European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

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

Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management:

Developments and directions
Marcus Brandenburg a,d,⇑, Kannan Govindan b, Joseph Sarkis c, Stefan Seuring a
a
Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Kassel, Germany
b
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
c
Department of Management, School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
d
Department of Production Management, Technical University of Berlin, Germany

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

Article history: Sustainability, the consideration of environmental factors and social aspects, in supply chain manage-
Available online 4 October 2013 ment (SCM) has become a highly relevant topic for researchers and practitioners. The application of oper-
ations research methods and related models, i.e. formal modeling, for closed-loop SCM and reverse
Keywords: logistics has been effectively reviewed in previously published research. This situation is in contrast to
Literature review the understanding and review of mathematical models that focus on environmental or social factors in
OR in environment and climate change forward supply chains (SC), which has seen less investigation. To evaluate developments and directions
OR in societal problem analysis
of this research area, this paper provides a content analysis of 134 carefully identified papers on quanti-
OR in sustainability
Supply chain management
tative, formal models that address sustainability aspects in the forward SC. It was found that a prepon-
Sustainability derance of the publications and models appeared in a limited set of six journals, and most were
analytically based with a focus on multiple criteria decision making. The tools most often used comprise
the analytical hierarchy process or its close relative, the analytical network process, as well as life cycle
analysis. Conclusions are drawn showing that numerous possibilities and insights can be gained from
expanding the types of tools and factors considered in formal modeling efforts.
Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction logistics (Supply-Chain Council, 2008) but is not exclusively focused

The integration of environmental and social aspects with
economic considerations, known as the triple-bottom-line (TBL)
dimensions of organizational sustainability (Elkington, 1998,
2004), has continuously gained relevance for managerial decision
making in general and for supply chain management (SCM) (Carter
& Rogers, 2008) and operations management (Drake & Spinler,
2013; Kleindorfer, Singhal, & van Wassenhove, 2005) in particular.
Organizations have rethought and redefined the concept of oper-
ations management using the supply chain (SC) perspective through
the incorporation of upstream (input) and downstream partners
(output) into the boundary of investigation and management
(Bettley & Burnley, 2008). Traditionally, SCM has been defined as
the management of physical, logical, and financial flows in networks
of intra- and inter-organizational relationships jointly adding value
and achieving customer satisfaction (Mentzer et al., 2001; Stock &
Boyer, 2009). From a process-oriented or cross-functional perspec-
tive, SCM comprises planning, sourcing, production, and distribution
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Business
and Economics, University of Kassel, Untere Königsstr. 71, D-34117 Kassel,
Germany. Tel.: +49 561 804 7517.
E-mail address: brandenb@uni-kassel.de (M. Brandenburg).
on one of these areas (Cooper, Lambert, & Pagh, 1997).
In contrast to traditional SCM, which typically focuses on eco-
nomic and financial business performance, sustainable SCM
(SSCM) is characterized by explicit integration of environmental
or social objectives which extend the economic dimension to the
TBL (Seuring & Müller, 2008a). In this context, SSCM focuses on
the forward SC only (Seuring & Müller, 2008a) and is comple-
mented by closed-loop SCM (CLSCM) (Guide & van Wassenhove,
2009; Lebreton, 2007) including reverse logistics, remanufacturing,
and product recovery.
The increasing importance of this field, academically, socially,
and economically, is reflected by the geometric growth of related sci-
entific publications during the past two decades and especially so in
the past decade (Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring & Müller, 2008a). In addi-
tion to a large variety of empirical research papers that utilize field
research, case study, and broad-based empirical surveys, numerous
publications employ formal, mathematical models for practice and
theory-driven research. Models are a simplified representation or
abstraction of reality, and related research differentiates between
conceptual models defined as a set of concepts suitable to represent
but not explain real-life objects or processes and quantitative
models that are based on a set of variables and their causal relation-
ship (Bertrand & Fransoo, 2002; Meredith, 1993).

0377-2217/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032
300 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
For CLSCM, quantitative models are often applied and practical
(Fleischmann et al., 1997; Srivastava, 2007; Sasikumar & Kannan,
2008a, 2008b, 2009). In contrast to this circumstance, the majority
of models employed for SSCM are more conceptual. Only about one
out of nine papers on SSCM utilizes formal models (Seuring & Mül-
ler, 2008a). In recent years, the quantity of formal modeling efforts
has started to increase.
It is evident from literature that (reverse-oriented) CLSCM mod-
els are more popular (Ilgin & Gupta, 2010; Min & Kim, 2012), but a
significant number of (forward) SSCM models do exist (Hassini,
Surti, & Searcy, 2012; Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring & Müller, 2008a;
and Seuring, 2012), many of which are quite recent in develop-
ment. A comprehensive review of these models is not currently
available and thus it is timely to take an ‘inventory’ of the research.
The lack of a comprehensive understanding of modeling-based
SSCM research is surprising since the non-sustainability modeling
field has a well-developed traditional research focus on forward
SCM. It may be that research focusing on CLSCM has caused many
modeling researchers to overlook this forward SCM field in context
to sustainability.
To help further catalyze research in this area, which has
numerous opportunities to improve organizational, industrial,
and commercial sustainability, further understanding of the
common and unique modeling characteristics is needed. Some
SSCM reviews currently exist, but most of these reviews are
descriptive (e.g. Carter & Rogers, 2008; Fleischmann et al.,
1997; Seuring & Müller, 2008a). Although somewhat descrip-
tive, this paper provides additional insightful discussion,
analyzing a number of important field advancing questions as
discussed below.
Which aspects and factors are considered in existing quantita-
tive SSCM models? What are the limits of these models and what
issues remain? What feasible and fruitful opportunities for
further research exist? To help understand the history and
direction of SSCM modeling efforts and to answer these ques-
tions, this paper presents a content analysis (Krippendorff,
1980; Mayring, 2002, 2008) of related literature to assess recent
developments and future directions of quantitative, formal mod-
eling in the SSCM context. The rich descriptions offered and the
overall lines of research identified this way, often have tremen-
dous impact on future research. Therefore, we also discuss
overarching lines of research as well as gaps and future research
directions.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next
section, a brief overview of related literature reviews on SSCM is
given. The subsequent section describes the methodology applied
in this paper and is followed by a representation of the results
obtained by the content analysis. Remarks comprising the summa-
rized findings and a related discussion, limitations, and future re-
search perspectives conclude this paper.
2. Insights from previous literature reviews
To justify the need for the content analysis presented in this pa-
per and to position its results to extant scientific research, former
reviews of scientific literature on SSCM are summarized. Existing
literature reviews on SSCM can be categorized into reviews pub-
lished prior to 2008 and recent reviews published within the last
five years. The purpose of this background on previous literature
reviews is to help derive relevant information and structures for
this study. The background literature also helps to identify open is-
sues in model-based SSCM research. These recent reviews are as-
sessed with regards to SCM perspectives, e.g. level and actor of
analysis, sustainability, i.e. the dimensions of the TBL, and
research designs.
2.1. Literature reviews prior to 2008
The earliest related literature reviews (Gungor & Gupta, 1999;
Kleindorfer et al., 2005) identify green product and process devel-
opment, green operations management, remanufacturing, and
CLSCM as areas to integrate planet- and people-related issues into
SCM, but the reviews do not include social aspects of SSCM.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, van Beek, Hordijk, and van Wassenhove
(1995) focused on operations research (OR) applications in the
context of environmental management (EM) and suggest a con-
ceptual SC-EM-framework. Daniel, Diakoulaki, and Pappis
(1997) apply this framework in their survey of OR-related envi-
ronmental planning and categorize related OR methods into
descriptive approaches for observation and analysis and norma-
tive methods for solution identification. ReVelle (2000) provides
an overview on the application of OR methods for the manage-
ment of water resources, solid waste, and air quality and outlines
different normative models for these areas. Sbihi and Eglese
(2007) focused specifically on combinatorial optimization prob-
lems in green logistics, which comprises reverse logistics, waste
management, and vehicle routing and scheduling. While these
early published reviews paved the way for SSCM research, they
are not able to inform on current developments and future trends
of related model-based research.
2.2. Literature reviews after 2008
Recent reviews of SSCM literature can be categorized as either
general or focused on empirical research or quantitative models
and metrics. Table 1 overviews 14 recent reviews regarding their
research focus and characteristics, such as time horizon, number
of reviewed papers, main journals, employment of keyword search
and content analysis as well as taken perspectives on SCM and
sustainability.
In contrast to reverse logistics or remanufacturing, OR meth-
odologies and analytic approaches for forward SSCM play a
subordinate role in the published research (Ilgin & Gupta,
2010; Min & Kim, 2012). As shown in Table 2, approximately
only one out of ten SSCM papers employs a research method
which is based on quantitative models using formal OR model-
ing techniques.
With regards to the SCM perspective, extant research shows
that sustainability is often externally motivated by government,
customers, or stakeholders (Gold, Seuring, & Beske, 2010a,
2010b; Seuring & Müller, 2008a). The literature also shows that a
vertical coordination and a SC-wide implementation are required
(Carter & Rogers, 2008). In contrast to this focus, empirical research
on SSCM mainly focuses on single firms and neglects inter-organi-
zational aspects (Carter & Easton, 2011). This conflict leads to the
question of whether model-based research takes into account the
intercompany perspective and if the role and influence of legal
authorities or other stakeholders is adequately reflected in quanti-
tative SSCM models. Furthermore, Hassini et al. (2012) show that
sustainability metrics are most often designed for manufacturing
firms. Hence it should be assessed which SC sectors are in the focus
of model-based SSCM research.
Holistic approaches of SSCM that reflect all three sustainability
dimensions are relatively rare in the academic literature (Seuring
& Müller, 2008a). However, empirical research shows the growing
relevance of multiple sustainability dimensions (Carter & Easton,
2011). Given that SSCM can positively influence a firm’s profitabil-
ity, performance, and competitive advantage (Carter & Rogers,
2008; Gold et al., 2010b; Golicic & Smith, 2013), SSCM research
tends to focus primarily on environmental issues (Seuring &
Müller, 2008a), while social facets are widely neglected in empirical
(Gold et al., 2010a) and in analytical SSCM modeling research
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312 301

Table 1
Recent reviews on SSCM literature.

