Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Production Letters

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-production-letters

A supply chain view of sustainability management

Morgane M.C. Fritz a, b, *
a
Excelia Business School – CERIIM, Supply Chain, Purchasing & Project Management Department, 102, rue de Coureilles, 17024, La Rochelle, France
b
CEREGE, IAE Poitiers, 20, rue Guillaume VII le Troubadour, Bât.E1 - TSA61116, 86073, Poitiers, Cedex 9, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Given the global sustainability challenges facing humans and nature today, this theoretical paper aims to propose
Theory development a supply chain view of sustainability management and thereby contribute to elevating the sustainable supply
Sustainable operations and supply chains chain management field to the level of theory. This is done by identifying supply chain stakeholders and related
Stakeholder theory
sustainability challenges, which reveal the inherent paradoxes and tensions in global consumption and pro­
Supply chain view
Teaching sustainability
duction networks. This perspective supports the urgent need for all supply chain stakeholders to understand
Ethical decision-making sustainability challenges and adopt a sustainability mindset. The focus on reducing supply chain disruptions,
Sustainability mindset improving supply chain resilience, and improving supply chain sustainability performance has neglected and
even undermined broader sustainability challenges, such as climate change. Therefore, this paper first provides a
discussion on the complementarity between stakeholder theory and sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM) from a systems perspective; and, second, develops a novel supply chain theory to enhance sustainability
management by identifying supply chain stakeholders and related sustainability challenges. Linking stakeholder
theory and SSCM facilitates a holistic understanding of sustainability challenges, making it possible to identify
opportunities to improve one’s decisions, actions, and current consumption and production patterns. Instead of
perpetuating a firm- or client-centred perspective, the supply chain view places the product/service at the center
of the stakeholder identification process. It clearly identifies stakeholders upstream, within the focal firm,
downstream, or outside the supply chain (SC), as well as the related sustainability challenges. It encourages all
organizations and individuals to practise their systems thinking skills in order to improve their sustainability
mindset and enhance their subsequent ability to solve sustainability and ethical challenges. The proposed supply
chain view supports managers, policymakers, educators, consultant, consumers, and individuals in identifying
stakeholders and understanding sustainability challenges related to production and consumption effectively. This
extends existing knowledge on sustainability management from a supply chain perspective and opens new
research areas, particularly for ethical decision-making and behavioural sciences.

1. Introduction et al., 2016) take a client- or company-centred approach, while sus­

In a context in which globalization is causing both the development
and management of operations related to products and services to
become more complex due to globalization (Carter et al., 2015; Choi
et al., 2001), stakeholders are increasingly demanding and aware of
sustainability challenges along the supply chain (SC) (Duan et al., 2021).
SCs involve managing the flows of information, finance, and physical
materials—from raw material extraction to the delivery of the final
product/service both to customers in business-to-business (B2B) trans­
actions and/or to consumers in business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions
(Bowersox et al., 2007). In this context, traditional approaches to
stakeholder identification (e.g., Bryson, 2004; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell
tainability issues have extended to global SCs (Fritz et al., 2018). Simi­
larly, business ethics are mostly addressed from a firm perspective (e.g.,
Crane and Matten, 2016), while ethical issues often involve multiple SC
stakeholders, such as consumers, industry peers, policymakers, and the
media (Park-Poaps and Rees, 2010; Wolf, 2014). A supply chain
perspective enables the extension of a firms’ internal and external
stakeholders to include the SC stakeholders (Fritz et al., 2018), revealing
tensions and paradoxes (Matthews et al., 2016) between the firm and its
various stakeholders (Barney and Harrison, 2020) and providing a sys­
tems perspective (Ackoff, 1974). In addition, the various United Na­
tions’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations General
Assembly, 2015) – to date, the most advanced framework to address

* Excelia Business School – CERIIM, Supply Chain, Purchasing & Project Management Department, 102, rue de Coureilles, 17024, La Rochelle, France.
E-mail addresses: fritzm@excelia-group.com, fritz.morgane@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2022.100023
Received 24 May 2022; Received in revised form 20 September 2022; Accepted 26 October 2022
Available online 3 November 2022
2666-7916/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.M.C. Fritz
sustainability challenges – require firms and other organizations to
expand their firm/client-centerd view to a system view (United Nations
Global Compact - UNGC, 2015). This is in order for the UN to develop a
more comprehensive and systemic analysis, which SCs can adequately
reflect (Frooman, 1999; Rowley, 1997; Vandekerckhove and Dentchev,
2005). Finally, it is widely recognized that stakeholder theory can
contribute to theorizing the SSCM field (e.g., Seuring et al., 2022; Rebs
et al., 2019).
The stakeholder theory, as defined by Freeman (1984), significantly
contributes to corporate strategy development by widening the array of
stakeholders with whom a firm should engage. Firms should not focus
only on shareholders’ interests but also on other stakeholders, who are
defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the firm’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984: 25). By referring,
for instance, to firms’ employees, customers, or suppliers, and other
groups such as local communities, governments, or competitors, this
definition broadens the consideration of stakeholders’ interests beyond
the limited view of the firm itself and its shareholders. Recognizing that
this more expansive view is necessary for a firm to ensure its prosperity
and survival (UNGC, 2015), executives have developed a variety of tools
to support stakeholder identification, analysis and engagement, and thus
devise more responsible strategies (Reed et al., 2009). For example, the
rainbow diagram classifies stakeholders according to the degree they
can affect or be affected by a firm’s activities (Chevalier and Buckles,
2008). The interest–influence matrix is another tool that categorizes
stakeholders according to their interest in and influence on a firm (Reed
et al., 2009). However, these tools require more in-depth analysis to
account for the full SC, including the upstream, focal firm and down­
stream components of the SC and their inter-relations (Fritz et al., 2018).
This theoretical paper focuses on the need to extend stakeholder
theory to the SC’s scope, in order to identify the often complex set of SC
stakeholders and their related sustainability challenges (Fritz et al.,
2018). Indeed, to manage SC risks and sustainability challenges (Seuring
and Müller, 2008), current production and consumption systems must
be adapted to meet the agenda of the SDGs (Fritz, 2019), especially SDG
12, which prioritizes responsible production and consumption. SC
stakeholder identification is an essential step towards engaging with all
stakeholders and advancing the transition to sustainability (Fritz et al.,
2018). An SC lens can also contribute to the sustainability transition by
identifying several SDGs and their interrelations (Fritz, 2019). However,
little is known about how to connect stakeholder theory and sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) (Busse et al., 2017; Pagell and
Shevchenko, 2014) while incorporating stakeholders from upstream,
within the focal firm, downstream and the wider society (Svensson et al.,
2018). Hence, this paper proposes a supply chain view (SCV) of sus­
tainability management and addresses the following research question:
How can a supply chain view support the development of more sustainable
consumption and production patterns given the variety of supply chain
stakeholders involved in sustainability challenges?
Recognizing that the objective of global SCs is to deliver a product/
service to customers/consumers while meeting the required metrics of
quality, timespan and costs (Christopher, 1992; Ahi and Searcy, 2013),
the proposed SCV will identify SC stakeholders and the related sus­
tainability challenges by following the various stages through which a
product/service progresses from raw materials to the end consumer (e.
g., design, production, distribution). The approach is developed based
on the conceptualization of the stakeholder theory and SSCM literature.
It is argued that the linkages between SSCM, stakeholder theory and
sustainability challenges can be understood by using the proposed SCV.
In line with Wieland (2021, p.59), the proposed SCV moves away from
‘reductionist and static’ approaches in SSCM. Furthermore, the SCV is
meant to elevate SSCM to the rank of theory by providing users a lens
through which to understand and interpret the sustainability challenges
related to current production and consumption patterns. This is rein­
forced by suggesting the use of the psychological ’sustainability mind­
set’ concept (Rimanoczy, 2020) in order to extend research in SSCM,
2
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
which is needed to explore SSCM’s different levels in SSCM (Wieland,
2021) and reconnect people with nature (Rimanoczy, 2020).
By identifying various levers along the SC, a comprehensive analysis
promotes further engagement with SC stakeholders to accelerate the
sustainability transition so crucial to the world’s future (e.g., Silva and
de Campos, 2020). In contrast to the traditional firm- or client-centred
approach, the novel approach proposed here sets the product/service
at the centre of the identification process and clearly identifies stake­
holders upstream, within the focal firm, downstream, and outside the
SC: this is referred to as the “supply chain view (SCV) of stakeholder
identification and related sustainability challenges.” This SCV identifies a
wider range of stakeholders and sustainability challenges than tradi­
tional firm- or client-centred approaches and thus facilitates the devel­
opment of action plans that address stakeholders’ expectations and
related sustainability challenges comprehensively. It also enables a
higher understanding of sustainability challenges related to individuals’
consumption patterns. Hence, the SCV presents several benefits for or­
ganizations seeking to improve their sustainability performance,
including lower economic, environmental, social and ethical risks; and
assists individuals seeking to improve their sustainability mindset and
decisions.
To develop and present the SCV, the paper is structured as follows.
