Int. J.

Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

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

A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with

a focus on metrics
Elkafi Hassini a,n, Chirag Surti b, Cory Searcy c
a
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
b
Faculty of Business & IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
c
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: We review the literature on sustainable supply chains during the last decade; 2000–2010. We analyze
Received 31 October 2010 the literature from different perspectives. We then provide frameworks for sustainable supply chain
Accepted 30 January 2012 management and performance measures. We also provide a case study to illustrate the experience of a
Available online 8 February 2012
utility supply chain in setting performance indicators.
Keywords: & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Sustainable supply chain
Performance measurement

1. Introduction
The topic of supply chain sustainability has been of great
interest for the last decade both in academia and the practi-
tioners’ world. Due largely to pressures from various stake-
holders, especially government regulators, community activists,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and global competition,
many companies have adopted a certain level of commitment to
sustainability practices. Some of these commitments are some-
times superficial and non-compulsory, for example including the
motto ‘‘Think before you print’’ in a company’s electronic mail
communications. Other companies are still hesitant to commit to
sustainability measures, as long as they are not forced to do so by
law. The common trait between these companies is that they do
not have a common standard for evaluating sustainability initia-
tives (e.g., Searcy et al., 2009; Tweed, 2010). Some authors even
argue that there are incompatibilities between the known prin-
ciples of performance measures and supply chain dynamics (e.g.,
see Lehtinen and Ahola, 2010). Thus, there is a need for more
research on developing an appropriate framework for perfor-
mance measurements in supply chains. It is our goal in this paper
to survey the literature and extract a common framework for
sustainable supply chain performance measures and metrics.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next
section we outline the review objectives and methodology. In
Section 3 we provide a definition of sustainable supply chain
management. The results of our review are presented in Section 4.
In Section 5 we describe two frameworks: one for managing
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hassini@mcmaster.ca (E. Hassini).
sustainable supply chains and the other for the development of
performance measures for sustainable supply chains. A case study
to illustrate the experience of an electric utility company in
setting performance indicators is reported in Section 6. Finally,
in Section 7 we conclude and suggest a future research agenda for
the field of sustainable supply chain management.
2. Objectives and methodology
The purpose of our research is to (i) review sustainable supply
chain management research in the last decade and analyze it from
different perspectives, (ii) propose a unified conceptual frame-
work for sustainable supply chain management, (iii) highlight the
importance of reliable supply chain performance measures and
develop and propose a composite index metric, (iv) present a case
study of sustainable supply chain performance indicators in a the
energy sector, and (v) highlight the gaps in the literature that
need further investigation.
We reviewed papers from journals and sources that cater
mainly to social and applied sciences, unless the work discussed
a general and imitable ‘‘sustainable’’ practice, it was excluded
from the review. The focus of this paper is to analyze and extract
relevant literature from journals that can help both academics
and practitioners formulate a response tailored to their business
needs. Thus this paper is focused on the tactical and the opera-
tional aspect of sustainable supply chains.
We started the review process by searching Title, Abstract and
Keyword in SCOPUS with keywords (sustainable OR green) AND
(supply AND chain) and further restricting results to just peer
reviewed articles published in English language journals after 1999.
This gave us a total of 707 articles in various subject area categories.

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042
70 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

International Journal of Production Research

Journal of Operations Management
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
International Journal of Production Economics
European Journal of Operational Research
Production Planning and Control
Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review
International Journal of Technology Management
Production and Operations Management
Management Science
Computers and Operations Research
International Journal of Management and Decision Making
Omega
Computers and Industrial Engineering
Computers in Industry
Enterprise Information Systems
Foundations and Trends in Tech. Info. and Op. Management
Interfaces
International Journal of Information Management
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development
International Journal of Operational Research
International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking
International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management
International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management
International Journal of Services and Operations Management
TQM Journal
Journal of the Operational Research Society
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Fig. 1. Distribution of reviewed papers by journal.

140 25 allow us to cover all the important issues related to sustainable

Decision Science Publications All Publications supply chains. Thus, whenever we find that the 87 pool of papers
Publications in Decision Science Journals

120 does not include a sufficient number of studies on a particular issue,

20 we extend our search to the larger database of 707 papers.
100 For example, to study publications in different industry sectors
and firm sizes we have enlarged our papers pool to the 707 papers.
All Publications

15 To help the reader distinguish between the two pools of papers we

80
include them in different sections in the bibliography.