Research focus Author(s) and year Time Number of Main journalsa Keyword search Perspective on SCM – sustainability
horizon reviewed – content
papers analysis
General Carter and Rogers (2008) n.a. n.a. n.a. No – no Undisclosed – TBL
Seuring and Müller 1994–2007 191 JCLP, POM, IJPR Yes – yes Forward – TBL
(2008a)
Min and Kim (2012) 1995–2010 519 JCLP, IJPR, IJPE, Yes – yesb Forward and reverse – TBL
EJOR
Empirical Gold et al. (2010a) 1994–2007 70 JCLP Yes – yes Forward – TBL
Gold et al. (2010b) 1994–2007 70 n.a. Yes – yes Forward – TBL
Carter and Easton (2011) 1991–2010 80 TRE No – no Undisclosed – TBL
Sarkis, Zhu, and Lai 1995–2010 150 n.a. No – no Forward and reverse – environmental
(2011)
Sarkis (2012) 2000–2010. 100 n.a. No – no Forward and reverse – environmental
Golicic and Smith (2013) 2000–2011 77 n.a. Yes – no Undisclosed – environmental
Quantitative Ilgin and Gupta (2010) 1999–2010 540 n.a. No – yesb Forward and reverse – environmental
models and
metrics
Dekker et al. (2012) n.a. 60 n.a. No – no Forward and reverse logistics –
environmental
b
Hassini et al. (2012) 2000–2010 87 IJPR, IJPE, EJOR Yes – yes Forward and reverse – TBL
Seuring (2012) 1994–2010 36 JCLP, EJOR, IJPE, Yes – yes Forward – TBL
IJPR
Tang and Zhou (2012) n.a. 56 n.a. No – no Forward and reverse – TBL
a
Not including journals with a pure empirical focus.
b
Only rough categorization based on very few categories and dimensions.

Table 2
Relevance of forward SSCM formal models in scientific research.

Author(s) and year Size of initial paper sample Number with SSCM formal models Share (%)
Seuring and Müller (2008a) 191 21 11
Min and Kim (2012) 519 46 9
Hassini et al. (2012) 707 87 12
Seuring (2012) 306 36 12

Note: The remaining literature reviews did not contain information required for these calculations.

(Tang & Zhou, 2012). Tang and Zhou (2012) observe that environ-
mental factors in quantitative models mainly include the consump-
tion of natural resources and the emission of waste and pollution,
while social aspects are related to only customers and producers.
Assessing the literature’s usage of the three sustainability dimen-
sions in greater detail, e.g. which metrics are suitable to represent
sustainability factors in formal SSCM models and which perspec-
tives are taken in holistic SSCM models, would identify what ave-
nues exist to further integrate holistic TBL measures and the
resulting performance impacts into SSCM formal modeling.
In contrast to SSCM research in general, which focuses on ‘win–
win’ approaches to sustainability (Seuring & Müller, 2008a), formal
modeling research is dominated by trade-off based modeling ap-
proaches (Seuring, 2012). An assessment of the main purposes
(descriptive or normative) of SSCM models still requires investiga-
tion. Although a lack of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) ap-
proaches for green logistics seems to exist (Dekker, Bloemhof, &
Mallidis, 2012), preferred types and techniques for forward SSCM
models have not been identified and analyzed. This lack of identi-
fication of prevalent modeling approaches is in contrast to Ilgin’s
and Gupta’s (2010) findings for green (re-)manufacturing and
product recovery, where discrete-event simulation (DES), fuzzy
logic, genetic algorithms (GA), and mixed-integer linear program-
ming (MILP) are identified as preferred modeling techniques.
The research design is important to consider in the literature
review because it can help identify the current situation in the field
and how it may be advanced by varying research methodology.
Previous research has found that empirical SSCM studies are more
prevalent than conceptual or formal modeling research designs
(Seuring & Müller, 2008a). It has also been found that forward
SSCM research can benefit from OR applications, ideally combined
with rigorous empirical studies (Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring, 2012).
But the findings in these papers have only started to identify these
concerns, and further investigation can provide additional insights.
For example, a sectoral focus of scientific SSCM research is of par-
ticular interest, which is not yet covered in model-based SSCM re-
search. Empirical studies focus on transportation, textile, and
consumer products sectors while the automotive, chemical, and
electronics industries have fewer investigations (Carter & Easton,
2011; Gold et al., 2010a, 2010b). Again, determining whether mod-
el-based SSCM research considers similar sectoral emphasis would
provide insight into what sectors are underrepresented and also
shed light on why certain sectors might be overrepresented. A po-
tential mismatch can be predicted by the fact that papers on SSCM
metrics preferably deal with manufacturing sectors such as auto-
motive or electronics industries (Hassini et al., 2012). Identifying
a sectoral preference or lack thereof can provide guidance to policy
makers and researchers on what sectors need further academic and
policy intensive modeling research.
2.3. Research questions
To assess research developments and directions for formal
modeling in forward SSCM, we ask the following research
questions:
302 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
1. Which SCM dimensions exist with formal models for SSCM?
2. Which sustainability aspects of forward SC are reflected in these
models?
3. Which models and tools are employed in quantitative SSCM
research?
4. What research designs exist and which future directions should
be addressed?
Sustainability aspects within one or more industry sectors, e.g.
CO2 emission of the manufacturing industry, or within geograph-
ical regions or macro-economies, such as rural, poor areas or
developing countries, are included in our analysis. The paper’s
focus is on formal, quantitative models capable of predicting
the outcome of actions or theoretically evaluating various
dynamic properties of complex problems (Mikkola, 2005). In the
remainder of this paper, the terms ‘‘formal’’ and ‘‘quantitative’’
will be used interchangeably for models that include (descriptive
and normative) OR methods but exclude statistical approaches,
e.g. regression or structural equation models, to evaluate empiri-
cal data.
3. Methodology
3.1. Content analysis
To address the four research questions, a thorough review of pa-
pers on quantitative models for SSCM is performed. To ensure the
required methodological rigor, this literature review employs the
systematic process of content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980; Lage
Junior & Godinho Filho, 2010) that consists of four iteratively exe-
cuted steps (Mayring, 2002, 2008):
Step 1. Material collection: The material to be collected and the
unit of analysis are defined and delimited.
Step 2. Descriptive analysis: Formal aspects of the material are
assessed.
Step 3. Category selection: Structural dimensions including the
major topics of analysis and related analytic categories
with detailed classifications of each structural dimen-
sion are selected to be applied to the collected material.
Step 4. Material evaluation: The content of the papers is ana-
lyzed according to the structural dimensions and ana-
lytic categories to identify relevant issues and to
interpret the results.
3.2. Material collection
This literature review is bounded to only include: (a) scientific
research from the last 15 years; (b) formal models; (c) SSCM; and
(d) forward SC. Hence, each reviewed paper had to match four
filtering criteria:
(a) The manuscript must be written in English language and
published in peer-reviewed journals between 1994 and
2012.
(b) Empirical manuscripts using statistical approaches for eval-
uating causal relationships were excluded from the analysis.
(c) Publications on ethical behavior of purchasers (e.g. corrup-
tion) or with a non-managerial focus (e.g. technical or polit-
ical science) were excluded from the analysis.
(d) Papers focusing on reverse logistics, remanufacturing, or
CLSCM were not considered.
The most common way of acquiring the publications sample is
through a keyword-based search using electronic databases and li-
brary services (Seuring & Gold, 2012). This approach is especially
recommended for covering a specific topic that can be broadly ad-
dressed. Complementary, the paper search can be focused on se-
lected journals. This allows employing a broader search string
and thus makes it easier to assess all related papers on a certain to-
pic, although some relevant papers in other journals might be
missed (Seuring & Gold, 2012). These keyword-based searches
can be complemented by cross-referencing for further relevant
publications (Athanasopoulou, 2009) or by employing bibliometric
software (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2012). These complementary
search strategies were combined, resulting in four steps of paper
collection applied in this paper.
In a first step, all papers reviewed by Seuring (2012, 36 papers)
and Hassini et al. (2012, 87 papers) were considered. This reflects
broad searches in databases (Emerald, Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Ebs-
co, Scopus, Metapress) which were performed by these authors and
limited by them to particular keyword combinations (e.g. ‘‘(sustain-
able OR green) AND (supply AND chain)’’). Fifty-six papers reviewed
by Tang and Zhou (2012) were additionally taken into account.
Forty-six out of the total 179 papers matched the four filtering crite-
ria for this study and were the initial sample set. Hassini et al. (2012),
Seuring (2012) and Tang and Zhou (2012) identified Decision Support
Systems (DSS), European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR), Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics (IJPE), International Journal of
Production Research (IJPR), Journal of Cleaner Production (JCLP), and
Transportation Research Part E (TRE) as relevant journals for quanti-
tative SSCM models (see Table 1 in Section 2.2 or Table 6 in Sec-
tion 4.1 for the distribution of the 46 papers over these journals).
Two reviews published in 2012 were not considered in this first step
due to an undisclosed paper sample (Min & Kim, 2012) or a func-
tional and purely environmental focus (Dekker et al., 2012).
In a second step, a journal-specific search was performed which
was limited to the six journals using the broader search string
‘‘sustain’’ in title, abstract, and keyword fields. This journal-
specific search resulted in 1016 papers out of which an additional
81 papers matched the four filtering criteria and hence were
selected for the review.
In a third step, the paper sample was completed by cross-refer-
encing using ReVelle (2000, 39 papers), Radulescu, Radulescu, and
Radulescu (2009, 30 papers), and Seuring (2012, 8 papers). Six pa-
pers out of these 77 cited manuscripts matched the four filtering
criteria and hence were selected for the review.
In a fourth step, the literature sample was validated by employ-
ing the bibliometric software HistCiteTM (version 12.03.17) (Gar-
field, 2004). With this software, 25 manuscripts were identified
that were cited by at least five of the selected papers. All but one
of these 25 manuscripts describe a particular modeling method
(e.g. Saaty, 1980, 10 citations from the paper sample) or literature
reviews on SSCM models (e.g. Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al., 1995, 9
citations) or were already included in the paper sample (e.g. Sheu,
Chou, & Hu, 2005, 8 citations). One additional paper (Handfield,
Walton, Sroufe, & Melnyk, 2002, 7 citations) from these 25
manuscripts, which was not identified by the first three data col-
lection steps, matched the four filtering criteria and thus was
added to the paper sample.
In total, approximately 1400 papers were considered, out of
which 134 were found to meet the criteria of this study. This selec-
tion ratio matches the 10% occurrence rate for modeling papers
which was mentioned in Section 2.2. Table 3 illustrates the results
of the paper collection process and the paper validation test.
3.3. Criteria for the descriptive analysis
The temporal distribution of papers over the study time horizon
is assessed. For a more meaningful descriptive analysis, the distri-
bution of manuscripts from the sample over time is compared to
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312 303