First, the extant academic literature on stakeholder theory and SSCM is
reviewed to highlight the key elements and gaps that impelled the SCV’s
development. Second, the SCV is presented, defined, and demonstrated
with reference to the SCs for three different products and services where
several sustainability challenges and ethical concerns currently exist:
the electric car, fast fashion goods, and streaming. Third, the SCV is
discussed regarding the value it adds to current theoretical de­
velopments and debates in the SSCM field. Finally, conclusions are
drawn, including areas for further (empirical) research as well as im­
plications for practitioners, researchers, educators, policymakers and
individuals.
2. Theory
2.1. The stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory identifies a firm’s stakeholders by defining
groups and/or individuals whom the firm affects or who affect the firm’s
decisions or actions (Freeman, 1984). By including primary and sec­
ondary stakeholders (see Fig. 1), stakeholder theory allows (for
example) the firm to develop its general strategy to satisfy and prioritize
its stakeholders’ needs. According to Clement (2005), stakeholder the­
ory offers five main contributions for research and practice. First,
stakeholder theory acknowledges the increased pressure stakeholders
exert on firms. Second, it identifies legal requirements necessary to
address stakeholders’ expectations, and third, it clarifies the wider re­
sponsibilities for top management. Fourth, as firms devise their strate­
gies, stakeholder theory allows them to place different weights on the
concerns of different stakeholder groups. Finally, stakeholder theory
asserts that firms can improve their economic performance by answering
stakeholders’ expectations.
This firm-centred approach has been widely employed in research
and practice (Reed et al., 2009). According to Günther and Hüske
(2015), stakeholder theory can promote the understanding of complex
sustainability issues involving the environment, the economy, society
and ethics. However, although stakeholder theory has proven highly
relevant in strategic management, its firm-centred approach exhibits
several limitations, especially due to the increasing number of sustain­
ability issues for which multiple stakeholders in multiple and
inter-related networks share responsibility (Fritz et al., 2018).
One limitation, according to Orts and Strudler (2002), is the stake­
holder theory’s focus on the human beings involved in business activ­
ities. More specifically, they point to the failure of stakeholder theory to
provide ethical guidance for addressing issues, such as environmental
M.M.C. Fritz
Fig. 1. The firm-centred stakeholders.
concerns, that do not directly involve human beings (Orts and Strudler,
2002). Another limitation concerns stakeholder theory’s lack of con­
sistency, coherence, and clarity in understanding stakeholders’ in­
teractions (Heidrich et al., 2009). For example, stakeholder theory
commonly employs “stakeholder identification” and “stakeholder anal­
ysis” as interchangeable terms, although they are not (Achterkamp and
Vos, 2008; Pouloudi and Whitley, 1997; Reed et al., 2009). In contrast,
this paper considers stakeholder identification to be the crucial pre­
requisite for conducting stakeholder analyses (Fritz et al., 2018; Reed
et al., 2009).
Stakeholder theory is also limited by its focus on the firm, allowing
limited network or holistic perspectives. This creates difficulties when
attempting to apply it in an SC context, as its starting point (the orga­
nization), can be considered a bias (Fritz et al., 2018). This is especially
true in the context of globalization, which demands consideration of not
only the firm but also other types of organizations that can be affected by
stakeholders or can have an impact on stakeholders’ decisions and ac­
tions (UNGC, 2015; Carmagnac, 2021). As Bowen (1953) explains, firms
cannot be held responsible for all of society’s unsustainable practices;
therefore, a firm-centred perspective in the field of sustainability man­
agement is insufficient. An organization-centred view (referring to
various types of organizations, not only businesses) offers one alterna­
tive to a firm- or client-centred view, broadening the scope of the
analysis and allowing firms to share responsibilities with other types of
organizations, such as government agencies or non-governmental or­
ganizations (NGOs). Indeed, NGOs’ sustainability efforts can be ques­
tioned when, for instance, they support the protection of coral reefs in
Jamaica in theory but fail to do so in practice because of a lack of ca­
pacity or improper fund management (Haley and Clayton, 2003). An
NGO-centred stakeholder identification would enable such a critique­
—and potentially facilitate solutions—by identifying, understanding
and engaging with the affected and affecting stakeholders. Still, an
NGO-centred stakeholder identification is not different from a
firm/client-centred approach, in that it limits the identification of
stakeholders to a narrow system. At a time when responsibility is shared
among myriad stakeholders, however, it is necessary to broaden our
sights even further and find ways to share responsibility fairly among all
stakeholders. In other words, one needs to acknowledge the “extended
chain of responsibility” (Crane and Matten, 2016, p.414).
Linking stakeholder theory and the supply chain management (SCM)
3
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
field offers one way to do this. While finance, accounting and marketing
scholars have extensively investigated stakeholder theory (Parmar et al.,
2010), the SC field retains opportunities to engage with it further
(Seuring et al., 2022). SCM now requires multi-stakeholder engagement
(Carmagnac, 2021) in order to become more ethical (Fritz, 2022). Crane
and Matten (2016, pp. 414–427) highlighted the importance of ethical
sourcing and fairtrade in this regard, but these activities look only at
upstream challenges and buyer-supplier relations. The absence of dis­
cussion surrounding other areas of SCM highlights further opportunities
for researchers and practitioners, such as those presented in this paper.
2.2. The supply chain stakeholders and sustainability challenges
An SC is commonly defined according to Mentzer et al. (2001: 18) as
follows:
The systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions
and the tactics across these business functions within a particular com­
pany and across businesses within the supply chain, for the purpose of
improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the
supply chain as a whole.
An SC thus consists of a firm, often called the focal firm, that co­
ordinates a set of suppliers and customers to deliver a product or service
of the expected quality at the expected time and speed (Christopher,
1992). Since the late 2000s, researchers and practitioners have devoted
increasing attention to sustainability challenges in the SC (Seuring and
Müller, 2008; Seuring et al., 2022). These challenges, which include
child and forced labour on the social side (e.g., Yawar and Seuring,
2017) and CO2 emissions and waste generation on the environmental
side (e.g., Bouzon et al., 2018), are the consequences of a globalized
economy and inter-SC competition (Gold et al., 2010) to deliver their
products/services to clients at the lowest cost for the focal firm and the
customer/consumer (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Alongside the negative
externalities related to SCM and operations, it is believed that SCM can
also contribute to the development of more sustainable ecosystems
(Mohrman and Worley, 2010), but the SC stakeholders’ role in this re­
gard have been investigated only to a limited extent (Siems and Seuring,
2021).
In the SC world, it is acknowledged that the main SC stakeholders are
the government, customers, and suppliers (Seuring and Müller, 2008).
M.M.C. Fritz
Each of these stakeholders has an impact on the SC’s sustainability
performance by pressuring the focal firm or providing incentives (e.g.,
compliance, reputational risks, competitive advantage; ibid.). Compet­
itors and top management also play a role (Dai et al., 2015; Kitsis and
Chen, 2021). Beyond the issue of pressure and the types of stakeholders
pressuring the SC, however, few scholars have investigated in detail the
relations between stakeholder theory and SCM and the impacts of
stakeholder pressure along the SC (Seles et al., 2016). Stakeholders’
effects on SC sustainability are most often considered in terms of envi­
ronmental practices (e.g., eco-design, responsible procurement, green
manufacturing or green logistics) adopted as a result of stakeholder
pressure (Lo, 2013; Graham, 2020). Indeed, the integration of sustain­
ability practices in SCs are often the consequence of the so-called “green
bullwhip effect” (Laari et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2014), meaning SC part­
ners’ reactive strategies to stakeholder pressure (effected via environ­
mental regulations, for example). These reactive approaches reveal
stakeholders’ failures to deliberately consider and become actively
involved in SC development strategies, which sometimes lead to un­
ethical and unsustainable practices in different SC operations (Fritz,
2022). Another salient issue involves the focal company’s procurement
department pressuring suppliers to prioritize the delivery of goods or
services at a low cost and rapid pace at the expense of environmental,
social or ethical considerations (e.g., Sancha et al., 2019). Another
example concerns shopfloor workers, who are often not engaged in ef­
forts to improve SC sustainability (Starr and Bevis, 2010). These
SC-specific functions and roles underscore the need for stakeholder
theory to consider different types of employees and departments (as
opposed to a single broad “employee” category), as depicted in Fig. 1.
According to Fritz et al. (2018), the proper identification and
engagement of SC stakeholders will reduce unethical and unsustainable
practices for stakeholders both within the SC (e.g., the focal company, or
suppliers participating in the production and delivery processes) and
outside the SC (e.g., policymakers, customers and consumers affected by
decisions and actions made by SC partners). However, such a view has
not yet been fully conceptualized. Theory development for SSCM offers a
way to address this lack of knowledge (Matthews et al., 2016). Ac­
cording to Carter et al. (2015), it is necessary to theorize the concept of
SCM further because SCM research is often oversimplified, providing
neither a realistic nor pragmatic understanding of SCM. Furthermore,
oversimplifying SCM neglects important SC stakeholders. Carter et al.
(2015) recommended considering SCs as networks of stakeholders
(which they call ‘nodes’ or ‘agents’) who exchange products, informa­
tion and financial flows (which they call ‘links’) to enable a holistic
understanding of SCM. However, in the SSCM context, Wieland (2021)
highlighted that considering an SC “as a whole” is problematic because it
pays insufficient attention to the role of individuals. Researchers focus
on management “in” the SC, but this needs to be extended to manage­
ment “through, out and up” the SC (Wieland, 2021). Overall, “the
concept of a sustainable supply chain is poorly understood from both
theoretical and managerial points of view” (Dubey et al., 2017, p. 333).
