_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest14 March 2014 03:56_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1 Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature Author: Ashby, Alison; Leat, Mike; Hudson-Smith, Melanie ProQuest document link Abstract: Purpose - The objective of this paper is to investigate systematically the discipline of supply chainmanagement (SCM) within the context of sustainability. The two concepts are increasingly aligned, andsustainable supply chain management (SSCM) represents an evolving field where they explicitly interact. Giventheir complex and holistic nature, breaking down the literature to understand its structures, processes,connections and limitations can provide an objective view of the status of research in these highly importantfields, identifying key areas for future research/theory development. Design/methodology/approach - Asystematic review of current SCM literature is carried out, specifically in relation to the social and environmentaldimensions of sustainability. Findings - SSCM and the integration of sustainability into supply chains is asignificant but evolving field evidenced by a current bias in the literature towards theory development and highlyqualitative research methods. The environmental dimension is significantly better represented in the literaturethrough specific processes at all stages of the supply chain. The social dimension is recognised, but receivesless emphasis than expected given SCM's focus on interaction, relationships and communication. These twodimensions are treated separately in the literature with limited insight on how to integrate them and current SCMand sustainability research provides limited practical outputs. Research limitations/implications - The reviewfocuses on environmental and social sustainability within supply chains without explicit consideration of theeconomic dimension. Practical implications - The review highlights the key themes and issues for supply chainmanagers faced with implementing sustainability. It also illustrates a number of areas for future research, alongwith the need for researchers to develop more practical tools for implementing SSCM. Originality/value -Indicates the extent to which sustainability is integrated within SCM and where the research emphasis currentlylies. The environmental dimension is significantly more defined and developed in the literature. SCM literatureemphasises the importance of long-term supplier relationships, but this "people-focused" approach does notappear to translate into socially responsible supply chains. It suggests that the more process-driven nature ofenvironmental sustainability makes it easier to put into supply chain practice. There is also limited research orevidence on how the two dimensions can be integrated despite recognition of their inter-relationship. Full text: Building theory in supply chain management through "systematic reviews" of the literature part 2 Edited by Richard Wilding and Beverly Wagner Introduction There is increasing consumer and stakeholder expectation for firms to be fully responsible for their businessoperations, and to clearly demonstrate their environmental and ethical behaviour. Most organisations are a partof at least one supply chain ([74] Samaranayake, 2005) and in today's global market competition is increasinglybased on "supply chain vs supply chain" ([47] Gold et al. , 2009; [83] Soler et al. , 2010). Therefore, theexpected line of responsibility needs to extend along the full extent of a firm's supply chains into its products,processes and relationships. Globalisation and recent economic trends have created highly complex supply chains ([26] Varma et al. , 2006)and the design, organisation, interactions, competences, capabilities and management of these supply chainshave become key issues ([47] Gold et al. , 2009). Supply chain management (SCM) is therefore highly relevantboth to successfully competing in today's market and in addressing responsible behaviour at all stages of thesupply chain. It represents a potentially important discipline for establishing how to integrate environmental andsocial considerations and practices, to achieve the goal of sustainability. The development of SCM has been largely practitioner-led ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006) and represents an

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1352727740?accountid=46437

evolutionary step beyond logistics ([74] Samaranayake, 2005). It extends logistics thought by integrating themanagement of co-operations with that of material and information flows ([13] Handfield and Nichols, 1999).The prime driver for the rapid development of SCM has been economic sustainability, based on the premisethat an integrated and efficient supply chain helps to minimise monetary risks and increase profits ([44] Fawcettet al. , 2008). However in 1983 the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) was established andthe result of their work formalised in the 1987 Brundtland Report "Our Common Future". It defined sustainabilityas "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs" ([27] WCED, 1987, p. 43). A total of 25 years later this remains the most often quoteddefinition of this concept and its two central tenets are: "the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority shouldbe given;" and "the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment's ability tomeet present and future needs" ([27] WCED, 1987, p. 43). This has led, slowly, to social and environmental sustainability becoming additional drivers for SCM, withsustainable supply chain management (SSCM) now a rapidly evolving field that requires a broadened approachto SCM, incorporating the ecological and social aspects of business, as well as economic sustainability, in linewith the Brundtland definition ([87] Svensson, 2007). It is, therefore, "the strategic, transparent integration andachievement of an organisation's social, environmental and economic goals in the systemic coordination of keyinter-organisational business processes for improving the long term economic performance of the individualcompany and its supply chains" ([38] Carter and Rogers, 2008, p. 368). While there is clearly academic recognition of the need to integrate economic, environmental and socialsustainability, given the broad nature of these fields there is a tangible need to develop a better and morefocused understanding of sustainability specifically in relation to supply chains. How sustainable supply chainsare defined, interpreted, researched and practiced are key to this improved understanding and a review ofrelevant literature provides the most appropriate means to achieve this and guide future research in SSCM.Sustainability and SCM represent growing and highly important areas for research, but there have been fewliterature reviews to date that examine the two fields together and even fewer systematic reviews. Given thecomplexity of both research areas the process of breaking down the literature systematically and understandingits structures, processes, connections and limitations can provide a more objective view of the status ofresearch in these two important fields. Through the use of a systematic review this paper will address the following research questions: How has sustainability been represented in supply chain research to date? - What are the key similarities and differences in focus and findings/outputs? - What methodologies have been used, which dominate and why? This structured process will enable key gaps in the literature to be identified and directions and approaches forfuture research/theory development to be proposed. The following section will detail the methodology used forthe systematic review and is followed by a presentation of the findings. The findings are structured to discussthe broad discipline of Supply Chain Management in relation to sustainability and then focus more specificallyon how the environmental and social dimensions are represented in the literature to date. These findings arethen compared against other relevant structured literature reviews and the contribution of this paper detailed.Identified gaps in SCM and sustainability research are discussed and finally the impact of these findings onfuture Sustainable Supply Chain Management research is considered. Methodology For a systematic literature review it is important to define clear boundaries to delimitate the research ([78]Seuring and Muller, 2008a) and establish a protocol for identifying, selecting and reviewing literature relevant to

the specific question ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). This form of review typically has the three defined stages ofPlanning, where the research need and question is identified; conducting which includes the search for relevantliterature and its analysis; and reporting where the findings are formalised and recommendations made ([23]Tranfield et al. , 2003). Structured literature reviews within the Operations Management discipline ([79] Seuring and Muller, 2008b; [35]Burgess et al. , 2006) illustrate the objective nature of this approach in establishing key themes or dimensions,and the benefits that can be provided to improve future research ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). As well asreviewing content as in a standard literature review process, this approach investigates the underlying structureof the selected papers to identify differences and similarities in methods used and potential issues that resultfrom each. Through this process methodological strengths are tested and key gaps in knowledge identified. Once it was established that a systematic and objective review of Supply Chain Management (SCM) andsustainability literature was to be undertaken a set of search criteria was applied to identify the most relevantpapers. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed journals produced in English and for quality purposesthe initial proposal was to limit searches to journals rated from 2-4* in the ABS journal rankings (2010).However, recognising the interdisciplinary nature of the subject areas, along with the fact that sustainability andSCM are both rapidly evolving concepts, it was deemed important to include relevant journals which fell outsidethis scope, to ensure that all the most current and relevant research was included. Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] indicates the ABS ranking for each of the accessed journals.Important publications that did not fit within the specified range include the Journal of Cleaner Production andGreener Management International . These journals are not currently ABS ranked but are explicitly focused oncutting edge research in the field of sustainability with a strong emphasis on the operational context, andrespectively contributed 10 and 12 relevant papers for review. As the subject of sustainability is expansive, the search was focused on sustainability in relation to supplychains and SCM. Sustainability is considered "an important conceptual framework" for aligning economic,environmental and social dimensions ([10] Dempsey et al. , 2009) and these three "pillars" are pervasive withinsustainability literature ([21] Springett, 2003; [91] Vachon and Mao, 2008; [56] Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008).However, while the importance of the economic dimension is recognised it was considered to be outside thescope of this review and therefore excluded from the literature search as a keyword/phrase. Search criteria The idea of sustainability was verbalised by Schumacher as early as 1972, as "permanence", where "nothingmakes economic sense unless its continuance for a long time can be projected without running into absurdities"(Grinde and Khare, 2008), and was acknowledged in key works such as "Limits to Growth" (Meadows et al. ,1972) which modelled the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite natural resources.However it was not until the WCED was established that the environmental and social dimensions ofsustainability were more explicitly formalised. Therefore only publications from 1983 to present day wereincluded in the literature search to ensure these two key dimensions were represented. It also indicates howrecent the multi-dimensional concept of sustainability is in academic literature and how it has paralleled SCM,which has only been formally recognised as a discipline since the early 1980s ([88] Svensson and Baath, 2008).Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows the spread of the reviewed papers from 1983 and illustratesthe growing research interest in the fields of sustainability and SCM, with the most substantial growth occurringfrom 2001 onwards. This review intends to inform sustainability research within SCM. The literature search was restricted to peer-reviewed publications within the broad definition of business, management and economics applied by thechosen search databases, recognising the cross-disciplinary nature of both fields. The literature searchsimultaneously employed the three databases of Science Direct, EBSCO and Emerald Fulltext. While thisrelatively small number of databases could be considered as a limitation they provided collective access to over