Table 3
Results of the paper collection process.

Collection method Source # of papers Relevant worksc

Selected from other reviews Hassini et al. (2012) 87 7
Seuring (2012) 36 35
Tang and Zhou (2012) 56 4
Journal-specific keyword search DSS 29 3
EJOR 80 13
IJPE 75 20
IJPR 125a 12
JCLP 825 31
TRE 7 2
Cross-referencing Other papersb 77 6
Bibliometric software HistCiteTM 25 1
Total 1422d 134
a
Split of search criteria (‘‘in title’’, ‘‘in abstract’’, ‘‘in keywords’’).
b
ReVelle (2000, 39 papers), Radulescu et al. (2009, 30 papers), Seuring (2012, 8 papers).
c
Each paper is assigned only once to exclude double counting.
d
Not adjusted for papers found several times by different search strategies.

the overall growth trend of publications in SCM and modeling jour-
nals, as indicated by papers issued in EJOR and in IJPE, which are
chosen as related journal proxies. In order to compare develop-
ments in empirical, model-based and general SSCM research, the
temporal distribution of the paper sample is compared to the pa-
pers of Seuring and Müller’s (2008a) general review and to the
empirical papers reviewed by Gold et al. (2010a, 2010b). Further-
more, the distribution of papers across journals is analyzed. To
avoid bias resulting from a journal-specific paper search, this anal-
ysis also shows the distribution of the 46 papers selected from Has-
sini et al. (2012), Seuring (2012), and Tang and Zhou (2012).
Additionally, the descriptive analysis provides information on geo-
graphical position of the contributing author affiliations (academic
institutions), about influential research institutions (regarding the
number of citations) and the citation impact of the reviewed paper
sample. The HistCiteTM program was employed for the bibliometric
citation analysis (Garfield, 2004).
3.4. Category selection
Corresponding to the four research questions of this study, four
structural dimensions – SCM, sustainability, modeling, and re-
search directions – were defined and grouped by categories for this
analysis. These analytic categories listed in Table 4 are derived
deductively, before the material is analyzed, and inductively,
developed from the analyzed material by means of generalization
(Mayring, 2008; Seuring & Müller, 2008a).
The SCM dimensions are from a literature review presented by
Halldorsson and Arlbjørn (2005) and from the Supply Chain Oper-
ations Reference (SCOR) model (Supply-Chain Council, 2008). The
sustainability categories are based on variations of the TBL (Carter
& Rogers, 2008). The modeling dimension is assessed based on
model purpose and type. The model purpose distinguishes be-
tween the analytic categories as defined by Shapiro (2007). The
model type keywords were quite extensive and linked to a multi-
tude of tools and techniques and the employed solution ap-
proaches. The resulting category system, which is depicted in
Fig. 1, is based on the classification of Kleijnen (2005) and Sasiku-
mar and Kannan (2009). In the research design dimension, the
assessment is based on the industrial sector, the data basis of the
presented applications, and the research perspective such as
whether or not there is an extension.
To facilitate an exhaustive categorization of each paper, the
analytic categories are supplemented with ‘‘various/other’’ and
‘‘not applicable’’ categories. Furthermore, the assignment of papers
to analytic categories is unique for each structural dimension.

Table 4
Structural dimensions and analytic categories.

Structural Analytic categories (in alphabetical order)

dimension
SCM Primary actor of Carrier, distributor, industry/macro-economy, legal authority, manufacturer, retailer, warehousing, wholesaler
analysis
Level of analysis Chain, dyad, firm, function, industry, macro-economy, network
Process of analysis Deliver, make, plan, return, source
Functional Construction project, logistics, network design, outsourcing/offshoring, planning, pricing, product development, production,
application area sourcing, SCM, information technology, technology, waste management
Sustainability Economic, economic-environmental, environmental, holistic, social, socio-economic, socio-environmental
Modeling Model purpose Descriptive – deterministic, descriptive – stochastic, normative – deterministic, normative – stochastic
Model type Analytical, heuristics, hybrid, mathematical programming, simulation
Modeling technique Artificial intelligence, business game, discrete-event simulation (DES), game theory, meta-heuristics, multi-criteria decision
making, multi objective, simple heuristics, single objective, spreadsheet calculation, system dynamics, systemic models
Solution approach Analytic hierarchy process/analytic network process (AHP/ANP), ant colony optimization, Bayesian networks, case based
reasoning, data envelopment analysis (DEA), differential evolution, dynamic programming, fuzzy logic, genetic algorithm, goal
programming, greedy randomized adaptive search procedure, input–output-analysis (IOA), life cycle analysis (LCA), linear
programming/mixed integer linear programming (LP/MILP), metrics, neural networks, nonlinear programming, petri net,
particle swarm optimization, queuing, rough set, simulated annealing, variation inequality
Research Observed industry Agriculture, apparel, automotive, bicycle, biotechnology, chemical/ pharmaceutical, electronics, energy, food & beverages,
furniture, health care, information technology, macro-economy, metal, paper, retail, transportation, utilities
Numerical analysis Empirical data, generic example, none
Suggested Extend/validate, none, specific
perspective
304 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
Fig. 1. Analytic categories of the structural dimension ‘‘Modeling’’ (based on Sasikumar & Kannan, 2009).
3.5. Methodological rigor
The required methodological rigor of this analysis is ensured in
all steps of the content analysis (see Seuring & Gold, 2012, for fur-
ther details). A replicable and hence reliable material collection is
achieved by focusing both on papers that were assessed by three
recent reviews on SSCM (Hassini et al., 2012; Seuring, 2012; Tang
& Zhou, 2012) and on papers that are obtained by a keyword-based
search in specific journals which were identified as most relevant
by these three recent reviews. Internal validity is achieved by
ensuring that the paper coding is performed by at least two
researchers, thereby also ensuring inter-coder reliability. Resolving
differences in the coding and reaching an agreement on how each
aspect would be coded was the approach of choice. Most of the se-
lected structural dimensions and analytic categories were taken up
in a deductive approach, which ensures construct validity as this is
based on respective literature (as described in Section 3.4). This
was complemented by a few categories selected inductively. To
strengthen external validity and rigor of the material evaluation,
intermediate results of this analysis were presented to and dis-
cussed with scientific audiences at five international conferences.1
Overall, the research process is documented in a transparent manner
contributing to its objectivity.
1
4th World P&OM Conference and 19th International Annual EurOMA conference
(July 2012, Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2nd International Workshop on Eco-Efficient
Based Green SCM, (October 2012, Odense, Denmark), sessions of the German
Academic Association for Business Research – scientific commissions ‘‘Operations
Research’’ (January 2013, Wuppertal, Germany) and ‘‘Sustainability Management’’
(September 2012, Hamburg, Germany), workshop of the Gesellschaft für Operations
Research e. V. (March 2012, Goslar, Germany).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis
Overall it can be stated that model-based SSCM is a comparably
young and increasingly developing research discipline. This field’s
robust growth is illustrated by the temporal distribution of this
study’s sample of 134 papers when compared to the growth
distribution of the overall set of publications within EJOR and IJPE
(Fig. 2). Also, the temporal distribution of this study’s paper sample
is compared to the distribution of the 191 manuscripts of Seuring
and Müller’s (2008a) study (Table 5).
Since 1994, the number of analytical SSCM model papers shows
a stronger growth (+24.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR))
than the overall number of papers published in EJOR and IJPE
(+12.6% CAGR). Fig. 2, which depicts the annual share of published
papers and the number of SSCM papers on the ordinate axes, illus-
trates these trends in greater detail. In the first decade of the
study’s time horizon, the annual share of published SSCM analyti-
cal modeling papers was lower (below 3.0%) than the respective
share of papers issued in EJOR and IJPE (between 3.7% and 4.4%),
which indicates the relatively smaller relevance of SSCM modeling
in scientific research during that time. This result was reversed in
2003 for the first time (4.5% annual share of SSCM modeling papers
vs. 4.2% annual share of papers published in EJOR and IJPE) and has
continuously seen stronger shares since 2007 (on average an 11.7%
annual share of SSCM modeling papers vs. a 7.2% annual share of
papers published in EJOR and IJPE). More than half of the SSCM
modeling papers (82 manuscripts) were published within the last
five years of the considered time horizon.
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312 305