60
10
3. Definition of sustainable supply chain management
40

5 As in Chopra and Meindl (2007), we define a supply chain as all

20 parties involved in fulfilling a customer order. In particular, we
stress the fact that more than one decision maker is involved in
0 0 managing resources, information, and/or processes that may not be
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
entirely under the control of their company. In addition we define
Fig. 2. Distribution of reviewed and other relevant papers by publication year. supply chain management as the control of the supply chain
operations, resources, information and funds in order to maximize
Next, we restricted the articles by subject area, requiring that they be the supply chain profitability or surplus—the difference between
only published in category Decision Sciences resulting in 87 articles. the revenue generated from a customer’s order and all the costs
We chose to focus on the Decision Sciences subject area because we incurred by the supply chain while satisfying that customer’s order.
are targeting to publish the review in journals that are within this We define business sustainability as the ability to conduct business
subject area. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of reviewed papers by with a long term goal of maintaining the well-being of the economy,
journal. It is worth noting that five journals account for about 50% of environment and society. Elkington (1997) is credited with popular-
the reviewed publications. izing the latter three dimensions, which he called the triple bottom
Fig. 2 shows the distribution by publication year of the line (TBL) principle (also known as the three pillars: profit, planet,
reviewed papers as well as all the articles that fell under our and people). As a sign of their sustainability practices companies
search criteria. Barring the distribution at the right tale, due to the issue periodic TBL reports to their stakeholders. We are now ready
possibility of additional publications in the pipeline, it is evident to provide a unified definition for sustainable supply chain manage-
that there is an increasing trend manifesting the increasing ment as the management of supply chain operations, resources,
interest in this research area. information, and funds in order to maximize the supply chain
While including all the 707 papers in the review is not practical, profitability while at the same time minimizing the environmental
we also realize that restricting our study to the 87 papers may not impacts and maximizing the social well-being.
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82 71

By social well-being, as used in the above definition, we mean Table 1

how the supply chain treats its employees, customers and the Industry research.
community at large. The above definition implies that companies
Industry sector Publications
that practice sustainable supply chain management strive to
satisfy multiple, possibly conflicting, objectives: while maximiz- Agriculture, wine, horticulture, etc. Higgins et al. (2010), Hall and Matos
ing profits calls for reducing operations costs, minimizing the (2010), Van Der Vorst et al. (2009), Matos
environmental impacts and maximizing the social well-being can and Hall (2007), Cox et al. (2007)
Automotive Nunes and Bennett (2010), Thun and
add to the supply chain’s operational costs. In addition the Mu€ller (2010), Subramoniam et al.
challenge of conflicting objectives, the definition also implies (2009), Beske et al. (2008), Ding et al.
other challenges to supply chain managers: dealing with multiple (2007), Kim et al. (2007), Seitz and Wells
decision makers and assessing the environmental impacts and (2006), Van Hoek (2002), Early et al.
(2009)
social benefits in a multi-party supply chain.
Education Hawkins and Matthews (2009), Roome
(2005)
Electrical, electronics Park et al. (2010), Hu and Bidanda
(2009), Hsu and Hu (2009), Nawrocka
4. Review results and classifications (2008), Rai et al. (2006), Savaskan et al.
(2004), Frota Neto et al. (2010)
Fashion, retail, grocery de Brito et al. (2008)
In this section we report our analysis of the literature we have Government, NGO Boons and Mendoza (2010), Preuss
reviewed. We start by highlighting some of the recent related (2009)
reviews. Healthcare, pharmaceuticals Schieble (2008), Veleva et al. (2003)
Hospitality, catering, tourism Font et al. (2008), Hawkins (2004),
Adriana (2009)
Housing, construction, real estate Blengini and Garbarino (2010), Isaksson
4.1. Related reviews and Steimle (2009), Ofori (2000)
ICT None
Industrial or manufacturing exclu. Testa and Iraldo (2010), Simpson (2010),
Reviews on sustainability in a supply chain or operational automotive, electrical, Yang et al. (2010), Holt and Ghobadian
context have largely focused on a broad and strategic overview. electronics (2009), Huang et al. (2009), Chung and
Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) have published a systematic Wee (2008), Marsillac (2008), Vachon
review. Although their main research question is ‘‘What is there and Klassen (2008)
Zhu et al. (2008b), Vachon (2007),
and what is missing?’’ they have restricted their attention to only
Corbett and Klassen (2006), Kainuma and
nine journals and reviewed studies from the year 1995. Earlier, Tawara (2006), Sarkis (2006), Wells and
Srivastava (2007) reviewed 227 books and articles from 1994 to Seitz (2005), Zhu and Sarkis (2004),
2007. The focus of the review was on green aspects and the study Savaskan et al. (2004), Albino et al.
adopted a reverse-logistics approach. Two other recent studies (2002)
Materials, mining, and energy Matos and Hall (2007), Huang et al.,
have focused on providing a literature review together with a (2009), Haibin and Zhenling (2010),
conceptual framework for sustainable supply chains: Seuring and Ferretti et al. (2007)
Muller (2008) reviewed 191 journal articles from 1994 to 2007 Transportation and logistics Frota Neto et al. (2009), Ciliberti et al.
and Carter and Rogers (2008) reviewed 166 publications and (2008), Frota Neto et al. (2008), Kim
(2009)
interviewed 35 supply chain managers in 28 Fortune 1000
Utilities Boons and Mendoza (2010), Sheu (2008)
companies in the USA and Germany.