4,500 academic publications including all key operations and supply chain journals. They therefore provided asignificant hit rate for relevant SCM and sustainability literature across multiple disciplines, which was a keyconsideration for this review. However it also created some duplication, so it was necessary to cross-check thesearch results from each database to ensure that the correct numbers of hits were recorded. An initial search was made using the term sustainable supply chain management in all search fields and thisproduced a combined results list of 11,020 hits. The same term was then restricted to article title or keywordand substantially reduced the number of hits to just 70. Allowing for duplication of hits and calls for papersacross the three databases and identifying those papers which specifically related to sustainable supply chainmanagement this number was reduced to 14 articles from quality peer reviewed journals. A search forsustainability and supply chain management in all fields produced 8,156 results, while a focus on title and/orkeywords reduced it to 35 hits. This smaller number allowed for the abstract of each paper to be reviewed toestablish its relevance to the research question and provided a further six papers to the overall review. A standard approach to selecting papers for a literature review is to apply a statistical sampling method to alarge number of results ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006), but the above process highlights how sustainability in SCMis a developing field with a limited number of articles that deal explicitly with this subject. Therefore the use oftitle and/or keywords as the search criteria enabled the number of articles to be reduced to the extent that it waspossible to evaluate the relevance of the papers individually. However the 26 papers resulting from the aboveprocess were considered insufficient for an effective review and a further set of search terms were utilised tocapture papers that did not sit explicitly within sustainable supply chain management, but that were still relevantto sustainability in the context of supply chains. Therefore this was not a random search process, but one thatwas progressively refined by the use of specific search terms and ensured that appropriate and high qualitypapers were retrieved for review. Sustainability is an expansive, multi-faceted and heavily debated concept ([92] Wilkinson et al. , 2001), and asearch on this single term yielded 74,642 results in all fields and more than 6,000 if restricted to a keyword, so itwas important to ensure that the chosen literature dealt specifically with the concept in relation to supply chainsand supply chain management. The terms of Sustainability and Sustainable Development are frequently usedinterchangeably ([1] Aras and Crowther, 2009), so the latter term was added to the literature search and used inconjunction with the keywords of supply chains and/or supply chain management. There was significant overlapwith the prior search using the term sustainability, but it did yield a further five papers for review. "Green supply chains" as a search term used in both title and keyword produced 122 combined results acrossthe three databases. Using quality criteria of peer reviewed journals and key recognised authors in the field,removing calls for papers and duplications across the three databases plus papers that had already beenidentified this number was reduced to 35 papers. This represented the largest group of papers across all thesearch terms, as indicated in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. This process was repeated with other key search terms that related to the whole supply chain and which alignwith sustainability (see Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). All search terms were used in conjunctionwith the additional terms of supply chains and supply chain management for both title and keyword. Throughthis process and the restricted search criteria a total of 134 articles were selected for review. While thesearticles represent a significant proportion of the relevant literature on sustainability and SCM it was recognisedthat the chosen methodology and specific search criteria would inevitably exclude some work in the field. Analysis and findings Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] lists the journals that were accessed for the review and the numberof papers acquired from each. While there is a strong emphasis on operations and supply chain managementjournals as would be expected, it also illustrates the multi-disciplinary approach required in a systematic review([35] Burgess et al. , 2006; [23] Tranfield et al. , 2003) with journals crossing business management, strategyand sustainability. This recognises the need for considering cross-disciplinary perspectives in systematic

reviews and shows the different ways the research topic has been approached ([23] Tranfield et al. , 2003; [35]Burgess et al. , 2006). To minimise any potential bias the search process was conducted using keywords across a series of researchdatabases and not at individual journal level. However it is pertinent to note how many of the accessed journalsin Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] relate specifically to the environmental dimension, and the highproportion of papers which they provided. As previously outlined ABS ranked 2-4* journals represented thelargest percentage of reviewed publications. However given the growing importance and contemporary natureof sustainability within the supply chain management discipline, the most up to date material is often found innewer and/or lower ranking journals as they typically have shorter publication lead times. Therefore, journalsthat were deemed highly relevant, but which fell outside the 2-4* scope were still included to ensure the mostcurrent research was represented. The range of papers reviewed illustrates the holistic nature of supply chain management (SCM) andsustainability and highlights the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to capture the most relevant literature([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). Consequently a range of research philosophies and methods were represented(see Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]), rather than a focus on one type of study or form of data ([2]Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008). Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] indicates how substantial theresearch interest is in sustainability within supply chains and the extent to which it is discussed in academicliterature. However it also illustrates a lack of systematic literature reviews (only 4 of the 17 literature reviewsapply a systematic approach) in comparison to other methods and emphasises the need for a systematic reviewof these fields. The majority of the reviewed literature was academic research papers - 108 in total with four of these explicitlyreferenced as conceptual papers. A total of 28 of the reviewed items were classified as articles and these werelargely more report based rather than dealing with an explicit research question. There were also fourintroductions to special issues on sustainability with two specific to sustainable supply chain management(SSCM). The diversity in the literature illustrates the contemporary nature of the subject and that it is broadlydiscussed and reported as well being heavily researched across multiple areas of business and management. Research methodologies Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] illustrates the highly qualitative nature of the current literature asless than 25 per cent of the reviewed papers used quantitative data collection methods or analysis. Casestudies represented the dominant research methodology in relation to supply chains and sustainability. Over 50per cent of the case studies were conducted with just one or two firms with the greater proportion being withsingle firms and investigating their whole supply chain. Only one case study used more than five firms andfocused on ten exemplar organisations that employ socially responsible buying ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). Very few of the reviewed papers applied a pure deductive approach to "test" pre-established theory, indicatinghow new the integration of sustainability into SCM is, and how the theory related to this area is still developing.This may explain the dominance of inductive research methods such as case studies, which are better atgaining insight and understanding of complex, contemporary "real world" phenomena ([28] Yin, 2009) in thisreview. There were ten instances of interviews being used as the method of data collection and the majority of theseinterviews were semi-structured where questions may be adjusted or adapted in response to any new orinteresting facets that arise during the interview process ([73] Reuter et al. , 2010). This indicates an emphasisin current research on acquiring more qualitative, rich and descriptive information. The survey and questionnairemethods also focused on acquiring qualitative rather than quantitative data although these methods lendthemselves to either form. Two Delphi studies were undertaken with experts/practitioners in the supply chainfield and were more quantitative in their approach ([77] Seuring, 2008; [53] Handfield et al. , 2002). The formerapplied a Likert scale and statistical analysis to inform understanding of SSCM while the other applied a ranking