Fig. 2. Paper sample compared to SCM and modeling papers.

Table 5
Temporal distribution of general, empirical, and model-based SSCM papers (1994–2007).

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Gen.a 2 3 5 10 12 4 14 21 16 20 17 25 12 30
Emp.b 1 0 2 3 6 1 6 7 4 11 5 10 3 11
Mod.c 1 2 0 2 4 3 2 2 3 6 4 8 4 11
a
Papers reviewed by Seuring and Müller (2008a).
b
Papers reviewed by Gold et al. (2010a, 2010b).
c
SSCM modeling papers from our paper sample.

Table 6
Distribution of papers over journals.

Journal JCLP IJPR IJPE TRE EJOR DSS OR Others Total

Step 1 9 7 4 4 3 1 2 16
1a 46
Subtotal 28 (= 61%) 18 (= 39%) 46
All steps 40 19 24 6 20 5 2 18
1b 134
a
16 other journals with one paper each.
b
18 other journals with one paper each.

Using Seuring and Müller’s (2008a) sample illustrates that the
overall field of SSCM research was strong before 2007 while SSCM
modeling papers published during this time were relatively
uncommon. A comparison to the paper sample reviewed by Gold
et al. (2010a, 2010b) leads to similar observations. These results,
as depicted in Table 5, indicate that conceptual and empirical
methods paved the way for a model-based prescriptive SSCM
research.
The distribution of papers over journals as depicted in Table 6
shows that nearly two-thirds of the 46 papers chosen from Hassini
et al. (2012), Seuring (2012), and Tang and Zhou (2012) in the first
paper collection step were published in one of the six journals
(DSS, EJOR, IJPE, IJPR, JCLP, TRE) which then were considered in
the journal-specific keyword search. Beyond this, Table 6 depicts
the overall distribution of all 134 papers over journals.
The analysis of the geographical position of the contributing
author’s institutions reveals that universities from Europe (61
papers), North America (44 papers), or Asia (41 papers) represent
the vast majority of publications. Australian (6 papers), Latin
American (4 papers), and African (3 papers) research publications
are severely underrepresented in this research area. Only 21 papers
represent collaborative inter-continental research. These manu-
scripts mainly stem from research cooperation of North American
universities (15 papers) with institutions from other continents
(Asian: 8 papers, European: 5 papers, Australian and Latin Ameri-
can: 1 paper each).
A citation analysis shows that 2049 publications refer to at least
one of the reviewed papers, i.e. on average each paper of the sam-
ple has more than 15 citations in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Sci-
Ò
ence while the median is 8 citations. Fifty-eight papers of the
sample have at least 10 citations in total, and 80 papers are cited
at least once a year, while only 34 papers of the sample are not
yet cited. These figures indicate the overall scientific relevance of
the reviewed paper sample. However, the paper sample does not
show a strong internal coherence with regards to citations; only
31 papers are cited by another paper of the sample. This indicates
that the scientific field of model-based SSCM research is still scat-
tered, and major streams of thought have not yet developed. Fur-
thermore, the citation analysis identifies that five of the most
influential institutions are located in the USA: Clark University
306 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
Table 7
Evaluation results – structural dimension ‘‘SCM’’.
Primary actor of analysis Level of analysis
Carrier 2 Function
Distributor 1 Firm
Ind./macro-econ. 15 Dyad
Legal authority 11 Chain
Manufacturer 67 Network
Retailer 1 Industry
Warehousing 0 Macro-econ.
Wholesaler 0 Various/other
Various/other 18 n.a.
n.a. 19
a
Construction project, pricing, information technology, and waste management were considered in one paper each.
(325 citations), Michigan State University (184 citations), Boston
College, Emory University, North Carolina State University (165
citations each).
4.2. Evaluating the status of research
4.2.1. SCM dimension
The SCM dimensions, as shown in Table 7, include four major
characteristics: (1) the primary actor that is the focus of the study;
(2) the organizational level of analysis ranging from internal func-
tions to broad macro-economic focus; (3) the SCOR process cov-
ered in the model, and (4) the functional application area (e.g.
SCM, logistics, or product development).
In SSCM models, manufacturing companies dominate as pri-
mary actors of analysis (67 papers), while carriers (Lee, Dong, &
Bian, 2010; Lovric, Li, & Vervest, 2012), distributors (Zanoni & Zav-
anella, 2011) and retailers (Edwards, McKinnon, & Cullinane, 2010)
are seldom the focus of these studies. A considerable number of pa-
pers analyze industry sectors (15 papers) and legal authorities (11
papers) or remain unspecific (18 papers ‘‘various’’, 19 papers ‘‘n.
a.’’) on the primary actors. The level of analysis shows a clear pref-
erence for the intra-organizational models that focus on a specific
function or firm (66 papers) when compared to models that take an
inter-organizational perspective on a dyad, chain, or network (38
papers) or macroscopic views on an industrial sector or a macro-
economy (25 papers).
In 42 papers SSCM models are not limited to a particular SCOR
process. The majority of models support some planning processes
(53 papers). Yet, sourcing (12 papers), transformation (18 papers),
or delivery processes (9 papers) are less often modeled. None of the
selected papers focus on the return stage, but that is due to our
elimination of reverse logistics oriented papers from our analysis.
Functionally, SSCM modeling research targets production (40
papers) or general SCM (16 papers). Manufacturing-related papers
can be found in nearly every year of the study horizon, while nine
of the general SCM papers were published within the last five
years. In the nine logistics-related papers as well as in the 11
sourcing-oriented ones, the intra-organizational and the inter-
organizational perspectives on the level of analysis are evenly dis-
tributed. Network design models (13 papers) seem to represent a
new trend in SSCM research, because only the publication of Agrell,
Stam, and Fischer (2004) is older than three years. Issues of prod-
uct design are considered in nine papers which in seven cases deal
with a manufacturer as a focal company. Whitefoot and Skerlos
(2012), who elaborate on design incentives from a legal authority
perspective, and Andersson, Hogaas Eide, Lundqvist, and Mattsson
(1998), who integrate sustainability aspects in product develop-
ment from an industry point of view, are the two exceptions.
Process of analysis Functional application area
27 Plan 53 Logistics 9
39 Source 12 Network design 13
7 Make 18 Outsourcing/offshoring 2
6 Deliver 9 Planning 3
25 Return 0 Product dev. 9
17 Various/other 0 Production 40
8 n.a. 42 Sourcing 12
1 SCM 16
4 Technology 5
Various/other 6
n.a. 15
Singulara 4
4.2.2. Modeling dimension
In the evaluation of this dimension we consider the three levels
of modeling from Fig. 2, but also a general purpose-environment
characteristic is added (see Table 8). The purpose-environment fo-
cuses on the type of research for which normative (prescriptive,
problem solving oriented) or descriptive (seeking to evaluate or
understand a phenomenon) models are used. The assumed envi-
ronment may include a deterministic or stochastic approach. Thus
four categories (descriptive–deterministic, etc.) exist for the pur-
pose-environment evaluation of the modeling dimension. The
remaining three dimensions in Table 8 are directly linked to the
modeling levels in Fig. 1.
Normative SSCM models (75 papers), which mainly employ
analytic hierarchy process/analytic network process (AHP/ANP)
(20 papers) and linear programming/mixed integer linear pro-
gramming (LP/MILP) (18 papers) as solution approaches, are the
more popular model purposes when compared to descriptive
models (59 papers). Descriptive modeling efforts are most often
utilizing systemic models (39 papers), in particular life cycle anal-
ysis (LCA) (24 papers), input–output-analysis (IOA) (4 papers), and
metrics (8 papers) as solution approaches. Combining the SCM per-
spectives and the modeling categories (see Table 9) shows that
managerial decision making is often supported by optimization
methods while in macroscopic contexts, models are most often
employed to explore or explain the interplay of various factors.
On the intra-organizational level of a single firm or a particular
function, normative SSCM models are more often employed (42 pa-
pers) than descriptive models (24 papers). In contrast, descriptive
models (20 papers) represent the vast majority of 25 papers that
contain models for industrial sectors or macro-economies.
Stochastic approaches (12 normative, 3 descriptive) are not well
represented in this literature. Normative stochastic models most
often focus on manufacturers and strive for improving company-
wide planning processes (Chen & Fan, 2012; Hu & Bibanda, 2009;
Linninger, Chakraborty, & Colberg, 2000; Radulescu et al., 2009;
Tsai & Hung, 2009; Wu & Chang, 2004) or the implementation of
cleaner production technologies (Tseng, Lin, & Chiu, 2009). Other
approaches deal with network design at a carrier (Lee et al.,
2010) or the product sustainability assessment in the automotive
industry (Ghadimi, Azadnia, Yusof, & Saman, 2012). Normative sto-
chastic models that take an inter-organizational perspective focus
on green SCM in the electronics industry networks (Hsu & Hu,
2008; Che, 2010) or on sustainability policies in a macroeconomic
context (Munda, 2009). Descriptive stochastic models are all at
the inter-organizational level (Kainuma & Tawara, 2006;
Saint Jean, 2008; van der Vorst, Tromp, & van der Zee, 2009). The
limited amount of stochastic models provides opportunities for
further SSCM research. But uncertainty may also be investigated
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312 307