4.3. Firm size and sustainability

4.2. Classification by industry sector

Tomomi (2010), Moore and Manring (2009), Lee and Klassen

We list various industry sectors of the economy in Table 1. Our
(2008), and Lee (2008) have focused on the adoption of green or
classification of the sectors is similar to the GICS1 Standards. We
sustainable practices in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
believe that such a classification is important since sustainable
One of the major challenges that SMEs face in relation to adoption
practices that work for one industry may not work for other
of sustainable practices in the supply chain is the significant
industries. We note that the majority of the reviewed literature
upfront cost of greening. Sarkis (2006) found that early adoption
focuses on manufacturing sectors. On the other hand, we did not
and increased investment in environment risk management did
find any study that focused on the Information and Communica-
not increase performance for small firms in the metal finishing
tion Technologies. This is despite the fact that in their 2010
industry. Testa and Iraldo (2010) analyzed the determinants and
NewsWeek Green Rankings, six of the top ten companies in the
motivations for the implementation of green practices at facilities
US are ICT companies (Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Adobe, and Yahoo!)
owned by large multinational enterprises in OECD countries. They
(NewsWeek, 2010).
conclude that although these practices are complementary to
We believe the focus on sustainability in the manufacturing sector
advanced management practices their impact on the bottom line
can be explained by two factors. Firstly, traditionally operations
is ambiguous. While it is acknowledged that large firms have an
research has focused on production and manufacturing topics and
advantage for adopting sustainable practices more than SMEs and
thus it is only natural that sustainable supply chain research builds on
that SMEs adoption is necessary in the long run, these studies
that literature. This view is supported by the literature that argues
found that the rate of return on early adoption is not encouraging.
that companies that adopt lean manufacturing strategies are more
Thus, we believe more research is required in this area.
likely to adopt sustainability practices (e.g., King and Lenox, 2001).
Secondly, historically environmental regulations has focused on
4.4. Research methods
manufacturing plants (e.g., pollution control).

Fig. 3 shows the distribution of reviewed papers by the type of

1
http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/gics/. methodology used.
72 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

Research Method for Decision Science Journals Supply Chain Drivers

40
Transportation and
35 36 logistics

30
Information
25

20 Facilities
19
18
15
14 Sourcing and
10 purchasing

5 Pricing

0
Methodological, analytical, Case study Review Empirical model 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
mathematical
Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed papers by supply chain driver.
Fig. 3. Distribution of reviewed papers by research methodology.

Given our focus on decision sciences publications, it is not Supply Chain Entity
surprising that the majority of the surveyed papers use analytical 35
models. These studies focus on solving problems that deal with
facility location (Srivastava, 2008; Dou and Sarkis, 2010), sche- 30 31
duling (Lejeune, 2006), supplier selection, policy assessment, etc.
This includes, use of optimization concepts (Cannon et al., 2005), 25
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Che, 2010), Fuzzy decision
making (Tsai and Hung, 2009), heuristics such as genetic algo- 20
20
rithm (Wang and Hsu, 2010), simulation (Van Der Vorst et al.,
2009; Vlachos et al., 2007) and exergoeconomics (Ji, 2008). 15
15
Another popular decision support method is Life Cycle Costing
or Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) used to evaluate the total impact 10
of the goods or products on the environment from extraction of
raw materials to eventual disposal or abandonment into landfill 5
(Matos and Hall, 2007; Frota Neto et al., 2010; Hu and Bidanda, 1 1
2009; Singh et al., 2008).
0
The second most used method is the case study. This is in Retailer Customer Supplier Whole enterprise Manufacturer
contrast to the trend in operations management research where
case study research is not well utilized. This can be explained by Fig. 5. Distribution of reviewed papers by supply chain partner.