approach to key environmental criteria to develop a potential decision support model. This latter study provided one of the few tangible outputs within the reviewed literature - eight models and 16conceptual frameworks were developed with 6 of these frameworks appearing in Supply Chain Management:an International Journal (SCMIJ ). The largest number of models/frameworks focused on the concept ofsustainable supply chain management, followed closely by environmental management, and the emphasis forboth of these themes was on supply chain strategy and decision making. Two socially responsible purchasingmodels were developed ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010; [37] Carter and Jennings, 2002), perhaps reflecting themore measurable nature of this supply chain stage as it deals with tangible materials. Four models focused onsocial responsibility/CSR ([30] Aguilera et al. , 2007; [50] Hahn et al. , 2010; [64] McElroy et al. , 2007; [65]McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) while only one output explicitly addressed the more holistic concept of "closedloop" supply chains ([41] Defee et al. , 2009). This lack of outputs further highlights that current research is focused on understanding the emergentphenomenon of sustainable supply chains and developing theory. SCM is fundamentally a practical disciplinewhich focuses on products and processes and the links/relationships that facilitate these. While the differentresearch methods exhibited in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] are largely grounded inunderstanding "real world" situations current sustainable supply chain research is not informing practicesignificantly. This supports a recognised lack of impact of research on management practice ([11] Ghoshal,2005), and the difficulties in addressing the more "human" elements of sustainability. While the reviewed literature may not currently provide a significant number of tangible outputs it does reveal aresearch bias toward operational processes, assessments and procedures, i.e. practical measures as themeans to address sustainability in supply chains. A total of 46 per cent of the reviewed papers focused on the"greening" of products, processes and performance and yet both SCM and sustainability are concepts thatimplicitly require an integrated, holistic approach. This could be considered a key limitation of currentsustainability and SCM research and highlights the highly complex and challenging nature of these fields. Sustainability dimensions Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] illustrates the high proportion of articles relating specifically to theenvironmental dimension of sustainability, with "green" supply chains representing a particularly strong area ofresearch. This aligns with the higher number of articles coming from environmentally focused journals (seeTable I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). To examine this observed difference in emphasis, during thereview process it was recorded whether an article referred to the key dimensions of society and environmentindividually and/or collectively. A total of 106 papers in total explicitly discussed one or more of the dimensionswhile the remaining 28 papers made no substantial reference to either dimension, discussing SCM andsustainability in a broader context. This process enabled the current research status of each aspect to beestablished and to gain an indication of how integrated the dimensions are within supply chains. The environmental dimension is substantially better represented than the social dimension in the literature and,even where both were discussed, the emphasis was on environmental, rather than social practices/principles.Papers that dealt specifically with the social dimension tended to focus on one specific area or practice, forexample Fairtrade rather than taking a fully holistic view. The environment seemed more fully aligned withsupply chain performance as it can provide measurable benefits, whereas social sustainability was consideredmore ambiguous ([3] Banerjee, 2010). In addition, its inter-relationship with the environmental dimensionreceived limited explicit discussion within the literature, and those papers that referred to both dimensionstreated them as separate entities. Key themes Having systematically identified the most relevant literature the process of research synthesis was undertaken,which collectively relates to the summarizing and integrating of different studies on the chosen topic ([23]Tranfield et al. , 2003). As well as identifying key similarities it was important to apply a critical approach when

reviewing the text to identify and assess both heterogeneity between the papers and their individual quality ([2]Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008). This interpretative, "meta-synthesis" approach allows the importantsimilarities and differences to be considered ([23] Tranfield et al. , 2003; [35] Burgess et al. , 2006) and looks forexplanations to gain a deep understanding of the studied area ([22] Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The use ofcoding schemes ([22] Strauss and Corbin, 1998; [16] Miles, 1979; [7] Charmaz, 2006) and cross-comparisonwith the other papers enabled the identification of a series of key themes and categories within sustainabilityand Supply Chain Management literature to date. Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the key themes that were identified through the aboveanalysis process and lists all the papers that had content associated with each theme, together with an overallcount which is ranked to indicate the themes that have received the most research attention to date. Thereference numbers cross reference to those allocated to each of the reviewed papers in the Appendix. Thesekey themes are discussed and reported in the following sections, firstly in relation to the discipline of sustainablesupply chain management (SSCM) and then specifically to the environmental and social dimensions ofsustainability. Where appropriate the reference numbers for specific papers within a theme are cited. (Sustainable) supply chain management There were 29 papers relating to supply chain management (SCM) as evidenced in Table V [Figure omitted.See Article Image.] and while sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is an explicit evolvement of thisdiscipline it is currently less well represented in the literature, with only 14 reviewed papers (see Table V [Figureomitted. See Article Image.]) dealing explicitly with this subject. The earliest publication date on SSCM was2003, compared to the reviewed SCM papers which started in 1996. While this shows that SSCM is anemergent field the majority of SCM papers featured in the review were published after 2005 and showed agrowth in line with the SSCM literature. The dominant research method utilised in both fields is the literaturereview, followed by case studies. Four of the literature reviews employed a systematic method (12, 14, 109,129) with three being published in 2011 and only 1 paper in either of the studied fields used astatistical/quantitative research method (89). The initial, more traditional view of SCM was that it could be used to leverage suppliers to achieve lowestpurchase prices and/or to assure supplies. However, the paradigm that has evolved views it as a process fordesigning, developing, optimising and managing internal and external components of the supply chain ([20]Spekman et al. , 1998). Despite this, some authors see a tendency for SCM to be framed in terms of processesand hard, quantifiable elements ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006). Consequently SCM can be seen as "a corporatefunction of increasing economic importance, but one that is not pulling its weight in environmental protection"([69] Preuss, 2005b, p. 133). While definitions of SCM may vary the key commonalities represented in the literature are co-operation,coordination, integration and collaboration together with a recognition of its cross-disciplinary nature ([45]Frankel et al. , 2008) - these features were referred to in 42 separate papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. SeeArticle Image.]). [20] Spekman et al. (1998) consider co-operation as the threshold level of interaction wherefirms exchange some essential information and engage some suppliers in long-term relationships, while incoordination workflow and information is exchanged to allow more seamless linkages. The latter stage ofcollaboration represents the optimum level and occurs when two or more independent firms work together inpartnership to plan and execute supply chain operations with greater success than if they acted in isolation ([67]Nyaga et al. , 2010). There is significant recognition in the reviewed literature that supply chain integration extends beyondtraditionally defined functional boundaries ([45] Frankel et al. , 2008). SCM is considered a boundary-spanningactivity ([44] Fawcett et al. , 2008) and there is growing acceptance that a firm's impact extends beyond anysingle, core process to the complete product life cycle ([80] Sharfman et al. , 2009) with focal firms beingresponsible for their products "from cradle to grave" ([15] Lippman, 2001, [59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005) i.e. from

