America, Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa,
Oceania). The developed continents - Oceania, North America, and
Europe - are the ones which are contributing the most for the topic
of social sustainability in SC. They have the most publications per
inhabitant. The relative number of social articles coming from the
remaining continents was over 50 times less than from the devel-
oped continents. USA was the country with more authors affiliated
to its institutions (n ¼ 153), followed by the United Kingdom
(n ¼ 109) and Germany (n ¼ 65). The results may conclude that
authors tend to conduct case studies in their own countries, leaving
again the complexity of global SC out of the study. In addition, there
is a continuous increment in the number of authors from different
countries every year. For example, Cyprus, Ghana, Oman, Pakistan,
Russia, Poland, and Bulgaria appeared at the first time in 2018 in
social sustainability researches. It shows that decentralization and
the growing importance of the issue that is becoming a global
dilemma in supply chains.
The above results are complemented by Table 4, which groups
the countries by continent and the author's affiliation. It is inter-
esting to point out that the number of publications whose authors
were affiliated in European country's institution (n ¼ 740) was
twice as much as in the North American region (n ¼ 346), which
includes the U.S. Canada and Mexico. However, to make a better
comparison between these two continents (and all the remaining),
the number of affiliations per continent was divided by the conti-
nent's population. Thus, this fraction can be interpreted as being
directly proportional to the level of commitment of a continent to
the topic of social sustainability in SCs, standing up the cases of
Oceania, Europe and North America.
Unfortunately, countries in Africa and South America have
practically insignificant numbers of studies in this area, and it is still
a field that is rarely explored locally.
5.2.2. Soc 4.2 activity sector of companies in case studies
The sectors of activity explored in the case studies are presented
in Table 5. The nomenclature of the different sectors was based on
18 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

Fig. 15. Geographic location of organisations mentioned in the social articles.

Table 4 across sectors.

Geographic location (continents) of the institutions where the authors of the social Production and manufacturing showed the highest growth in
articles were affiliated. The population is represented in millions. the case studies, representing approximately 50% in the years 2013
Continent Z - Pop. (million) W - Number of affiliations W/Z Fraction and 2018. In previous years this percentage represented between
North America 346 238 0.688
15% and 20%. The second most referenced activity sector was sector
Central America 158 0 0.000 A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing. This encompasses the food
South America 396 36 0.091 sector, which has been recognised as one of the significant con-
Europe 740 584 0.789 tributors to environmental and social impacts, is responsible for
Asia 4216 238 0.056
13,5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and since everyone is a
Africa 1072 15 0.014
Oceania 37 46 1.243 consumer, it attracts much attention (Oglethorpe, 2010; Iribarren
et al., 2010). The food industry also presents a high social re-
sponsibility as their actions can generate collective problems of
society. This sector is also the most related to issues in Labor
the classification proposed by the EU in 2008 (European
Conditions and Human Rights (Kolk, 2013; Gaviglio et al., 2016). In
Commission, 2008).
an SSC view, the control in the food sector, must be efficient,
The activity sectors with greater representation in the case
requiring the development of tools, which ensure the control of
study articles were sector C (manufacturing industry - 59,3%), A
suppliers in social aspects (Li et al., 2014a; Grimm et al., 2013).
(agriculture, forestry and fishing - 27,6%), G (wholesale and retail
Sectors G and D were also highly studied. A possible explanation
trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles - 20,2%) and D
for the concerns with these sectors is that sector G is the one that
(electricity, gas, vapour, steam and air conditioning supply - 13,1%).
best illustrates the relationship between consumers and the
The remaining sectors presented less than 20% of the case studies.
remaining entities of the SC. Sector D is similar to sector A,
These results suggest an unbalanced focus of social sustainability
responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and a current theme of

Table 5
Activity sector of the organisations mentioned in the social articles that study case-studies.

Activity Sector Number of case studies (in Percentage

n ¼ 297)

A- Agriculture, forestry and fishing 82 27,6%

B- Mining and quarrying 32 10,8%
C- Manufacturing 176 59,3%
D- Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 39 13,1%
E Water collection, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 13 4,4%
F- Construction 23 7,7%
G- Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 60 20,2%
H- Transportation and storage 25 8,4%
I- Accommodation and food service activities 7 2,7%
J- Information and communication 14 5,5%
K - Financial and insurance activities 10 3,9%
L - Real estate activities 1 0,4%
M- Professional, scientific and technical activities (consultancy) 5 2,0%
N- Administrative and support service activities 8 3,1%
O- Public administration and defense, compulsory social security 6 2,4%
P- Education 2 0,8%
Q- Human health e social work activities 9 3,0%
R- Arts, entertainment and recreation 5 2,0%
S- Other service activities 16 5,4%
T- Activities of households as employers, undifferentiated goods -and services - producing activities of households for own 0 0,0%
use
U- Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies 2 0,8%
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500 19

debate around sustainability (especially due to fossil and biofuels).
Sector G is very present in the years 2013, 2014 and 2016 mainly in
the textile area. It is essential to consider that this sector, along with
the sector C is responsible for most of the case studies that address
the four dimensions of social sustainability in the analysed period
(see Appendix 2). This feature is growing throughout the period
and shows a trend of studies of the social aspects along the supply
chain.
To comprehend the above conclusions, a study within the in-
dustrial sectors was performed and addressed the four aspects (see
Fig. 16). It should be noted that this analysis was done only for ar-
ticles (case studies) that specifically discussed the areas. Many
articles do not address specific areas or do not present enough in-
formation that can be characterised.
When analysing Fig. 16 it can be seen that the areas where more
studies address social concerns are the Apparel, Food, Biofuels/
Energy and Agri-food. These studies highlight the concern in Labor
practices and decent work (LC), demonstrating that LC is not a
simple issue, but is a constant concern. Looking into the Apparel
that appears as the area where more studies have been performed
all over the four social dimensions, Human Rights is the most
addressed aspect when compared to the other sectors. Unfortu-
nately, this has not been justified by the right causes as the Apparel
has been suffering rising visibility due to international scandals

Fig. 16. Social Aspects addressed in the articles by industrial sectors in EU (European Commission, 2008)
20 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
showing the precariousness situations of workers in developing
countries (Aßl€ ander et al., 2016; Da Giau et al., 2016; Huq et al.,
2014). Additionally, the Bio-supply chains show a high concern on
the society dimension, being this mainly justified by issues related
to the usage of land to produce biofuels in opposition to grow food
products (Cambero and Sowlati, 2016; Stindt et al., 2016; Gonela
et al., 2015; Raman et al., 2015). Also, society in the food sector is
of high concern, which is explained by the type of products
involved that have a direct impact on society.
Fig. 17 shows that Industrial Sectors C is the most studied in the
articles that looked at the different supply chain tiers, especially
when it comes to the first level (n ¼ 30). Many articles considered
multi-tiers (n ¼ 23), followed by analyses at the second tier
(n ¼ 19), which is usually sub-contracts without direct contact with
the focal organisation. This result indicates that there is a gap to link
all tiers of suppliers. Additionally, there is a need to look at different
sectors as well as to deepen the studies along the chain. It implies to
gather external information that is not often available at the
organisations.
One noteworthy fact is that most of the articles that are looking
at the different tiers belong to studies related to the apparel and
food/agri-food chain. This analysis is in line with the information
already presented in Fig. 16. However, some areas such as tech-
nology and automotive try to reduce the number of suppliers as a
way to increase transparency and control over the chain at various
levels in a supplier development policy and beyond (Choi and
Linton, 2011; Mani et al, 2016; Govindan et al., 2014a).
5.2.3. Soc 4.3 size of the companies in the case studies: Large
Companies/Small and Medium (SME)
This analysis concerns the case study publications specifying the
size of the organisations (n ¼ 240 out of 297) (see Table 6). The
results show a predominance of large organisations over the SMEs.
This can be explained by the fact that NGOs have a predominant
role in pushing for the process change towards sustainability,
which is significant in large companies, mainly when suppliers
from poorer countries are involved (Sajjad et al., 2015; Li and Shen,
2016; Rodriguez et al., 2016b). There were 67 articles that included
both types of organisations, sometimes attempting to compare
them. There were twice as much large organisations mentioned in
the case study articles than SMEs.
Although research is more focused on large companies, it is
important to note that SMEs play an important role in the economy.
The complexity, formal procedures and structures required for an
organisation to implement sustainable strategies make that process
less accessible to smaller organisations where the resources may be
Fig. 17. Interrelation between Suppliers Boundary and Sectors analysed.
Table 6
Size of the organisations mentioned in the social articles.
Size Number of case studies (in n ¼ 297 cases) Percentage
SME 45 15,2%
Large 128 43,1%
SME & Large 67 22,6%
scarce. Baden et al. (2011) argues that worldwide most of the
companies are SMEs and research has been mainly focused on large
corporation's practices alone lacking a global network. The author
considers that SMEs have disadvantages in imposing social and
environmental standards to their SC. However, they play a key role
to achieve global SSCs. According to the Annual Report on European
SMEs 2015/2016, small and medium companies account for two-
thirds of employment in member countries, and 20% of them
focus on the manufacturing sector. They are also the most stable in
the face of economic crises than large companies. Being part of the
large players' supply chain, it is a relevant field to consider in sus-
tainable supply chains research.
6. Social sustainability in perspective
The analysis presented above investigated the complete sample
of articles (621), where most articles analysed the social concern
within the three sustainability goals. To understand if there is a
different tendency when the articles have just been focused on the
social dimension, such papers were identified, resulting in a sample
of 52 articles. Until 2014, papers focused on social aspects were only
7 articles, the remaining 45 articles were published in the years
2015 (n ¼ 9), 2016 (n ¼ 11), 2017 (n ¼ 6) and 2018 (n ¼ 19).
The analysis performed by categories is present in Table 7.
Contrary to the previously observed trend on the usage of quanti-
tative methods, when we look at articles that address only the
social dimension, the opposite is true in this small sample. From the
year 2016, the qualitative methods are in higher proportion,
especially exploring Case Studies and Conceptual Theory as
research methods. It is also observed that in the last three years,
there is a lower proportion of CSR in Social Analysis Focus, while in
the larger sample the proportion is constant. In contrast, S-LCA can
be identified as a growing methodology among authors only in the
context of the social dimension. The analyses do not present sig-
nificant variations in other categories, which indicates that the
specific look for the social dimension is in line with the results
obtained in the larger sample of articles (621).
Additionally, from the previous analysis, it is also important to
Table 7
Main focus and categories in articles with sustainability social aspects approach.

