Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

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

Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain sustainability: A

theory-driven research agenda
Benjamin T. Hazen a,⇑, Joseph B. Skipper b, Jeremy D. Ezell d, Christopher A. Boone c
a
Air Force Institute of Technology, Department of Operational Sciences, Wright Patterson AFB, OH, USA
b
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Stafford School of Business, Tifton, GA 31793, USA
c
Georgia Southern University, Department of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Statesboro, GA, USA
d
James Madison University, Department of Computer Information Systems and Business Analytics, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

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

Article history: Big data and predictive analytics (BDPA) tools and methodologies are leveraged by businesses in many
Available online 29 June 2016 ways to improve operational and strategic capabilities, and ultimately, to positively impact corporate
financial performance. BDPA has become crucial for managing supply chain functions, where data inten-
Keywords: sive processes can be vastly improved through its effective use. BDPA has also become a competitive
Big data necessity for the management of supply chains, with practitioners and scholars focused almost entirely
Predictive analytics on how BDPA is used to increase economic measures of performance. There is limited understanding,
Supply chain management
however, as to how BDPA can impact other aspects of the triple bottom-line, namely environmental
and social sustainability outcomes. Indeed, this area is in immediate need of attention from scholars in
many fields including industrial engineering, supply chain management, information systems, business
analytics, as well as other business and engineering disciplines. The purpose of this article is to motivate
such research by proposing an agenda based in well-established theory. This article reviews eight theo-
ries that can be used by researchers to examine and clarify the nature of BDPA’s impact on supply chain
sustainability, and presents research questions based upon this review. Scholars can leverage this article
as the basis for future research activity, and practitioners can use this article as a means to understand
how company-wide BDPA initiatives might impact measures of supply chain sustainability.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction used extensively in the supply chain management (SCM) space to

Big data and predictive analytics (BDPA) are no longer just buz-
zwords representing futuristic thinking and unrealized corporate
strategy. Contemporary firms of all sizes are leveraging BDPA
resources and expertise to create marketplace advantages over
peer firms that choose not to employ BDPA or cannot employ it
effectively (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012). Indeed, employment of
BDPA is no longer a ‘‘nicety” but a competitive necessity (LaValle,
Hopkins, Lesser, Shockley, & Kruschwitz, 2010). To this end, more
innovative firms seek to leapfrog competitors by finding new ways
to leverage BDPA, such as creating next-generation products and
services, increasing information transparency and decision-
making effectiveness via data digitization and accessibility, and
precisely segmenting their customer base according to the who,
what, when, and where for various products and services
(McGuire, Manyika, & Chui, 2012). BDPA initiatives are also being
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Benjamin.hazen@live.com (B.T. Hazen).
enhance competencies and enable new firm capabilities (Waller
& Fawcett, 2013). These new capabilities not only generate cost
savings for SCM processes, but enable new strategic dimensions
on which to compete (Columbus, 2015).
As a relatively new and innovative business phenomenon, firms
seek to leverage decision-making outputs from BDPA in their sup-
ply chains with the initial and highly visible goal of enhancing their
financial bottom line. Indeed, how to increase performance is often
the first, and logical, question asked by companies considering the
adoption of any innovation, a consideration often driven by top-
management’s perceptions of this impact (Jeyaraj, Rottman, &
Lacity, 2006). BDPA is no longer considered a trendy strategic prac-
tice that will fade but one that will continue to endure well into the
competitive future. Indeed, BDPA should no longer be considered a
new idea requiring validation, but more so an increasingly neces-
sary strategic reality to doing business in today’s data-grounded
economy and rapidly changing competitive marketplace (Boyd &
Crawford, 2012; Chen, Chiang, & Storey, 2012; McAfee &
Brynjolfsson, 2012). As such, BDPA should be viewed from an

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.030
0360-8352/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598
integrative perspective, where it is one of many tools that both
enhances existing organization-wide business processes and
enables new strategic capabilities (Chen et al., 2012). To this end,
we propose that it is time to move beyond examining how BDPA
can be used to enhance operational- and financial-based supply
chain outcomes to examination of how BDPA can increase mea-
sures of supply chain sustainability that are becoming increasingly
important in today’s global marketplace.
Sustainability in terms of the triple bottom line (i.e., financial,
social, and environmental performance measures) is another idea
that, although relatively new to the business community, has
already demonstrated staying power. Firms seek to enhance all
aspects of sustainability when tenable, addressing social and envi-
ronmental concerns and growing effectiveness in those areas in
conjunction with improving financial performance. The ability of
a firm to increase measures of sustainability is based in its opera-
tional and strategic capabilities. Integration of BDPA tools, method-
ologies, and resources must occur throughout the firm for it to
generate competitive advantage from analytics (Davenport,
2006). As the company changes at all levels to adopt data-
grounded decision making processes, this will impact its organiza-
tional and strategic capabilities, which in turn affect sustainability
initiatives. Considering the emphasis on both BDPA and sustain-
ability in recent years, we posit that it is natural and inevitable that
these two groups of strategic initiatives will cross paths soon.