product design to product disposal. Reverse logistics (RL), where a manufacturer accepts previously shipped products or parts for recycling,remanufacturing or disposal ([26] Varma et al. , 2006) extends this responsibility from "cradle to cradle" andunderpins the concept of SSCM which recognises sustainability at all supply chain stages. Acknowledging theend of the product lifecycle is increasingly seen as a competitive necessity ([26] Varma et al. , 2006) and hassignificant relevance to addressing the environmental dimension successfully ([8] Crandall, 2006; [49] Hagelaarand van der Vorst, 2002). Waste and emissions caused by supply chains are considered the main sources ofserious environmental problems and a focus on waste prevention/control is one of the most effective ways totackle these problems ([66] Min and Galle, 1997). Resource reduction through recycling, re-use and wasteelimination is the goal of RL ([95] Carter and Ellram, 1998) and can lead to cost savings and enhancedcompetitiveness ([72] Rao and Holt, 2005). Specific issues that need to be addressed in SSCM include co-operation and communication between supplychain members to achieve a proactive sustainability approach; risk management to identify environmental andsocial problems before they are exposed publicly; and the total life cycle of a product ([77] Seuring, 2008; [49]Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002). This extends to the re-conceptualisation of the supply chain by changingwhat it does, moving toward the closed loop systems created through the use of RL and reconceptualising whois in the supply chain ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). Forward and reverse supply chains form a "closed loop" whenmanaged in a coordinated way and can foster sustainability ([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). However [87]Svensson (2007) argues that this still restricts SCM to point of origin and end boundaries and needs torecognise the inherent horizontal interconnections in and between supply chains. The environmental dimension The "green" or environmental dimension was well represented in the literature as evidenced in Table IV [Figureomitted. See Article Image.] and the search term of "green supply chains" returned the highest number ofpapers for this review, suggesting this is currently the most developed interaction between supply chainmanagement (SCM) and sustainability. "Green" was the dominant term used in discussion of this dimension,featuring in 40 papers with almost 50 per cent of these explicitly relating to the field of green supply chainmanagement (GSCM) - see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. A "green" supply chain is where a focal firm works with their suppliers to improve the environmentalperformance of products and manufacturing processes ([82] Simpson and Power, 2005; [93] Zhu et al. , 2005).It requires a paradigm shift from the conventional association of success around financial parameters, and aholistic environment concern ([26] Varma et al. , 2006). Supply chain relationships have traditionally beendominated by cost, quality and delivery, and the environment is rarely seen as critical when compared withthese objectives ([82] Simpson and Power, 2005). The reviewed literature acknowledged that supply chainrelationships can be a key avenue for firms to influence their environmental performance, but as highlighted thecurrent focus of SCM and sustainability research is on the more tangible elements of product, process andperformance. Green supply chain management (GSCM) integrates environmental issues into SCM processes by identifyingcosts, benefits and risks, along with opportunities ([94] Zhu et al. , 2008) to manage and reduce waste with theultimate aim of waste elimination ([54] Handfield et al. , 2005). It also has the potential to reduce the direct andindirect environmental impacts of an organisation's final product ([39] Darnall et al. , 2008). However thereviewed literature recognises that firms adopting GSCM may only evaluate first tier suppliers ([39] Darnall et al., 2008), whereas the SCM function has an impact far along the supply chain to second and third tier suppliers,and potentially beyond ([69] Preuss, 2005b; [68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). The term environmental supply chain management (ESCM) is also utilised to describe the set of supply chainmanagement policies held, actions taken, and relationships formed in response to concerns related to thenatural environment ([49] Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002). In comparison to GSCM it is the lesser used term

with only five instances in the reviewed papers against 19 of GSCM (see Table V [Figure omitted. See ArticleImage.]). Despite this difference in terminology the literature emphasises the growing attention to this specificfield, which has largely developed in the last ten years. All the reviewed papers relating to these specific themes were published between 2001 and present, and thefield's importance is further evidenced in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] by the number of papersfocusing on green, or environmental, supply chains. Research methods used in the papers had a qualitativeemphasis and the most common data collection method was surveys or questionnaires followed by casestudies/interviews. Only three papers offered practical outputs in the form of models for strategic decision-making and measurement in GSCM and ways to integrate the environment into SCM (50, 94, 134). Environmental management A total of 12 of the reviewed papers dealt explicitly with the themes of environmental management (EM) andenvironmental management systems (EMS) (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Five of thesereviewed specific literature from the field while the remaining papers evenly employed case study, interview andsurvey research methods. Eight of the papers (24, 30, 35, 45, 47, 50, 100, 105) looked at the interaction of EMwith SCM or sustainability with 50 per cent positioning EM within the context of supply chains. One paper (41)discussed EMS specifically in relation to purchasing and another focused on the relationship between EM andthe social dimension of sustainability (106). Three defined approaches to environmental management were represented in the reviewed literature. Reactivecharacterised by "end of pipe" pollution control; proactive where firms recycle and re-use products/materialswithin their supply chains and pre-empt new environmental legislation; and value-seeking where environmentalbehaviour is integrated into the business strategy with a supply network wide responsibility ([25] van Hoek,1999). Most current EM investment tends to be in "end-of-pipe" technologies, i.e. a reactive approach ([24]Vachon and Klassen, 2006) as this means that production processes and products can remain unchanged. Environmental management systems are often limited to organisational boundaries rather than greening theentire supply chain, and firms can market themselves as being environmentally proactive simply by having anEMS ([39] Darnall et al. , 2008). An EMS can provide the means to measure environmental performance ([17]New and Westbrook, 2004) and allow external stakeholders to verify whether environmental improvementsactually occur at firm and supply chain level ([39] Darnall et al. , 2008). However the literature largelyconsidered compliance as a sub-optimal approach ([69] Preuss, 2005b), with attainment of regulated standardseasily determined, while life cycle oriented approaches require more unstructured and non-routine processesthan are generally the norm ([80] Sharfman et al. , 2009). Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a means to evaluate environmental impacts at every supply chain stage, but onlythree of the reviewed papers (59, 100, 101) dealt with this more holistic approach. The environmental effects ofa product during its lifecycle can be integrally assessed, but there are questions in the literature over itsusefulness, representativeness and legitimacy which [49] Hagelaar and van der Vorst (2001) try to explicitlyaddress. To truly gain from LCA strong supply chain partnerships are needed ([58] Kjaerheim, 2005), butdespite SCM's expected emphasis on relationships the literature focuses more on the "greening" of specificsupply chain processes. This may explain the current lack of LCA literature, highlighting this as a potential gapas well as a need for a more holistic, relational view to be applied to sustainable supply chain management(SSCM) research. Design for the environment . Design for the environment (DfE) represents both the design and development ofnew products and processes ([89] Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006). It provides an avenue for the firm to address thenatural environment ([69] Preuss, 2005b), and to design and develop recoverable products which are durable,repeatedly usable, harmlessly recoverable and environmentally compatible in disposal ([89] Tsoulfas andPappis, 2006). Environmental innovation can be realised as a new product, process, or technology whichreduces environmental impact ([52] Hall, 2001).

Nine papers referred to DfE (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) with life cycle analysis (LCA)recognised as a planning tool that contributed to this practice, and the majority of the reviewed literaturediscussed DfE in relation to the physical product. A number of difficulties were associated with DfE, namelydesigners' unfamiliarity with the process and its lack of integration with other design tools ([31] Albino et al. ,2009) which in turn lead to issues in coordinating the process with manufacturing. It was seen as an emergingtool which requires refinement to be effective and none of the papers explicitly dealt with how DfE can be usedin practice. Further recognised dimensions of integrating environmental concern include design for recycling (DfR) anddesign for disassembly (DfD) ([48] Gupta, 1995). These approaches are complementary allowing for moreefficient and profitable reuse/disposal of product components, and can extend to designing for easierremanufacturing and reuse of a whole product. However these tools were significantly underrepresented in theliterature with one reference made to DfR (44) and one paper discussing the features of DfD (93). Product stewardship . Product stewardship is representative of the cradle to grave (or cradle) responsibility forthe lifecycle of a product ([32] Angell and Klassen, 1999). It is focused on "product-based green supply" ([77]Seuring, 2008) and is therefore linked to DfE, which draws on data to design products with a reduced impact inthe environment ([32] Angell and Klassen, 1999). The goal is to keep all materials within the life cycle andtherefore minimise any flow into the external environment (Sarkis, 1995). The principle of product stewardship is to extend the environmental perspective to the entire value chain toinclude other internal and external stakeholders such as R&D, designers and suppliers ([19] Rusinko, 2007).Examples include redesigning products and processes, using renewable resources and working with suppliersto prevent pollution ([19] Rusinko, 2007). The key advantage to be gained from this approach is competitive pre-emption through establishing a reputation as a "green" company ([55] Hart, 1995). Product stewardship was better represented in the literature than other components of environmentalmanagement (EM) with 23 papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) referring to this principle,perhaps due to the opportunities it offers in different supply chain areas rather than just the design stage. Eightof these papers recognised product stewardship as a component of green supply chain management (GSCM)or EM (3, 24, 30, 54, 80, 123, 124, 133) and discussed it in relation to other green supply chain practices, andfour papers (5, 47, 60, 93) explicitly referred to this principle as a key factor in closed loop supply chains. Only four of the 23 papers (3, 24, 52, 93) discussed product stewardship in any detail and there was anemphasis on its strategic role and the benefits it can provide, as well as recognition for the need to integrateLCA. One paper provided industry examples of product stewardship and a diagnostic tool (3), while [55] Hart(1995) tested a series of hypotheses to produce suggestions for how to successfully build this approach intooperational strategies. Green purchasing . Purchasing is considered to have the most potential to address sustainability within supplychain management (SCM) because it is grounded in non-altruistic market principles ([51] Hall, 2000), i.e.innovating SCM and purchasing in the context of the environment makes good business sense and is morereadily practicable than other approaches. A total of 24 of the reviewed papers (see Table V [Figure omitted.See Article Image.]) discussed green purchasing to different extents and recognised authors in this field are Zhuand Sarkis. In their five reviewed papers they position purchasing as one of a series of green supply chainmanagement (GSCM) practices (130, 131, 132, 133, 134) and the literature as a whole saw green purchasingas a growing practice. Zhu and Sarkis' research is quantitative, testing propositions and statistically analysinggreen purchasing practice in different industries and countries. This suggests that this area is currently moredeveloped than some other aspects of environmental sustainability, perhaps because of its focus on a singleprocess. The role of strategic purchasing is to direct activities towards opportunities that will enable a firm to achieve itslong-term goals ([6] Carr and Smeltzer, 1999) and achieve an optimal purchasing strategy in a supply network