Authors Focus Decision Methodology Social Aspects Social Analysis SC Entities SC Boundary Traceability & Uncertainty Activity Size Geographic Location
Level Focus Transparency and Risk Sector

Min et al. (2008) Described the Strategic Lit Review PR Framework All SC e e e e e e
phenomena that allow
the integration of social
aspects in a SC.
Adivar et al. (2010) Focused their studies in Strategic Case Study S, PR Framework All SC Multi-tiers e e S e e
the development of the
concept of social
welfare chain applied
to NGOs ‘planning
Galaskiewicz (2011) Studied how social e Conceptual Theory S Generic All SC e e e e e e
network influences
supply chains
Cruz (2013) Points out that Tactical Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S, PR CSR All SC Multi-tiers e Uncertainty BCGH e e
investments in social

M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

responsibility activities
are capable of
increasing profit and
reducing risk in the SC
Nikolaou et al. (2013) Proposes a framework Strategic Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S, PR CSR Rev. Logistics e e e HS e e
to standardise the
social performance
evaluation process for
the reverse logistics
systems of a company
Huq et al. (2014) Investigated the Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S SSCM P/SP, S Mention need e e C L Bangladesh
adoption of socially
sustainable practices in
SC in developing
countries
Norris et al. (2014) Studied the assessment Tactical Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S SSCM All SC Multi-tiers e Risk CH e e
of Social Hotspots in the
Supply Chains
identifying social risks
Ahi and Searcy Identified the metrics e Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S, PR Generic S e e e e e Canada
(2015)(b) used to measure social
issues in sustainable SC
Almahmoud et al. The authors mention Strategic Case Study/Opt. LC, HR, S Framework All SC e Trac. & Transp. e O G L C M SME Saudi Arabia
(2015) secondary stakeholders Modelling
like NGOs and the
pressure that they exert
in firms and
government to change
law and labor practices
and also the
importance of the
collaborative working
with all stakeholders
Gold et al., 2015 Aims to support people Strategic Other LC, HR, S SSCM All SC Mention need e Risk e e e
and organisations to act
in a more socially
sustainable way, with a
subset focused on
supporting socially
(continued on next page)

21
Table 7 (continued )

22
Authors Focus Decision Methodology Social Aspects Social Analysis SC Entities SC Boundary Traceability & Uncertainty Activity Size Geographic Location
Level Focus Transparency and Risk Sector

sustainable product
development practice
Mani et al. (2015) Identify various Strategic Conceptual Theory LC, HR, S Generic e e e e e e India
enablers and their
contextual
relationships to adopt
social sustainability
measures in the supply
chain
Meier (2015) Labour practices, Strategic Case Study LC, HR Framework e e e e U e Switzerland
human rights and
serious situations in the
Apparel industry.
Working conditions in
industries in poor

M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

countries. CSR and NGO
Approach
Perry et al. (2015) Labour practices, Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S CSR F 2  , 3 e Risk C L Sri Lanka
human rights and
serious situations in the
Apparel industry.
Working conditions in
industries in poor
countries. CSR and NGO
Approach
Rajak and Vinodh The measurement and Tactical Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S CSR F e e e P L India
(2015) assessment of social
aspects were
addressed. Focus on
social sust.
performance
evaluation in Indian
automotive industry
Sancha et al. (2015) Authors mention Strategic Survey LC, HR Generic P e e e C L, SME Spain
secondary stakeholders
like NGOs and the
pressure that they exert
in firms and
government to change
law and labor practices
and also the
importance of the
collaborative working
with all stakeholders
Saunders et al. (2015) Explore how social e Case Study LC, HR Generic P e e e F L Australia, USA
sustainability outcomes
are impacted by early
supplier integration
focusing on worker and
consumer safety
Tirado et al. (2015) Focused in inequity in e Opt. Modelling S List of Indicators P e e e A SME Mexico
developing countries
and purposed
indicators to promote
social sustainability
Zorzini et al. (2015) Literature Review LC, HR, S Generic e Mention need e Risk e e e
 Determined the state-
of-the-art in socially
responsible sourcing
(SRS) research. SRS as
the upstream social
issues
Aßl€
ander et al. (2016) Labour practices and Case Study LC, HR, S, PR Generic S 1  , 2 e e C SME Europe
human rights and
serious situations in the
Apparel industry.
Working conditions in
industries in poor
countries. CSR and NGO
Approach
Gould et al., 2017 Studies social aspects Strategic Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S List of Indicators P e e e C e e
and indicators for
lifecycle activities
Gaviglio et al. (2016) Social pillar in Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR List of Indicators P e e e A SME Italy
agriculture activities,

M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

initiatives and
assessment
Mani et al. (2016) Studies in social Strategic Survey LC, HR, S SSCM All SC 1 e e C L India
sustainability often
addressed the CSR
when the focus is
suppliers and drivers
for companies
Missimer et al. (2016) Tried to explain social Strategic Conceptual Theory HR, S Framework e e e e e e Sweden
sustainability and the
need of further
development and an
unifying and
operational definition
of sustainability mainly
the social aspects
Mzembe et al. (2016) Studies in social Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR CSR P e e e A L UK, France
sustainability often
addressed the CSR
when the focus is
suppliers and drivers
for companies
O'Dwyer and Unerman Explain about the e Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR Generic e e Transparency Risk e e e
(2016) growing of studies and
how academic rigour
can benefit societies
especially in promote
social sustainability
Rodríguez et al. Authors mention Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR Generic All SC e e Risk U L Ecuador
(2016)(a) secondary stakeholders
like NGOs and the
pressure that they exert
in firms and
government to change
law and labor practices
and also the
importance of the
collaborative working
with all stakeholders
Sancha et al. (2016) Strategic Case Study LC, HR SSCM S e e Risk C L, SME Spain
(continued on next page)

23
Table 7 (continued )

24
Authors Focus Decision Methodology Social Aspects Social Analysis SC Entities SC Boundary Traceability & Uncertainty Activity Size Geographic Location
Level Focus Transparency and Risk Sector

Authors mention
secondary stakeholders
like NGOs and the
pressure that they exert
in firms and
government to change
law and labor practices
and also the
importance of the
collaborative working
with all stakeholders
Abbasi (2017) Review - themes and e Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR SSCM e Mention need e e e e e
challenges in social
sustainability in SC:
classification and how

M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

social sustainability is
considered in the SCM
researches
Ahmadi et al. (2017) The measurement and Tactical Case Study LC, HR, S Framework F e e e C L e
assessment of social
aspects. Focus on social
sustainability
performance
evaluation in Indian
automotive industry
Distelhorst et al. (2017) Lean manufacturing Tactical Case Study LC SSCM F, S e IT e C L Worldwide
improves the social
performance (reduction
in noncompliance) of
manufacturers, in
emerging markets
Feng et al. (2017) Studies in social Strategic Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR CSR e e e e e e e
sustainability often
addressed the CSR
when the focus is
suppliers and drivers
for companies
Fontana and Egels- Explore the CSR Tactical Case Study LC CSR S 1 e e C L, SME Bangladesh
Zande
n (2017) engagement in
developing countries as
a tool to improve labour
conditions
Nakamba et al. (2017) How social e Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR Generic All SC e e Risk e e e
sustainability is
considered in the study
of supply chain
management
Basta et al. (2018) Review - How Supply e Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR SSCM e e e Risk e e e
Chain addresses the
Social Responsibility
issues
Croom et al. (2018) The purpose was to Operational Survey LC, HR, S SSCM F, S e e e e L e
identify social
sustainability
orientation on
operational
 performance in large
companies
Guide (2018) Shows the Strategic Conceptual Theory LC, HR, S, PR CSR e e e e e e e
opportunities and
inclusion of the social
dimension in emerging
markets; supplier
performance
Hannibal and Kauppi “The paper examines Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR SSCM S Multi-tiers e Unc. and Risk A C L, SME e
(2018) the different third-
party approaches used
to assess the social
sustainability of global
multi-tier supply
chains."
Kaur and Sharma Shows the Strategic Survey LC, HR, S, PR Generic F e e Risk C L India
(2018) opportunities and
inclusion of the social
dimension in emerging

M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

markets; supplier
performance
Karmali et al. (2018) Aims to identify the e Case Study LC, HR, S Generic P/SP e e e BC e Brazil
main social and
governance issues on
the biofuel sector
€ksal et al., (2018)
Ko Focus on apparel Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S SSCM F, S Multi-tiers e Risk C e Vietnam, Europe
sourcing intermediaries
e multi-tier supply
chain
Kühnen and Hahn S-LCA for social Strategic Literature Review LC, HR, S, PR S-LCA e e e e e e e
(2018) performance
measurement
Lalwani et al. (2018) Social pillar in e Conceptual Theory LC, HR, S Framework F, S e e e A L e
agriculture activities,
initiatives and
assessment
Lobsiger-K€agi et al. S-LCA on energy Strategic Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S, PR S-LCA P/SP, S e e Risk BC e Suiça
(2018) production
Mani et al. (2018)(a) Shows the Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR SSCM S e e Risk C Portugal
opportunities and
inclusion of the social
dimension in emerging
markets; supplier
performance
Mani et al. (2018)(b) Analysis of social e Case Study LC, HR, S Sust R&S F e e Risk C L Portugal
sustainability in
Companies’ Reports
Mani and Gunasekaran Shows the Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR SSCM P/SP, F, C e e e C e Portugal, India
(2018) opportunities and
inclusion of the social
dimension in emerging
markets; supplier
performance
Mattila et al. (2018) S-LCA on bioeconomy Strategic Opt. Modelling LC, HR, S S-LCA P/SP, F, C e e e A L, SME Finland
Morais and Silvestre Shows the Strategic Case Study LC, HR, S, PR SSCM F e e Risk ACD L Brazil
(2018) opportunities and
inclusion of the social
dimension in emerging
(continued on next page)

25
 26 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500

understand which social aspects are addressed, what social focus

Geographic Location

has been treated, and what type of SC decision level has been
addressed. This analysis allows understanding at what level and in
which detail the social dimension is treated. The results presented
in Table 7 indicate that the articles mainly address social aspects

L, SME China
related to the wellbeing and community's development (LC, HR and
L, SME India

India
S). Many authors addressed the Social Responsibility commitments
e

and the role of different kind of stakeholders to promote social

SME
Size

€nder et al., 2016;

sustainability (Meier, 2015; Perry et al., 2015; Aßla
L

Fontana and Egels-Zande
n, 2017). The Product Responsibility

Activity

aspect was addressed by fewer authors (only in 24 papers), and the

Sector

four social aspects were addressed in only 22 papers. Moreover,

A
C

from the analysis of the articles, it can be concluded that their

contexts explore essentially the strategic decision level and lack
Uncertainty

Uncertainty

significant contributions at the tactical and operational levels.

and Risk

Risk

7. Framework e trends and proposals for future research

e

e
Traceability &
Transparency

The literature analysis on sustainability in SCs from 2008 to 2018

revealed relevant outcomes. It is clear that there is an exponential
growth of the articles related to sustainability, but further investi-
e

gation is needed. Moreover, most of the studies about sustainability

in SCs include the environmental dimension, but the social
SC Boundary

dimension requires additional attention, as the number of social

articles began to rise only recently. Important aspects are still to be
further analysed.
e

Based on the obtained knowledge, a framework is developed to

identify the main trends and gaps observed in the analysis of social
SC Entities

F, P/SP, S

sustainability in SCs (see Fig. 18). Eight main areas were identified
All SC

that correspond to the categories considered within the analysis.