the fact that the sustainability area is a relatively new research

field and researchers need to do more case study work to under-
stand the real issues and problems, something that case study
methodology is well-suited for (McCutcheon and Meredith,
1993).
4.5. Supply chain drivers
Chopra and Meindl (2007) have defined six major drivers for
supply chain performance: transportation, inventory, facilities,
information, pricing, and sourcing. They also provide a framework
for supply chain analysis that proceeds by first understanding the
supply chain competitive strategy and its fit with the operational
strategy and how they can be deployed by each driver. Thus, it is
expected that a company that emphasizes sustainability in its
competitive strategy would reflect it in each of the six drivers of
the supply chain. To investigate how this is reflected in the papers
we have reviewed, Fig. 4 shows the distribution of the reviewed
papers by driver.
We note that most studies focused on transportation (includ-
ing logistics and distribution) and information drivers. There are
no studies that focus on the inventory driver and only one paper
that addresses the pricing driver. There were many papers (29)
that focused on closed-loop supply chains, but they did not
address inventory explicitly as a driver for the supply chain
performance. Our explanation for this disparity in the emphasis
on supply chain drivers is two-fold: (i) companies focus on the
information driver to set the technology infrastructure as a sign of
an early stage of implementing sustainability practices and (ii)
the focus on the transportation driver could be explained by the
pressure from external stakeholders where the emphasis was on
greenhouse gas emissions and pollution reduction. The US
Department of Energy’s National Energy Renewable Lab (NERL)
is developing the US Life-cycle Inventory Database.2 According to
NERL; ‘‘y[this] database is a publicly available database that allows
users to objectively review and compare analysis results that are
based on similar data collection and analysis methods.’’ This data-
base is created to help practitioners answer questions about
environmental impact. It provides individual gate-to-gate, cra-
dle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave accounting of the energy and
material flows into and out of the environment that are associated
with producing a material, component, or assembly in the US
Such a database could serve as useful source for sustainable
supply chain research on inventory.
4.6. Supply chain partner
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the papers according the which
party of the supply chain was the focus of study.
2
http://www.nrel.gov/lci.
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
We see that the majority of papers focus on the manufacturer.
This can be explained using the same factors that we outlined in
the industry classification. We also note the focus on the ‘‘whole
enterprise’’, with no emphasis on the nature of the party, and
suppliers. The focus on suppliers can be partly explained by the
pressure that they would feel from their customers, such as the
case of retailers like Walmart.
5. Frameworks for sustainable supply chain management and
evaluation
5.1. Sustainable supply chain management framework
We envisage a sustainable supply chain as wheels constituting
of six spokes, representing the major relevant functions within
the chain: sourcing, transformation, delivery, value proposition,
customers, and recycling (see Fig. 6).
In Fig. 7 we illustrate the important issues for each function. In
the next section we discuss each of these functions. In the
subsequent section we outline the major factors that could have
an impact of these functions.
5.1.1. Sustainable supply chain functions
Sourcing and Transformation are critical functions in a sustain-
able supply chain. One of the key aspects of green and sustainable
supply chain is the use of green procurement practices (Varnas
et al., 2009; Bala et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Dawson and
Probert, 2007; Handfield et al., 1997). The idea is that the focal
company in the supply chain will force its upstream suppliers to
adopt and adapt technology and practices that result in more
efficiently and environmentally friendly material sources, engage
in labor practices that are considered ethical and result in lower
green house gas (GHG) emissions as well as low impact on the
environment. However, Beamon (1999) points out that using such
practices may make the supply of inputs more unreliable. Many
companies that source from impoverished regions of the world
Reuse,
Recycle, Sourcing
Return
Customers and Transformation
product use
Value
Delivery
Proposition
Fig. 6. Framework for sustainable supply chains.
73
now engage in what are called fair trade practices. The idea is to
pay more for commodities like coffee and cotton since they
usually fetch a higher price in the West as finished goods.
However, usually it means that it is the customer who pays the
higher price, as these costs are usually passed on by the business.
Mining and energy companies that extract material from the
ground, inevitably tend to damage the surrounding area. Use of
toxic chemicals in the refining process and production of GHG
emissions is an ongoing issue. However, many businesses have
switched from consumption of non renewable resources to
renewable ones at a higher price. For example, using electricity
produced from green alternatives instead of fossil fuels, using
recycled paper and plastics where possible or using non-toxic
chemicals in their processes.
The delivery process is a broad term used to encompass many
operational processes. The choice of location such as offshore vs.
onshore, close to the customer vs. close to the raw material source
can have a significant impact on the GHG emissions. The choice of
mode of transportation is an important decision to GHG emis-
sions, however, at the same time the need to have the product
delivered on time quickly and cheaply is a key concern for any
business e.g., rail and waterways usually have lower emissions for
a ton of goods shipped but they are slower than trucks and
airplanes which have higher costs and emissions. Time sensitive
and high value items still get shipped via truck and air, however,
the focus has shifted towards making less bulky goods so as to
ship more (Dou and Sarkis, 2010; Triantafyllou and Cherrett,
2010). One of the least investigated issues in sustainable practices
is the choice of inventory management policy. For example single
period and multi-period models aim to lower the total stock out,
backorder and salvage costs and do not incorporate sustainability
criteria in the decision making framework.
One of the key decision criteria missing so far from the green,
sustainable supply chain models is the role of the consumers. The
traditional view of the product life cycle has focused on the
sourcing of raw materials, the transformation and delivery pro-
cess, customer use over the useful life and the end of life where the
product is either abandoned to a landfill, recycled into raw
materials, reused, returned or re-manufactured for consumption.
However, the value proposition is usually not explicitly consid-
ered. Many businesses that sell environmentally friendly, green or
sustainable, low carbon emission products tend to cost more. This
cost is usually passed onto the consumers in the form of higher
prices. Often, as in the case of consumers buying carbon offsets,
these are tangential decisions independent of product purchase
decisions. In order to successfully market and sell green or
sustainable products, many businesses will have to not only
quantify the benefits but justify the value proposition to the
customers. In the case of products that are certified green e.g.,
carbonfund.org or retail processes that use more expensive green
energy for operations e.g., bullfrogpower, clear economical justi-
fication for passing on the higher costs to the customers is often
missing.
For sourcing of raw materials, the use of renewable resources
including recycled materials is a key operational feature. How-
ever, using a source of material that is renewable may not
translate into consumer acceptance or willingness to buy the
product. Similarly fair trade practices result in higher prices for
the consumers, many of whom in lean times have proved to be
unwilling to pay extra for such practices. The mining and extrac-
tion of natural resources is a matter of concern to many. However,
in the absence of a viable alternative to such practices, they will
continue. One of the major pushes by businesses has been to
avoid using toxic substances in manufacturing their products. For
example, Apple no longer uses toxic substances in their electro-
nics as a way to reduce future liabilities stemming from its use.
74 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