environment ([86] Svahn and Westerlund, 2009). In addition it emphasises the importance of buildingrelationships with suppliers and can be positively linked to greening the supply process ([47] Gold et al. , 2009).A total of 50 per cent of the 24 papers emphasised the importance of green purchasing as a means to meet thestrategic needs of an organisation and discussed the benefits, barriers and drivers for this practice (5, 20, 41,77, 88, 89,94, 104, 115, 116, 123, 124). Reverse logistics . Traditional logistics manages the supply of goods from the producer to the end consumer([15] Lippman, 2001), while reverse logistics (RL) relates to products returned by the customer to the focalcompany. It has the purpose of recovering and potentially generating value ([5] Blumberg, 2005) or properlydisposing of these products ([15] Lippman, 2001), and increasingly requires as much focus as forward chainprocesses ([8] Crandall, 2006). It is a "process whereby companies can become more environmentally efficientthrough recycling, reusing and reducing the amount of materials used" ([95] Carter and Ellram, 1998, p. 85). The typical industry practice of disposal of parts, materials and assemblies can represent a major costcontributor ([5] Blumberg, 2005), while RL provides the maximum utilisation of used products, where everyoutput is returned to natural systems or becomes an input for manufacturing another product ([89] Tsoulfas andPappis, 2006). Products, parts, subassemblies and materials represent growing values and economicopportunities at the end of the direct supply chain ([5] Blumberg, 2005), and reverse distribution actively aims toreduce materials/resources in the forward system so that fewer materials flow back, reuse is possible andrecycling facilitated ([95] Carter and Ellram, 1998). The 25 papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) that featured RL discussed it in terms ofexisting practices and processes and were largely descriptive in nature, outlining key issues and strategicbenefits. There were four literature reviews of the field (15, 95, 96, 111), with one specifically focused on RLrather than the broader field of green supply chain management (GSCM) (15). A total of 12 papers positionedRL as a key part of green supply chain practice/GSCM with eight recognising its intrinsic role in closed loopsupply chains (23, 26, 37, 78, 81, 87, 94, 133) and 4 linking its practice to remanufacturing and wastemanagement (49, 60, 111, 124). Recycling, reuse and remanufacturing . RL begins when a customer returns the product and the company hasrecovered the maximum value ([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). Convenience returns are those where customersreturn an unwanted product, which can either be re-sold or used to replace products returned under warranty;later in the lifecycle product returns can be remanufactured and remarketed through secondary channels and atthe end of the life cycle used as a source of spare parts ([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). The minimal treatment ofa material is more closely associated with product reuse, while a material that requires a large amount is moreassociated with recycling (Sarkis, 1995). Waste products and emissions can be recycled as a raw material for use in the same or different productionprocess, processed to be reused, and used for a different useful application ([48] Gupta, 1995). Recyclingrequires the disassembly of the waste or returned product, separation of parts and then material reprocessing,while remanufacturing replaces worn, broken or obsolete parts from a product, returning it to new or better thannew condition ([71] Pun, 2006). Of the different approaches outlined recycling was the most stronglyrepresented in the reviewed literature featuring in 53 separate papers, followed by reuse (23 papers) and thenremanufacturing (16 papers) - see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The social dimension The environmental dimension was substantially represented in the reviewed literature (see Table IV [Figureomitted. See Article Image.]) with the processes and practices within green supply chain management (GSCM)providing the key focus. While the Brundtland definition specifies both environmental and social sustainability,SCM literature specific to the latter dimension was more limited. Unlike the "green" dimension which had manysupply chain related terms there was no equivalent use of the social element, e.g. social supply chains, socialmanagement systems etc. despite the fact the "human" element in terms of labour, skills and the forming of

relationships should represent a key element of SCM. Given the "human" nature of this dimension of sustainability the research methods used in the reviewed paperswere understandably biased towards qualitative data collection. Case studies were the dominant researchmethod followed by review and discussion of the literature in the field. The literature broke down into the 3 keythemes of defining/understanding the social dimension, how it is practised and how it should be integrated toachieve "true" sustainability and are discussed in the following sections. Definitions and components of social sustainability While there was no single definition of social sustainability used in the reviewed literature it was recognised thatprofit is only one element in the long-term success of companies, and the future of people (internal andexternal) and the planet are new legitimacy concerns ([59] Kleindorfer et al. , 2005). Sustainability should be anethical code for human survival and progress ([81] Sharma and Ruud, 2003) and achieved in "an inclusive,connected, equitable, prudent and secure manner" ([46] Gladwin et al. , 1995, p. 878). The first three elementsof this definition link strongly with the social dimension ([76] Schaefer, 2004) and how it can be enacted throughsupply chains by reducing unemployment, protecting employee health and safety, ensuring equal treatment andpreventing social exclusion ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010). While environmental sustainability emphasises the management of natural resources, social sustainability isconcerned with the management of social resources, including people's skills and abilities, institutions,relationships and social values ([75] Sarkis et al. , 2010). At the business level this requires companies and theirsuppliers to add value by increasing the human capital of individuals, and the societal capital of communities([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Social sustainability can be formed into the four main categories of internal human resources, which includespractices related to employment stability and health and safety; external population which encompasses human,productive and community capital; stakeholder participation which includes information provision andstakeholder influence issues; and macro social performance issues of socio-economic and socio-environmentalperformance (Labuschagne et al. in ([75] Sarkis et al. , 2010)). Social equity is a key component of social sustainability and requires that all members of society have equalaccess to resources and opportunities ([33] Bansal, 2005), extending to the fair and equitable treatment ofemployees ([60] Krause et al. , 2009). It is concerned with poverty, injustice and human rights, and from asupply chain perspective considers the welfare of all employees globally ([60] Krause et al. , 2009). Socially,supply chain management (SCM) is expected to enforce a firm's values and standards with its suppliers (Tateet al. , 2010) and emphasises the importance of long-term relationships, communication and supplierdevelopment ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010). A total of 12 papers referred to the issue of social equity (see Table V[Figure omitted. See Article Image.]), but only four dealt with it in any detail (6, 37, 53, 125) and only one used itas its research focus (6), so while there may be an expectation for SCM to address this important componentthere is limited academic evidence to support this. Corporate social responsibility Social sustainability is strongly linked to corporate social responsibility (CSR) which comprises actions notrequired by law, but furthering social good, beyond the explicit, transactional interests of a firm ([75] Sarkis et al., 2010). CSR requires firms to embrace economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations of stakeholders([33] Bansal, 2005), with the understanding that avoidance of a firm's social responsibility will lead to the erosionof social power ([9] Davis, 1967). CSR represents how firms satisfy the needs of society and the environment while meeting their economic goals([41] Defee et al. , 2009). SCM requires greater strategic elevation of CSR in order to facilitate coordinationacross purchasing, manufacturing, distribution and marketing functions ([57] Keating et al. , 2008). To this end,[54] Handfield et al. (2005) suggest that firms with a formal system to monitor and report on CSR issues in theirsupply chain will enjoy performance advantages and greater commitment from internal and external