Notably, popular press is beginning to mention how BDPA can
and should be used to enhance sustainability measures (Hsu,
2014). Unfortunately, practitioners are unaware of how to connect
these two concepts, and there is no evidence as of yet that doing so
is fruitful. Additionally, this idea has yet to gain significant atten-
tion of the academic community. We put forward that there are
several ways by which BDPA resources and outputs can be lever-
aged to increase sustainability in the supply chain. Research inves-
tigating the link between BDPA and sustainability in the supply
chain is contemporarily relevant and is urgently in need of atten-
tion from both the academic and practitioner communities.
The purpose of this article is to call attention to the research
needs for examination of the relationships between BDPA and sus-
tainable SCM, and to suggest important areas in need of timely
research. We intend for this article to serve as a resource to inform
researchers of relevant theories that can be used to explain how
BDPA-enabled capabilities can impact an organization’s triple bot-
tom line. In the next sections of this article, we review eight well-
established theories that we believe to be most useful for examin-
ing this problem space. We then close with a summary of theory-
driven research directions that can help guide future research.
2. Actor-network theory
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) provides a systematic way to con-
sider the infrastructure surrounding technological achievements
which treats social relations as network effects (Law, 1992, p.
940). Developed by Latour (1996) and Callon (1990) in an attempt
to understand processes of technological innovation and scientific
knowledge creation, this theory argues that events should not be
considered in a vacuum but rather are impacted by surrounding
factors.
MacIntosh and MacLean (2001) suggest this theory as viable for
application within SCM (Gammelgaard, 2004). According to ANT,
networks are built based on relationships and associations
between both human and non-human entities, meaning that the
network is impacted by both human and material resources
(Müller, 2015). From a supply chain standpoint, ANT can help to
explain the interaction and flows of information, finance, and phys-
ical products (Kinder, 2003).
593
Autry and Griffis (2008) go on to argue that networks are cre-
ated and organized for the specific purpose of providing a mecha-
nism for actors, both human and material, to access needed
resources whether they be social (Borgatti & Cross, 2003), financial
(Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011), or environmental (Koka, Madhavan, &
Prescott, 2006). As such, the network provides the mechanism by
which information, data, and analysis may be shared across multi-
ple firms and then utilized by a single or many actors across the
network (Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Frooman, 1999).
3. Social capital theory
Another theory with roots in sociology, Social Capital Theory
(SCT) was first defined as ‘‘the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of
more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance
or recognition” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 88). While heavily debated (see
Portes (2000) for an overview), one commonly agreed tenet is that
social capital is defined by function, with some type of social struc-
ture and a facilitation of action within that structure (Coleman,
1988). With its origins dating back to the early 1960s (Jacobs,
1961), this theory has been applied widely across research areas
including the human capital (Coleman, 1988), economic perfor-
mance (Knack & Keefer, 1997), and value creation (Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998).
SCT has also been applied with the domain of SCM (Autry &
Griffis, 2008) and had been found to help explain intra-
organizational resource exchange (McFadyen & Cannella, 2004),
product innovation (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001), team effective-
ness (Robert, Dennis, & Ahuja, 2008), and supplier development
(Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007). Ketchen and Hult (2007, p.
575) point out that supply chains may be improved with a view
on shared goals, values, and experiences and an effort to ‘‘create
shared sensemaking and improved performance”.
Min, Kim, and Chen (2008) found that as firms find themselves
as interactive members of a supply chain, they are likely to accept
the norms and values of that supply chain. These interactions com-
monly include the sharing of information, data, and analysis for the
purpose of improving overall performance of the network (Chiu,
Hsu, & Wang, 2006) and ‘‘prove to be the firms most enduring
source of competitive advantage” (Moran, 2005, p. 1129). Autry
and Griffis (2008) add that stronger relationships lead to greater
advantages, and therefore have a greater impact on execution-
oriented performance.
4. Institutional theory
Institutional Theory seeks to explain how an organization’s
external environment impacts the organization’s structures and
processes (March & Olsen, 1983). Selznick (1948, 1957) relates that
an organization alone is mechanical, or designed for a single pur-
pose, whereas an organization that is part of a system has been ‘in-
fused with value’ (p. 17) thereby increasing its worth through
interaction. Individually, these organizations are disposable, but
when combined as an institution, or system, they are less expend-
able (Scott, 1987).