Sourcing

Renewable Fair trade Damage to the

Toxic Substances GHG Emissions
Resource practices environment

Transformation

Sustainable practices and processes Fair Labour Practices

Delivery

Facilities location
Transportation Inventory GHG Emissions
and layout

Value Proposition

Pay more and Feel good

Snowball effect Marketing and PR
factor

Customers and product use

Energy efficency Use of green energy Customer education GHG Emissions

Reuse, Recycle, Return

Can the product be returned Can the product be reused in Can the product be
to the OEM? a different form? efficiently recycled?

Fig. 7. Issues for sustainable supply chain management.

GM marketed Flexfuel car models that had engines that are able
to run on both gasoline as well as bioethenols. However, the key
value proposition in this case was neither well communicated nor
clearly understood by the consumers. Bioethnols make use of corn
or soy depriving many of an affordable food source. They do not
have the same energy density as that of traditional hydrocarbons
and a sufficiently widespread infrastructure does not exist so as to
supply bioethnols to consumers. Furthermore, use of such fuels
may drive up prices for grains resulting in food shortages.
In the absence of clear and quantifiable personal or environ-
mental benefits, customers will either ignore marketing of such
products, attract consumer lawsuits or regulatory oversight for
use of allegedly deceptive practices. Often, paying more for the
purchase of such goods is justified on the basis of saving the
environment, doing the right thing, or feeling good about doing
the right thing. Such logic makes use of Veblen’s paradox
(Zafirovski, 2003, p. 206). Furthermore, Bullfrogpower explicitly
uses the logic of snowball effect for the marketing of green power.
The idea being that if more customers demand more expensive
electricity because it is the right thing to do, more businesses will
produce and demand such electricity for operations. Some of
these ideas and issues are addressed and justified using the TBL
approach (Wang and Lin, 2007).
Based on life cycle assessment of many consumer goods, such
as cars and computers, a significant proportion of emissions
comes from the consumer’s use of products. Making goods more
energy efficient is certainly a key objective of any enterprise.
The reuse, recycle and return (3R) is a well researched issue in
the literature on closed-loop supply chains and reverse logistics.
The idea being that the product will eventually be disassembled
and components reused, re-manufactured or recycled into a
source of raw materials.
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
The above functions’ major issues are summarized in Fig. 7. As
shown in Fig. 6 the reusable material ends up in the sourcing
spoke and the sustainable wheel keeps turning.
5.1.2. Major factors for the adoption of sustainable supply chain
practices
Fig. 8 shows the major external and internal pressures that
may push a supply chain to adopt sustainable operations.
Market forces factors include consumers, retailers, OEMs who
may demand products considered environmentally friendly from
their suppliers. Financial stakeholders such as mutual funds and
pensions funds require that the company follow sustainable prac-
tices as described by them or some third party. Furthermore, in the
future access to capital markets may be restricted only to businesses
that are deemed to be ethical or environmentally friendly. Finally,
competition in the marketplace may require a company to offer
products considered as socially responsible, green or sustainable.
Policy and regulations factors come from governments either
through legislation or via a regulator requiring that companies
adhere to certain environmental standards. In case of environ-
mental disaster (example BP), governments may retroactively
introduce legislation or regulation to curtail certain business
practices. In addition, industry standards (such ISO 14001)
require suppliers to carry audits and certifications. For example,
Klassen and Vachon (2003) found that adoption of ISO 4001 is
significantly related to companies’ efforts to invest more in
environmental management practices.
The science and technology factor stems from the need to use
R&D to find materials and processes that are not toxic, use less
energy or find suitable substitutes without compromising use.
The product development factor involves the greening of the
existing product (e.g., using more recycled content, using biode-
gradable materials or alternative sources of fuels and materials)
and developing new green sustainable products (e.g., reverse
logistics, design for disassembly, using renewable resources, and
using biodegradable materials).
The process capability factor calls for greening the existing
process (e.g., energy efficient machines, fuel-efficient transportation,
etc.). In order to have an affordable and a competitive product
consistently delivered to the consumer, the process of producing the
product will have to be environmentally capable. In case of returns
Fig. 8. Factors in sustainable supply chain.
75
after the useful life of the product, the supply chain would also have
to secure that the process is capable of absorbing returns into
manufacturing or production of new goods.
The sourcing and operations factors push businesses to engage
in green sourcing practices, sometimes forcing suppliers to adopt
or adapt processes to be more environmentally friendly. Compa-
nies like Subaru and Toyota claim to operate a zero-waste facility
as a means of reducing costs and helping the environment. They
secure zero wastes by making sure that no by-product of their
operations ends up in a landfill.
The transport and logistics factors direct companies to con-
sider the economics of reverse logistics and closed loop supply
chains and reuse, recycle and return programs.
The marketing and public relations factors refer the efforts of
companies to create a value proposition for the customers,
especially when the ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ product is more
expensive. Companies have to also create awareness of the
practices that makes the product more environmentally friendly
or makes it sustainable, e.g., use Carbonfund or Bullfrogpower as a
means to signal to customers that the product is environmentally
friendly via the use of logos and co-branding. Just like focal
companies in the supply chain force their upstream suppliers to
become more green and sustainable, companies are also trying to
educate and convince its customers to buy its green products. As
an external pressure, NGO’s can run boycotts or adverse publicity
campaigns designed to shame the company into offering more
sustainable products.
Finally, the social issues factor focuses more on the existing
behavior and practices of companies in relation to the treatment
of their labor force, sourcing practices and environmental impact
on their communities. Green, sustainable operations is more
concerned with translating those aspirations into economically
sustainable business practices (Wang and Lin, 2007).
5.2. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics
Elkington (1997) argued that due to the advance of informa-
tion technology companies can no longer keep their practices
secret from stakeholders. They have to report on their sustain-
ability practices to inform them and to serve as a benchmark
against competitors. It is also important that these reports include
76 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