stakeholders ([57] Keating et al. , 2008). Closed-loop supply chains may also provide firms with a means toleverage CSR ([41] Defee et al. , 2009). Of the 27 papers which explicitly discussed the social dimension (see Table V [Figure omitted. See ArticleImage.]) 30 per cent dealt with CSR, and the majority came from the British Journal of Management andBusiness Strategy and the Environment . Three of these papers positioned CSR specifically within the contextof SCM (4, 55, 118) and the research methods used were evenly balanced across case studies, modelling,reviews and theory development., This suggests that CSR is a more well developed field - as a concept it hasbeen in existence since the 1960s ([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) - and it has received an increased interestand profile in the last decade. Its relevance to and overlap with social sustainability makes CSR a key means todevelop this field of research further. Social sustainability practice In contrast to the range of processes and practices discussed within the environmental dimension there wereonly a few explicitly defined social practices in the reviewed papers and many of these practices haveassociated certifications and accreditations, e.g. Fairtrade. Social sustainability certifications and standardswere discussed in over 30 per cent of the papers that were related to the social dimension. The issue of fair and equitable treatment within supply chains is largely addressed through common standardsapplied by NGOs. For example, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has a set of principles, whichinclude the aspects of human rights, child and forced labour, employment, wages and training ([62] Leire andMont, 2010). Certification through such bodies is seen as one of the few areas in research literature wheresocial issues such as child labour and unsafe working conditions are addressed explicitly ([68] Pagell and Wu,2009) and can be used to establish a set of social criteria to be applied to the supply chain, with suppliersmonitored to ensure compliance ([62] Leire and Mont, 2010). Fairtrade is a well-developed social practice that as well as seeking fairer relationships with suppliers, aims toestablish more direct relationships between groups of producers and consumers ([4] Barratt Brown, 1993). Itprovides an alternative model of international trade based on better trading conditions and price, as well aseducating consumers about the negative effects of traditional trade ([40] Davies and Crane, 2010). It has theunderlying "people" principles of good working standards and conditions for workers at all stages of the supplychain, but also acknowledges the need to preserve resources, assess environmental impacts and co-operatewhere resources are trans-boundary ([85] Strong, 1997). A total of 13 of the papers (see Table V [Figureomitted. See Article Image.]) that dealt with the social dimension discussed Fairtrade with three using it as theirresearch focus (25, 40, 113). Socially responsible purchasing (SRP) can be defined as the inclusion in purchasing of social issues advocatedby organisational stakeholders ([63] Maignan et al. , 2002) and the utilisation of purchasing power to acquireproducts that have a positive social impact ([42] Drumwright, 1994). SRP aligns with the principles of "green"purchasing, however, the latter is currently more developed in both research and practice ([62] Leire and Mont,2010). This was evidenced by just six papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) referring to thepractice in comparison to 26 in green purchasing, and only two of these focused specifically on this aspect ofthe social dimension (16, 68) with the latter providing a process model for implementing and maintaining SRP. SRP attempts to bring about positive social change through its purchasing behaviour ([42] Drumwright, 1994)and can address a range of issues, mainly human rights, safety, diversity and community ([62] Leire and Mont,2010), which all represent non-economic buying criteria ([42] Drumwright, 1994). However, while they recognisetheir relevance many purchasing managers do not know how to concretely and systematically integrate socialissues into purchasing decisions ([63] Maignan et al. , 2002). Integrating social sustainability The "people" element of "people, profit, planet" ([70] Pullman et al. , 2009) can align sustainability goals withemployees and community pressure for firms to improve environmental performance ([59] Kleindorfer et al. ,

2005). Product stewardship which featured heavily within the review of the environmental dimension can havethe benefit of training employees in sustainability ([19] Rusinko, 2007), and products can be considered sociallyresponsible on a number of dimensions including what they are made from, where they come from or whosupplies them ([42] Drumwright, 1994). Reverse logistics (RL), through its promotion of recycling, reuse andresource conservation, addresses various aspects of social sustainability and could provide a means forpromoting socially responsible behaviour in supply chains ([75] Sarkis et al. , 2010). These implied overlaps between environmental and social sustainability practices and the close alignment ofSRP with green purchasing highlighted above hints at some of the potential for interaction between these twoimportant dimensions of sustainability. However such references were limited in the reviewed literature, andwhile they indicated that environmentally motivated behaviour could inform and potentially synergise with socialsustainability there was no explicit discussion on how this could be achieved at key areas of the supply chain,e.g. manufacturing where social issues are of greater importance. An appreciation of the "local" level of sustainability extends to achieving balanced social development withinlocal eco-systems. It requires the integration of a firm's environmental and social efforts in co-operation withsuppliers and other social actors to create regional and local sustainability ([76] Schaefer, 2004). Thisemphasises the role of relationships and communication within supply chains, as well as acknowledging theimpact of external stakeholders ([63] Maignan et al. , 2002). It could take the form of integrating environmentaland social policies which would apply across the supply chain, and result in joint environmental and socialreports to communicate progress to stakeholders ([76] Schaefer, 2004). The supply management function can play an important role in the creation of social capital ([20] Spekman et al., 1998). Social capital comprises of human capital in terms of people's skills, motivation and loyalty, and societalcapital which includes education and culture ([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). The relational embeddedness ofsocial capital derived through on-going interactions with suppliers could be a critical antecedent to firmperformance ([34] Bernardes, 2010). Sustainable supply chains can invest in human capital, e.g. through HRpractices which seek to improve employee well-being and commitment and build a culture that values peopleand the environment ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). A total of 11 of the reviewed papers (see Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) referred to social capitalwith just three discussing this component of social sustainability in any detail (8, 28, 74). It is seen as one ofthree different types of capital, the others being economic and natural capital ([43] Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002)which align with the three recognised dimensions or pillars of sustainability. However while there appears to bean understanding in the literature as to what social capital is there was limited explanation of how to address itin practice and only 1 of the papers discussed social capital in relation to supply chains and relationships (8). Comparison with other structured literature reviews This paper is intended to contribute to the evolving field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) byaligning sustainability literature with supply chain and SCM literature. It therefore takes a broad, holistic andmulti-disciplinary approach and reviews the relevant literature in both fields. Other literature reviews haveapplied a systematic process to the more specific areas of SCM ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006) and SSCM ([36]Carter and Easton, 2011). Both of these papers focus their review to conventional operations managementliterature, with the latter narrowing its search to seven logistics and SCM journals. In contrast this paperrecognises that sustainability is an evolving concept that is researched and discussed in many relevant journalsand disciplines that may fall outside but still legitimately inform SCM and operations management (OM)research. [35] Burgess et al. 's (2006) structured review focuses on SCM literature and was part of the literature reviewed,but it also informed this paper's methodology which builds on their systematic framework and integratesrelevant sustainability research. These authors recognise that while SCM is a new but growing field there havebeen few structured reviews to date and that the OM discipline is too narrow and functional to address the