Institutions can be defined by a set of rules within an environ-
ment that form a pattern of acceptable behavior among those oper-
ating within that environment. Organizations that become part of
the institution conform to the behaviors of the institution
(Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007) and are difficult to change (Zucker,
1977). The adoption of organizational practice (Hirsch, 1975) typ-
ically occurs via coercive (exerted by those in power), normative
(exerted by social influences), or mimetic (exerted to imitate suc-
cess) influences on the organization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
594 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598
Institutional theory may be particularly useful within a supply
chain context. As an institution, the supply chain induces partners
to take on behaviors that individually the organization may not
have chosen as a rational choice (Oliver, 1991). Applications across
all three aspects of the triple bottom line apply. Coercive pressures
have been found crucial in the adoption of environmentally sus-
tainable practices (Zhu, Sarkis, & Lai, 2008). Similarly, normative
inducement examples can be found in the formation of social orga-
nizations such of industry groups and professional societies
(Zsidisin, Melnyk, & Ragatz, 2005). Finally, the mimetic force exam-
ples can be seen in the adoption of supply chain practices that an
organization perceives to be successful, profitable, or cost effective
(Ketchen & Hult, 2007).
5. Resource dependence theory
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) provides a lens for under-
standing an organization’s adaptation to changes in its environ-
ment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Essentially, the theory proposes
that organizations that lack resources will develop relationships
with other organizations in order to obtain those needed resources
(Ulrich & Barney, 1984). Organization’s that do not have control
over resources are forced to partner with an organization, or an
existing network, that does control the resource in order to survive
(Ireland & Webb, 2007). An organization’s power within the coali-
tion, or network, is based on the dependence that other organiza-
tions have for the resources it provides (Emerson, 1962; Medcof,
2001). These resources create dependencies when (1) they are
important, or (2) control is concentrated, or (3) both (Crook &
Combs, 2007; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
Within a supply chain framework, RDT has been found useful
across a broad spectrum of applications. Shook, Adams, Ketchen,
and Craighead (2009) utilize the theory to help explain the depen-
dencies often found in strategic sourcing. Crook and Combs (2007)
use RDT to counter the argument that effective SCM is equally ben-
eficial to all members of the network. In order to combat the
dependencies, and resulting uncertainty, organizations are forced
to develop relationships based on shared information, coordina-
tion, and planning (Cooper & Ellram, 1993).
Depending on which side of dependence an organization stands,
the sharing of data, information or analysis can become its own
resource resulting in either short- or long-term profitability
(Ketchen & Hult, 2007). From a BDPA perspective, the ability to uti-
lize such methods may increase a firm’s power (Waller & Fawcett,
2013). RDT impacts on the triple bottom line have been explored
from the standpoint of social power (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven,
1996; Paulraj & Chen, 2007), environmental management
(Gonzalez, Sarkis, & Adenso-Diaz, 2008; Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011),
and economic impact (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Li, Ragu-
Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, & Subba Rao, 2006).
6. Transaction cost economics
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) is a form of economic organi-
zational study that holds the transaction as the most basic unit of
measure and that ‘economizing’ the costs associated with a trans-
action as central to the study of organizations (Williamson, 1981).
The basic tenant of the theory is one of discriminant alignment
wherein an organization attempts ‘‘to match simple exchanges
with simple modes of governance and more complex exchanges
with more complex forms of organizations” (Leiblein, 2003, p.
940). The focus is on how much effort, resources, or cost is neces-
sary for two parties to complete an exchange (Williamson, 1998)
with a goal of maximizing performance while minimizing transac-
tion costs for both organizations (Coase, 1937).
TCE is one of the most widely used theoretical lenses in busi-
ness research (David & Han, 2004; Macher & Richman, 2008).
The theory offers a rational view for evaluating ‘make versus buy’
decisions whether in the short or long-term. Short-term applica-
tions of TCE may lead to opportunistic behavior which can result
to an organization being excluded from a supply chain and,
thereby, losing revenue and opportunity (Ketchen & Hult, 2007).
The long-term perspective is often applied to SCM research
(Grover & Malhotra, 2003) where trusting relationships benefit
all, or at least more, trading organizations within a network
(Shook et al., 2009). Trust between members of the supply chain
is often dependent on the sharing of information and resources
and an appreciation of long-term return being larger than potential
short-term gains (Williamson, 2008).
TCE has primarily been used in research focusing on the finan-
cial bottom-line (Rindfleisch & Heide, 1997) and include explo-
ration of vertical integration (Grossman & Hart, 1986; Levy,
1985), outsourcing (Azoulay, 2004; Ellram, Tate, & Billington,
2008; Maltz, 1994), and sourcing (Lacity & Willcocks, 1995;
Novak & Eppinger, 2001). Additionally, a growing body of work
has applied TCE in environmental and sustainment research
including the adoption of ISO standards (Delmas & Montiel,
2009), environmental practices (Tate, Dooley, & Ellram, 2011),
and environmental performance requirements (Simpson, Power,
& Samson, 2007). TCE has also been applied to limited number of
studies involving corporate social responsibility, including
Barnett (2007), Capaldi (2005), and Margolis and Walsh (2003).