S

7.1. Methodologies
Social Aspects Social Analysis

Most of the methodologies employed to analyse social sustain-

S-LCA
Focus

SSCM

ability are exploratory, aiming to find the definition of social sus-

CSR

CSR

tainability and its incorporation in SSCM practices. Within this

context, different types of methodologies were applied both qual-
LC, HR, S, PR

itative and quantitative, and no consensus exist to analyse the so-

LC, HR, S

cial aspects of sustainability in the best way. Sustainability is only

possible to achieve when the three TBL dimensions are considered
PR
S

simultaneously, and this is still far away to be achieved. Sustain-

ability Life Cycle Assessment can be a pathway to explore devel-
Methodology

oping methods and tools for sustainable supply chains. Part of this
Case Study

Case Study

Case Study

process already exists, as can be seen by the Life Cycle Initiative

Survey

(UNEP/SETAC, 2000) where quantitative, semi-quantitative and

qualitative methodologies can be exploited. For that purpose, it is
essential that extensive literature review articles are regularly
Strategic

Strategic

Strategic

Strategic

updated. Robust theories, namely Social-LCA, has gain momentum

Decision
Level

and at this point requires the employment of confirmatory meth-

odologies (e.g. confirmatory surveys, modelling, etc.) to push this
forward. Multi-methodology approaches (Mingers, 2001) should be
dimension in emerging
S-LCA social impact on

inclusion of the social

development in dairy

suppliers and drivers

explored, to turn a wicked issue e as the social sustainability

sustainability often
addressed the CSR
opportunities and

when the focus is

markets; supplier

markets; supplier

Focus on supplier

(Meckenstock et al., 2015) - into a concrete issue, which will be

Studies in social

for companies

mandatory to be included in any companies’ strategy.

performance

performance
Shows the

industry
Product

7.2. Social Aspects

Focus

When analysing the main social dimension, (Labor Conditions

Traverso et al. (2018)

(LC) and decent work, Human rights (HR), Society (S), Product Re-
Yawar and Seuring,

Zhang et al. (2018)

Yawar and Kauppi
Table 7 (continued )

sponsibility (PR)), it can be deduced that labour practices have been

the ones most studied. The reason could be the fact that health and
safety issues are included in such category, and companies are
(2018)
Authors

2017

obliged to report the associated impacts. In recent years, a growing

number of researchers have been focused on Human Rights pillar
and shows that this is still an unresolved factor along the chain,
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Fig. 18. Summary of findings from 621 papers analysis.
especially in poor countries where many of the suppliers of a global
chain are located (Huq et al., 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2016a). It
should be emphasised that the published studies analysing the
social pillars are related in large part to CSR and NGO approaches. It
still lacks an integrated view of the four social pillars. The ripeness
of methodologies is then required as well as identifying the key
aspects that should be explored to incorporate in an integrated
form the four main pillars. It means that standardised social impact
categories are required, to obtain a systematic view of social sus-
tainability. Systematic approaches will be further required to vali-
date the proposed impact categories, bridging research with
practitioners’ activities.
7.3. Social Analysis Focus
Researchers have been mainly transposing the traditional
environmental impact assessment approaches to the analysis of
social sustainability. Despite the good effort, many social aspects
are far from traditional environmental aspects. Social aspects are
difficult to define and, therefore, difficult to analyse, leading to
wicked problems. Thus, social sustainability requires innovation, so
that methodologies should be applied to identify the best way for
social welfare promotion. Innovation in this scenario involves
27
reinventing and not necessarily develops new technologies. It im-
plies the positive social impact that can be offered by changes in
paradigms to make the supply chain more sustainable and not only
less unsustainable as it has been presented. Definitely, it requires
investment in control methods to make it fairer, more ethical, with
better working conditions, human rights, and life quality, and
further improve local development. To achieve such knowledge,
multidisciplinary teams should be used. Some researchers are
already trying to bring together different fields to collaborate to-
wards this goal, but there is a long way to go. Nevertheless, this
path is already taking shape with the growing literature on the role
and influence of NGOs in Corporate Social Responsibility towards a
sustainable supply chain.
7.4. Supply Chain Entities
Supply chains have been mainly studied in terms of scattered
entities. A holistic perspective involving different tiers from raw
material extraction until the return or elimination of materials has
not yet been fully analysed. Researchers have been mainly studying
social concerns essentially at the upstream supply chain level. It is
also missing the integration of external stakeholders, in the SSC
research. The relationship between external, secondary
28 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
stakeholders and SC entities exploring society aspects has been
almost neglected and lead to limited social sustainability integra-
tion in the SC. Collaboration between entities turns to be a critical
path for further research. It is important that the applied meth-
odologies consider generic supply chains to balance the TBL of
sustainability. This opens a wide research area, where CLSC is a
cornerstone as well as global networks involving the collaboration
of different sectors SCs.
7.5. Traceability and Transparency
Communication and Information Technologies have an impor-
tant role in improving the transparency giving visibility to all stages
of production, from the raw material extraction to the product's
end-of-life. Several studies have pointed out the increasing use of
technological tools as they play an important role to identify the
main gaps and simultaneously capable of resolving the problems
related to noncompliance of the codes of conduct. The studies have
not yet deepened the theme but point out the need and the
importance of using the technological resources available for the
shared information system development. For example, recent
research focuses on Big Data, Data Mining, Artificial Intelligence,
Internet-of-things (IoT) and information management to increase
transparency not only to fill the gaps but also to prevent social non-
compliances. Further investigation is required to identify the best
technological tools that can integrate all the stakeholders to bring a
collaborative network with strong commitments for a sustainable
supply chain.
7.6. Uncertainty and Risk
The growing attention on Risk and Uncertainty analysis on the
social dimension of sustainability appears as a reaction of external
stakeholders’ pressure. To get a better insight into the factors like
Uncertainty and Risk, a holistically view on all tiers of the supply
chain is required and this approach has been growing its impor-
tance in the past years. It is seen that the focus of the processes
governing risk and uncertainty has not been on the topic of the
social dimension, but rather on aspects related to the broader
context of sustainability of an organisation, especially related to the
codes of conduct. There is a consensus that noncompliance risks
affect not only the internal environment but society in general. Still,
there is a need for more attention to social impacts assessment and
the development of efficient tools to assess risks and uncertainties
in the social dimension. Tools that may result in proper monitoring
of compliance of the conduct codes.
7.7. Activity sector
The results regarding SC activity sector verify that authors are
mainly focused on a reduced set of sectors. Usually, these are the
sectors that suffer tremendous pressure from external stakeholders
(e.g. governments through laws, NGOs, consumers through public
opinion). The example of these sectors are the cases of
manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fishing. The results also
suggest that the research lacks the comparison of different sectors.
To tackle this problem, maybe, an analysis of different SCs in various
sectors is required to establish common grounds of social sustain-
ability between all supply chain. Additionally, specific aspects of
different sectors should also be identified to create global guide-
lines to build social sustainability networks. This path is critical to
establish a global circular economy, where wastes from one SC
could be used as inputs by another supply chain.
7.8. Companies’ dimension
The research published has been mainly focused on social sus-
tainability in big companies. SME's have not been the focus of
studies. A few researchers have made some attempts to understand
the particularities of SMEs. However, an analysis of the real inter-
action and coordination between big companies and SMEs is still
missing. Thus, the role of the big players in the SCs should be
investigated to provide insights on their influence and how they are
influenced by the SME's in the process of achieving social sus-
tainable social SC. This area of research is requiring much more
effort and opens a wide range of possibilities to explore specificities
of SME's social aspects and stakeholder's collaboration.
7.9. Geographic Location
As mentioned before, most of the articles published in social
sustainability for SCs has been mainly presented by developed
countries. This was expected as these countries have economic
stability that allows them to tackle environmental and social as-
pects. This fact is not a non-desirable situation, but the problem
arises when analysing the case studies application presented by
these countries. The problem is the presented case studies are
contemplating companies located in the authors’ affiliation loca-
tion. In other words, the countries that lack social sustainability
practices such as Africa, Asia, South America are not being part of
social sustainable SC analysis. It is critical to include the analysis of
the SC considering a worldwide integration to achieve global sus-
tainability. Note that most of the problems that companies have
been facing regarding social sustainability are mainly related to
their supply chain internal stakeholders that are located in under-
developed countries. Therefore, the study of social sustainability on
entities located in underdeveloped countries open a vital research
line that should be followed at a high pace.
7.9.1. Future directions
After analysing the trends and gaps presented in Fig. 18, it is now
possible to present the main research avenues to follow in this area.
Such research areas are schematised in the Framework (Fig. 19).
Next steps should be taken to extend the social dimension incor-
poration into a sustainable supply chain. The basis is the four main
aspects of the social dimension (Human rights, Labor Practices and
decent work, Society, Product Responsibility).
Departing from the previous framework, the following research
lines should be considered:
(1) Identifying the relationship between the three sustainability
dimensions is essential. It is crucial to propose tools that
integrate the three pillars of sustainability, highlighting the
social aspects. These tools should consider the different en-
tities of the SC, creating a holistic view towards
sustainability.
(2) The four social aspects should be addressed together. There
are several indicators for each aspect, but there is no
consensus and standardization on how to identify, measure
and control best practices for social sustainability. It is a fact
that social aspects are difficult to quantify because many of
them have an inherent subjectivity. The number of social
articles employing quantitative approaches is still scarce.
Effective and practical development of social indicators/
metrics along the chain should be pursued. Since the existent
indicators are mainly qualitative indicators, it would be
important to apply Decision Analysis Methods to create an
integrated assessment method, where different criteria
would be considered accounting for the different entities
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500 29