The UNGC (2015, p.5) defines SSCM as “the management of environ­
mental, social and economic impacts and the encouragement of good
governance practices, throughout the lifecycles of goods and services.
The objective of supply chain sustainability is to create, protect and
grow long-term environmental, social and economic value for all
stakeholders involved in bringing products and services to market.” In
line with the UNGC (2015), it is argued in this paper that a holistic
understanding of SSCM is required to identify all stakeholders related to
a product or service along the SC, and these stakeholders may be found
within the SC, outside the SC or in between (Fritz et al., 2021). Once
identified, these stakeholders can be engaged to identify and address
sustainability challenges (Fritz et al., 2018; Silva and de Campos, 2020).
Given the aforementioned purpose, the proposed SCV contributes to
elevating SSCM to the level of grand theory as it provides a lens to un­
derstand SSCM and address the SDGs related to sustainable or unsus­
tainable production and consumption patterns (SDG o.12). For a theory
4
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
in SSCM to be useful, it needs to be multi-levelled (i.e., encompassing
individual, organizational, network and macroeconomic dimensions);
this is made possible by the use of paradoxical theory that highlights
trade-offs and tensions (Matthews et al., 2016). Furthermore, a good
theory “advances knowledge in a scientific discipline, guides research
toward crucial questions, and enlightens the profession of management”
(Van de Ven, 1989, p. 486). More specifically, a grand theory is useful to
explain a variety of phenomena (Frese, 2005) and should not be too
complex to allow its use by practitioners (Craighead et al., 2016; Frese,
2005). To this end, the stakeholder theory is used to develop the SCV as a
way to better identify stakeholders and related sustainability challenges
by stimulating systems thinking and guide SC stakeholders towards a
sustainability mindset (Rimanoczy, 2020). Indeed, identifying and
engaging SC stakeholders more effectively will increase the number of
stakeholder engagement initiatives, which will also affect the sustain­
ability performance of SCs (Schöggl et al., 2016a) and the consequent
achievement of SDGs.
Based on findings produced by Fritz et al. (2018), Fig. 2 identifies
several SC stakeholders. They can be found within the focal firm (e.g.,
individuals in different departments and business units); within the SC
(e.g., suppliers and other stakeholders who directly contribute to the
manufacture/design of the product/service); and outside the SC (e.g.,
local communities who do not contribute to the manufacture/design of
the product/service but can impact or be impacted by these activities).
All of these stakeholders are linked by a product/service, which is why
the product/service is placed at the centre.
All of these stakeholders may have different sustainability mindsets
impacting SSCM decisions in different ways, which is why it is important
to address the individual dimensions often missing in SSCM (Wieland,
2021) by naming the stakeholders (e.g., transporter) instead of using
terms related to SC processes (e.g., transport). Instead of using the broad
term “employee” as in traditional stakeholder management approaches,
Fig. 2 depicts different types of individuals working in the firm, because
the sustainability mindset extends from individuals who have different
powers over and effects on the sustainability of the firm (e.g., upper
echelon theory, Hambrick and Mason, 1984), and these can affect the
entire SC. Although not addressed in detail in this paper, it is
acknowledged that some stakeholders are context-specific (Fritz et al.,
2018), and this is highlighted by the three examples shown in section
3.2.
3. Proposing a supply chain view of sustainability management
3.1. Definition and process
The SCV comprehensively identifies the variety of stakeholders
involved in or impacted by the development, production, distribution,
sales, and consumption of a product/service. This is relevant to sup­
porting SDG 12 and other sustainability-related objectives that firms,
NGOs, policymakers, local communities and other stakeholders must
address. The SCV extracts multiple stakeholders’ knowledge in various
socio-economic contexts (since most SCs are global and interrelated –
Gold et al., 2010) to identify and solve sustainability challenges related
to production and consumption systems across a range of institutional
contexts (e.g., industrialized, developing economies). Based on these
facts, the SCV of stakeholder identification and related sustainability
challenges is defined as follows:
An approach that enables the identification of all stakeholders related to a
product or service within and outside the supply chain, with the aim of
pinpointing all potential sustainability hotspots based on multiple stake­
holders’ decisions, expectations, and knowledge.
The SCV can be understood as a process for identifying stakeholders
and related sustainability challenges in order to improve SC sustain­
ability, enhanced by the stimulation of the sustainability mindset, as
illustrated by Fig. 3.
M.M.C. Fritz Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023

Fig. 2. Stakeholder identification from a supply chain view.

Fig. 3. The supply chain view process.

The SCV defined here supports users such as managers, policy­
makers, consulting companies, research institutes, NGOs, politicians,
individuals, and any other stakeholders that aim to understand and
enhance SC organizations and sustainability practices in various socio­
economic and cultural contexts. Such a process can be used iteratively
and will result in stable, improved or degraded SC sustainability
depending on users’ development of a sustainability mindset and their
related decisions and actions.
As a complementary approach to stakeholder theory, the proposed
SCV places the core of an SC (i.e., the product or service) at the centre of
the stakeholder identification process. This product- or service-centred
focus—in contrast to firm- or client-centred focus—highlights all the
stakeholders that participate from the upstream to the downstream parts
of the SC process. Different levels can be considered in SCM research as
summarized by Wieland (2021). In this paper, the scope includes
stakeholders and sustainability challenges upstream, within the focal

5
M.M.C. Fritz
company, downstream, and outside the SC. This breadth is essential to
identifying stakeholders and related sustainability challenges (Wieland,
2021), as they differ at these different levels (Fritz et al., 2018). For
instance, upstream the SC of a focal company manufacturing electronic
goods, one can identify issues related to supplier selection (based, for
example, on geographic origin, quality or sustainability performance),
respect for human rights (e.g., child or forced labour), and environ­
mental contamination (e.g., pollution of the soil from mineral extraction
processes [e.g., Govindan et al., 2021]). Within this focal company,
sustainability issues would concern health and safety, water consump­
tion, and CO2 emissions (e.g., Fritz et al., 2017). Meanwhile, down­
stream the SC of this manufacturing company, sustainability challenges
would involve informing consumers about the proper disposal of their
electronic products and/or collecting electronic goods to be recycled (e.
g., Saari et al., 2018).
Beginning with the product or service and identifying all SC stake­
holders in the focal organization and within and outside the SC en­
courages the identification of stakeholders’ impact on the environment
and society. An SCV is relevant because various studies in SCM aim to
identify, measure and monitor the impacts of a product/service on the
environment and society (see Schöggl et al., 2016b). For instance,
product life cycle assessments (LCAs) trace the impact of all SC activities
(e.g., sourcing, purchasing, transforming, manufacturing, delivering) on
the environment, while the social life cycle assessments (S-LCAs) trace
impacts on society (Benoît Norris et al., 2014). The 3Rs (reduce, reuse,
recycling) also facilitate efforts to rethink firms’ activities in a SC in
order to reduce potentially negative impacts on the environment and
society (e.g., Haake and Seuring, 2009).
To identify stakeholders holistically, however, it is necessary to
address stakeholders outside the SC as well (e.g., government agencies,
federations, consumer associations) (Fritz et al., 2018). SSCM supports
this view as stakeholders are important drivers for SSCM (Seuring and
Müller, 2008; Carmagnac, 2021). In SSCM, stakeholders’ demands must
be satisfied, and these stakeholders, such as NGOs, local communities or
government agencies, are not solely or even primarily interested in the
economic performance of the SC but rather in the SC’s environmental
and social performance (Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014). In addition,
investors increasingly require firms to prove their sustainability per­
formance (e.g., the Investor Carbon Disclosure Project).1 An SCV must,
therefore, address these demands and increase SCs’ sustainability and
responsibility for their positive and negative environmental and social
externalities. In contrast to the proposed view, managers who adopt a
firm- or client-centred view consider only profitability and thus may be
unable to satisfy other stakeholders’ expectations (Pagell and Shev­
chenko, 2014). These shortcomings underline the need for comple­
mentary approaches to define SCs and stakeholders’ responsibilities.
This paper focuses on sustainability issues because it is usually easier to
reach consensus on “the problem of unsustainability than how to tran­
sition toward sustainable development” (Matthews et al., 2016, p.84).
Furthermore, the SCV can be considered contributory to constructivist
paradigms as it is “concerned with how supply chain stakeholders make
sense of sustainability” (Matthews et al., 2016, p.89).
3.2. Application of the supply chain view to the electric car, fast fashion,
and streaming supply chains
To exemplify these arguments, three different examples of SC sus­
tainability challenges are studied. The first uses electric vehicles as a
product example, one which also requires a service, namely the supply
of energy (see Fig. 4). The second example looks at sustainability chal­
lenges in the fast fashion SC based on business examples such as Schein,
and highlights both upstream and downstream challenges (Fig. 5). The
third example takes streaming, the internet provision of audio, filmic
1
https://www.cdp.net/en/investor.