Table 8
Evaluation results – structural dimension ‘‘Modeling’’.

Model purpose Model type Modeling techniquea Solution approachb

Descriptive – deterministic 56 Analytical 77 Artificial intelligence 5 AHP/ANP 20
Descriptive – stochastic 3 Heuristics 7 DES 1 DEA 3
Normative – deterministic 63 Hybrid 1 Game theory 1 Goal programming 2
Normative – stochastic 12 Mathematical programming 36 Meta-heuristics 1 IOA 4
Simulation 9 Mcdm 25 LCA 24
Various/other 4 Multi-objective 34 LP/MILP 18
Simple heuristics 1 Metrics 8
Single-objective 2 Nonlinear programming 5
System dynamics 3 Rough set 3
Systemic models 39 Variation inequality 6
Various/other 22 Various/other 31
n.a. 7
Singularc 3
a
Not employed in reviewed papers: spreadsheet calculation, n.a.
b
Not employed in reviewed papers: Ant colony optimization, Bayesian networks, case-based reasoning, differential evolution, fuzzy logic, greedy randomized adaptive
search procedure, neural networks, petri net, particle swarm optimization, queuing, simulated annealing.
c
Dynamic programming, genetic algorithms, and neural networks were considered in one paper each.

Table 9 Table 10
Evaluation results – combination of categories ‘‘Level of analysis’’ and ‘‘Model Evaluation results – structural dimension ‘‘Research’’ (number of studies per
purpose’’. industry).