7. Agency theory
Agency Theory (AT) attempts to describe the relationship
between entities where one of the entities delegates or assigns
work to another, typically via a contract (Jensen & Meckling,
1976). Based in economics, AT attempts to resolve the agency
problems that arise when (1) desires of the two entities do not
match, and (2) it is difficult for one entity to verify what the other
entity doing in accordance with their agreement (Eisenhardt,
1989). When desires or expectations do not match, an imbalance
of information or information flow occurs between the entities,
often resulting in opportunistic behavior (Alchian & Demsetz,
1972). In order to resolve this issue, an organization can either
monitor the other party, or create incentives to promote good
behavior (Dalton, Hitt, Certo, & Dalton, 2007).
Eisenhardt (1989) points out that the agency relationship is one
of the most basic codes of social interaction and that it occurs
when two or more parties interact in any setting. As such, supply
chains consist of multiple interactions in which one organization
delegates responsibility or assigns authority to another organiza-
tion. In the dynamic environment of modern supply chains, it is
not surprising that individuals, or organizations, find themselves
in situations where their primary loyalty lies with their own firm
(Ketchen & Hult, 2007). AT has been utilized in supply chain
research involving transportation labor markets (Belzer & Swan,
2011), third party logistics providers (Marasco, 2008), supplier risk
(Zsidisin & Ellram, 2003), and risk management (Ritchie & Brindley,
2007).
The triple bottom line offers several rich application areas for
AT. Aras and Crowther (2008) point out the that impact of ‘princi-
pal’ influence on organizational sustainability activities. Merriman
and Sen (2012) emphasize the importance of shared expectations
and systems across organizations that encourage social and envi-
ronmental performance as well as emphasis on performance.
Finally, David, Bloom, and Hillman (2007) examine incentive struc-
tures which attempt to ensure that managers carry out the long
term interests of the organization.
 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598
8. Resource-based view
The resource-based view (RBV) is one of the most frequently
used theoretical perspectives in strategic management (Newbert,
2007) and supply chain research (Clifford Defee, Williams,
Randall, & Thomas, 2010). The RBV suggests firms may achieve a
sustainable competitive advantage through resources that are
valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable
(Barney, 1991). Resources are said to include all firm inputs that
allow it to work and implement its strategies (Olavarrieta &
Ellinger, 1997). Within this context, resources have been described
as being both tangible and intangible (Grant, 1991) and encom-
passing all assets, capabilities, processes, and knowledge that
enable competitiveness (Barney, 1991).
Several scholars have built upon RBV to explore how resources
can create and sustain competitive advantage (Rungtusanatham,
Salvador, Forza, & Choi, 2003). A number of these scholars infer
the potential of RBV to guide research aimed at understanding
and exploring the role of BDPA in sustainable SCM. For example,
Hart (1995) suggests firms should expand their notion of resources
to include natural resources (Olavarrieta & Ellinger, 1997). Amit
and Schoemaker (2012) and Grant (1991) argue information-
based processes like BDPA can be used to improve the productivity
of all resources. RBV also considers knowledge gained through
BDPA can itself be a valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-
substitutable resource (Grant, 1996) if based upon a high level of
data quality (Hazen, Boone, Ezell, & Jones-Farmer, 2014).
9. Ecological modernization theory
Since its introduction in the mid to late 1980s (Huber, 1985,
1991), ecological modernization theory has become one of the
most used and widely cited theories in environmental sociology
(Mol, Spaargaren, & Sonnenfeld, 2014). Prior to the emergence of
ecological modernization theory (EMT), the prevailing attitude
regarding the impact of human behavior and institutions on the
environment was pessimistic (Mol et al., 2014). Scholars and
experts in the area focused primarily on the environmental devas-
tation caused by increased industrialization and urbanization (Mol,
1997) and advocated against the industrial and behavioral traits
and forces responsible for environmental crises (Buttel, 2003;
Mol et al., 2014).
The 1980s and 1990s saw a widening perspective in which
focus expanded beyond environmental deterioration to include
environmental reform (Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001). This marked
the beginning of a period referred to by Buttel (2003) as the ‘‘soci-
ology of environmental reform” (Mol et al., 2014). During this per-
iod, EMT emerged as a contrasting view suggesting
industrialization, economic growth, and capitalism are not only
compatible with sustainability but in fact drivers of sustainability
and environmental reform (York & Rosa, 2003).
To date, EMT-based studies have found environmental innova-
tion among enterprises most often occurs at the upstream of the
supply chain (Huber, 2008) and can lead to the development of
new supply chain competencies (Søndergård, Hansen, & Holm,
2004). However, EMT is an inchoate theory with significant poten-
tial and needs to be further evaluated and investigated (Sarkis
et al., 2011). For example, EMTs win-win proposition suggests
environmental practices will result in improved business perfor-
mance (Sarkis et al., 2011). However, environmentally-focused
efforts may not bring financial benefits to all organizations
(Revell, 2007), which creates a need for a greater understanding
of the aspects of the technological innovation (e.g. BDPA) and/or
the organization that lead to the promised benefits (Hall, 2001).