6
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
and televisual entertainment, as an example of a service (Fig. 6). All
examples were developed with publicly available information to high­
light the practicability of the approach for any user complemented by
academic publications. The sustainability challenges identified are ex­
amples of SDGs and are not meant to provide a full picture of every
sustainability challenge facing each example. All examples illustrate the
SC of a product or service, the related stakeholders, and sustainability
challenges. They all need to be linked to the stakeholders represented in
Fig. 2 (the stakeholders within the focal firm, within the SC and outside
the SC), none of whom are represented in detail in each example so as to
facilitate the reading and comprehension of these illustrative cases.
3.2.1. The example of the electric car supply chain
Fig. 4 presents an initial list of SC stakeholders and related sustain­
ability challenges using the SCV. With the example of the electric car,
one can observe different sustainability challenges and stakeholders
upstream, in the focal company, downstream and outside the electric car
SC. For instance, the selection of raw materials and spare parts (up­
stream) will involve sustainability challenges in the sourcing from
suppliers who may exhibit poor health and safety working conditions
(related for example to SDG 3), engage in child labor (affecting SDG 4
and SDG 8), or contribute to environmental contamination (involving
SDG 15, SDG 14, SDG 3). Indeed, electric cars have a negative impact on
the health of local mining communities and the issue of battery recycling
remains to be solved (Wieland, 2021; Ciez and Whitacre, 2019). Up­
stream in the SC, mining activities can be linked to all 17 SDGs (Hirons,
2020).
Within the focal firm, engineers and managers play a key role related
to SDG 9 for the sustainable design of vehicles (Mitchell et al., 2004;
Johnston et al., 2007). Recent studies also show the importance of
gender diversity among board members (related to SDG 5) to reduce the
environmental impact of the SC in the transport sector (Kuzey et al.,
2022).
Downstream in the SC, electric vehicles are non-polluting cars with
no (direct) CO2 emissions (Renault Group, 2019) which supports SDG
13 for stakeholders lower down the SC (e.g., users) and outside the SC (e.
g., states with a Zero Carbon policy). However, it remains questionable
whether these benefits are significant enough to compensate for the
increased energy use required to charge the vehicles’ batteries, which is
sometimes renewable but can also rely on nuclear power, challenging
SDG 7. For example, in 2019, 70.6% of France’s energy originated from
nuclear power plants (Statista, 2021). This analysis could extend further,
to integrate wind power, solar power or other technologies, each of
which would introduce similar sustainability challenges upstream (e.g.,
raw material sourcing) and downstream (e.g., recycling) in the electric
car SC. In addition, the SCV can highlight the impact of changes in one
part of the SC on another part of the SC or on interrelated SCs. For
instance, increasing the use of renewable energies will increase the
accessibility of these energies (SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy) and
reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions (SDG 13: Climate Action) in areas
where renewable energies are utilized. However, these efforts will also
increase the need for raw material extraction and thus the risks to
workers’ health and safety (SDG 3), child labour (related to SDG 8 and
SDG 4), and environmental contamination upstream in the SC (related to
SDG 6, SDG 14 and SDG 15).
Among stakeholders outside the electric car SC, some tensions and
paradoxes are highlighted by the SCV. For instance, while the European
Union voted in favour of a ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 2035 to speed
up the adoption of electric vehicles and cut down CO2 emissions
(Euronews, 2022), some experts in environmental challenges –like
Jean-Marc Jancovici, founder of the Shift Project and creator of the
“Bilan Carbone” (Carbon footprint assessment tool), or the International
Energy Agency (IEA)– state that it will not be possible to cut CO2
emissions by using electric vehicles because of the lack of raw materials
needed to manufacture such cars for all users (IEA, 2022; Lagadec,
2022). Furthermore, the expansion of electric cars (among other
M.M.C. Fritz Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023

Fig. 4. Examples of supply chain stakeholders and related sustainability challenges for the electric car, using the SCV.

Fig. 5. Examples of supply chain stakeholders and related sustainability challenges for fast fashion goods, using the SCV.

products requiring more energy) may create tensions outside the SC at
nation-state level, between countries ordering and countries producing
renewable energy. These tensions, in turn, could hinder SDG 16: Peace,
Justice and Strong Institutions and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.
3.2.2. The example of the fast fashion supply chain
The fast fashion supply chain is another sector facing contemporary
sustainability issues (Menke et al., 2021). It has been in the focus of
several publications in SSCM, especially because of globalization, con­
tradictions between the long-term perspectives needed for sustainability

7
M.M.C. Fritz
Fig. 6. Examples of supply chain stakeholders and related sustainability challenges for streaming services, using the SCV.
and fast changes in fashion, and negative environmental, social, eco­
nomic and ethical externalities (Köksal et al., 2017). Several studies
describe the fashion SC (e.g., Köksal et al., 2017; Warasthe et al., 2022),
which is further elaborated here by adding sustainability challenges and
related stakeholders (Fig. 5).
One of the important sustainability issues in the fashion sector is the
use of dyes to colour textiles, which is responsible for about 20% of
global water contamination (affecting SDG 6 and SDG 14) according to
the French agency for ecological transition (ADEME, 2022) and corre­
sponds to activities taking place upstream in the SC or within the focal
firm. According to Greenpeace (2022), only 15% of all fast fashion firms
signed up to progressively stop using chemicals in their SC and the in­
dustry is still responsible for about 2% of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions, although this figure is expected to rise to 26% in 2050 if
current production and consumption patterns do not change (SDG 13).
Local communities and workers are thus affected with health issues
(SDG 3 and SDG 8) and nature is contaminated (SDG 14 and SDG 15).
Impacts on nature link all human beings to issues upstream in the fast
fashion SC because of global food chain contamination from the
manufacture and use (washing) of clothes (e.g., Dalla Fontana et al.,
2020; De Falco et al., 2020).
Within the focal firm, issues include human working conditions, low
salaries, child labour and modern slavery in both developing and
developed countries because of trade-offs between cheap goods, fast
delivery, transportation costs and business survival, all of which have
been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Cole and Shirgholami,
2021; Greenpeace, 2022). The rise in fast fashion sales also generated a
rise in transport (Greenpeace, 2022) and an increasing use of polyester
since it is a cheap material, which contaminates water and thus en­
dangers marine species and human food chain, in addition to emitting
three times more CO2 than cotton, thus linked with, e.g., SDG 6, SDG 14,
SDG 13 and SDG 15. Issues might also be related to a lack of trans­
parency, cooperation and sustainability mindset among focal firms and
stakeholders outside the SC (Benstead et al., 2018).
Downstream in the SC, sustainability challenges persist with
8
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
unsustainable consumption habits (SDG 12). The ADEME highlights that
individuals buy on average 60% more clothes than in the early 2000’s
and keep them 50% less longer (McKinsey&Co, 2016). Increased pur­
chases through online platforms like Shein are a source of concern
because of workers’ working conditions, low salaries, and the
non-respect of labour rights upstream in the SC (Public Eye, 2021). In
addition, less than 1% of textiles used to manufacture clothes are recy­
cled to make new clothes (Wicker, 2016). The Ellen Mac Arthur Foun­
dation (2022) reports that “every second, the equivalent of a rubbish
truck load of clothes is burnt or buried in landfill”. One reason for
burning or landfilling clothes is economic, as it is cheaper than recycling
(Williams, 2022). These burnings take place in developing countries
where legislation on the issue does not exist or where there is no control
of textile waste entering the country. According to Professor Dilys Wil­
liams, director of the Centre for Sustainable Fashion at the London
College of Fashion, “This lack of regulation and incentives to grow
infinitely are an absurdity on a finite planet” (Williams, 2022). The
Atacama Desert in Chile is one place (among many) where local com­
munities and animals suffer from the contamination of the air, land and
water (BBC, 2022; BBC, 2021).
Overall, fast fashion leads to CO2 emissions that are greater than the
sum of the aviation and shipping emissions (related to SDG 13); that
contaminate land and water (SDG 6, SDG 14 and SDG 15); and that have
negative impacts on human health upstream, within the focal firm and
downstream in the SC (e.g., SDG 3 and SDG 8) (Williams, 2022). As
stated by Professor Williams, wherever sustainability issues occurr in the
fast fashion SC, “collectively and individually, we are all paying” (Wil­
liams, 2022). This example underlines the importance of considering
nature a stakeholder: Yvon Chouniard, founder of the clothing company
Patagonia, donated his fortune to organizations working on environ­
mental preservation and stated “as for now, Earth is our only share­
holder” (McCormick, 2022). The example also highlights the need to
engage marketers and consumers in the reduction of fast fashion’s un­
sustainable practices, as argued already by Smith et al. (2010). The fast
fashion example could be extended further by looking at suppliers’
M.M.C. Fritz
suppliers called ’tier-n’ suppliers (e.g., label suppliers).
3.2.3. The example of the streaming supply chain
Streaming music, movies and games offer a third example of
contemporary sustainability challenges. It also illustrates how to use the
SCV in the case of a service. The topic is less studied in SSCM, but the
streaming SC can be mapped thanks to publicly available sources (e.g.,
Cloudflare, 2022; CDN Networks, 2021). Streaming is the act of
watching online videos or listening to online music provided by a plat­
form such as YouTube or Amazon without needing to download a file.
The main sustainability challenges related to this SC are CO2 emissions
and energy consumption (Suski et al., 2021). Indeed, energy needs are
located upstream, within and downstream in the SC, driven by indi­
viduals’/users’ dependency on streaming services (see Fig. 6).