Fig. 19. Framework defining a social sustainability future research agenda.

view. Without quantitative measurements, implementation
of social issues cannot be monitored and therefore social
sustainability strategies will probably not be fully
implemented.
(3) There is no standard on how to address Social Analysis. CSR
arises as an important path for corporate sustainability
commitment definitions and may help to define the social
sustainability concepts, but there is a need to explore
different focuses of analysis to implement the strategy better.
Therefore, it is recommended that CSR strategies should be
assessed and monitored through Social-LCA and Social Car-
bon footprint methodologies. Nowadays, these methodolo-
gies are the most quantitative tools available in the literature.
However, if new quantitative tools are proposed in the
literature, they should be integrated with the CSR. Summa-
rizing, CSR should be the starting point of social imple-
mentation, defining the strategy to follow and it should be
combined with quantitative methodologies that can assess
social aspects.
(4) Based on the results, the first and second tiers are the most
addressed entities of the SC, but the in-depth analysis is yet
to be performed. There is a need to look on different tiers
considering an integrated holistic view that identifies the
role of each one in the chain. Data and information access are
a limitation to achieve a holistic perspective. Databases, such
as Hotspot Database (Norris et al., 2014) and Psilca (Ciroth
and Eisfeldt, 2015), which compile social aspects informa-
tion are key aspects towards a more integrative study of the
SC. Moreover, new technologies are a means to collect a huge
amount of data available online. The integration of the new
technologies in social sustainability assessment would make
it possible to collect and analyse secondary data from the
multiple tiers of the SC, allowing a more holist assessment of
the SC.
30 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
(5) New technologies such as Data Mining, Robotic Process
Automation and Machine Learning Platforms arise as
important tools and should be explored to help managers
taking effective measures in the social dimension of sus-
tainability. It is an efficient way of accessing the supply chain
status as traceability and transparency tools. These technol-
ogies could help to identify non-compliances in the SC, to
make predictions and to manage risks with high levels of
confidence.
(6) Identifying the social impact, risks and uncertainties along
the chain are important issues to manage the social dimen-
sion better. The selection of tools for assessment and analysis
should consider as main criteria as the capacity to see chain
multi-tiers allow a better evaluation of the interrelation of
uncertainties and risks between the different entities.
Monte-Carlo simulation, scenario analysis and stochastic
multi-criteria analysis are good methodologies to analyse
uncertainty in Social sustainability assessment further.
Regarding risk, risk matrices are a good way of communi-
cating the risks associated with the social assessment in the
different entities.
(7) The sectors with high exposure to social scandals have been
addressed in the literature however, the studies of different
sectors is a major opportunity to learn what are the foremost
common drivers and barriers in incorporating social sus-
tainability practices, identify the best practices in different
sector and cross-relate them. For example, the service sector
with a high economic impact should be explored.
(8) Many studies have been addressing the importance of SME's
on the supply chain, but few studies are addressing the SMEs
impact on social sustainability in large companies and the
impact of these large companies in SMEs growth and social
sustainability development. These interconnections between
companies should be explored.
(9) There are different maturity stages on social aspects,
considering the differences between developed and unde-
veloped countries that impact on measurement results along
the global SC and it is crucial to define a global index to
identify the actions that could promote the equality. Also, it is
essential to highlight that Social assessment in developing
countries has additional challenges and due to the social
problems, that sometimes occur are even more relevant.
Studying social aspects in developing countries implies the
development of methodologies that promote the fieldwork
in terms of data collection, education and monitoring and
becomes a relevant research area to be explored. Such
research lines should explore multi-disciplinary approaches
applied to diverse sectors from where generic managerial
insights should be perceived. Not only qualitative approaches
but also quantitative ones should be pursued to build tools
that may support decision makers when working towards
Sustainable Supply Chains.
7.9.2. Implications for theory and practice
This study points out some implications for sustainability
management, especially the social aspect, but also shows ways for
future research. There has been a concern in classifying the
developed studies and identifying the approaches that were out-
lined over the past few years to bring some insights into the future.
While research has taken important steps to promote sustainabil-
ity, there is still a long way to manage resources better and optimise
production processes. The three dimensions have not been
addressed equally but each one as a slice of whole SC. The previous
analysis shows that there is a close relationship between
environmental and social issues. CSR and sustainability commit-
ments are present in the majority of the studies carried out and
claim for transparency in all activities along the chain. This has a
positive impact as it provides an opportunity for managers to
expand their corporate sustainability strategies on the different
tiers, inbound and outbound, not only in reactive actions but pro-
actively and holistically.
Considering the Apparel and Food/Agri-food sectors are the
most frequent when related to the Social Dimension of Sustain-
ability it reinforces the need to deepen studies to improve man-
agement practices. It is a way to minimise identified and unsolved
problems. This is a critical path for future research that requires a
deep understanding of the sectors and their different tiers in the
supply chain. In this regard, it is crucial to combine management
tools with the new communication and information technology
tools that can identify with greater assertiveness where the prob-
lems related to sustainability exist. For example, in the apparel and
food industry (most cited), the use of toxic products (pesticides and
paints) is still a problem in one of the early stages of production. In
addition, to be categorised as a serious environmental problem, due
to water and soil pollution, it is also a social and public health
problem because it poses a risk of intoxication for workers and
communities (soil and water). One of the fundamental questions
may arise - How to solve these problems? Collaborations appear as
an important issue as well as shared responsibility along the chain.
It could be a way to develop a decision-making strategy to involve
all stakeholders in diagnosing the gaps along the chain working
together to solve them. This is a challenge for future studies and can
benefit companies to expand their knowledge in the sustainability
field.
Finally, areas with low visibility have not been addressed and
the social impact is high, especially in the case of underdeveloped
countries. What is the first stage of the chain where the raw ma-
terial comes from? Is it possible to identify all stages and stake-
holders along this chain? How is the control made? Is there any
control? These are questions related to the framework for future
research agenda that should be answered to understand the social
dimension of sustainability better and promote the equality on
Triple-bottom-line (see Fig. 19).
8. Conclusions
The present research aimed to analyse recent publications
(2008e2018) on social sustainability in SCs, aiming to provide an
integrated view that organises and systematises the prevailing
concepts in the literature.
The methodology applied, explores a cross-analysis between
categories supported by a detailed analysis of the papers and the
use of N-Vivo software. This allows a comprehensive analysis on the
topics analysed permitting the identification the main categories of
the study and how these should relate and should be explored in
future research.
The results have shown various trends and patterns in data
extracted from the content analyses performed. The main conclu-
sions can be stated as: (1) the recent growth of the social sustain-
ability publications; (2) consolidated and robust association of the
environmental dimension of sustainability with the sustainability
concept itself (note that the economic dimension was taken as
intrinsic); (3) the predominance of qualitative and exploratory
methodologies in the social articles; (4) higher contribution in the
publication of social articles from researchers working in developed
continents; (5) prevalence of case studies in social articles devel-
oped in large-sized organisations and sectors subject to regle-
mentary pressures; (6) growth on CSR studies with an increasing
role of secondary stakeholders, mainly NGOs, as protagonists in
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
identifying and solving problems related to sustainability in supply
chains; (7) a trend was shown presenting a multi-tier perspective
from raw materials to consumers; (8) the risk analysis was also
observed in a sociological perspective primarily related to human
rights and labour conditions; (9) new technologies appear as
essential tools to increase traceability and transparency along the
chain improving the control, reducing the noncompliance risk.
This study also provides several suggestions for future research,
highlighting the importance of the social sustainability dimension
in achieving sustainable supply chains. The reason for this focus is
that organisations with successful social sustainability policies and
practices can bring significant benefits to their stakeholders and
society, in general.
To sum up, the analysis and findings of this research point out
for the need of further studies exploring the growing concern of
integrating sustainability in SCs, without underestimating the
importance of the social dimension. In particular, the holistic
approach presented in this review should be further explored as it
as potential to drive future research in the area. A holistic view of
the supply chains still needs to be pursued where multi-tier ap-
proaches should be explored to support collaboration amongst the
tiers promoting traceability and transparency along the chain to
guarantee the inclusion of the four social dimensions (human
rights; product responsibility; labour conditions and society). This
is crucial to provide a solid background in which organisations can
seek support when engaging in the process of implementing the