Level of analysis Normative models Descriptive models Total Agriculture 10 Energy 15 Retail 3
Apparel 3 Food & 8 Transportation 2
Function, firm 42 24 66
beverages
Dyad, chain, network 24 14 38
Automotive 8 Furniture 2 Various/other 6
Industry, macro-econ. 5 20 25
Chemical/ 2 Macro-economy 10 n.a. 32
n.a., other 4 1 5
pharmaceutical
Total 75 59 134 Construction 2 Metal 6 Singulara 7
Electronics 16 Paper 2
a
Bicycle, biotechnology, health care, mining, packaging, petroleum, and utilities
using various scenarios, each evaluated with a deterministic were considered in one paper each.
approach.
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) (25 papers) and mathe-
matical programming (35 papers), with only two papers (Gunson, the diffusion of modeling efforts to other industries is clearly a
Klein, Veiga, & Dunbar, 2010; Yura 1994) optimizing a single- valuable research direction.
objective function, are most often chosen model types and tech- In SSCM modeling papers, the numerical analysis (see Table 11)
niques to investigate SSCM. These results may occur because (1) is based on empirical data (105 papers), but most of these numer-
the application nature of the journals supports more normative ap- ical sections may not be easily replicable and are with limited rigor
proaches; and (2) the multi-dimensionality of the sustainability in the underlying empirical research methods. This result is in line
problem requires integrating a variety of factors and objectives with Seuring’s (2012) observations and points towards the need to
simultaneously. A hybrid model is developed by Fichtner, Frank, combine empirical and model-based research as addressed by Has-
and Rentz (2004), who combine a MILP approach for economic sini et al. (2012).
optimization with a technical process simulation and a LCA for Furthermore, specific areas for generalizable future research
the ecologic assessment of energy supply systems. are seldom addressed (only 24 papers, see Table 11). These deduc-
Surprisingly, solution approaches based on genetic algorithms tively identified research directions, which include recommenda-
(Radulescu et al., 2009) – as well as dynamic programming (Hu & tions on research design, models and metrics, resources and
Bibanda, 2009), goal programming (Tsai & Hung, 2009; Yura, processes, and interfaces with customers and various systems,
1994), and neural networks (Kuo, Wang, & Tien, 2010) models – are now briefly summarized. For research design a higher degree
occur only in very few papers. This result is in contrast to Ilgin of integration between empirical and theoretical research is rec-
and Gupta’s (2010) observation of modeling approaches for green ommended (Ukidwe and Bakshi, 2005). A fertile model-based re-
(re-)manufacturing and product recovery. search direction is developing new solution methodologies for
green SC network design (Wang, Lai, & Shi, 2011). Additional mod-
4.2.3. Research dimension eling suggestions include employing asymmetric competition
For the industry focus (see Table 10), model-based SSCM re- models to assess sustainability triggers (Yalabik & Fairchild,
search focuses on technology-related sectors (39 papers on energy, 2011) and integrating the decision maker in the evaluation of solu-
electronics, or automotive), consumable goods (18 papers on agri-
cultural or food & beverage industry) or on macro-economic con-
texts (10 paper), while surprisingly, from an environmental
Table 11
perspective, the transportation industry (Lee, Geum, Lee, & Park,
Evaluation results – structural dimension ‘‘Research’’ (data basis and research
2012; Lovric et al., 2012; with a macroscopic view: Ülengin, Kabak, perspective).
Önsel, Ülengin, & Aktas, 2010) has not been as well covered in this
Data basis of numerical example Research perspective
literature. Clearly, there is room in a number of industries for for-
mal models to be applied. The imbalance in industrial perspectives Empirical data 105 Extend/validate 73
None 3 None 37
could be due to variations in the relative importance of
Generic example 26 Specific 24
sustainability topics or to convenience and data availability. But
308 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
tions (Harris, Naim, Palmer, Potter, & Mumford, 2011). Tools to
model ecological factors in processes and the definition and imple-
mentation of related effective ecological metrics have also been
recommended (Smith and Ball, 2012).
As mentioned in Section 2.2, transportation has been neglected
in SSCM modeling. Metrics are needed to incorporate specific fuel
consumption figures for transportation (Harris et al., 2011) or to
consider transportation modes or demand uncertainties (Wang
et al., 2011). Addressing opportunity costs to assess environmental
impacts and their tradeoffs are additional issues that can be incor-
porated in various models (Figge & Hahn, 2012; Mouzon, Yildirim,
& Twomey, 2007).
For resources and processes, further understanding of resource
reduction impacts on production activities is needed (Smith & Ball,
2012). Innovative production process investigation, such as the
development of machines with multiple sleep mode states, prod-
uct design process improvements, eco-design technology initia-
tives and their evaluation, are all directions (Bovea & Wang,
2003; Kengpol & Boonkanit, 2011; Mouzon et al., 2007). Assessing
and improving the manufacturer-retailer-interface to eliminate
sources of environmentally unsustainable practices, and relating
these to consumer utility and reactions from firms is needed
(Darlington & Rahimifard, 2007; Yalabik & Fairchild, 2011; Feng,
Li, Duan, & Zhang, 2007). In addition, sustainability benefits of
collaboration, coordination, information sharing, and communication
within an SC can be assessed further using quantitative methods (e.g.
see Kainuma & Tawara, 2006).
4.2.4. Sustainability dimension
This dimension focuses primarily on social and environmental
factors of sustainability and their interplay and overlap with each
other and the economic factor. Most formal SSCM models include
environmental factors and aspects of eco-efficiency while the so-
cial dimension is neglected. Holistic models that cover all sustain-
ability dimensions have gained attention in the last ten years.
Ecological and social dimensions are often modeled using generic
factors, although more specific metrics are employed as well. The
main evaluation results of the sustainability dimension are de-
picted in Fig. 3.
Forty-one papers focus on environmental issues exclusively
and comprise all model purposes, most of the primary actors, all
SC levels, and processes of analysis. The functional focus of analysis
is predominantly within ‘‘production’’ (19 papers) or the other tra-
ditional SCM functions ‘‘sourcing’’, ‘‘logistics’’, and ‘‘SCM’’ (14 pa-
Fig. 3. Distribution of papers over sustainability categories (based on Carter & Rogers, 2008; Kannegiesser & Günther, 2013).
pers in total). Other papers investigate the design of products
(Andersson et al., 1998) or networks (Gunson et al., 2010) or are
technology-related (Kaldellis, Simotas, Zafirakis, & Kondili, 2009;
Kiwjaroun, Tubtimdee, & Piumsomboon, 2009; Saint Jean, 2008).
More general approaches for environmental management prac-
tices are suggested by Sarkis (1998). Most of these 41 manuscripts
were published after 2007 (27 papers), only six papers before 1999
and eight between 2002 and 2006. Sixty-one papers from the sam-
ple deal with the interface between environmental and economic
issues and can be labeled eco-efficiency papers, which cover nor-
mative (36 papers) and descriptive models (25 papers) in a deter-
ministic (51 papers) as well as in a stochastic way (10 papers). All
actors, levels, processes, and most of the functions of analysis are
evaluated on eco-efficiency. The ‘‘green’’ research areas are com-
prehensive and cover about 90% of all 67 manufacturer-related
SSCM models.
Compared to the extensive model-based research on environ-
mental issues of SSCM, the social aspects are neglected. Only four
papers elaborate on social issues (Yura, 1994) or the socio-eco-
nomic (Brent, Rogers, Ramabitsa-Siimane, & Rohwer, 2007; Abreu
& Camarinha-Matos, 2008) or socio-environmental (Clift, 2003)
interfaces.
Twenty-eight papers from the sample set describe holistic
SSCM models that cover all three sustainability dimensions. All
of these papers, except Georgopoulou et al. (1998), were published
after 2004, and more than half (15 papers) were published within
the last three years. This indicates that holistic SSCM models rep-
resent one of the more recent areas of SSCM research investigation.
The large majority of these 28 holistic SSCM models have a norma-
tive purpose (21 papers), which is in contrast to the balance be-
tween normative and descriptive models observed in all 134
reviewed papers (see Section 4.2.2). With regards to the SCM per-
spective it is detected that the 28 holistic SSCM models are often
employed for macroscopic analyses. Every third holistic SSCM
model focuses on legal authorities or an industrial sector, while
these actors of analysis are taken into account in less than 20% of
all 134 reviewed papers (see Section 4.2.1). Furthermore, the high
share of models for manufacturers in the overall paper sample
(every second paper, see Section 4.2.1) is not observed in the 28
holistic SSCM models; only 7 papers deal with manufacturing
firms. These findings are explained by the circumstance that social
effects, e.g. employment rate changes or other societal impacts, are
usually reflected in macroscopic contexts but not on the microeco-
nomic level of a firm or function.
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
To conclude the assessment of the sustainability dimension,
metrics that were used to represent sustainability factors in for-
mal SSCM models are summarized. Although sustainability aspects
are often modeled using generic factors such as ‘‘sustainability cri-
teria’’, ‘‘social benefit’’, or ‘‘ecologic impact’’, more specific metrics
can be found for each sustainability dimension. Economic aspects
can be categorized into microeconomic factors such as cost, profit-
ability, or revenue (Lovric et al., 2012) and macroeconomic metrics
including gross domestic product or growth rate (Agrell et al.,
2004) as well as labor productivity, market concentration, or im-
port dependency (Yakovleva, Sarkis, & Sloan, 2011) or overall
macro-economic development (Feng, Li, Duan, & Zhang, 2007).
Environmental aspects comprise input-oriented factors including
renewable energy sources (Georgopoulou, Sarafidis, & Diakoulaki,
1998; Munda, 2009), natural resources (Liu, Li, Wang, & Dong,
2011), water and energy consumption (Yakovleva et al., 2011), or
water quality (Feng et al., 2007). Output-oriented environmental
factors focus on waste (Yakovleva et al., 2011) and pollution (Geor-
gopoulou et al., 1998). Beyond this, ecological factors can be distin-
guished into environmental impacts of construction, normal
operations, and failure (Dey, 2006). Specific social aspects are re-
lated to internal factors such as wages, employees, or employment
gender ratios (Yakovleva et al., 2011) and furthermore point to-
wards external influences including individual customer needs
and requirements (Lovric et al., 2012), social acceptance and
contribution to employment (Georgopoulou et al., 1998), or
population growth (Feng et al., 2007). There are papers such as
Handfield et al. (2002) or Hassini et al. (2012) that suggest a broad
set of environmental factors which can be grouped at multiple
levels.
4.3. A research model and additional considerations
By aggregating the various research evaluation dimensions dis-
cussed, a research model can be formed by integrating the core
arguments of the analysis together (see Fig. 4). The ultimate
choice/solution begins with consideration of the SCM-dimensions
modeled, which are influenced by the respective industrial context.
The sustainability aspects to be considered then serve as a kind of
moderating variable that drives the modeling purpose. This ap-
proach is based on Seuring’s (2012) contention that trade-offs