In addition, the streaming SC is interlinked with the SCs of the device
manufacturers, raw materials providers, energy suppliers and content
creators. Such interconnectedness emphasizes the sustainability impacts
of streaming worldwide.
Upstream in the SC, one can find sustainability challenges that are
similar to those posed by electric vehicles (see Fig. 4 and related ex­
planations), as mining activities are necessary to extract the raw mate­
rials needed to manufacture electronic devices. In addition, issues
related to data centres need to be addressed. Data centres, where audio
and video files are stored, account for an increase in energy demand
worldwide as well as increased numbers of user devices (e.g., computers,
tablets, smartphones and televisions). It is estimated that data centres
use about 1% of the world’s generated electricity, which corresponds to
0.3% of worldwide CO2 emissions (Planetly, 2022); however, when the
energy needs for user devices are added, it corresponds to 2% of
worldwide CO2 emissions (Monserrate, 2022; Forbes, 2021). One data
centre can consume as much energy as 50,000 homes (Monserrate,
2022). In addition, data centres often need cooling systems to reduce
CO2 emissions (SDG 13), which implies massive use of water and can
cause drought in some regions (SDG 6) such as in Mesa, Arizona
(Monserrate, 2022), affecting humans and nature. Monserrate (2022)
highlights an ethical question in this regard as such use of water by a
data centre could be considered as “inessential and irresponsible given
resource constraints”. He further highlights noise pollution and other
factors that negatively affect local communities (SDG 3).
Within the focal firm, little information was found on SC sustain­
ability issues except the fact that given the increasing awareness on
energy consumption by data centres, streaming services from companies
like Apple (iTunes), Amazon, Spotify or Netflix have set targets to
become carbon neutral (Fortune, 2021; Planetly, 2022). CO2 emissions
from streaming platforms like Netflix come from the production of
content (50%) and operational activities (45%) – but users’ related CO2
emissions are not counted in the figures the firm provides (Fortune,
2021).
Downstream in the SC, a strong focus is placed on users of streaming
services, i.e., individuals.
The impact of streaming is approximately 55gCO2e per hour for
video streaming in Europe, which is comparatively low when one con­
siders that driving a petrol-fuelled car 100 m emits about 22gCO2e
(Carbon Trust, 2021, p.8-9). The problem arises from the increasing use
of streaming, which leads to increasing internet traffic that causes an
increase in energy needs and CO2 emissions (Carbon Trust, 2021).
Users’ CO2 emissions depend on the amount of streaming conducted,
the energy efficiency of their devices and the type of energy used (i.e.,
renewable or non-renewable) (Fortune, 2021). The larger the device
screen, for example, the more energy is required (Planetly, 2022). It is
also worth noting that a certain amount of energy is wasted when users
use video platforms to listen to music, as video streaming consumes
more energy than music (Planetly, 2022). Choosing cloud gaming
instead of local gaming also corresponds to greater energy consumption
(+156%, (Planetly, 2022).
In this example, the climate change target (SDG 13) highlights the
9
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
interconnectedness of the streaming SC stakeholders thanks to the SCV.
However, in this example, users play a significant role regarding CO2
emissions due to their energy consumption habits, decisions and be­
haviours (Planetly, 2022; Suski et al., 2021). While research in SSCM
increasingly looks at the potentials of digitalisation to develop sustain­
able SCs, trade-offs and the risks of environmental degradation need to
be assessed (Sarkis et al., 2020). An SCV on streaming questions the
feasibility of further energy consumption, especially in the current
geopolitical situation with the European Union’s targets on climate
change, increasing remote work and online meetings, and the conflict
between Ukraine and Russia all leading to uncertainty about future
energy availability, at least for the Winter of 2022. Following recovery
from the COVID-19 crisis, energy needs are predicted to rise by 4%
worldwide, while data centres will increase significantly their use of
terawatt-hours (GRC, 2022). In this context, Marks and Przedpełski
(2022) underline the need to compute within planetary limits and
develop low-carbon movies. The Earth’s capacity to provide humans
with the energy they need therefore strongly depends on users’ behav­
iour within the focal firm and downstream in the SC (GRC, 2022) and on
the energy efficiency of the devices manufactured upstream (GRC,
2022).
4. Discussion
The field of SSCM has been moving forward with both theory
development and multi-disciplinary approaches (e.g., Seuring et al.,
2022; Silva et al., 2022; Wieland, 2021; Matthews et al., 2016). In this
context, a need to further explore the combination of the stakeholder
theory with SSCM still remained (Seuring et al., 2022; Rebs et al., 2019).
This need has been addressed in this paper by proposing the SCV of
sustainability management, which enables the highlighting of sustain­
ability issues and opportunities along the SC of a product or service, as
well as allowing the affected/affecting stakeholders to engage with and
address the sustainability challenges represented by the SDGs
(Figs. 4–6).
The three examples of the electric car, fast fashion and streaming SCs
enable SSCM to rise to the level of theory in several ways. First, the SCV
highlights the complexity of SSCM using a realistic and pragmatic
approach, answering the call from Carter et al. (2015). Indeed, the
provided illustrations reflect the flow of goods and services, which is an
exercise that researchers, managers, policymakers and individuals from
different fields can accomplish by collecting information (e.g., through
the Internet) and interacting with each other. Second, by considering the
flow of goods and services as well as the related stakeholders and sus­
tainability challenges, the SCV provides a holistic understanding of
SSCM, which has long been needed (Carter et al., 2015). Third, the SCV
is a complementary view to the stakeholder theory when addressing
SDG 12 on responsible production and consumption since it allows the
application of the stakeholder theory in the SSCM context, the absence
of which was one limitation of the stakeholder theory as identified by
Fritz et al. (2018), overcoming the risks of oversimplification and of
considering the SC “as a whole” (Wieland, 2021). Fourth, the SCV allows
the identification of the multiple layers that are concerned with sus­
tainability management issues (individual, organizational, network and
macroeconomic dimensions) as well as the paradoxes, tensions and
trade-offs that occur along the SC, as recommended by Matthews et al.
(2016). Fifth, the SCV qualifies as a grand theory because it explains the
current state of sustainability challenges related to production and
consumption, without being too complex, and can guide management
professionals towards crucial research needs and changes in practices
(Van de Ven, 1989; Frese, 2005; Craighead et al., 2016).
Overall, it is claimed that the SCV enables the application of the
concept of SSCM to all stakeholders, an approach that has been missing
thus far (Dubey et al., 2017). Contrary to most SSCM research, the
proposed SCV is not only meant to serve SC researchers and managers,
but any individual or organization, since sustainability challenges are an
M.M.C. Fritz
issue for all human beings and the planet. An SCV of this type enables its
users to understand bottlenecks and individuals’ contributions to sus­
tainable or unsustainable consumption and production patterns.
In this regard, the SCV underlines the need for SSCM research to pay
more attention to individuals’ behaviours (Wieland, 2021), such as was
demonstrated in the examples of the streaming (Suski et al., 2021) or
fast fashion (Benstead et al., 2018) SCs. This is a gap that can be
addressed in various ways. For example, Pournader et al. (2022)
recommend digging into behavioural theories. The SCV contributes to
filling this gap by questioning who in the firm is playing a role in SSCM.
Different individuals can be involved: the SC manager by organizing the
production and planning delivery of goods; the CSR manager by defining
the sustainability policy of the firm; the marketing manager by requiring
specific packaging and deciding upon the content of the communication
strategy; the finance manager by allowing spending on innovation for
more sustainable products; the CEO by clearly positioning the firm on a
sustainable trajectory (or not); and the workers by realizing their tasks
properly and understanding the purpose of their tasks.
Furthermore, this paper highlights the need to consider nature wich,
other than in a handful of countries (e.g., Ecuador, New Zealand, USA,
Colombia, India – Darpö, 2021), has no voice as a stakeholder. The three
examples highlight in several instances that current production and
consumption patterns have an impact on nature, either by creating
water scarcity (as in the streaming SC example), contaminating water
and soil (as in mining activities upstream in the streaming and electric
vehicle SCs, and the washing of clothes downstream in the fast fashion
SC), or contributing to climate change (issues of energy consumption or
CO2 emissions in all three examples). Using the SCV to consider nature
as a stakeholder enables attention to be paid to planetary boundaries
(Rockström et al., 2009), by showing the effects of SCM on, for instance,
biodiversity, life on land and life below water, which is missing in SSCM
literature and is needed to develop truly sustainable SCs (Wieland, 2021;
Montabon et al., 2016; Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014).
In this vein, Benstead et al. (2018) refer to the need to align SC
stakeholders’ mindsets to reach SSCM. To continue this discussion, it is
proposed to look at the applicability of the sustainability mindset
concept (Rimanoczy, 2020) to SSCM, as it may be able to account both
for individuals’ behaviours and nature’s rights. The Sustainability
Mindset (SM) is:
A way of thinking and being that results from a broad understanding of
the ecosystem’s manifestations, from social sensitivity, as well as an
introspective focus on one’s personal values and higher self, and finds its
expression in actions for the greater good of the whole (Rimanoczy,
2020, p.19).