measures or indicators that make the company’s performance
verifiable by external agencies and global standards. In achieving
such transparency in reporting and measuring, Elkington stressed
the importance of forming partnerships, not only with supply
chain partners, but also with government and non-governmental
organizations. In this section we will report on our findings in the
literature, outline the major hurdles in developing sustainable
supply chain metrics and propose a framework for such a metric.
5.2.1. Sustainable supply chain management metrics literature
Despite its importance, there is a scarcity of research on this
subject. This is expected as the research on supply chain metrics in
general is scarce (Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Even in related supply
chain metrics studies there is no discussion of sustainability indica-
tors. For example, in a recent review by Gunasekaran and Kobu
(2007) there are no sustainability related measures in the 27 major
performance measures that they have identified in the literature.
Hervani et al. (2005) propose the use of ISO 14032 as a basis
for green supply chain performance management system (GSC/
PMS). However, it is important to stress here that the ISO guide-
lines are developed for individual organizations. Although
Hervani et al. (2005) list some of the complexities of designing
a GSC/PMS, they do not give solutions for how to overcome them.
Zhu and Sarkis (2004) look at the merit of employing green
supply chain practices on economic and environmental perfor-
mance in the Chinese manufacturing industry. Clemens (2006)
investigates a similar question but for small firms. They find a
positive relationship between financial and green performance.
Furthermore, it appears that this correlation is strengthened in
the presence of government incentives. Vachon and Klassen
(2008) look at how environmental collaboration impacts manu-
facturing performance. They find that while upstream collabora-
tion has clear benefits, the case is not as evident from customer-
based collaboration. Vachon and Mao (2008) link supply chain
strength, at a country level, to its environmental and social
sustainability performances. Sarkis (2006) finds that early adop-
tion of environmental and risk management practices may not
result in a positive impact on a company’s environmental perfor-
mance. Searcy et al. (2007) present a case study of sustainable
performance indicators for an electric utility company. They focus
on environmental and social issues.
It is worth noting that no study has comprehensively
addressed the three dimensions of sustainability (economy,
society and environment). Table 2 shows what dimension each
study has focused on.
In Table 3 we show the performance measures used in the
studies. It is important to note that the above measures were not
used or designed to be used in a supply chain context; the
measures do not span across partners in the supply chain.
Furthermore, some studies where specific to limited industries
(e.g., Scrap yards in steel industry in Clemens (2006), metal
Table 2
Focus of papers on sustainable supply chain metrics.
Paper Dimension
finishing in Sarkis (2006), utility in Searcy et al. (2007)). In
addition there is no consistency in the number of measures used:
it ranges from as low as three to as high as 98.
5.2.2. Hurdles for the development of reliable metrics
The research on performance measures in supply chains
acknowledges the difficulty of developing reliable performance
measures. Some of these difficulties are inherent to the nature of
supply chain management. We list nine important challenges:
1. Although there is no shortage of environmental indicators,
there is a difficulty in deciding on which ones to use, when and
how: Hervani et al. (2005).
2. Different supply chain players have to agree on which metrics
to use and with which data.Thus agreements and negotiations
are sometimes necessary: Hervani et al. (2005).
3. Incompatibility between classical production measures, which
are designed for intra-organizational management, and supply
chain measures that should have an inter-organizational
scope: Lehtinen and Ahola (2010).
4. Lack of an oversight agency that controls the whole supply
chain. While some environmental measures are linked to clear
governmental regulations, many economic and social mea-
sures are not and it is usually hard to enforce compliance
throughout the supply chain.
5. Lack of trust in the relationship and fear that data confidenti-
ality may be compromised.
6. Difficulties in aligning strategies throughout the supply chain.
One prerequisite of classical performance measures is that
they serve to achieve a fit between a firms’ competitive
strategy and its operational strategy (see, e.g., Bendoly et al.,
2007). The difficulty with supply chains is that several firms in
the same supply chain may have different, and potentially
conflicting, strategies.
7. Difficulties in coordination of competencies. Performance
measures are designed to capitalize on a firms’ internal
competencies and use them to strengthen its external compe-
tencies (see, e.g., Bendoly et al., 2007). The challenge within a
supply chain context is that there could be redundancy in
competencies and that the sum of the different parties’
competencies may not be equal to the whole.
8. Difficulty in streamlining the different types of supply chain
parties. There are different management theories for firms’
strategies such as defenders, prospectors and analyzers or care-
takers, innovators, and marketers (see Bendoly et al., 2007 and
references therein). Performance management theory recom-
mends that firms select their measures according to their types
(Bendoly et al., 2007). However, in supply chain contexts we may
have several firms with different types.
9. Dynamic nature of supply chains. Not only are performance
measures likely to change with times, a supply chain party
(e.g., a supplier) is likely to play different roles in different
supply chains. For example, a supplier may supply a critical
component to one manufacturer in one supply chain and be a
dual supply source for another manufacturer in a different
supply chain.