three dimensions of sustainability along their SCs.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from:
CNPq e National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel-
opment (under Grants 247671/2013-4GDE); and Portuguese Na-
tional Science Foundation (FCT) through the projects PTDC/AGR-
FOR/2178/2014 and P2020 under the project PTDC/EGEOGE/
28071/2017, Lisboa 01.0145-Feder-28071.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.331.
References
Abbasi, M., 2017. Towards socially sustainable supply chains e themes and chal-
lenges. Eur. Bus. Rev. 29 (3), 261e303. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2016-
0045.
€
Adivar, B., Atan, T., Oflaç, B.S., Orten, T., 2010. Improving social welfare chain using
optimal planning model. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 15 (4), 290e305.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2015a. Assessing sustainability in the supply chain: a triple bot-
tom line approach. Appl. Math. Model. 39, 2882e2896.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2015b. Measuring social issues in sustainable supply chains.
Measuring Business Excellence 19 (1), 33e45.
Ahmadi, H.B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Rezaei, J., 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of
supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 99e106.
Akan, M.O.A., Dhavale, D.G., Sarkis, J., 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions in the con-
struction industry: an analysis and evaluation of a concrete supply chain.
Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 1195e1207.
Ali, S.M., Alam, M.I., Bhowmick, S., 2012. Organizational design in the context of
supply chain sustainability: A conceptual model. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2, 1141e1154.
Almahmoud, E., Doloi, H.K., 2015. Assessment of social sustainability in construction
projects using social network analysis. Facilities 33 (3/4), 152e176.
Alsamawi, A., Murray, J., Lenzen, M., Reyes, R.C., 2017. Trade in occupational safety
and health: tracing the embodied human and economic harm in labour along
the global supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 147, 187e196.
Andersen, M., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2009. Corporate social responsibility in global
supply chains. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 14 (2), 75e86.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., Hudson-Smith, M., 2012. Making connections: a review of
supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manag.:
Int. J. 17 (5), 497e516.
Aßla€nder, M., Roloff, J., Nayır, D.Z., 2016. Suppliers as stewards? Managing social
31
standards in first- and second-tier suppliers. J. Bus. Ethics 139, 661e683.
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., Gold, S., 2018. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier se-
lection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195,
106e117.
Awudu, I., Zhang, J., 2012. Uncertainties and sustainability concepts in biofuel
supply chain management: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16,
1359e1368.
Azevedo, S., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. Influence of green and
lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 59 (4), 753e765.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Ferreira, L.M., Matias, J.C.O., 2016. A proposed frame-
work to assess upstream supply chain sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19
(6), 2253e2273.
Babu, D.E., Kaur, A., Rajendran, C., 2017. Sustainability practices in tourism supply
chain: importance performance analysis. Benchmarking Int. J. 25 (4),
1148e1170. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2016-0084.
Babu, S., Mohan, U., 2018. An integrated approach to evaluating sustainability in
supply chains using evolutionary game theory. Comput. Oper. Res. 89, 269e283.
Baden, D., Harwood, I.A., Woodward, D.G., 2011. The effects of procurement policies
on 'downstream' corporate social responsibility activity: content-analytic in-
sights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. Int. Small Bus. J. 29
(3), 259e277.
Banterle, A., Cereda, E., Fritz, M., 2013. Labelling and sustainability in food supply
networks. Br. Food J. 115 (5), 769e783.
Barbosa-Po
voa, A.P., Silva, C., Carvalho, A., 2018. Opportunities and challenges in
sustainable supply chain: an operations research perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
268, 399e431.
Basta, M., Lapalme, L., Paquet, M., Saint - Louis, P., Zwaida, T.A., 2018. How are
supply chains addressing their social responsibility dilemmas? Review of the
last decade and a half. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25, 833e843.
Bastian, J., Zentes, J., 2013. Supply chain transparency as a key prerequisite for
sustainable agri-food supply chain management. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Con-
sum. Res. 23 (5), 553e570.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., Moneva, J.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting and
reputation risk management. Account. Audit. Account. J. 21 (3), 337e361.
Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D., Iakovou, E., 2017. Sustainable supply chain
management in the digitalisation era: the impact of Automated Guided Vehi-
cles. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 3970e3984.
Beitzen-Heineke, E.F., Balta-Ozkan, N., Reefke, H., 2017. The prospects of zero-
packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of
the food supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 1528e1541.
Benoît, C., Norris, G., Valdivia, S., 2010. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment
of products: just in time! Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2), 156e163.
Berning, A., Venter, C., 2015. Sustainable supply chain engagement in a retail
environment. Sustainability 7, 6246e6263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7056246.
Beske, P., Koplin, J., Seuring, S., 2008. The use of environmental and social standards
by German first-tier suppliers of the volkswagen AG. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 15, 63e75. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.136.
Bostro€m, M., Jo€ nsson, A.M., Lockie, S., Mol, A.P.J., Oosterveer, P., 2015. Sustainable
and responsible supply chain governance: challenges and opportunities. Journal
of Cleaner Production 107, 1e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.050.
Bouchery, Y., Ghaffari, A., Jemai, Z., Dallery, Y., 2012. Including sustainability criteria
into inventory models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 222, 229e240.
Brandenburg, M., Rebs, T., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling
perspective. Annals of Operational Research 229, 213e252.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 233, 299e312.
Brockhaus, S., Fawcett, S., Kersten, W., Knemeyer, M., 2016. A framework for
benchmarking product sustainability efforts. Benchmarking Int. J. 23 (1),
127e164.
Burritt, R., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Accounting towards sustainability in production
and supply chains. Br. Account. Rev. 46, 327e343.
Busse, C., 2016. Doing well by doing good? The self-interest of buying firms and
sustainable supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 52 (2), 28e47.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Niu, M., Wagner, S.M., 2016. Supplier development for
sustainability: contextual barriers in global supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 46 (5), 442e468.
Cambero, C., Sowlati, T., 2016. Incorporating social benefits in multi-objective
optimization of forest-based bioenergy and biofuel supply chains. Appl. En-
ergy 178, 721e735.
Carter, C., Easton, L., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and
future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (1), 46e62. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09600031111101420.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5e6),
360e387.
Cerchione, R., Esposito, E., 2016. A systematic review of supply chain knowledge
management research: state of the art and research opportunities. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 182, 276e292.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., Paquet, M., 2012. Designing supply chains with sus-
tainability considerations. Prod. Plan. Control: Manag. Oper. 22 (8), 727e741.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.543554.
Chen, S., Zhang, Q., Zhou, Y.-P., 2018. Impact of supply chain transparency on sus-
tainability under NGO scrutiny. Prod. Oper. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/
32 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
poms.12973.
Chen, Z., Pei, L., 2018. Inter-basin water transfer green supply chain equilibrium and
coordination under social welfare maximization. Sustainability 10, 1229.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041229.
Chkanikova, O., 2016. Sustainable purchasing in food retailing: interorganizational
relationship management to green product supply. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 25,
478e494.
Choi, T., Linton, T., 2011. Don't let your supply chain control your business. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 89 (12), 112e118.
Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Caridi, M., Gosling, J., Purvis, L., 2018. Integrating the envi-
ronmental and social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain
management paradigms: a literature review and future research directions.
Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 2336e2350.
Ciliberti, F., De Haan, J., De Groot, G., Pontrandolfo, P., 2011. CSR codes and the
principal-agent problem in supply chains: four case studies. Journal of Cleaner
Production 19 (8), 885e894.
Ciroth, A., Eisfeldt, F., 2015. A new, comprehensive database for social LCA: PSILCA.
In: Indian Conference on Life Cycle Management. 14-15, September, 2015. FICCI,
New Delhi, India. In: http://www.indialca.com/pdf/ilcm-2015-proceedings.pdf.
Closs, D., Speier, C., Meacham, N., 2011. Sustainability to support end-to-end value
chains: the role of supply chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 101e116.
Costa, Y., Duarte, A., Sarache, W., 2017. A decisional simulation-optimization
framework for sustainable facility location of a biodiesel plant in Colombia.
J. Clean. Prod. 167, 174e191.
Croom, S., Vidal, N., Spetic, W., Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., 2018. Impact of social
sustainability orientation and supply chain practices on operational perfor-
mance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38 (12), 2344e2366. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-03-2017-0180.
Cruz, J.M., 2009. The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain
management: multicriteria decision-making approach. Decis. Support Syst. 48
(1), 224e236.
Cruz, J.M., 2013. Mitigating global supply chain risks through corporate social re-
sponsibility. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (13), 3995e4010.
 