among the economic and environmental dimension are key
assumptions for much of the model building. These tradeoffs can
occur amongst any combination of the sustainability dimensions.
The high share of multi-criteria decision making models underpins
this contention, as the trade-offs serve as a starting point that is
easier to model. Considering the broader set of tradeoffs expands
the solution space. Many researchers have argued for sustainability
evaluation in sustainable supply chains among the economic and
social dimension (or) the environmental and social dimension
Fig. 4. An aggregated research model.
309
(e.g. Seuring & Müller, 2008b) and calling for more research on
such interactions.
In many of the research approaches evaluated here, research
tended to focus on the production processes of a manufacturing
company and then analyze the results on a specific function or at
the factory level, with a focus on environmental issues (in line with
the findings of Seuring, 2012). In these situations why such re-
search is published under the label sustainable supply chain man-
agement, can be called into question. A more critical perspective
might be needed avoiding that the conceptual borders of sustain-
able SCM are increasingly blurred. Just because a research paper
has utilized and argued that sustainable SCM is being considered,
the validity of such suppositions needs to be carefully evaluated.
This type of validation will require that a clearer definition of sus-
tainable SCM be derived and agreed upon by the research
community.
As a further issue, while there are a number of papers dealing
with supplier selection criteria (e.g. Kuo et al., 2010; Saint Jean,
2008), suppliers and the extended supply chain still require con-
siderably more attention in respective research. Whereas empirical
surveys are difficult to complete for multi-tier supply chains, mod-
eling efforts are more flexible in the number of players involved
and allow evaluating sustainable supply chains. As the field contin-
ues to mature, more complex and insightful modeling can be
integrated.
Expanding the development of criteria sets for sustainable sup-
plier selection to integrate environmental and especially social as-
pects is required. The challenge is a sufficiently comprehensive and
precise simultaneous modeling effort, such that the solutions are
not trivial, but still solvable problems.
From an industry modeling perspective, the lack of specific
industry focused studies on ‘sensitive’ industries is especially sur-
prising. For example, the transportation industry with its heavy
carbon emissions, energy, and materials usage is relatively sparsely
represented. The chemical/pharmaceutical industry with its poten-
tially hazardous waste management is an environmental dimen-
sion that seems to be overlooked. Finally, the apparel and textile
industry with its prevalence of social issues (e.g. underpaid work-
ers, unsafe and dangerous working conditions) would be a prime
consideration for social sustainability issues. How to integrate
and develop models into each of these areas requires careful con-
sideration of the intangibility of the measures and modeling.
5. Results and discussion
This paper employs a systematic and methodologically rigorous
process to review quantitative SSCM models. This study uses con-
tent analysis to assess a large sample of related papers and to iden-
tify current gaps and future perspectives of model-based SSCM
research.
Before turning to them, we discuss the contribution of this pa-
per. As the title clearly states, the paper describes the body of lit-
erature on quantitative models for sustainable supply chain
management is which is the core contribution. We show the
increasing publication output and use a number of categories for
providing insights into this body of literature. A general meta-
research model is presented as well. This research model allows
for consideration of how the various review elements fit together
and can aid in further development of a research agenda.
5.1. Research gaps and future research perspectives
Additional avenues for future research on SSCM models were
not only determined deductively from the research opportunities
suggested in the assessed papers (see Section 4.2.3) but also induc-
310 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
tively from the results and the discussion of the analysis presented
here. These inductively identified research directions are related to
both research content and research methodology.
Model-based SSCM research can advance the inter-organiza-
tional perspective of SCM and extend this to the level of industry
sectors (e.g. Kannegiesser & Günther, 2013; Kannegiesser, Günther,
& Gylfason, 2013). Economic contributions of vertical coordination
in the SSCM context can be assessed quantitatively. Furthermore,
quantitative models could be employed to elaborate on the inter-
play of regulatory decisions made by legal authorities and manage-
rial decision making in firms, supply chains, or industries.
Beyond the inter-organizational aspects, research gaps can be
identified at the functional SCM level. Taking into account that
most papers focus on production or general SCM, a thorough anal-
ysis of sustainability in transportation and warehousing is recom-
mended. Decision making in intermodal transportation to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or vehicle routing under consideration
of workers’ time preferences might be adequate examples for re-
lated research questions.
Environmental risk management has been widely neglected
and hence offers significant potential in model-based SSCM re-
search. The lack of social aspects in SSCM models points to-
wards future research perspectives in related research, because
such factors need to be incorporated in SSCM models. With re-
gards to input factors and resource consumption, models that
include the option of reducing supply offer another research
perspective.
Further SSCM research is needed with regards to the integra-
tion of model-based methods with empirical research, which has
a strong focus on eco-efficiency and environmental aspects as
well. Empirical research methods should be employed to identify
social factors in SCM and their economic prerequisites and impli-
cations, while model-based research methods are needed to
quantitatively investigate this context. A lack of social sustain-
ability research may cause a mistaken impression that holistic
sustainability and the TBL concept are simply theoretical con-
structs with limited relevance. Employing case study research
rigorously (e.g. Seuring, 2008; Stuart, McCutcheon, Handfield,
MacLachlin, & Samson, 2002) is highly recommended not only
for SSCM models in particular but also for model-based research
in general. Linking empirical and model-based research, as sug-
gested by Golicic, Davis, and McCarthy (2005), could broaden
the scientific field of SSCM with regards to the focused indus-
tries. The food, apparel, or automotive industries represent sec-
tors that are thoroughly investigated by only one of these two
methodological designs while being neglected by the other.
Expanding this industry focus of the employed scientific ap-
proaches would balance this existing research bias. Furthermore,
the chemicals & oil sector seems to be neglected so far by both
empirical and model-based research.
Focusing on developments and directions of SSCM models leads
to the question of why some of the sophisticated modeling ap-
proaches have been widely neglected so far. Dynamic program-
ming, evolutionary algorithms, or local search methods represent
normative approaches to solve complex problems that offer large
optimization potential. The fact that these solution approaches
are employed only seldom in context to SSCM models outlines fur-
ther research opportunities and raises the question of whether the
complexity of SSCM problems and their optimization potential are
already fully exposed.
5.2. A comparative analysis to other SSCM literature reviews
The need for further research on OR applications and hybrid
qualitative and quantitative approaches (Min & Kim, 2012) as well
as more empirical rigor in numerical analyses of SSCM models
(Seuring, 2012) are conclusions reinforced by this study. This study
also confirms the relative lack of social factors in (model-based)
SSCM research (Seuring, 2012; Seuring & Müller, 2008a; Tang &
Zhou, 2012). There are some contradictions to other reviews that
find a strong environmental focus but an increased consideration
of social factors in empirical SSCM research (Carter & Easton,
2011). We found that the green focus of model-based SSCM re-
search remains unchanged.
In further contrast to empirical research, which has predomi-
nantly investigated the food, apparel, and consumer products sec-
tors (Carter & Easton, 2011; Gold et al., 2010a), the results of this
paper indicate that model-based SSCM research mainly focuses
on technology-related industries. This industry focus does support
other SSCM modeling literature reviews (Hassini et al., 2012). Un-
like empirical research, which focuses on intra-organizational level
(Carter & Easton, 2011), formal SSCM models integrate inter-orga-
nizational interdependencies. Beyond this, SSCM models do in-
clude the perspective of legal authorities and hence are capable
of reflecting external triggers of sustainability (Gold et al., 2010a,
2010b; Seuring & Müller, 2008a).
In terms of modeling results, the findings do confirm the high
relevance of AHP/ANP, LCA, and MCDM for SSCM models (Seur-
ing, 2012), but DES or GA are not as important for SSCM as for
product recovery and (re-)manufacturing (Ilgin & Gupta, 2010).
The unexploited potential for goal programming in green logis-
tics (Dekker et al., 2012) is substantiated for SSCM research by
this study, although the lack of MCDM applications in green
logistics (Dekker et al., 2012) cannot be confirmed for forward
SSCM.
6. Summary and conclusion
This paper reviewed almost two decades worth of research
focusing on SSCM quantitative, formal modeling. One hundred
thirty-four articles were identified and utilized in the analysis of
the research. Overall, the number of publications in this topical
area is not as large as empirical and conceptual work, but it is
growing. The findings included variations in focus by function, re-
search perspective, methodology, and the type of sustainability fo-
cus of the supply chains. The results also provided opportunities to
identify gaps in the research that could be addressed and poten-
tials for further research directions. Some major findings for fertile
areas of research include the integration of social issues into mod-
eling, expanding the scope and diffusing modeling from one indus-
try to another, and the need for more stochastic approaches in
modeling to relay a more realistic uncertain decision environment
associated with these many and complex environmental factors
identified with SSCM.
Although this study was rigorously completed, there are still
limitations that we encountered, but these limitations provide
opportunity for future research. Despite the fact that several
researchers were involved in the validation and the content analy-
sis of this study’s paper sample, the categorization of these papers
remains interpretative and hence subjective. Furthermore, statisti-
cal methods (e.g. Wolf, 2008) could be employed to cluster the pa-
per sample and to analyze contingencies of different categories.
Additionally, more comprehensive bibliometric citation analyses
represent another rigorous and structured approach to assess re-
lated scientific literature (e.g. Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2012).
These limitations leave room for future analyses and reviews of
SSCM modeling publications.
As can be seen, the SSCM modeling field is on the research up-
swing; significantly more modeling based research can and needs
to be completed to more fully understand and integrate SSCM into
business thought and practice.
 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312 311