emergent issues in SCM, emphasising the need for a broader, more holistic view. There was a lack ofdefinitional consensus, which echoes the many varied definitions of sustainability that currently exist andsuggests that SCM and sustainability are both in "development mode" and have not yet reached maturity. Thispaper has indicated the highly qualitative nature of SCM and sustainability literature and the dominance ofinductive rather than deductive "theory testing" methodologies, which supports the view of a developing field. Italso updates Burgess at al's review with the considerable number of developments and new papers in this fieldsince 2006. While [36] Carter and Easton's (2011) findings result from a narrower review and are presented in a morestatistical form their analysis by subject supports a key finding from this paper. They recognise that theenvironmental dimension has dominated in sustainable supply chain research - 42.5 per cent of the reviewedarticles focused on this in the last 20 years with the more social focused subjects of CSR and Human Rightsreceiving 11.25 per cent and 6.25 per cent respectively. Case studies were also seen as a commonmethodology in SSCM research, but at 60 per cent the use of surveys was much higher in their review than thispaper's findings (15 per cent), perhaps reflecting the more operational nature of the reviewed literature. Bothpapers recognised the limited numbers of structured or systematic literature reviews in this field. [84] Soni and Kodali (2011) undertake a systematic review of empirical research in SCM, searching the exactphrase of "supply chain" in four management science databases and then classifying the resulting papers undernine classes. Again the review focuses specifically on SCM with no review of sustainability literature, but theirfindings support the significant growth in SCM research in recent years and that there has been an emphasis ontheory building, in line with the findings of this paper. While SCM in principle should apply a network approachboth [84] Soni and Kodali (2011) and [35] Burgess et al. (2006) show that research has tended to focus on onepart of the system or specific processes and emphasises the need for a more holistic approach. Through itsbroader review of relevant SCM and sustainability literature this paper intends to address this key gap andinform future research so that it can apply a more integrated view. Discussion The significant growth in the number of papers on supply chain management (SCM) and sustainability indicatesthe importance and contemporaneous nature of these two fields for further, informed research. While SCMliterature is potentially better developed due to its evolvement from established operations research and supplychain practice it is clear from the reviewed literature that environmental and social sustainability have bothrelevance and a growing presence within the SCM field. The review has indicated that SCM and sustainability are evolving and developing fields of research, evidencedby the lack of any universally accepted definition for either. This extended to the components of each field,especially in relation to the environment where a multitude of terms were used to describe identical or similarconcepts/practices, e.g. green supply chain management (GSCM) and environmental supply chainmanagement (ESCM). sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) which incorporates both social andenvironmental sustainability into supply chain practice and management is the newest field of all with thereviewed literature commencing in 2003. While only 14 papers dealt explicitly with SSCM it is clear that this is akey area for future research and a means to progress GSCM beyond its current environmental focus. It has thepotential to encapsulate and consolidate the environmental and social supply chain literature, and provide anintegrated approach to sustainability, but this potential is still to be realised. The qualitative and theory developing nature of the research to date emphasises how these research fields areat an early stage, with case studies and qualitative surveys/questionnaires forming the primary methods of datacollection. While practice and especially environmental practices are discussed heavily in the reviewed literaturethere are few explicit practical outputs from the research such as models or tools that would indicate a moremature field. While the nature of sustainability strongly supports an inductive methodology it is important torecognise that SCM is fundamentally a practical discipline and while most of the research methods are based

around "real world" supply chain situations, this is a field where research explicitly needs to inform practice. The research bias towards the "hard" quantifiable practices and processes of SCM identified in the reviewsuggests that there is uncertainty on how to address the more holistic aspects of SCM and sustainability, andyet these are considered key to achieving a fully integrated approach in SSCM. The relationship element ofSCM and its potential impact on sustainability is underexplored in the reviewed literature and yet could hold thekey to moving beyond the current reactive approach ([24] Vachon and Klassen, 2006) and join isolatedprocesses into a "closed loop". There was limited research into how supply chain relationships can beharnessed to achieve sustainability, especially within the environmental domain. While social sustainabilityliterature was more limited greater reference was made to relationships, perhaps due to the more "human"focused nature of this field. The relative wealth of literature on "green" supply chains (see Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.])indicates the extent to which the environmental dimension has been incorporated into SCM research to date.There is recognition that firms have made strong progress in the environmental dimension of sustainability ([60]Krause et al. , 2009; [75] Sarkis et al. , 2010) and the literature review has illustrated a range of environmentalpractices within supply chains. However, significant development in societal and cultural issues is consideredlacking ([60] Krause et al. , 2009) and research literature to date has been limited in the social component ofsustainability ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009; [76] Schaefer, 2004; [81] Sharma and Ruud, 2003). This oversight may be because the social elements of sustainability are particularly difficult to attain or lesstangible/measurable than environmental sustainability, or they may not even represent an appropriate goal forbusiness ([76] Schaefer, 2004; [61] Lamming and Hampson, 1996). [81] Sharma and Ruud (2003) also suggestthat addressing the social dimension and achieving "true" sustainability is only possible in supply chains thatoperate within definable geographic regions and are not "globally fragmented", therefore challenging the rolethat SCM can play in achieving social sustainability across the highly globalised supply chains that currentlydominate in practice. The literature agrees that a supply chain's performance should be measured not just by profits, but also by itsimpact on environmental and social systems ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009). If a sustainable supply chain is onethat performs well across all three dimensions then the field of SSCM needs to represent the actions taken toachieve this goal ([68] Pagell and Wu, 2009) and involve the inter-connection and interaction betweencomponents and interfaces across supply chains ([87] Svensson, 2007). While the small body of SSCMliterature recognises these three dimensions there is limited explicit research into how they can be integrated. Conclusions and implications for future research This systematic review of supply chain management (SCM) and sustainability literature has identified keythemes and issues, and outlined the role that this discipline could play in the achievement of sustainability insupply chains. In today's global marketplace if a firm is part of a supply chain it cannot ignore its suppliers'practices and needs to be acutely aware of stakeholder expectations and pressures ([54] Handfield et al. , 2005;[80] Sharfman et al. , 2009; [15] Lippman, 2001; [33] Bansal, 2005). Such expectations are increasingly focusedon environmentally and socially responsible principles and practice, and these dimensions represented a keyfocus of the review. SCM has been largely practitioner-led ([35] Burgess et al. , 2006), and offers substantial potential for translatingsustainability theory into practice. The literature review revealed a significant and persistent gap between thediffusion of sustainability discourse and its practical application ([12] Hamdouch and Zuindeau, 2010), as well asan acknowledged lack of impact of management research on management practice ([11] Ghoshal, 2005).However, while the SCM literature advocates the importance and benefits of co-operation and sharing ofinformation, it still has had a tendency to focus on supply chain processes and hard, quantifiable elements. The systematic review of the literature has provided a number of useful insights into the current status ofresearch into SCM and sustainability, how it is defined and conceptualised and the key research methodologies

employed to date. The emphasis on qualitative data/methods and theory development across the literatureillustrates the new, evolving nature of this field and the need for it to be developed further in a focused way.Greater and more practical insights into sustainability in supply chains could be gained by using the findings ofthis review to inform and direct research from the current narrow, somewhat disconnected approaches towardsa more "rounded" and holistic view of the field. A challenge for researchers is to develop appropriate methods and tools to capture the evolving field ofsustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and move from the current dominance of case studies andsurveys. A key research direction for progressing SSCM would be the role of supply chain relationships inachieving sustainability. This could move the environmental dimension beyond just the "greening" of supplychain processes, which received the most emphasis in the reviewed literature. Life cycle analysis (LCA) andclosed loop concepts could also provide a much more appropriate focus for environmental sustainabilityresearch as they apply a more connected and holistic view of supply chains, especially as the literature reviewhas shown that these approaches have been underexplored to date. SCM extends organisational boundaries ([45] Frankel et al. , 2008), and the "cradle to grave" concept ([59]Kleindorfer et al. , 2005; [15] Lippman, 2001) that evolves from this aligns strongly with the key principles ofsustainability. It requires responsibility for the full life cycle of a product, and closed loop supply chains shouldenable this concept to be realised. They are recognised as a key means to address the environmentaldimension ([8] Crandall, 2006), and yet the closed loop literature was extremely limited with only four papersexplicitly dealing with this approach. In comparison "green" supply chains featured in more than 30 papers and"greening" was a prevailing metaphor ([18] Preuss, 2005a), implying this is currently the accepted face ofenvironmental sustainability within supply chains. While the research of closed loop and LCA could provide a more connected view of sustainability in supplychains there is still a bias towards the environment in these research areas. To fully understand sustainablesupply chains there also needs to be closer analysis of the relational aspects of SCM and how they can be usedto address both environmental and social sustainability. SCM literature places emphasis on supplierrelationships, but there was limited discussion in the reviewed papers on how these can be harnessed toachieve sustainability. This represents a key area for future research - its lack of focus to date suggests thechallenge of researching the field from a more holistic and relational viewpoint, but it also offers the greatestpotential for progressing SSCM from "greening" to a "virtuous circle" that addresses sustainability at all stagesand interactions. Finally, very few of the reviewed papers provided tangible outputs such as an explicit framework or model toinform the implementation of sustainability and sustainable supply chains were discussed largely in theoreticalterms. This may be due to the new and evolving nature of the research field, but does represent a significantgap. The reviewed literature explains in part why collaboration and relationships are strategically important toSCM, but it offers limited "real life" insights or guidance into how they can be achieved and their contribution tosustainability. Given the inherently "practical" nature of the SCM discipline translating the theory developedthrough more focused approaches into actual supply chain practice should be a key priority. Received 28 August 2010Revised 16 March 201130 June 20118 October 201121 December 2011Accepted 23December 2011 References 1. Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), "Making sustainable development sustainable", Management Decision,Vol. 47, pp. 975-88. 2. Armitage, A. and Keeble-Allen, D. (2008), "Undertaking a structured literature review or structuring aliterature review: tales from the field", Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp. 103-14. 3. Banerjee, S.B. (2010), "Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention ofnature", Organization Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 143-80.