Economy Environment Society

Clemens (Clemens 2006)
Hervani et al. (2005)
Sarkis (2006)
Searcy et al. (2007)
Vachon and Klassen (2008)
Vachon and Mao (2008)
Zhu and Sarkis (2004)
5.2.3. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics
x x
x Keeping in mind the above challenges and taking into account
x the theory of performance measures design (e.g., see Bendoly
x x et al., 2007) we propose to use composite indicators to create
x x reliable performance measures for sustainable supply chains.
x x
x x
Composite indicators (CIs) have been used successfully to sum-
marize complex and multi-dimensional indicators. Saisana
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82 77

Table 3
Sustainable performance measures used in the literature.

Paper Measures

Clemens (2006) Environmental policy, Investment in Environmental responsiveness, Environmental consciousness

Hervani et al. (2005) Fugitive non-point air emissions, stack or point air emissions, discharges to receiving streams and water bodies, underground injection on-site,
releases to land on-site, discharges to publicly owned treatment works, other off-site transfers, on-site and off-site energy recovery, on-site
and off-site recycling, on-site or off-site treatment, non-production releases, source reduction activities, spill and leak prevention, inventory
control, raw material modification, process modifications, cleaning and decreasing, surface preparation and finishing, product modifications,
pollution prevention opportunity audits, materials balances audits, employee and participative management, publicly available missions and
values statement(s), management systems pertaining to social and environmental performance, magnitude and nature of penalties for non-
compliance, number, volume, and nature of accidental or non-routine releases to land, air, and water, costs associated with environmental
compliance, environmental liabilities under applicable laws and regulations, site remediation costs under applicable laws and regulations,
major awards received, total energy use, total electricity use, total fuel use, other energy use, total materials use other than fuel, total water
use, habitat improvements and damages due to enterprise operations, quantity of non-product output returned to process or market by
recycling or reuse, major environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the life cycle of products and services, formal, written
commitments requiring an evaluation of life cycle impacts, programs or procedures to prevent or minimize potentially adverse impacts of
products and services, procedures to assist product and service designers to create products or services with reduced adverse life cycle impact
Sarkis (2006) Water consumption, energy usage, organics emitted, and sludge emitted by the facility
Searcy et al. (2007) Level of trust by stakeholder category, openness to stakeholder participation, effectiveness of engagement process, meeting expectations,
aboriginal satisfaction with the decision making process, no. of public consultation opportunities, no. of attendees to public consultations,
public awareness of consultation opportunities, percent of past commitments fully met, average response time to requests for publicly
available information, adequacy of reporting and information provided to the public, resources devoted to aboriginal participation in the
consultation process, status as an employer of choice, staff preparedness to represent the company in public, percent of workers who report
complete job satisfaction, effectiveness of capturing staff feedback, average employee turnover by classification, effectiveness of staff training
programs, effectiveness of staff training programs, perceived clarity of expectations, perceived opportunity for advancement, perceived ability
to influence decisions, perceived access to necessary resources, staff sense of team, internal and external salary ratios, percent of employee
development plans completed, non-entry level positions filled with external candidates, investment in staff education and training, public
attitude factor, investment in community outreach, charity and education, percent of electromagnetic field information requests promptly
followed up on, in-kind contributions to community and other local programs, participation in voluntary programs, existence of cultural
awareness training for employees, perceived risk of electromagnetic field to humans and livestock, number of staff hours directed to
electromagnetic field education and awareness initiatives, annual change in right of way by type, transmission intensity, % right of way under