References Ghadimi, P., Azadnia, A. H., Yusof, M. N., & Saman, M. Z. M. (2012). A weighted fuzzy
approach for product sustainability assessment: A case study in automotive
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 10–21.
Abreu, A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2008). On the role of value systems to promote
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010a). The constructs of sustainable supply chain
the sustainability of collaborative environments. International Journal of
management – A content analysis based on published case studies. Progress in
Production Research, 46(5), 1207–1229.
Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, 7(2), 114–137.
Agrell, P. J., Stam, A., & Fischer, G. W. (2004). Interactive multi-objective agro-
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010b). Sustainable supply chain management and
ecological land use planning: The Bungoma region in Kenya. European Journal of
inter-organizational resources: A literature review. Corporate Social
Operational Research, 158, 194–217.
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 230–245.
Athanasopoulou, P. (2009). Relationship quality: A critical literature review and
Golicic, S. L., Davis, D. F., & McCarthy, T. M. (2005). A balanced approach to research
research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5/6), 583–610.
in supply chain management. In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Müller, & G. Reiner
Andersson, K., Hogaas Eide, M., Lundqvist, U., & Mattsson, B. (1998). The feasibility
(Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 89–108).
of including sustainability in LCA for product development. Journal of Cleaner
Heidelberg: Physica.
Production, 6, 289–298.
Golicic, S. L., & Smith, C. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable
Bertrand, J. W. M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2002). Operations management research
supply chain management practices and firm performance. Journal of Supply
methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations
Chain Management, 49(2), 78–95.
& Production Management, 22(2), 241–264.
Guide, V. D. R., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). The evolution of closed-loop supply
Bettley, A., & Burnley, S. (2008). Towards sustainable operations management:
chain research. Operations Research, 57(1), 10–18.
Integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies
Gungor, A., & Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues in environmentally conscious
and practices. In K. B. Misra (Ed.), Handbook of performability engineering
manufacturing and product recovery: A survey. Computers & Industrial
(pp. 875–904). London: Springer.
Engineering, 36(4), 811–853.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., van Beek, P., Hordijk, L., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1995).
Gunson, A. J., Klein, B., Veiga, M., & Dunbar, S. (2010). Reducing mine water network
Interactions between operational research and environmental management.
energy requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1328–1338.
European Journal of Operational Research, 85(2), 229–243.
Halldorsson, A., & Arlbjørn, J. (2005). Research methodologies in supply chain
Bovea, M. D., & Wang, B. (2003). Identifying environmental improvement options by
management – What do we know? In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Müller, & G.
combining life cycle assessment and fuzzy set theory. International Journal of
Reiner (Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 107–122).
Production Research, 41(3), 593–609.
Heidelberg: Physica.
Brent, A. C., Rogers, D. E. C., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T. S. M., & Rohwer, M. B. (2007).
‘Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental
Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste
criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical
management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries.
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141, 70–87.
European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 403–424.
Harris, I., Naim, M., Palmer, A., Potter, A., & Mumford, C. (2011). Assessing the
Carter, C. R., & Easton, P. L. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution
impact of cost optimization based on infrastructure modeling on CO2 emissions.
and future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
International Journal of Production Economics, 131, 313–321.
Management, 41(1), 46–62.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., & Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain
sustainable supply chain management with a focus on metrics. International
management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical
Journal of Production Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042.
Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387.
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2008). Green supply chain management in the electronic
Che, Y. H. (2010). Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and particle swarm
industry. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(2),
optimisation for balanced and defective supply chain problems considering
205–216.
WEEE/RoHS directives. International Journal of Production Research, 48(11),
Hu, G., & Bibanda, B. (2009). Modeling sustainable product life cycle decision
3355–3381.
support systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 122, 366–375.
Chen, C. W., & Fan, Y. (2012). Bioethanol supply chain system planning under supply
Ilgin, M. A., & Gupta, S. M. (2010). Environmentally conscious manufacturing and
and demand uncertainties. Transportation Research Part E, 48, 150–164.
product recovery (ECMPRO). A review of the state of the art. Journal of
Clift, R. (2003). Metrics for supply chain sustainability. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Management, 91, 563–591.
Environmental Policy, 5, 240–247.
Kainuma, Y., & Tawara, N. (2006). A multiple attribute utility theory approach to
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply chain management – More
lean and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production
than a new name for logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management,
Economics, 101, 99–108.
8(1), 1–14.
Kaldellis, J. K., Simotas, M., Zafirakis, D., & Kondili, E. (2009). Optimum autonomous
Daniel, S. E., Diakoulaki, D. C., & Pappis, C. P. (1997). Operations research and
photovoltaic solution for the Greek islands on the basis of energy pay-back
environmental planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 102(2),
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1311–1323.
248–263.
Kannegiesser, M., & Günther, H.-O. (2013). Sustainable development of global
Darlington, R., & Rahimifard, S. (2007). Hybrid two-stage planning for food industry
supply chains—Part 1: Sustainability optimization framework. Flexible Services
overproduction waste minimization. International Journal of Production
and Manufacturing Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10696-013-9176-5.
Research, 45(18–19), 4273–4288.
Kannegiesser, M., Günther, H.-O., & Gylfason, O. (2013). Sustainable development of
Dekker, R., Bloemhof, J., & Mallidis, J. (2012). Operations Research for green logistics
global supply chains—Part 2: Investigation of the European automotive
– An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. European Journal
industry. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
of Operational Research, 219, 671–679.
s10696-013-9177-4.
Dey, P. K. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-
Kengpol, A., & Boonkanit, P. (2011). The decision support framework for developing
attribute decision-making technique. International Journal of Production
Ecodesign at conceptual phase based upon ISO/TR 14062. International Journal of
Economics, 103, 90–103.
Production Economics, 131, 4–14.
Drake, D., & Spinler, S. (2013). Sustainable operations management: An enduring
Kiwjaroun, C., Tubtimdee, C., & Piumsomboon, P. (2009). LCA studies comparing
stream, or passing fancy? Working paper 13-084. Harvard Business School.
biodiesel synthesized by conventional and supercritical methanol methods.
Edwards, J. B., McKinnon, A. C., & Cullinane, S. L. (2010). Comparative analysis of the
Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 143–153.
carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing – A ‘‘last mile’’
Kleijnen, P. (2005). Supply chain simulation tools and techniques: A survey.
perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling, 1(1/2), 82–89.
Management, 40(1/2), 103–123.
Kleindorfer, P. A., Singhal, K., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21st century.
operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4),
Stoney Creek/CT: New Society.
482–492.
Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills/CA: Sage.
(Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp 1–16). London: Earthscan.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network
Feng, S., Li, L. X., Duan, Z. G., & Zhang, J. L. (2007). Assessing the impacts of South-to-
and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production,
North water transfer project with decision support systems. Decision Support
18, 1161–1170.
Systems, 42, 1989–2003.
Lage Junior, M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2010). Variations of the Kanban system:
Fichtner, W., Frank, M., & Rentz, O. (2004). Inter-firm energy supply concepts: An
Literature review and classification. International Journal of Production
option for cleaner energy production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 891–899.
Economics, 125, 13–21.
Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2012). Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-
Lebreton, B. (2007). Strategic closed-loop supply chain management. Lecture notes in
off between economic and environmental aspects. International Journal of
economics and mathematical systems. Berlin: Springer. 586.
Production Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.001.
Lee, D. H., Dong, M., & Bian, W. (2010). The design of sustainable logistics network
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., Dekker, R., van der Laan, E., van Nunen, J.
under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 128, 159–166.
A. E. E., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1997). Quantitative models for reverse
Lee, S., Geum, Y., Lee, H., & Park, Y. (2012). Dynamic and multidimensional
logistics: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 103(1), 1–17.
measurement of product-service system (PSS) sustainability: A triple bottom
Garfield, E. (2004). Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature.
line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32,
Journal of Information Science, 30, 119–145.
173–182.
Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., & Diakoulaki, D. (1998). Design and implementation
Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2012). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the
of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European Journal
intellectual origins and structures of the corporate sustainability field. Global
of Operational Research, 109, 483–500.
Environmental Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.007.
312 M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299–312
Linninger, A. A., Chakraborty, A., & Colberg, R. D. (2000). Planning of waste reduction
strategies under uncertainty. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(2–7),
1043–1048.
Liu, D., Li, H., Wang, W., & Dong, Y. (2011). Constructivism scenario evolutionary
analysis of zero emission regional planning: A case of Qaidam Circular Economy
Pilot Area in China. International Journal of Production Economics. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.008.
Lovric, M., Li, T., & Vervest, P. (2012). Sustainable revenue management: A smart
card enabled agent-based modeling approach. Decision Support Systems. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.061.
Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative Sozialforschung (Qualitative social research) (5th ed.).
Weinheim: Beltz.
Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis) (10th ed.).
Weinheim: Beltz.
Mentzer, J., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J., Min, S., Nix, N., Smith, C., & Zacharia, Z. (2001).
Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2),
1–25.
Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(3), 3–11.
Mikkola, J. H. (2005). Modeling the effect of product architecture modularity in
supply chains. In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Müller, & G. Reiner (Eds.), Research
methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 493–508). Heidelberg: Physica.
Min, H., & Kim, I. (2012). Green supply chain research: Past, present, and future.
Logistics Research, 4, 39–47.
Mouzon, G., Yildirim, M. B., & Twomey, J. (2007). Operational methods for
minimization of energy consumption of manufacturing equipment.
International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), 4247–4271.
Munda, G. (2009). A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues
in sustainability policy. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 307–322.
Radulescu, M., Radulescu, S., & Radulescu, C. Z. (2009). Sustainable production
technologies which take into account environmental constraints. European
Journal of Operational Research, 193, 730–740.
ReVelle, C. (2000). Research challenges in environmental management. European
Journal of Operational Research, 121, 218–231.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. Pittsburgh/PA: RWS Publications.
Saint Jean, M. (2008). Polluting emissions standards and clean technology
trajectories under competitive selection and supply chain pressure. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16S1, S113–S123.
Sarkis, J. (1998). Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. European
Journal of Operational Research, 10, 159–174.
Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 202–216.
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.
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2008a). Issues in reverse supply chains, part I: End-of-
life product recovery and inventory management – An overview. International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(3), 154–172.
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2008b). Issues in reverse supply chain, part II: Reverse
distribution issues – An overview. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 1(4), 234–249.
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2009). Issues in reverse supply chain, part III:
Classification and simple analysis. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 2(1), 2–27.
Sbihi, A., & Eglese, R. W. (2007). Combinatorial optimization and green logistics.
4OR, 5, 99–116.
Seuring, S. (2008). Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2),
128–137.
Seuring, S. (2012). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
management. Decision Support Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.dss.2012.02.053.
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews
in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 17(5), 544–555.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008a). From a literature review to a conceptual
framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008b). Core issues in sustainable supply chain
management – A Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8),
455–466.
Shapiro, J. (2007). Modeling the supply chain (2nd ed.). Duxbury: Brooks/Cole,
Thompson.
Sheu, J. B., Chou, Y. H., & Hu, C. C. (2005). An integrated logistics operational model
for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E, 41,
287–313.
Smith, L., & Ball, P. (2012). Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through
modelling material, energy and waste flows. International Journal of Production
Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.036.
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art
literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 53–80.
Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of supply chain
management: A qualitative study. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 39(8), 690–711.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., MacLachlin, R., & Samson, D. (2002).
Effective case research in operations management: A process perspective.
Journal of Operations Management, 20, 419–433.
Supply-Chain Council (Ed.), (2008). Supply chain operations reference model SCOR
version 9.0. Pittsburgh: Supply-Chain Council.
Tang, C. S., & Zhou, S. (2012). Research advances in environmentally and socially
sustainable operations. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 585–594.
Tsai, W. H., & Hung, S. J. (2009). A fuzzy goal programming approach for green
supply chain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance
evaluation with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production
Research, 47(18), 4991–5017.
Tseng, M. L., Lin, Y. H., & Chiu, A. S. F. (2009). Fuzzy AHP-based study of cleaner
production implementation in Taiwan PWB manufacturer. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17, 1249–1256.
Ukidwe, N. U., & Bakshi, B. R. (2005). Flow of natural versus economic capital in
industrial supply networks and its implications to sustainability. Environmental
Science Technology, 39, 9759–9769.
Ülengin, F., Kabak, Ö., Önsel, S., Ülengin, B., & Aktas, E. (2010). A problem-
structuring model for analyzing transportation–environment relationships.
European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 844–859.
van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Tromp, S. O., & van der Zee, D. J. (2009). Simulation
modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on
product quality, sustainability and logistics. International Journal of Production
Research, 47(23), 6611–6631.
Wang, F., Lai, X., & Shi, N. (2011). A multi-objective optimization for green supply
chain network design. Decision Support Systems, 51, 262–269.
Whitefoot, K. S., & Skerlos, S. J. (2012). Design incentives to increase vehicle size
created from the US footprint-based fuel economy standards. Energy Policy, 41,
402–411.
Wolf, J. (2008). The nature of supply chain management research – Insights from a
content analysis of international supply chain management literature from 1990 to
2006. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Wu, C. C., & Chang, N. B. (2004). Corporate optimal production planning with
varying environmental costs: A grey compromise programming approach.
European Journal of Operational Research, 155, 68–95.
Yakovleva, N., Sarkis, J., & Sloan, T. (2011). Sustainable benchmarking of supply
chains: The case of the food industry. International Journal of Production
Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.571926.
Yalabik, B., & Fairchild, R. J. (2011). Customer, regulatory, and competitive pressure
as drivers of environmental innovation. International Journal of Production
Economics, 131, 519–527.
Yura, K. (1994). Production scheduling to satisfy worker’s preference for days off
and overtime under due-date constraints. International Journal of Production
Economics, 33, 265–270.
Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2011). Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for
sustainable food supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.028.