4. Barratt Brown, M. (1993), Fair Trade, Zed Books, London. 5. Blumberg, D.F. (2005), Introduction to Management of Reverse Logistics and Closed Loop Supply ChainProcesses, Taylor &Francis, London. 6. Carr, A.S. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1999), "The relationship of strategic purchasing to supply chain management",European Journal of Purchasing &Supply Management, Vol. 5, pp. 43-51. 7. Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 8. Crandall, R.E. (2006), "How green are your supply chains?", Industrial Management, Vol. 48, pp. 6-11. 9. Davis, K. (1967), "Understanding the social responsibility puzzle", Business Horizons, Vol. 10, p. 45. 10. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2009), "The social dimension of sustainabledevelopment: defining urban sustainability", Sustainable Development, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 289-300. 11. Ghoshal, S. (2005), "Bad management theories are destroying good management practices", Academy ofManagement Learning &Education, Vol. 4, pp. 75-91. 12. Hamdouch, A. and Zuindeau, B. (2010), "Sustainable development, 20 years on: methodologicalinnovations, practices and open issues", Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 53, pp. 427-38. 13. Handfield, R. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to Supply Chain Management, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ. 15. Lippman, S. (2001), "Supply chain environmental management", Environmental Quality Management,Winter, pp. 11-14. 16. Miles, M.B. (1979), "Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis", AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 590-601. 17. New, S. and Westbrook, R. (2004), Understanding Supply Chains: Concepts, Critiques and Future, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford. 18. Preuss, L. (2005a), The Green Multiplier: A Study of Environmental Protection and the Supply Chain,Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. 19. Rusinko, C.A. (2007), "Green manufacturing: an evaluation of envrironmentally sustainable manufacturingpractices and their impact on competitive outcomes", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54,pp. 445-54. 20. Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr and Myhr, N. (1998), "An empirical investigation into supply chainmanagement: a perspective on partnerships", Supply Chain Management, Vol. 3, pp. 53-67. 21. Springett, D. (2003), "Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical theory",Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 71-86. 22. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 23. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informedmanagement knowledge by means of systematic review", British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 207-22. 24. Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), "Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of thepackage printing industry", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 661-71. 25. van Hoek, R.I. (1999), "From reversed logistics to green supply chains", Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4,pp. 129-34. 26. Varma, S., Wadhwa, S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2006), "Implementing supply chain management in a firm:issues and remedies", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18, pp. 223-43. 27. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 28. Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 30. Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), "Putting the S back in corporate socialresponsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32,

pp. 836-63. 31. Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R.M. (2009), "Environmental strategies and green productdevelopment: an overview on sustainability-driven companies", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.18, pp. 83-96. 32. Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999), "Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda forresearch in operations management", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 575-98. 33. Bansal, P. (2005), "Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development",Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 197-218. 34. Bernardes, E.S. (2010), "The effect of supply management on aspects of social capital and the impact onperformance: a social network perspective", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46, pp. 45-56. 35. Burgess, K., Singh, P.J. and Koroglu, R. (2006), "Supply chain management: a structured literature reviewand implications for future research", International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 26, pp.703-29. 36. Carter, C.R. and Easton, P.L. (2011), "Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and futuredirections", International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 41, pp. 46-62. 37. Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), "Social responsibility and supply chain relationships",Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 38, pp. 37-52. 38. Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), "A framework of sustainable supply chain management: movingtoward new theory", International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 38, pp. 360-87. 39. Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R.B. (2008), "Environmental management systems and green supplychain management: complements for sustainability?", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 30-45. 40. Davies, I.A. and Crane, A. (2010), "Corporate social responsibility in small- and medium-sized enterprises:investigating employee engagement in fair trade companies", Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 19, pp.126-39. 41. Defee, C.C., Esper, T. and Mollenkopf, D. (2009), "Leveraging closed-loop orientation and leadership forenvironmental sustainability", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 87-98. 42. Drumwright, M.E. (1994), "Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concern as anoneconomic buying criterion", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 1-19. 43. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), "Beyond the business case for sustainability", Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-41. 44. Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M. and McCarter, M.W. (2008), "Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supplychain management", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 35-48. 45. Frankel, R., Bolumole, Y.A., Eltantawy, R.A., Paulraj, A. and Gundlach, G.T. (2008), "The domain and scopeof SCM's foundational disciplines - insights and issues to advance research", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol.29, pp. 1-30. 46. Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.-S. (1995), "Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:implications for management theory and research", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 874-907. 47. Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2009), "Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organisationalresources: a literature review", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,pp. 230-45. 48. Gupta, M.C. (1995), "Environmental management and its impact on the operations function", InternationalJournal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 15, pp. 34-51. 49. Hagelaar, G.J.L.F. and van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2002), "Environmental supply chain management: using lifecycle assessment to structure supply chains", International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 4,pp. 399-412.

50. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2010), "Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can't haveyour cake and eat it", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, pp. 217-29. 51. Hall, J. (2000), "Environmental supply chain dynamics", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, pp. 455-71. 52. Hall, J. (2001), "Environmental supply-chain innovation", Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp.105-19. 53. Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R.P. and Melnyk, S.A. (2002), "Applying environmental criteria to supplierassessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process", European Journal of OperationalResearch, Vol. 141, pp. 70-87. 54. Handfield, R.B., Sroufe, R.P. and Walton, S. (2005), "Integrating environmental management and supplychain strategies", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14, pp. 1-19. 55. Hart, S.L. (1995), "A natural-resource-based view of the firm", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20,pp. 986-1014. 56. Hutchins, M.J. and Sutherland, J.W. (2008), "An exploration of measures of social sustainability and theirapplication to supply chain decisions", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1688-98. 57. Keating, B., Quazi, A., Kriz, A. and Coltman, T. (2008), "In pursuit of a sustainable supply chain: insightsfrom Westpac Banking Corporation", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 175-9. 58. Kjaerheim, R. (2005), "Cleaner production and sustainability", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp.329-39. 59. Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), "Sustainable operations management",Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, pp. 482-92. 60. Krause, D.R., Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2009), "Special topic forum on sustainable supply chainmanagement: introduction and reflection on the role of purchasing management", Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Vol. 45, pp. 18-25. 61. Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), "The environment as a supply chain management issue", BritishJournal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. S45-S52. 62. Leire, C. and Mont, O. (2010), "The implementation of socially responsible purchasing", Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17, pp. 27-39. 63. Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. and McAlister, D. (2002), "Managing socially responsible buying: how to integratenon-economic criteria into the purchasing process", European Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 641-8. 64. McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R. and van Engelen, J. (2007), "Sustainability quotients and the social footprint",Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15, pp. 223-34. 65. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), "Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective",Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117-27. 66. Min, H. and Galle, W. (1997), "Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications", International Journalof Purchasing and Materials, Summer, pp. 10-17. 67. Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010), "Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer andsupplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, pp.101-14. 68. Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), "Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain managementusing case studies of 10 exemplars", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 37-56. 69. Preuss, L. (2005b), "Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain managementfunction", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14, pp. 123-39. 70. Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. (2009), "Food for thought: social versus environmentalsustainability practices and performance outcomes", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, pp. 38-54. 71. Pun, K.F. (2006), "Determinants of environmentally responsible operations: a review", International Journalof Quality &Reliability Management, Vol. 23, pp. 279-97.

72. Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), "Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?",International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 898-916. 73. Reu