EMT also provides a view from which scholars could explore the
595
use of BDPA to address specific environmental crises such as car-
bon emission and climate change (Roberts, 2008) by providing
companies an improved understanding of the true environmental
impact of their supply chains (Hsu, 2013).
10. Conclusion
In this article, we highlight the need for research examining
relationships between BDPA and sustainable SCM. We have identi-
fied a number of well-established theoretical perspectives that can
be leveraged to inform future research in exploring how BDPA can
affect financial, social, and environmental performance measures.
Relevant theoretical areas discussed above explore many areas of
impact upon firm performance and behavior, from internal to
external forces, to intra-organizational and intra-personal relation-
ship characteristics. These theories inform how the many areas,
and characteristics, of the firm can drive the success and effective-
ness, or failure, of its supply chain sustainability initiatives. Con-
currently, the modern competitive firm will see organization-
wide changes occur to allow for the effectual integration and
deployment of BDPA tools, resources, and methodologies. As BDPA
becomes less of an innovation and more of a staple of the modern
supply chain, we believe that it will have a substantial impact upon
sustainable SCM. As such, we believe these two strategic areas are
beginning to cross paths, and we summarize our call to attention of
the need for future scholarly activity in Table 1. Although this list-
ing is not intended to be inclusive, the ideas presented therein are
hoped to inspire additional viewpoints, providing the bunghole
that enables the release of a new era of timely and important
research.
Any one of these theoretical areas can provide a valuable lens
through which to view and examine the impact BDPA has upon
the firm and its supply chain sustainability initiatives. Though
becoming an increasingly necessary strategic initiative, BDPA is
still not fully leveraged in those firms using its tools and method-
ologies on a daily basis. Research investigating why this is the case
is still in its nascent stages. We put forward that researchers work-
ing in the theoretical areas discussed above can produce field-
leading work investigating the state of effectual use, or lack
thereof, of BDPA for enhancing sustainable SCM. Additionally,
researchers using the discussed theoretical areas can develop novel
theoretical insights as to how BDPA impacts more than just the
financial bottom line of the firm by looking at changes to sustain-
able SCM outcomes as a result of BDPA usage.
Future work investigating this impact is needed, valuable, and
highly informative for holistically understanding the overall nature
of the contemporary firm and its place in both its competitive mar-
ket and the larger world. We note that the theoretical areas dis-
cussed herein are not exclusive or exhaustive, and future
research in these areas can inspire connections to additional extant
and relevant theoretical research streams. The discussed theory
streams, with their focus on different areas of the firm, suggest that
mixed-methods research would be highly beneficial, and possibly
necessary, in developing the well-rounded picture between BDPA
and sustainable SCM outcomes. The highlighted theoretical areas
provide a solid foundation for scholars seeking to develop novel
theories and broaden research linking these two critical strategic
areas in SCM. Such work would additionally inform practitioners
in examining organizational characteristics and their impact upon
BDPA and SCM sustainability and the relationship between these
areas. As BDPA is acknowledged as a competitive necessity in the
supply chain, future research of its impact upon all firm perfor-
mance outcomes is highly valuable and will wisely guide scholarly
research of sustainable SCM for the conceivable future.
596 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598

Table 1
Theory overview and future research directions.

Theory Key tenets of theory Future research topics

Actor-Network Actor-network theory provides a framework for understanding
how changes in a network impact the actors within
Social Capital Social capital theory posits that networks of relationships
provide value as individuals or organizations conduct their
affairs
Institutional Institutional theory provides a lens to observe the impact of an
organization’s external environment on the organization’s
structure and operations
Resource Dependence Resource dependence theory proposes that organizations that
lack resources will develop mutually-beneficial and resource-
generating relationships with other organizations
Transaction Cost Economics Transaction cost economics focuses on the amount of effort and
cost expended in a transaction between two entities with a goal
of maximizing performance and minimizing cost
Agency Agency theory explains the governance relationship between
organizations, typically with one firm delegating responsibility
to another
Resource-Based View The resource-based view suggests competitive advantage may
be sustained by harnessing resources that are valuable, rare,
imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable (VRIO)
Ecological Modernization Ecological modernization theory suggests economic
competitiveness and growth are not incompatible with
environmental protection but are instead sources of
environmental reform
How does BDPA help or hinder competing supply chain
sustainability efforts?
How is BDPA used to enhance sustainability efforts between and
beyond supply chain partners?
How do actors across the supply chain contribute to a firm’s
adoption of BDPA for the purpose of enhancing supply chain
sustainability measures?