A sustainability mindset could be considered a prerequisite to sus­
tainability management and practices that will both lead to more
stakeholder engagement such as with final consumers (Silva et al., 2021)
and stimulate cooperation among all SC stakeholders (SDG 17) to solve
sustainability challenges related to current production and consumption
patterns (SDG 12). The SM is composed of four content areas and twelve
principles, the latter being related to several aspects of the proposed
SCV: interconnectedness, oneness with nature, flow in circles, purpose,
long-term thinking and creative innovation. By adding the concept of
the sustainability mindset to the SCV, users may better understand the
system of which they are a part of, and identify and foresee the impact of
their decisions and actions on other SC stakeholders and on nature.
Outside the supply chain management world, the combination of the
sustainability mindset and the SCV could also be used to expand users’
understanding of global consumption and production systems and their
roles (e.g., subsidies or regulations for policymakers, awareness-raising
tools for educators, purchasing decisions for consumers). Further
empirical research could investigate how to stimulate such a mindset
among the SC stakeholders and study its impact on the entire SC’s
sustainability.
Importantly, the SCV analysis illustrated here with three examples
10
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
can be conducted with any product and service to raise the awareness of
policymakers, managers, employees and users regarding their stake­
holders and related sustainability challenges, and thereby support their
efforts to make more sustainable and ethical decisions. The more people
are involved in the SCV, the more complex— but also the more real­
istic— the analysis. As stated by Carter et al. (2015), the level of un­
derstanding of the SC will depend on the ‘agents’ involved in the
process, as well as the product under consideration and agents’ knowl­
edge about the upstream and downstream SC network. As a practical
matter, the use of the SCV impels practitioners and individuals to ask
themselves the following questions: Where does the product/service I
buy originate? Which organizations participate in the production of this
product/service, and can they be considered sustainable? If not, can I
support them in becoming more sustainable or are there alternatives?
Which stakeholders are affected by the production, distribution, de­
livery and recycling of this product/service, and what are the impacts (i.
e., positive and negative externalities) of these processes (upstream,
within the focal firm, downstream or outside the SC)? Asking such
questions will enable practitioners and individuals to identify stake­
holders and their interests, identify SC risks and, ultimately, reduce costs
related to unanticipated or neglected sustainability challenges. By using
an SCV, managers might address sustainability challenges through
training, capacity-building and cooperation with supply chain stake­
holders (e.g., Sarkis et al., 2010; Seles et al., 2016). Similarly, inte­
grating such questions among educators, policymakers or individuals’
activities will encourage them to think in terms of systems and develop
their sustainability mindset.
This paper presents some limitations that are also avenues for further
research. For instance, it does not highlight how to practise SSCM (Silva
et al., 2022), but the SCV can be a way to identify and stimulate SSCM
practices among SC stakeholders. The SCV can also become part of the
routines of organizations and individuals (Silva and Figueiredo, 2020),
by converting it into a recurring exercise of mapping stakeholders and
related sustainability challenges when making decisions that support the
SDGs, since stakeholders and their expectations may change over time
(Wieland, 2021). The SCV does not highlight how to solve sustainability
challenges in the SC (Matthews et al., 2016) but is a starting point to
doing so, as before one can solve such challenges, one must know where
they occur (upstream, within the focal firm, downstream or outside the
SC) and which stakeholders are concerned. Consequently, the SCV can
be considered a view that should lead decision-makers to actions and
decisions that support sustainability. As proposed in the metaphor of
Wieland (2021), we need to “dance the supply chain” and the SCV en­
ables us to identify the partners we could dance with, the attributes they
offer and the ways in which they can help identify solutions to the great
sustainability challenges of our times.
Practitioners will benefit from this research in three different ways.
First, the SCV is a tool to identify both current and potential sustain­
ability challenges along the SC and the stakeholders who impact or are
impacted by them. The SCV thus enables any organization, group of
organizations or individual to identify risks and engage with stake­
holders to address shared challenges (SDG 17). Second, the SCV can be
used as tool to identify interrelated SCs and potential ways to engage
further stakeholders to address the SDGs. Third, by identifying risks and
engaging with stakeholders, organizations can avoid costs related to
environmental, social and ethical issues (e.g., Giannakis and Papado­
poulos, 2016). While consultants can use the SCV to support organiza­
tions in identifying their stakeholders and sustainability challenges,
policymakers can use the SCV to better understand the current and
potential impacts of their decisions and regulations and thereby avoid
unexpected negative consequences, such as the transfer of sustainability
issues to other sectors or countries (see the example of the electric
vehicle SC provided earlier). Meanwhile, researchers and educators can
employ the SCV to teach students about stakeholder theory, Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR), SSCM and sustainable procurement, and
thereby illuminate the implications of their buying decisions. The SCV
M.M.C. Fritz
can also help students understand the importance of stakeholder
engagement to address sustainability challenges and it can help con­
sumers understand sustainability challenges related to production and
consumption, allowing them to make more informed and ethical pur­
chasing decisions (e.g., Duan et al., 2021). Further, the SCV does not
make it necessary to define direct/indirect or primary/secondary
stakeholders, a determination that sometimes proves difficult to make
(as stated in a reflection by a participant in an SCV workshop organised
by the author). Rather, the SCV structures the process of stakeholder
identification by simply following the product/service development,
production, and use phases.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, SSCM is conceptualized and brought to the theory level
by combining stakeholder theory and SSCM literature to propose a SCV
of sustainability management, which was exemplified with two product
and one service SC. The contributions to the field made by the proposed
SCV are manifold. First, it fills a gap in the stakeholder identification
process, which is the need to identify stakeholders related not only to a
firm or client but to the entire production, distribution and usage cycle
of goods and services. This requires identifying SC stakeholders up­
stream, within the focal firm and downstream, as well as stakeholders
outside the SC (i.e., those not contributing to the production of the
good/service, such as the government or local communities). All these
stakeholders affect or are affected by sustainability challenges related to
current production and consumption patterns. Second, because it iden­
tifies the stakeholders and sustainability challenges related to a product/
service, the SCV is more detailed and holistic than a firm- or client-
centred perspective. Third, the SCV encourages users (e.g., managers,
consultants, policymakers, educators, students and individuals) to adopt
the perspective of the entire system rather than the perspective of only
one stakeholder (e.g., the firm or the client) which better reflects the
reality. In this way, it helps users to realize the complexity of sustain­
ability challenges and identify all potential hotspots, blind spots, and the
stakeholders with whom to engage in addressing sustainability chal­
lenges to manage risks and opportunities more holistically. Such a
perspective may prove particularly useful for supporting various SC
stakeholders in addressing the SDGs, especially SDG 12 with its focus on
sustainable consumption and production. Fourth, the SCV enlarges the
number and types of stakeholders that can be identified and thereby
more accurately reflects the reality of today’s production and con­
sumption systems, from raw materials to product end-of-life. Fifth and
finally, the SCV contributes to the development of individuals’ sus­
tainability mindsets through systems thinking, purpose identification
and oneness with nature principles, which are needed at all levels of
society and in any type of organization in order to shift towards more
sustainable consumption and production patterns.
In sum, this paper revises the contributions of stakeholder theory to
identify SC stakeholders and sustainability challenges along the full
length of the SC, providing a SCV of sustainability management. The
main differences between the stakeholder theory and the SCV are that
the SCV places the product/service at the centre of the stakeholder
identification process and highlights a wider range of stakeholders and
related sustainability challenges; in this way, the SCV reduces the risk of
omitting stakeholders or sustainability challenges. By employing the
SCV, users can not only identify relevant stakeholders and sustainability
challenges but also exert their sustainability mindset. It thus provides a
complementary theory to the stakeholder theory to identify and un­
derstand more holistically today’s sustainability challenges and engage
with the multiple SC stakeholders to solve these challenges upstream,
within the focal firm, downstream and/or outside the supply chain, as
encouraged by SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.
Directions for future research include further qualitative and quan­
titative research. Further research on the SCV could lead to the devel­
opment of guidelines and questions one should think about in order to
11
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
solve sustainability challenges at one’s level, adapted to the types of
users (consumers, individuals, managers, policymakers, educators or
researchers) involved. Additional empirical research to quantify the
added value of the use of the SCV and make a business case for it through
single or multiple case studies as well as focus groups and large-scale
surveys could and should be conducted to demonstrate its value.
Declaration of competing interest
I declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the people who helped me develop further
the supply chain view, which I initially proposed in my PhD thesis, and
who helped me clarify my contributions.
References
Achterkamp, M.C., Vos, J.F.J., 2008. Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in
project management literature: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (7), 749–757.
Ackoff, R., 1974. Redesigning the Future: a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.
Wiley, New York.
ADEME, 2022. La Mode Sans Dessus-Dessous. Available at: https://multimedia.ademe.
fr/infographies/infographie-mode-qqf/. (Accessed 18 September 2022).
Ahi, P., Searcy, C.A., 2013. Comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 329–341.
Barney, J.B., Harrison, J.S., 2020. Stakeholder theory at the crossroads. Bus. Soc. 59 (2),
203–212.
Bbc, 2021. Fast Fashion: the Dumping Ground for Unwanted Clothes. Available at:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-58836618. (Accessed 2 September
2022).
Bbc, 2022. The Fast Fashion Graveyard in Chile’s Atacama Desert. Available at: htt
ps://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-60249712. (Accessed 2 September 2022).
Benoît Norris, C., 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 (10), 6973–6984.