Cu cek, L., Klemes, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A Review of Footprint analysis tools for
monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 34, 9e20.
Da Giau, A., Macchion, L., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Danese, P., Rinaldi, R., Vinelli, A.,
2016. Sustainability practices and web-based communication: an analysis of the
Italian fashion industry. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 20 (1), 72e88.
Darmanata, J., Somohano, C., Saad, S., Perera, P., 2010. A sustainability value system
principle for a global supply chain. In: Responsive Manufacturing-Green
Manufacturing (ICRM 2010), 5th International Conference, pp. 329e334.
Das, R., Shaw, K., 2017. Uncertain supply chain network design considering carbon
footprint and social factors using two-stage approach. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 19, 2491e2519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1446-6.
Devika, K., Jafarian, A., Nourbakhsh, V., 2014. Designing a sustainable closed-loop
supply chain network based on triple bottom line approach: a comparison of
metaheuristics hybridization techniques. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235, 594e615.
Ding, H., Wang, L., Zheng, L., 2018. Collaborative mechanism on profit allotment and
public health for a sustainable supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 267, 478e495.
Distelhorst, G., Hainmueller, J., Locke, R.M., 2017. Does lean improve labor stan-
dards? Management and social performance in the nike supply chain. Manag.
Sci. 63 (3), 707e728. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2369.
Elkington, J., 1997. ” Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Busines”s. Capstone, Oxford.
Eriksson, D., Svensson, G., 2015. Elements affecting social responsibility in supply
chains. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 20 (5), 561e566.
Eriksson, D., Svensson, G., 2016. The process of responsibility, decoupling point, and
disengagement of moral and social responsibility in supply chains: empirical
findings and prescriptive thoughts. J. Bus. Ethics 134, 281e298.
European Commission, 2008. NACE Rev. 2 e Statistical Classification of Economic
Activities in the European Community. Eurostat Methodologies and Working
Papers, 63e92.
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the Euro-
pean Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions: A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for
Corporate Social Responsibility (Brussels).
Fayet, L., Vermeulen, W.J.V., 2014. Supporting smallholders to access sustainable
supply chains: lessons from the Indian cotton supply chain. Sustain. Dev. 22,
289e310.
Feng, Y., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-H., 2017. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain
management: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production 158, 296e307.
Foerstl, K., Meinlschmidt, J., Busse, C., 2018. It's a match! Choosing information
processing mechanisms to address sustainability-related uncertainty in sus-
tainable supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24, 204e217.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Managing supplier sustain-
ability risks in a dynamically changing environmentdsustainable supplier
management in the chemical industry. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 16, 118e130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.03.011.
Fontana, E., Egels-Zande
n, N., 2017. Non sibi, sed omnibus: influence of supplier
collective behaviour on corporate social responsibility in the Bangladeshi
apparel supply chain. J. Bus. Ethics. ISSN 1573-0697. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-018-3828-z.
Formentini, M., Taticchi, P., 2016. Corporate sustainability approaches and gover-
nance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner
Production 112, 1920e1933.
Forsman-Hugg, S., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Riipi, I., M€
akel€ €rvel€
a, J., Ja a, K., Timonen, P., 2013.
Key CSR dimensions for the food chain. Br. Food J. 115 (1), 30e47.
Freise, M., Seuring, S., 2015. Social and environmental risk management in supply
chains: a survey in the clothing industry. Logistics Research 8 (1), 1e12. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12159-015-0121-8.
Galaskiewicz, J., 2011. Studying supply chains from a social network perspective.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 47 (1), 4e8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.
03209.x.
Gardetti, M., Muthu, S., 2015. Sustainable apparel? Is the innovation in the business
model? - the case of IOU Project. Textiles and Clothing Sustainability 1 (2).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-015-0003-0.
Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., Marescotti, M.E., Demartini, E., Pirani, A., 2016. The social
pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level. Agricultural
and Food Economics 4 (15), 2e19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0059-4.
Giannakis, M., Papadopoulus, T., 2016. Supply chain sustainability: a risk manage-
ment approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 455e470.
Giunipero, L., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply management
sustainability: drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18, 258e269.
Gold, S., Heikkurinen, P., 2013. Corporate responsibility, supply chain management
and strategy. Journal of Global Responsibility 4 (2), 276e291.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010a. Sustainable supply chain management and
inter-organizational resources. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (4),
230e245.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010b. The constructs of sustainable supply chain
management e a content analysis based on published case studies. Progress in
Industrial Ecology, An International Journal 7 (2), 114e137.
Gold, S., Trautrims, A., Trodd, Z., 2015. Modern slavery challenges to supply chain
management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 20 (5), 485e494.
Gonela, V., Zhang, J., Osmani, A., Onyeaghala, R., 2015. Stochastic optimization of
sustainable hybrid generation bioethanol supply chains. Transp. Res. Part E 77,
1e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.02.008.
Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., Ambursa, H.M., 2012. Sus-
tainable supply chain management: a case study of British Aerospace (BAe)
Systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 193e203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2012.01.003.
Gould, R., Missimer, M., Mesquita, P.L., 2017. Using social sustainability principles to
analyse activities of the extraction lifecycle phase: learnings from designing
support for concept selection. Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (1), 267e276.
Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Nourbakhsh, V., 2018. Designing a sustainable supply
chain network integrated with vehicle routing: a comparison of hybrid swarm
intelligence metaheuristics. Comput. Oper. Res. 110, 220e235. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.013.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014a. Impact of supply
chain management practices on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 85,
212e225.
Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Khodaverdi, R., Devika, K., 2014b. Two-echelon multiple-
vehicle locationerouting problem with time windows for optimization of sus-
tainable supply chain network of perishable food. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 9e28.
Govindan, K., Seuring, S., Zhu, Q., Azevedo, S.G., 2016. Accelerating the transition
towards sustainability dynamics into supply chain relationship management
and governance structures. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1813e1823.
GRI - Global Reporting Initiative, 2011. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines - Version
3.1, pp. 30e39.
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S., Sarkis, J., 2013. Critical factors for sub-supplier man-
agement: a sustainable food supply chains perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152,
159e173.
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S., Sarkis, J., 2016. Exploring sub-suppliers' compliance
with corporate sustainability standards. Journal of Cleaner Production 112,
1971e1984.
Grob, S., Benn, S., 2014. Conceptualising the adoption of sustainable procurement:
an institutional. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 21 (1), 11e21. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14486563.2013.878259.
Gualandris, J., Golini, R., Kalchschmidt, M., 2014. Do supply management and global
sourcing matter for firm sustainability performance? Supply Chain Manag.: Int.
J. 19 (3), 258e274.
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R.D., Gualandris, J., Vachon, S., Kalchschmidt, M., 2015.
Sustainable evaluation and verification in supply chains: aligning and
leveraging accountability to stakeholders. J. Oper. Manag. 38, 1e13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.06.002.
Guide, D.R., 2018. Socially responsible supply chains in emerging markets: some
research opportunities. J. Oper. Manag. 57, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2018.01.002.
Gupta, S., Chen, H., Hazen, B.T., Kaur, S., Gonzalez, E.D.R.S., 2018. Circular economy
and big data analytics: a stakeholder perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
144, 466e474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.030.
Gutierrez, T., Morgan, S.K., 2015. The influence of the Sustainable Seafood Move-
ment in the US and UK capture fisheries supply chain and fisheries governance.
Frontiers in Marine Science 2, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00072.
H2020 - Strategy Report, 2016. Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council. Annual Report on Research and Technological
Development Activities of the European Union and Monitoring of Horizon 2020
in 2016. European Commission. https://era.gv.at/object/document/3718. Access
at February 06-2018.
Haghighi, S.M., Torabi, S.A., Ghasemi, R., 2016. An integrated approach for
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case
study). Journal of Cleaner Production 137, 579e597.
Hannibal, C., Kauppi, K., 2018. Third party social sustainability assessment: is it a
multi-tier supply chain solution? Int. J. Prod. Econ. ISSN 0925-5273. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.030.
Harms, D., Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2013. Strategies in sustainable supply chain
management: an empirical investigation ofLarge German companies. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20, 205e218. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1293.
Hasan, A.H., Avami, A., 2018. Comparative assessment of bioethanol supply chain:
insights from Iran. Biofuels. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1496385.
Hediger, W., 2010. Welfare and capital-theoretic foundations of corporate social
responsibility and corporate sustainability. J. Socio Econ. 39, 518e526.
How, B., Lam, H., 2018. Sustainability evaluation for biomass supply chain synthesis:
novel principal component analysis (PCA) aided optimisation approach. Journal
of Cleaner Production 189, 941e961.
Hsu, C.-C., Tan, K.C., Zailani, S.H.M., Jayaraman, V., 2013. Supply chain drivers that
foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 33 (6), 656e688.
Hsueh, C.-F., 2014. Improving corporate social responsibility in a supply chain
through a new revenue sharing contract. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 151, 214e222.
Hsueh, C.-F., 2015. A bilevel programming model for corporate social responsibility
collaboration in sustainable supply chain management. Transp. Res. Part E 73,
84e95.
Huang, S.H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., Hou, L., 2013. Additive manufacturing and its
societal impact: a literature review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67, 1191e1203.
Huq, F.A., Stevenson, M., Zorzini, M., 2014. Social sustainability in developing
country suppliers. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34 (5), 610e638.
Hussain, M., Ajmal, M.M., Gunasekaran, A., Khan, M., 2018. Exploration of social
sustainability in healthcare supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 203,
977e989.
Hutchins, M.J., Sutherland, J.W., 2008. An exploration of measures of social sus-
tainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16 (15), 1688e1698.
Iribarren, D., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Hospido, A., 2010. Estimation of the carbon footprint
of the Galician fishing activity (NW Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 408 (22),
5284e5294.
Isaksson, R., Johansson, P., Fischer, K., 2010. Detecting supply chain innovation po-
tential for sustainable development. J. Bus. Ethics 97, 425e442, 0.1007/s10551-
010-0516-z.
Jacob-John, J., 2018. Adherence to responsibility in organic dry food supply chains.
Eur. Bus. Rev. 30 (1), 26e37. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-01-2016-0025.
Jadhav, A., Orr, S., Malik, M., 2018. The role of supply chain orientation in achieving
supply chain sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. ISSN 0925-5273. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.031.
Jia, F., Zuluaga-Cardona, L., Bailey, A., Rueda, X., 2018. Sustainable supply chain
management in developing countries: an analysis of the literature. Journal of
Cleaner Production 189, 263e278.
Karaosman, H., Morales-Alonso, G., Brun, A., 2016. From a systematic literature
review to a classification framework: sustainability integration in fashion op-
erations. Sustainability 9, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010030.
Karmali, F.P., Borges, J.A.R., Osseweijer, P., Posada, J.A., 2018. Towards social sus-
tainability: screening potential social and governance issues for biojet fuel
supply chains in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 50e61.
Kaur, A., Sharma, P.C., 2018. Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian
Manufacturers. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 20, 1707e1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10668-017-9961-5.
Khan, M., Hussain, M., Saber, H.M., 2016. Information sharing in a sustainable
supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 208e214.
Khurana, K., Ricchetti, M., 2016. Two decades of sustainable supply chain man-
agement in the fashion business, an appraisal. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 20 (1),
89e104.