How does social capital impact the adoption of BDPA for supply
chain sustainability under competition (inter-firm and inter-
supply chain)?
How might using BDPA for supply chain sustainability at one
echelon affect sustainability efforts in other echelons of the
supply chain?
How might BDPA impact the importance of structural and
relational supply chain components?
How do internal practices compete with external pressures in
the adoption of BDPA for sustainable supply chain policies and
practices?
How might mimetic pressures negatively affect a firm’s use of
BDPA for supply chain sustainability?
Which pressure, mimetic or normative, is more influential in an
organization’s BDPA adoption? Under what circumstances is one
pressure greater than the other?
How do resource pressures impact adoption and use of BDPA for
supply chain sustainability?
How might BDPA be seen as a resource that supply chain
partners depend upon to carry out sustainability initiatives?
How does an organization’s BDPA capability affect its influence
on sustainability issues with supply chain partners?
How do firms weigh the costs and benefits of shared BDPA
initiatives aimed toward promoting sustainable SCM?
How might BDPA reduce costs and effort associated with
initializing sustainable supply chain practices?
How does BPDA impact the number of supply chain partners and
the structure of their network?
How do costs associated with monitoring data from supply
chain partners used as the basis for BDPA-enabled sustainability
initiatives impact long-term sustainability efforts across the
supply chain?
How can BDPA optimize the agency relationships required for
enhancing supply chain sustainability?
How does BDPA impact the agency costs incurred by including
third party providers in sustainable supply chain processes?
Explore uses of BDPA as a means of improving productivity of all
firm resources, including natural and human resources
Further explore the role of BDPA as a resource that that enables
supply chain sustainability
Explore BDPA as a resource to enable development of and
support for operations required to support circular supply
chains
Investigate the potential of BDPA to facilitate inter-
organizational learning and development of sustainability-
based knowledge resources throughout the supply chain
Investigate BDPA as a means of gaining added insight into
unknown or misunderstood environmental and social aspects of
modern supply chains that require attention
How can BDPA be used to address specific environmental and
social crises?
Explore BDPA as a means of promoting sustainability-focused
efforts in emerging economies and developing countries

References Autry, C. W., & Griffis, S. E. (2008). Supply chain capital: The impact of structural and
relational linkages on firm execution and innovation. Journal of Business
Logistics, 29(1), 157–173.
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic
Azoulay, P. (2004). Capturing knowledge within and across firm boundaries:
organization. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.
Evidence from clinical development. American Economic Review, 1591–1612.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (2012). Z strategic assets and organizational rent.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial
Strategische Managementtheorie, 14, 325.
returns to corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review,
Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2008). Developing sustainable reporting standards. Journal
32(3), 794–816. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159336.
of Applied Accounting Research, 9(1), 4–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
09675420810886097.
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Arnaboldi, M., & Spiller, N. (2011). Actor-network theory and stakeholder
Belzer, M. H., & Swan, P. F. (2011). Supply chain security: Agency theory and port
collaboration: The case of cultural districts. Tourism Management, 32(3),
drayage drivers. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 22(1), 41–63<http://
641–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.016.
search.informit.com.au/browseJournalTitle;res=IELBUS;issn=1035-3046>.
 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and
learning in social networks. Management Science, 432.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital. In Cultural theory: An anthology
(pp. 81–93).
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a
cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication
& Society, 15(5), 662–679.
Buttel, F. H. (2003). Environmental sociology and the explanation of environmental
reform. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 306–344.
Callon, M. (1990). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility (Vol. 38 : . Wiley-
Blackwell.
Capaldi, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line. International
Journal of Social Economics, 32(5), 408–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
03068290510591263.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and
constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics:
From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in
virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive
theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.
Clifford Defee, C., Williams, B., Randall, W. S., & Thomas, R. (2010). An inventory of
theory in logistics and SCM research. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 21(3), 404–489.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Columbus, L. (2015). Ten ways big data is revolutionizing supply chain
management. Forbes (13 July).
Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of supply chain management
and the implications for purchasing and logistics strategy. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, 4(2), 13–24.
Crook, T. R., & Combs, J. G. (2007). Sources and consequences of bargaining power in
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 546–555.
Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency
problem and its mitigation. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 1–64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/078559806.
Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84,
98–107 (January).
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial
responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(1), 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.571.
David, R. J., & Han, S.-K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support
for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 39–58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.359.
Delmas, M., & Montiel, I. (2009). Greening the supply chain: When is customer
pressure effective? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 171–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00211.x.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
AMR.1989.4279003.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic
alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 7(2), 136–150.
Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Billington, C. (2008). Offshore outsourcing of professional
services: A transaction cost economics perspective. Journal of Operations
Management, 26(2), 148–163.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,
31–41.
Fisher, D. R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2001). Ecological modernization and its critics:
Assessing the past and looking toward the future. Society & Natural Resources, 14
(8), 701–709.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management
Review, 24(2), 191–205.