Benstead, A.V., Hendry, L.C., Stevenson, M., 2018. Horizontal collaboration in response
to modern slavery legislation: an action research project. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
38 (12), 2286–2312.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M., 2018. Evaluating barriers for reverse
logistics implementation under a multiple stakeholders’ perspective analysis using
grey decision-making approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 315–335.
Bowen, H.R., 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row, New
York.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Cooper, M.B., 2007. Supply Chain Logistics Management.
McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Bryson, J.M., 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and
analysis techniques. Publ. Manag. Rev. 6 (1), 21–53.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J., Wagner, S.M., 2017. Extending the supply
chain visibility boundary - utilizing stakeholders for identifying supply chain
sustainability risks. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 47 (1), 18–40.
Carbon Trust, 2021. Carbon Impact of Video Streaming. The Carbon Trust, pp. 8–9.
Available at: https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource
/public/Carbon-impact-of-video-streaming.pdf. (Accessed 16 September 2022).
Carmagnac, L., 2021. Expanding the boundaries of SSCM: the role of non-traditional
actors. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 22 (3), 1–13.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., Choi, T.Y., 2015. Toward the theory of the supply chain.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 51 (2), 89–97.
CDN Networks, 2021. What Is Video Streaming and How Does it Work? Available at: htt
ps://www.cdnetworks.com/media-delivery-blog/what-is-video-streaming-and-how-
does-it-work/. (Accessed 16 September 2022).
Chevalier, J.M., Buckles, D., 2008. SAS2: A Guide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social
Engagement. SAGE, Delhi/London.
Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J., Rungtusanatham, M., 2001. Supply networks and complex
adaptive systems: control versus emergence. J. Oper. Manag. 19 (3), 351–366.
Christopher, M., 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Pitman, London.
Ciez, R.E., Whitacre, J.F., 2019. Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion
batteries. Nat. Sustain. 2 (2), 148–156.
Clement, R.W., 2005. The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. business leaders. Bus.
Horiz. 48 (3), 255–264.
Cloudflare, 2022. What Is Streaming? | How Video Streaming Works. Available at: https
://www.cloudflare.com/learning/video/what-is-streaming/. (Accessed 16
September 2022).
M.M.C. Fritz
Cole, R., Shirgholami, Z., 2021. The outlook for modern slavery in the apparel sector in a
post-lockdown economy. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 27 (4), 526–537.
Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Cheng, L., 2016. ‘Goldilocks’ theorizing in supply chain
research: balancing scientific and practical utility via middle-range theory.
Transport. J. 55 (3), 241–257.
Crane, A., Matten, D., 2016. Business Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dai, J., Montabon, F.L., Cantor, D.E., 2015. Linking rival and stakeholder pressure to
green supply management: mediating role of top management support. Transport.
Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 74, 124–138.
Dalla Fontana, G., Mossotti, R., Montarsolo, A., 2020. Assessment of microplastics release
from polyester fabrics: the impact of different washing conditions. Environ. Pollut.
264, 113960.
Darpö, J., 2021. CAN NATURE GET it RIGHT? A Study on Rights of Nature in the
European Context. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.
eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/689328/IPOL_STU(2021)689328_EN.pdf.
(Accessed 20 September 2022).
De Falco, F., Cocca, M., Avella, M., Thompson, R.C., 2020. Microfiber release to water,
via laundering, and to air, via everyday use: a comparison between polyester
clothing with differing textile parameters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (6), 3288–3296.
Duan, Y., Aloysius, J.A., Mollenkopf, D.A., 2021. Communicating supply chain
sustainability: transparency and framing effects. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
52 (1), 68–87.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Fosso Wamba, S., 2017.
World class sustainable supply chain management: critical review and further
research directions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 28 (2), 332–362.
Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2022. Redesigning the Future of Fashion. Available at:
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/fashion/overview?gclid=CjwKCAjwg
5uZBhATEiwAhhRLHmwMZvUh7lVzKtiSrzraVQaMuxWd3IYQSiwe8CZN5KZt_d
iHyginJxoC8RYQAvD_BwE. (Accessed 18 September 2022).
Euronews, 2022. EU Lawmakers Endorse Ban on New Petrol and Diesel Cars from 2035.
Available at: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/06/09/eu-parliament-backs-
ban-on-new-petrol-and-diesel-combustion-engine-cars-from-2035. (Accessed 19
September 2021).
Public Eye, 2021. Toiling Away for Shein: Looking behind the Shiny Façade of the
Chinese “Ultra-fast Fashion” Giant. Available at: https://stories.publiceye.ch/en/sh
ein/. (Accessed 18 September 2022).
Forbes, 2021. Renewable Energy Alone Can’t Address Data Centers’ Adverse
Environmental Impact. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcoun
cil/2021/05/03/renewable-energy-alone-cant-address-data-centers-adverse-environ
mental-impact/. (Accessed 17 September 2022).
Fortune, 2021. Your Netflix Habit Has a Small Carbon Footprint, According to a New
Study. Available at: https://fortune.com/2021/06/11/netflix-streaming-small-carbo
n-footprint-climate-change/. (Accessed 16 September 2022).
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.
Frese, M., 2005. Grand theories and mid-range theories: cultural effects on theorizing
and the attempt to understand active approaches to work. In: Smith, K.G. (Ed.),
Great Minds in Management: the Process of Theory Development. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 84–108.
Fritz, M.M.C., 2019. Sustainable supply chain management. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.,
Brandli, L., Özuyar, P., Wall, T. (Eds.), Responsible Consumption And Production,
Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: 1–14. Springer, New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71062-4_21-1.
Fritz, M.M.C., 2022. Ethical supply chain practices to achieve supply chain resilience. In:
Handbook of Research on Supply Chain Resiliency, Efficiency, and Visibility in the
Post-Pandemic Era. IGI Global, pp. 402–422.
Fritz, M.M.C., Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Selected sustainability aspects for
supply chain data exchange: towards a supply chain-wide sustainability assessment.
J. Clean. Prod. 141, 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.080.
Fritz, M.M.C., Rauter, R., Baumgartner, R.J., Dentchev, N., 2018. A supply chain
perspective of stakeholder identification as a tool for responsible policy and
decision-making. Environ. Sci. Pol. 81 (December), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2017.12.011.
Fritz, M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A., Harms, R., 2021. Sustainability management in
supply chains: the role of familiness. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 173, 121078.
Frooman, J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2), 191–205.
Giannakis, M., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Supply chain sustainability: a risk management
approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 455–470.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-
organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
17 (4), 230–245.
Govindan, K., Shaw, M., Majumdar, A., 2021. Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier
supply chain: a systematic literature review towards conceptual framework
development. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123075.
Graham, S., 2020. The influence of external and internal stakeholder pressures on the
implementation of upstream environmental supply chain practices. Bus. Soc. 59 (2),
351–383.
GRC, 2022. The Effects of Data Centers on the Environment. Available at: https://www.
grcooling.com/blog/the-effects-of-data-centers-on-the-environment/. (Accessed 17
September 2022).
Greenpeace, 2022. Mode Éthique Ou Fast Fashion? Available at: https://www.greenpe
ace.fr/comment-opter-pour-une-mode-plus-ethique-et-responsable/?codespec=701
3V000000LMzk&utm_medium=grant&gclid=CjwKCAjwg5uZBhATEiwAhhRLHn
GNKVYSrcghHQLo-3A1cUq5ZtUszoyLooYMmaBBICV8_mtmoAtWmho
CUYwQAvD_BwE. (Accessed 18 September 2022).
12
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
Günther, E., Hüske, A.-K., 2015. How stakeholders shape innovation in controversial
industries: the biotechnology industry in Germany. Umwelt Wirtschafts Forum 23,
77–86.
Haake, H., Seuring, S., 2009. Sustainable procurement of minor items—exploring limits
to sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 17 (5), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.424.
Haley, M., Clayton, A., 2003. The role of NGOs in environmental policy failures in a
developing country: the mismanagement of Jamaica’s coral reefs. Environ. Val. 12
(1), 29–54.
Hambrick, D.C., Mason, P.A., 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9 (2), 193–106.
Heidrich, O., Harvey, J., Tollin, N., 2009. Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste
management systems. Waste Manag. 29 (2), 965–973.
Hirons, M., 2020. How the sustainable development goals risk undermining efforts to
address environmental and social issues in the small-scale mining sector. Environ.
Sci. Pol. 114, 321–328.
IEA, 2022. Global EV Outlook 2022. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/glo
bal-ev-outlook-2022. (Accessed 19 September 2022).
Johnston, C.R., Caswell, D.J., Armitage, G.M., 2007. Developing environmental
awareness in engineers through Engineers without Borders and sustainable design
projects. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 64 (4), 501–506.
Kitsis, A.M., Chen, I.J., 2021. Do stakeholder pressures influence green supply chain
Practices? Exploring the mediating role of top management commitment. J. Clean.
Prod. 316, 128258.
Köksal, D., Strähle, J., Müller, M., Freise, M., 2017. Social sustainable supply chain
management in the textile and apparel industry—a literature review. Sustainability
9 (1), 100.
Kuzey, C., Fritz, M.M.C., Uyar, A., Karaman, A.S., 2022. Board gender diversity, CSR
strategy, and eco-friendly initiatives in the transportation and logistics sector. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 247, 108436.