Kogg, B., Mont, O., 2012. Environmental and social responsibility in supply chains:
the practise of choice and inter-organisational management. Ecol. Econ. 83,
154e163.
Koh, S.C.L., Gunasekaran, A., Tseng, C.S., 2012. Cross-tier ripple and indirect effects
of directives WEEE and RoHS on greening a supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140
(1), 305e317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.008.
Koh, S.C.L., Gunasekaran, A., Morris, J., Obayi, R., Ebrahimi, S.M., 2017. Conceptual-
izing a circular framework of supply chain resource sustainability. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 37 (10), 1520e1540. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2016-0078.
Ko€ksal, D., Stra€hle, J., Müller, M., Freise, M., 2017. Social sustainable supply chain
management in the textile and apparel industry - a literature review. Sustain-
ability 9, 100.
Ko€ksal, D. Stra €hle, Müller, M., 2018. Social sustainability in apparel supply
chainsdthe role of the sourcing intermediary in a developing country. Sus-
tainability 10, 1039. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041039.
Kolk, A., 2013. Mainstreaming sustainable coffee. Sustain. Dev. 21, 324e337.
Kot, S., 2018. Sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enter-
prises. Sustainability 10, 1143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041143.
Kova
cs, G., 2008. Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain.
Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1571e1578.
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C., Bardecki, M., 2015. Corporate sustainability reporting in
the apparel industry. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 64 (3), 377e397.
Kühnen, M., Hahn, R., 2018. Systemic social performance measurement: systematic
literature review and explanations on the academic status quo from a product
33
life-cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 205, 690e705.
Kull, T.J., Ellis, S.C., Narasimhan, R., 2013. Reducing behavioral constrain to supplier
integration: a socio-technical systems perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 41
(1), 64.
Lalwani, S.K., Nunes, B., Chicksand, D., Boojihawon, K.D., 2018. Benchmarking self-
declared social sustainability initiatives in cocoa sourcing. Benchmarking Int.
J. 25 (9), 986e4008. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0186.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 29 (1), 65e83.
Lee, C.K.M., Lam, J.S.L., 2012. Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of
industrial marketing. Ind. Mark. Manag. 41 (4), 589e598. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.006.
Lee, H.L., 2010. Radically reinvent your supply chain - don't tweak your supply chain
rethink it end to end. Harv. Bus. Rev. 88 (10), 62e70.
Lee, J., Gereffi, G., 2015. Global value chains, rising power firms and economic and
social upgrading. Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus. 11 (3/4), 319e339.
Lee, T., Kashmanian, R., 2013. Supply chain sustainability: compliance - and per-
formance based - based tools. Environ. Qual. Manag. 22 (4), 1e23. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tqem.21340.
Lehmann, R., Hermansen, J.E., Fritz, M., Brinkmann, D., Trienekens, J., Schiefer, G.,
2011. Information services for European pork chains e closing gaps in infor-
mation infrastructures. Comput. Electron. Agric. 79, 125e136.
Lemke, F., Petersen, H., 2013. Teaching reputational risk management in the supply
chain. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 18 (4), 413e429.
Leppelt, T., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., 2013a. Corporate social responsibility in buyer-
supplier relationships: is it beneficial for top- tier suppliers to market their
capability to ensure a responsible supply chain? , BuR - Business Research 6 (2),
126e152.
Leppelt, T., Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., 2013b. Sustainability management
beyond organizational boundariese sustainable supplier relationship manage-
ment in the chemical industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 94e102.
Letizia, P., Hendrikse, G., 2016. Supply chain structure incentives for corporate social
responsibility: an incomplete contracting analysis. Prod. Oper. Manag. 25 (11),
1919e1941.
Levesque, P.J., 2012. Book highlight? Building resilience and sustainability into the
Chinese supply chain. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 31 (3),
69e83.
Li, D., Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Manzini, R., 2014a. Sustainable food supply chain
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.
003.
Li, Q., Shen, B., 2016. Sustainable design operations in the supply chain: non-profit
manufacturer vs. For-profit manufacturer. Sustainability 8 (7), 639. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su8070639.
Li, Y., Ni, D., Xiao, Z., Tang, X., 2017. Signaling product quality information in supply
chains via corporate social responsibility choices. Sustainability 11 (9), 2113.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112113.
Li, Y., Zhao, X., Shi, D., Li, X., 2014b. Governance of sustainable supply chains in the
fast fashion industry. Eur. Manag. J. 32, 823e836.
Liu, S., Kasturiratne, D., Moizer, J., 2012. A hub-and-spoke model for multi-
dimensional integration of green marketing and sustainable supply chain
management. Ind. Mark. Manag. 4, 581e588.
Lobsiger-Ka €gi, E., Lo
pez, L., Kuehn, T., Roth, R., Carabias, V., 2018. Social life cycle
assessment: specific approach and case study for Switzerland. Sustainability 10,
4382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124382.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2e3), 99e107.
Macchion, L., Da Giau, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Danese, P., Rinaldi, R., Vinelli, A.,
2018. Strategic approaches to sustainability in fashion supply chain manage-
ment. Prod. Plan. Control 29 (1), 9e28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2017.1374485.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., 2018. Four forces of supply chain social sustainability
adoption in emerging economies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 199, 150e161.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Delgado, C., 2018a. Enhancing supply chain performance
through supplier social sustainability: an emerging economy perspective. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 195, 259e272.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Delgado, C., 2018b. Supply chain social sustainability:
standard adoption practices in Portuguese manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 198, 149e164.
Mani, V., Agarwal, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., 2016.
Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and mea-
surement validation. Ecol. Indicat. 71, 270e279.
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., Sharma, V., 2015. Social sustainability in the supply chain:
analysis of enablers. Management Research Review 38 (9), 1016e1042.
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., McGrath, P., 2014. Environmental and social
supply chain management sustainability practices: construct development and
measurement. Prod. Plan. Control: Manag. Oper. 26 (8), 673e690. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.963726.
Martinez-Jurado, P., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean management, supply chain
management and sustainability: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 85, 134e150.
Martins, C.L., Melo, M.T., Pato, M.V., 2018. Redesigning a food bank supply chain
network in a triple bottom line contexto. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 214, 234e247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.011.
Mattila, T.J., Judl, J., Macombe, C., Leskinen, P., 2018. Evaluating social sustainability
of bioeconomy value chains through integrated use of local and global methods.
34 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Biomass Bioenergy 109, 276e283.
Mayring, P., 2008. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz
Pa€dagogik, Beltz: Weinheim, Germany; Basel, Switzerland.
McMurray, A.J., Islam, M.M., Siwar, C., Fien, J., 2014. Sustainable procurement in
Malaysian organizations: practices, barriers and opportunities. J. Purch. Supply
Manag. 20, 195e207.
Meckenstock, J., Barbosa-Po
voa, A.P.F.D., Carvalho, A., 2015. The wicked character of
sustainable supply chain management: evidence from sustainability reports.
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 25, 449e477.
Meier, C., 2015. “Supply chains in the apparel industry: do transnational initiatives
for social sustainability improve workers' situation?”. International Journal of
Management, Knowledge and Learning 4 (1), 27e40.
Meinlschmidt, J., Schleper, M.C., Foerstl, K., 2018. Tackling the sustainability iceberg:
a transaction cost economics approach to lower tier sustainability management.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38 (10), 1888e1914. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-
2017-0141.
Mejías, A.M., Paz, M., Pardo, J.E., 2016. Efficiency and sustainability through the best
practices in the Logistics Social Responsibility framework. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 36 (2), 164e199.
Min, H., Kim, I., 2012. Green supply chain research: past, present, and future. Lo-
gistics Research 4, 39e47.
Min, S., Kim, S.K., Chen, H., 2008. Developing social identity and social capital for
supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1), 283e304.
Mingers, J., 2001. Multimethodology: mixing and matching methods. In: Mingers,
Rosenhead (Eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. John
Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, ISBN 9780471495239, pp. 289e310.
Miret, C., Chazara, P., Montastruc, L., Negny, S., Domenech, S., 2016. Design of bio-
ethanol green supply chain: comparison between first and second generation
biomass concerning economic, environmental and social criteria. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 85, 16e35.
Missimer, M., Robert, K.H., Broman, G., 2016. A strategic approach to social sus-
tainability - part 1: exploring the social system. Journal of Cleaner Production
140, 32e41.
Morais, D.O.C., Silvestre, B., 2018. Dvancing social sustainability in supply chain
management: lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy.
Journal of Cleaner Production 199, 222e235.
Moretto, A., Macchion, L., Lion, A., Caniato, F., Danese, P., Vinelli, A., 2018. Designing
a roadmap towards a sustainable supply chain: a focus on the fashion industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production 193, 169e184.
Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., 2015. Towards supply chain
sustainability: economic, environmental and social design and planning. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production 105, 14e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.07.052.
Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., 2018. Sustainable supply
chains: an integrated modeling approach under uncertainty. Omega. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.omega. 2017.05.006.
Mueller, M., dos Santos, V.G., Seuring, S., 2009. The contribution of environmental
and social standards towards ensuring legitimacy in supply chain governance.
J. Bus. Ethics 89, 509e523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0013-9.
Murmura, F., Bravi, L., Palazzi, F., 2017. Evaluating companies' commitment to
corporate social responsibility: perceptions of the SA 8000 standard. Journal of
Cleaner Production 164, 1406e1418.
Mzembe, A.N., Lindgreen, A., Maon, F., Vanhamme, J., 2016. Investigating the drivers
of corporate social responsibility in the global tea supply chain: a case study of
eastern produce limited in Malawi. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 23,
165e178.
Nakamba, C.C., Chan, P.W., Sharmina, M., 2017. How does social sustainability
feature in studies of supply chain management? A review and research agenda.
Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 22 (6), 522e541. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-
2016-0436.
Nematollahi, M., Hosseini-Motlagh, S.-M., Heydari, J., 2017a. Economic and social
collaborative decision-making on visit interval and service level in a two-
echelon pharmaceutical supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 142,
3956e3969.
Nematollahi, M., Hosseini-Motlagh, S.-M., Heydari, J., 2017b. Coordination of social
responsibility and order quantity in a two-echelon supply chain: a collaborative
decision-making perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 184, 107e121.
Neutzling, D.M., Land, A., Seuring, S., Nascimento, L.F.M., 2018. Linking
sustainability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration.
Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 3448e3458.
Ni, D., Li, K.W., Tang, X., 2010. Social responsibility allocation in two-echelon supply
chains: insights from wholesale price contracts. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207,
1269e1279.
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social re-
sponsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 173e184.
Norris, C.B., Norris, G.A., Aulisio, D., 2014. Efficient assessment of social hotspots in
the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database.
Sustainability 6, 6973e6984.
O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., 2016. Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustain-
ability. Account. Org. Soc. 49, 32e40.
Oglethorpe, D., 2010. Optimising economic, environmental, and social objectives: a
goal-programming approach in the food sector. Environ. Plan. 42 (5),
1239e1254.
Orjuela-Castro, J.A., Aranda-Pinilla, J.A., Moreno-Mantilla, C.E., 2018. “Identifying
trade-offs between sustainability dimensions in the supply chain of biodiesel in
Colombia”. Comput. Electron. Agric. 161, 162e169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2018.03.009.
Pakdeechoho, N., Sukhotu, V., 2018. Sustainable supply chain collaboration: in-
centives in emerging economies. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 29 (2), 273e294.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2017-0081.
Pedram, A., Pedram, P., Yusoff, N.B., Sorooshian, S., 2017. Development of
closedeloop supply chain network in terms of corporate social responsibility.
PLoS One 12 (4), e0174951. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174951.
Perry, P., Wood, S., Fernie, J., 2015. Corporate social responsibility in garment
sourcing networks: factory management perspectives on ethical trade in Sri
Lanka. J. Bus. Ethics 130, 737e752.