Gammelgaard, B. (2004). Schools in logistics research?: A methodological
framework for analysis of the discipline. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(6), 479–491.
Gonzalez, P., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2008). Environmental management
system certification and its influence on corporate practices: Evidence from the
automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 28(11), 1021–1041.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage:
Implications for strategy formulation. Knowledge and Strategy, 33(3), 3–23.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory
of vertical and lateral integration. The Journal of Political Economy, 691–719.
Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Transaction cost framework in operations and
supply chain management research: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Operations Management, 21(4), 457–473.
Hall, J. (2001). Environmental supply-chain innovation. Greener Management
International, 2001(35), 105–119.
597
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of
Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Hazen, B. T., Boone, C. A., Ezell, J. D., & Jones-Farmer, L. A. (2014). Data quality for
data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: An
introduction to the problem and suggestions for research and applications.
International Journal of Production Economics, 154, 72–80.
Hirsch, P. M. (1975). Organizational effectiveness and the institutional
environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 327–344. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/2391994.
Hsu, J. M. (2013). Big business + big data = big sustainability From<http://
www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/info_tech/john-m-hsu/big-
business-big-data-big-sustainability> (January 16, 2016).
Hsu, J. (2014). Why big data will have an impact on sustainability. The Guardian.
Retrieved from<http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/big-data-
impact-sustainable-business> (31 January).
Huber, J. (1985). Die regenbogengesellschaft: ökologie und sozialpolitik : . Fischer.
Huber, J. (1991). Unternehmen Umwelt: Weichenstellungen für eine ökologische
Marktwirtschaft : . Fischer.
Huber, J. (2008). Technological environmental innovations (TEIs) in a chain-
analytical and life-cycle-analytical perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production,
16(18), 1980–1986.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and
power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2),
482–497.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities : . Vintage.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior,
agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4),
305–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A review of the predictors, linkages,
and biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology,
21(1), 1–23.
Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: The case of best value supply chains. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(2), 573–580.
Kinder, T. (2003). Go with the flow—A conceptual framework for supply relations in
the era of the extended enterprise. Research Policy, 32, 503–523. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00021-5.
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-
country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1251–1288.
Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. E. (2006). The evolution of interfirm
networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of
Management Review, 31(3), 721–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
AMR.2006.21318927.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between
supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and
performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528–545.
Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (1995). Interpreting information technology sourcing
decisions from a transaction cost perspective: Findings and critique. Accounting,
Management and Information Technologies, 5(3–4), 203–244. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0959-8022(96)00005-7.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4),
369–381.
LaValle, S., Hopkins, M. S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., & Kruschwitz, N. (2010). Analytics:
The new path to value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 1–25.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and
heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01059830.
Leiblein, M. J. (2003). The choice of organizational governance form and
performance: Predictions from transaction cost, resource-based, and real
options theories. Journal of Management, 29(6), 937–961.
Levy, D. T. (1985). The transactions cost approach to vertical integration: An
empirical examination. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 438–445.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Subba Rao, S. (2006). The impact of
supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and
organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107–124. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.002.
Macher, J. T., & Richman, B. D. (2008). Transaction cost economics: An assessment of
empirical research in the social sciences. Business and Politics, 10(1).
MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2001). Conditioned emergence: Researching change
and changing research. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 21(9/10), 1343.
Mahalingam, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2007). Institutional theory as a framework for
analyzing conflicts on global projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management.
Maltz, A. (1994). Outsourcing the warehousing function: Economic and strategic
considerations. Logistics and Transportation Review, 30(3), 245.
Marasco, A. (2008). Third-party logistics: A literature review. International Journal of
Production Economics, 113(1), 127–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2007.05.017.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in
political life. American Political Science Review, 78(03), 734–749.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social
initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard
Business Review, 90(10), 60–69.
598 B.T. Hazen et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 592–598
McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation:
Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.
McGuire, T., Manyika, J., & Chui, M. (2012). Why big data is the new competitive
advantage. Ivey Business Journal (July/August).
Medcof, J. W. (2001). Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of
internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal, 22
(11), 999–1012.
Merriman, K. K., & Sen, S. (2012). Incenting managers toward the triple bottom line:
An agency and social norm perspective. Human Resource Management, 51(6),
851–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21491.
Min, S., Kim, S. K., & Chen, H. (2008). Developing social identity and social capital for
supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1), 283.
Mol, A. P. (1997). Ecological modernization: Industrial transformations and
environmental reform. In The international handbook of environmental
sociology (pp. 138–149).
Mol, A. P., Spaargaren, G., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2014). Ecological modernization
theory: Taking stock, moving forward. In Routledge international handbook of
social and environmental change (pp. 15–30). Routledge.
Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and
managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1129–1151.