Laari, S., Töyli, J., Solakivi, T., Ojala, L., 2016. Firm performance and customer-driven
green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (3), 1960–1970.
Lagadec, 2022. Electric Car: “We Are Not Going to Get There According to Jean.”.
Available at: http://carnews.packagingnewsonline.com/electric-car-were-not-going
-to-get-there-according-to-jean/. (Accessed 19 September 2022).
Lee, S.Y., Klassen, R.D., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. The green bullwhip effect:
transferring environmental requirements along a supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
156, 39–51.
Lo, S.M., 2013. Effects of supply chain position on the motivation and practices of firms
going green. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34 (1), 93–114.
Marks, L.U., Przedpełski, R., 2022. The carbon footprint of streaming media: problems,
calculations, solutions. In: Film and Television Production in the Age of Climate
Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 207–234.
Matthews, L., Power, D., Touboulic, A., Marques, L., 2016. Building bridges: toward
alternative theory of sustainable supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag.
52, 82–94.
Mc Kinsey, 2016. Style That’s Sustainable: A New Fast-Fashion Formula. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sus
tainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula. (Accessed 18 September 2022).
McCormick, E., 2022. Patagonia’s Billionaire Owner Gives Away Company to Fight
Climate Crisis. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/14/
patagonias-billionaire-owner-gives-away-company-to-fight-climate-crisis-yvon-cho
uinard?utm_term=632305b5a1263598882f877a6800bfa8&utm_campaign=Green
Light&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email%20%20.
(Accessed 18 September 2022).
Menke, C., Hüsemann, M., Siems, E., 2021. Stakeholder influence on sustainable supply
chain management: a case study of a German apparel frontrunner. Front. Sustain. 2,
735123.
Mentzer, J.T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G.,
2001. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2), 1–25.
Mitchell, C.A., Carew, A.L., Clift, R., 2004. The role of the professional engineer and
scientist in sustainable development. In: Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., Clift, R. (Eds.),
Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. John
Wiley & Sons, pp. 29–55.
Mitchell, R.K., Wood, D.J., Agle, B.R., 2016. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.
Mohrman, S.A., Worley, C.G., 2010. The organizational sustainability journey. Organ.
Dynam. 39 (4), 289–294.
Monserrate, S.G., 2022. The Cloud Is Material: on the Environmental Impacts of
Computation and Data Storage. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical
Responsibilities of Computing, No. Winter 2022 (January). https://doi.org/
10.21428/2c646de5.031d4553.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable. J. Supply
Chain Manag. 52, 11–27.
Orts, E., Strudler, A., 2002. The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory.
Bus. Ethics Q. 12 (2), 215–233.
Pagell, M., Shevchenko, A., 2014. Why research in sustainable supply chain management
should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 44–55.
Park-Poaps, H., Rees, K., 2010. Stakeholder forces of socially responsible supply chain
management orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 92 (2), 305–322.
Parmar, B.L., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., de Colle, S., Purnell, L., 2010.
Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4 (1), 403–445.
Planetly, 2022. Streaming Services: the Price for Being Plugged in 24/7. Available at:
https://www.planetly.com/articles/streaming-services-the-price-for-being-plugge
d-in-24-7. (Accessed 16 September 2022).
M.M.C. Fritz
Pouloudi, A., Whitley, E.A., 1997. Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational
systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 6 (1),
1–14.
Pournader, M., Sauer, P.C., Fahimnia, B., Seuring, S., 2022. Behavioral studies in
sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 243, 108344.
Rebs, T., Thiel, D., Brandenburg, M., Seuring, S., 2019. Impacts of stakeholder influences
and dynamic capabilities on the sustainability performance of supply chains: a
system dynamics model. J. Bus. Econ. 89 (7), 893–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11573-019-00940-7.
Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C.,
Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder
analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (5),
1933–1949.
Renault Group, 2019. Sustainable Consumption: 5 Advantages of the Electric Car.
Available at: https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/sustainable-co
nsumption-5-advantages-of-the-electric-car/. (Accessed 20 September 2022).
Rimanoczy, I., 2020. The Sustainability Mindset Principles—A Guide to Develop a
Mindset for a Better World. The Principles for Responsible Management Education
Series. Routledge, New York.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W.L., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J., 2009. Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14 (2), 32
[online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
Rowley, T.J., 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder
influences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 887–910.
Saari, U.A., Fritz, M.M.C., Mäkinen, S.J., Baumgartner, R.J., 2018. Designing green
marketing across industries: a conceptual framework and implications for consumers
and transdisciplinary research. In: Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Handbook of Sustainability
Science And Research: 581–596. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-63007-6_36.
Sancha, C., Wong, C.W.Y., Gimenez, C., 2019. Do dependent suppliers benefit from
buying firms’ sustainability practices? J. Purch. Supply Manag. 25 (4), 100542.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2010. Stakeholder pressure and the
adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. J. Oper.
Manag. 28 (2), 163–176.
Sarkis, J., Kouhizadeh, M., Zhu, Q.S., 2020. Digitalization and the greening of supply
chains. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 121 (1), 65–85.
Schöggl, J.-P., Fritz, M.M.C., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016a. Sustainability assessment in
automotive and electronics supply chains—a set of indicators defined in a multi-
stakeholder approach. Sustainability 8 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111185.
Schöggl, J.P., Fritz, M.M.C., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016b. Toward supply chain-wide
sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework and an aggregation method to
assess supply chain performance. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 822–835. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.035.
Seles, B.M.R.P., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Dangelico, R.M., 2016. The
green bullwhip effect, the diffusion of green supply chain practices, and institutional
pressures: evidence from the automotive sector. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182, 342–355.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Seuring, S., Aman, S., Hettiarachchi, B.D., de Lima, F.A., Schilling, L., Sudusinghe, J.I.,
2022. Reflecting on theory development in sustainable supply chain management.
Cleaner Logistics Supply Chain 3, 100016.
13
Cleaner Production Letters 3 (2022) 100023
Siems, E., Seuring, S., 2021. Stakeholder management in sustainable supply chains: a
case study of the bioenergy industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (7), 3105–3119.
Silva, M.E., de Campos, S.A.P., 2020. Stakeholders’ dialogue and engagement. In: Leal
Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., özuyar, P.G., Wall, T. (Eds.), Responsible
Consumption and Production. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_14.
Silva, M.E., Figueiredo, M.D., 2020. Practicing sustainability for responsible business in
supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119621.
Silva, M., Rodrigues, A.P., Ferreira Alves, A., 2021. Incorporating supply chain
sustainability practices through end customer engagement. Supply Chain Forum Int.
J. 23 (2), 135–145.
Silva, M.E., Fritz, M.M., El-Garaihy, W.H., 2022. Practice theories and supply chain
sustainability: a systematic literature review and a research agenda. Modern Supply
Chain Res. Appl. 4 (1), 19–38.
Smith, N., Palazzo, G., Bhattacharya, C., 2010. Marketing’s consequences: stakeholder
marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Bus. Ethics Q. 20
(4), 617–641. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020440.
Starr, A., Bevis, K., 2010. The role of education in industrial maintenance: the pathway to
a sustainable future. In: Engineering Asset Lifecycle Management: Proceedings of the
4th World Congress on Engineering Asset Management. WCEAM 2009. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-85729-320-6_61, 28–30 September 2009.
Statista, 2021. Share of Nuclear Power in Total Electricity Generation Worldwide in 2019
by Country. Retrieved from. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-
nuclear-power-in-the-power-supply-of-selected-countries/. (Accessed 22 April
2021).
Suski, P., Speck, M., Liedtke, C., 2021. Promoting sustainable consumption with LCA–A
social practice based perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 283, 125234.
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Hogevold, N., Padin, C., Varela, J.C.S., 2018. Developing a theory
of focal company business sustainability efforts in connection with supply chain
stakeholders. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 23, 16–32.
UNGC, 2015. Supply Chain Sustainability – A Practical Guide for Continuous
Improvement, second ed.
United Nations General Assembly, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post
2015/transformingourworld. (Accessed 5 September 2022).
Van de Ven, A.H., 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 14 (4), 486–489.
Vandekerckhove, W., Dentchev, N.A., 2005. A network perspective on stakeholder
management: facilitating entrepreneurs in the discovery of opportunities. J. Bus.
Ethics 60 (3), 221–232.
Warasthe, R., Brandenburg, M., Seuring, S., 2022. Sustainability, risk and performance in
textile and apparel supply chains. Cleaner Logistics Supply Chain 5, 100069.
Wicker, A., 2016. Fast Fashion Is Creating an Environmental Crisis. Available at:
newsweek.com/2016/09/09/old-clothes-fashion-waste-crisis-494824.html.
(Accessed 18 September 2022).
Wieland, A., 2021. Dancing the supply chain: toward transformative supply chain
management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 57 (1), 58–73.
Williams, D., 2022. Shein: the Unacceptable Face of Throwaway Fast Fashion. Available
at: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/apr/10/shein-the-unaccepta
ble-face-of-throwaway-fast-fashion. (Accessed 1 September 2022).
Wolf, J., 2014. The relationship between sustainable supply chain management,
stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. J. Bus. Ethics 119,
317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1603-0.
Yawar, Seuring, 2017. Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review
exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 141 (3). htt
ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2719-9.