Petersen, H.L., Lemke, F., 2015. Mitigating reputational risks in supply chains. Supply
Chain Manag.: Int. J. 20 (5), 495e510.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 2003. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Popovic, T., Kraslawski, A., Barbosa-Po
voa, A., Carvalho, A., 2017. Quantitative in-
dicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product re-
sponsibility aspects in supply chains. Journal of International Studies 10 (4),
9e36. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-4/1.
Preuss, L., 2009. Ethical sourcing codes of large UK-based corporations: prevalence,
content, limitations. J. Bus. Ethics 88 (4), 735e747. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-008-9978-7, 88.
Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A., Leuschner, R., 2016. Sustainability and corporate social
responsibility in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain manage-
ment and business ethics journals. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22, 82e97.
Raj, A., Biswas, I., Srivastava, S.K., 2018. Designing supply contracts for the sus-
tainable supply chain using game theory. Journal of Cleaner Production 185,
275e284.
Rajak, S., Vinodh, S., 2015. Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability per-
formance evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component
manufacturing organization. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1184e1192.
Raman, S., Mohr, A., Helliwell, R., Ribeiro, B., Shortall, O., Smith, R., Millar, K., 2015.
Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of
lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82, 49e62.
Ramezankhani, M.J., Torabi, S.A., Vahidi, F., 2018. Supply chain performance mea-
surement and evaluation: a mixed sustainability and resilience approach.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 126, 531e548.
Rodriguez, A.J., Gime
nez, C., Arenas, D., 2016a. Cooperative initiatives with NGOs in
socially sustainable supply chains: how is inter-organizational fit achieved?
Journal of Cleaner Production 137, 516e526.
Rodriguez, A.J., Thomsen, C.G., Arenas, D., Pagell, T., 2016b. NGOs' initiatives to
enhance social sustainability in supply chain: powert alleviation through sup-
plier development programs. J. Supply Chain Manag. 52 (3), 83e108.
Ruiz-Mercado, G.J., Smith, R.L., Gonzalez, M.A., 2012. Sustainability indicators for
chemical processes: I. Taxonomy. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (5), 2309e2328.
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G., Tappin, D., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: mo-
tivators and barriers. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 24, 643e655.
Sancha, C., Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., 2016. Achieving a socially responsible supply
chain through assessment and collaboration. Journal of Cleaner Production 112,
1934e1947.
Sancha, C., Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., Kazeminia, A., 2015. Does implementing social
supplier development practices pay off? Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 20 (4),
389e403.
Sarkis, J., Dhavale, D.G., 2014. Supplier selection for sustainable operations: a triple-
bottom-line approach using a Bayesian framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 166,
177e191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.007.
Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A., 2010. Reverse logistics and social sustain-
ability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (6), 337e354.
Sarkis, J., Meade, L.M., Presley, A.R., 2012. Incorporating sustainability into
contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. Journal of
Cleaner Production 31, 40e53.
Saunders, L.W., Kleiner, B.M., McCoy, A.P., Lingard, H., Mills, T., Blismas, N.,
Wakefield, R., 2015. The effect of early supplier engagement on social sustain-
ability outcomes in project-based supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21,
285e295.
Searcy, C., 2017. Multi-stakeholder initiatives in sustainable supply chains: putting
sustainability performance in context. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
5, 73. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.262.
Sendlhofer, T., Lernborg, C.M., 2018. Labour rights training 2.0: the digitalisation of
knowledge for workers in global supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production
179, 616e630.
Seuring, S., 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
management. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (4), 1513e1520.
Seuring, S., 2011. Supply chain management for sustainable products? insights from
research applying mixed methodologies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 20 (7), 471e484.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008a. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management?
A Delphi study. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 17 (8), 455e466.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008b. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
1699e1710.
Sheu, J.-B., Chen, Y., 2012. Impact of government financial intervention on
competition among green supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138, 201e213.
Sigala, M., 2008. A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of
tour operators on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner
 M.E. Bubicz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 237 (2019) 117500
Production 16 (16), 1589e1599.
Simo~es, M., Carvalho, A., Lucas de Freitas, C., Barbosa-Povoa, A., 2014. How to assess
social aspects in supply chains? Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 34,
801e806.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustain-
ability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indicat. 9, 189e212.
Song, W., Ming, X., Liu, H.-C., 2017. Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable
supply chain management: a rough strength-relation analysis method. Journal
of Cleaner Production 143, 100e115.
Spence, L., Rinaldi, L., 2014. Governmentality in accounting and accountability: a
case study of embedding sustainability in a supply chain. Account. Org. Soc. 39,
433e452.
Spetic, W., Marquez, P., Kozak, R., 2012. Critical areas and entry points for
sustainability-related strategies in the sugarcane-based ethanol industry of
Brazil early view. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 21, 370e386.
Stamford, l., Azapagic, A., 2011. Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nu-
clear power. Energy 36 (10), 6037e6057.
Stindt, D., 2017. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain man-
agement - how to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of
sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production 153, 146e163.
Stindt, D., Sahamie, R., Nuss, C., Tuma, A., 2016. How transdisciplinarity can help to
improve operations research on sustainable supply chains - a transdisciplinary
modeling framework. J. Bus. Logist. 37 (2), 113e131.
Sudarto, S., Takahashi, K., Morikawa, K., 2016. The impact of capacity planning on
product lifecycle for performance on sustainability dimensions in Reverse Lo-
gistics Social Responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 28e42.
Sutherland, J.W., Richter, J.S., Hutchins, M.J., Dornfeld, D., Dzombak, R., Mangold, J.,
Robinson, S., Hauschild, M.Z., Bonou, A., Scho €nsleben, P., Friemann, F., 2016. The
role of manufacturing in affecting the social dimension of sustainability. CIRP
Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 65, 689e712.
Svensson, G., 2008. Anti-climate change management (ACCM): "Business-as-usual"
or "Out-of-the-box"? Manag. Decis. 46 (1), 92e105. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251740810846761.
Tachizawa, E.M., Wong, C.Y., 2014. Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply
chains: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 19 (5/6),
643e663.
Tajbakhsh, A., Hassini, E., 2014. A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate
sustainability in supply chain networks. Journal of Cleaner Production 105,
74e85.
Tang, C.S., 2018. Socially responsible supply chains in emerging markets: some
research opportunities. J. Oper. Manag. 57, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2018.01.002.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Kirchoff, J.F., 2010. Corporate social responsibility reports: a
thematic analysis related to supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag.
46 (1), 19e44.
Tirado, A.A., Morales, M.R., Lobato-Calleros, O., 2015. Sustainability 7, 9251e9267.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079251.
Toh, K.T.K., Nagel, P., Oakden, R., 2009. A business and ICT architecture for a logistics
city. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 122, 216e228.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14, 207e222. htttp://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Traverso, M., Bell, L., Saling, P., Fontes, J., 2018. Towards social life cycle assessment:
a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23,
597e606.
Turker, D., Altuntas, C., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management in the fast
fashion industry: an analysis of corporate reports. Eur. Manag. J. 32, 837e849.
UN, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cicle Assessment of Products. United Nations
Environment Programme -UNEP.
UNEP/SETAC, 2000. International Life Cycle Partnership, Life Cycle Initiative. A
Brochure, Paris. http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/Access at March 05-2017.
Urquhart, J., Acott, T.G., 2013. Re-connecting and embedding food in place: rural
development and inshore fisheries in Cornwall, UK. J. Rural Stud. 32, 357e364.
Vermeulen, W.J.V., Kok, M.T.J., 2012. Government interventions in sustainable
35
supply chain governance: experience in Dutch front-running cases. Ecol. Econ.
83, 183e196.
Vermeulen, W.J.V., Seuring, S., 2009. Sustainability through the market e the im-
pacts of sustainable supply chain management: introduction. Sustain. Dev. 17,
269e273.
Vurro, C., Russo, A., Perrini, F., 2009. Shaping sustainable value chains: network
determinants of supply chain governance models. J. Bus. Ethics 90, 607e621.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0595-x.
Wang, J., Yue, H., 2017. Food safety pre-warning system based on data mining for a
sustainable food supply chain. Food Control 73, 223e229.
Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Goh, M., 2018. Moderating the role of firm size in sustainable
performance improvement through sustainable supply chain management.
Sustainability 10, 1654. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051654.
Wilhelm, M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., Paulraj, A., 2016b. Sustainability in multi-tier
supply chains: understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier.
J. Oper. Manag. 41, 42e60.
Wilhelm, M., Blome, C., Wieck, E., Xiao, C.Y., 2016a. Implementing sustainability in
multi-tier supply chains: strategies and contingencies in managing sub-sup-
pliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182, 196e212.
Winter, M., Knemeyer, A., 2013. Exploring the integration of sustainability and
supply chain management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 43 (1), 18e38.
Winter, S., Lasch, R., 2016. Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation e
Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry Stefan. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 139, 175e190.
Wittstruck, D., Teuteberg, F., 2012. Understanding the success factors of sustainable
supply chain management: empirical evidence from the electrics and elec-
tronics industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19, 141e158.
Wognum, P.M., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J.H., Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., Bloemhof, J.M.,
2011. Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains e
current status and challenges. Adv. Eng. Inf. 25 (1), 65e76.
Wolf, J., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management integration: a qualitative
analysis of the German manufacturing industry. J. Bus. Ethics 102 (2), 221e235.
Wu, K.-J., Liao, C.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Lim, M.K., Hu, J., Tan, K., 2017. Toward sustain-
ability: using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks
and uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 663e676.
Xia, Y., Zu, X., Shi, C., 2015. A profit-driven approach to building a “people-
responsible” supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 241, 348e360.
Yawar, A.S., Kauppi, K., 2018. Understanding the adoption of socially responsible
supplier development practices using institutional theory: dairy supply chains
in India. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24, 164e176.
Yawar, A.S., Seuring, S., 2017. Management of social issues in supply chains: a
literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes.
J. Bus. Ethics 141, 621e643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2719-9.
Yu, X., 2015. Upholding labour standards through corporate social responsibility
policies in China. Glob. Soc. Policy 15 (2), 167e187.
Zhang, J., Luna-Reyes, L.F., Jarman, H., Tayi, G.K., 2015. Information systems to
support sustainable consumption and sustainable supply. Inf. Technol. Manag.
16, 1e4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0206-0.
Zhang, M., Tse, Y.K., Doherty, B., Li, S., Akhtar, P., 2018. Sustainable supply chain
management: confirmation of a higher-order model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
128, 206e221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.015.
Zhou, Y., Hu, F., Zhou, Z., 2018. Pricing decisions and social welfare in a supply chain
with multiple competing retailers and carbon tax policy. Journal of Cleaner
Production 190, 752e777.
Zhu, Q., Liu, J., Lai, K-h., 2016. Corporate social responsibility practices and perfor-
mance improvement among Chinese national state-owned enterprises. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 171, 417e426.
Zimmer, K., Fro €hling, M., Breun, P., Schultmann, F., 2017. Assessing social risks of
global supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to
supplier selection in the German automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 149, 96e109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.041.
Zorzini, M., Hendry, L.C., Huq, F.A., Stevenson, M., 2015. Socially responsible
sourcing: reviewing the literature and its use of theory. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 35 (1), 60e109.