Müller, M. (2015). A half-hearted romance? A diagnosis and agenda for the
relationship between economic geography and actor-network theory (ANT).
Progress in Human Geography, 39(1), 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0309132513518833.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal,
28(2), 121–146.
Novak, S., & Eppinger, S. D. (2001). Sourcing by design: Product complexity and the
supply chain. Management Science, 47(1), 189–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.47.1.189.10662.
Olavarrieta, S., & Ellinger, A. E. (1997). Resource-based theory and strategic logistics
research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 27
(9/10), 559.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Paulraj, A., & Chen, I. J. (2007). Environmental uncertainty and strategic supply
management: A resource dependence perspective and performance
implications. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 43(3), 29–42.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective : . Stanford University Press.
Portes, A. (2000). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. In
E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and social capital (pp. 43–67). Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The
social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.
Revell, A. (2007). The ecological modernisation of SMEs in the UK’s construction
industry. Geoforum, 38(1), 114–126.
Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and
future applications. The Journal of Marketing, 30–54.
Ritchie, B., & Brindley, C. (2007). Supply chain risk management and performance: A
guiding framework for future development. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 27(3), 303–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443570710725563.
Robert, J. L. P., Dennis, A. R., & Ahuja, M. K. (2008). Social capital and knowledge
integration in digitally enabled teams. Information Systems Research, 19(3),
314–334.
Roberts, J. T. (2008). Commentary: Challenges and opportunities for global
environmental governance in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change,
18(3), 375–379.
Rungtusanatham, M., Salvador, F., Forza, C., & Choi, T. Y. (2003). Supply-chain
linkages and operational performance: A resource-based-view perspective.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(9), 1084–1099.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green
supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production
Economics, 130(1), 1–15.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392880.
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological
Review, 13(1), 25–35.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation.
Berkeley, CA.
Shook, C. L., Adams, G. L., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Craighead, C. W. (2009). Towards a
‘‘theoretical toolbox” for strategic sourcing. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 14(1), 3–10.
Simpson, D., Power, D., & Samson, D. (2007). Greening the automotive supply chain:
A relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 27(1), 28–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570710714529.
Søndergård, B., Hansen, O. E., & Holm, J. (2004). Ecological modernisation and
institutional transformations in the Danish textile industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 12(4), 337–352.
Tate, W. L., Dooley, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Transaction cost and institutional
drivers of supplier adoption of environmental practices. Journal of Business
Logistics, 32(1), 6–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2158-1592.2011.01001.x.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource
dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3),
471–481.
Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and big
data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management.
Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost
approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.
Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: How it works; where it is
headed. De Economist, 146(1), 23–58.
Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain
management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 5–16.
York, R., & Rosa, E. A. (2003). Key challenges to ecological modernization theory
institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-
efficiency. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 273–288.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.-H. (2008). Green supply chain management implications
for ‘‘closing the loop”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 44(1), 1–18.
Zsidisin, G. A., & Ellram, L. M. (2003). An agency theory investigation of supply risk
management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39(2), 15–27. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2003.tb00156.x.
Zsidisin, G. A., Melnyk, S. A., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). An institutional theory
perspective of business continuity planning for purchasing and supply
management. International Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3401–3420.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American
Sociological Review, 726–743.
Ben Hazen is an Assistant Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management in
the Department of Operational Sciences at the Air Force Institute of Technology and
a Faculty Affiliate of the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at
the University of Tennessee. Ben’s research interests include social and environ-
mental sustainability in the supply chain, reverse logistics, and innovation. His
research has appeared in leading journals such as the Journal of Business Logistics,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, International Journal of Logistics Management, Technometrics,
and several others.
Joseph B. Skipper is an Associate Professor of Management in the Stafford School of
Business at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. He earned his doctorate in
Management from Auburn University and holds an M.S. in Logistics Management
from the US Air Force Institute of Technology. Dr. Skipper has published work in a
variety of logistics and supply chain related journals including the Journal of Busi-
ness Logistics, the International Journal of Logistics Management, and the International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. His current research
interests include supply chain disruption and disruption avoidance, supply chain
strategy, and supply chain leadership.
Jeremy D. Ezell is an Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems and
Business Analytics at James Madison University. He recently completed his Ph.D. in
Information Systems at Auburn University. His research interests include IT inno-
vation, IT infrastructure, dynamic capabilities, data quality, big data analytics,
organizational learning, and absorptive capacity. His research has appeared in
leading journals including Technometrics, International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, and International Journal of Information and Communication Technology
Education.
Christopher A. Boone is an Assistant Professor of Logistics at Georgia Southern
University. His research interests include supply chain risks and disruptions, closed
loop supply chains, logistics service quality, and transportation. He has published in
several top logistics and supply chain journals, to include Journal of Business
Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain Management, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, and International Journal of Logistics Man-
agement.