secondary land use, no. of requests for adjustments to development plans, Hectares of right of way (ROW) required, loss of alternate land use
by type, total electricity transmitted, % lines on protected environmental or cultural areas, no. of complaints related to dust, noise, and visual,
Average compensation paid, contribution to fragmentation of the landscape, net change in forest cover per, percent of lines for which
vulnerable, threatened, or endangered species have been identified and action has been taken, existence of an up-to-date biodiversity policy,
change in affected media due to line installation, hectares of forest cover cleared per year, hectares of trees planted per year, hectares of
critical habitat affected by operations, effect on aquatic organisms, percent of lines where mitigation of edge effect is pursued, properties of
area media prior to line installation, properties of area media after line installation, cost of reducing vegetation in critical zone vs. cost of
outages, relationship between outages and dollars spent, cost of increasing intensity of vegetation management, percent of right of way with
vegetation in critical zone, minutes of system outages caused by vegetation, dollars spent on vegetation management per year, cost per
hectare managed by practice, percent of hectares managed by practice, cycle time by method of vegetation management, percent of lines with
up-to-date vegetation management, existing reliability vs. cost of upgrading plans, existing efficiency vs. cost of upgrading, megawatts
transferred per value of fixed assets, transmission line efficiency, average system outage frequency, average system outage time, waste poles,
line, and other hardware recycled or reused, cost per kilometer of line, number of regulatory violations by type, total kilometers of line by
voltage, export/import ratio and capability, percent of time that the system has 100% transfer capability, percent of time capable of meeting
demand, percent of in-service dates met, Average lifetime of infrastructure, Variance in expenditures from budget, Investment in R&D by type,
reportable and non-reportable spills including unintended releases, percent of wood used that is treated, percent of wood used that is treated,
workforce representative of provincial demographics, classification of employees (full-time, part time, temporary), ratio of lowest wage to
provincial minimum, net employment creation, percent of contracts with provincial suppliers, stakeholder satisfaction with programs to
mitigate effects of transmission line installation, benefits shared with affected communities, percent of employment sourced from local
communities, percent of purchase orders placed with aboriginal companies, percent of suppliers with an up-to-date sustainable development
policy
Vachon and Klassen Solid waste disposal, air emissions, water emissions
(2008)
Vachon and Mao Waste recycling rate, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental innovation
(2008)
Zhu and Sarkis (2004) Reduction of air emission, reduction of waste water, reduction of solid wastes, decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic
materials, decrease of frequency for environmental accidents, improve a enterprises environmental situation, increase of investment, increase
of operational cost, increase of training cost, increase of costs for purchasing environmentally friendly materials, decrease of cost for materials
purchasing, decrease of cost for energy consumption, decrease of fee for waste treatment, decrease of fee for waste discharge, decrease of fine
for environmental accidents

and Tarantola (2002) give an extensive review of the different
methodologies used to develop CIs and report on 24 practical
implementations.
Fig. 9 shows the proposed framework. Using Elkington’s TBL’s
principle, each supply chain partner (supplier, manufacturer,
distributor, retailer or customer) collects measures on each of
the three dimensions: economy, environment and society. The
choice of these measures as to align with each partners own
strategic goals. At this stage a performance measure framework
such that proposed by Gunasekaran et al. (2004) would be useful
to decide on which measures to choose. Each partner then
produce their own internally calculated sub-indicator. These
sub-indicators are then aggregated to form a supply chain
composite indicator.
To address the difficulties outlined in points 1–9 in the
previous section, guidelines are provided to each partner so that
their sub-indicators are reliable, but still satisfy their privacy
needs as the way a sub-indicator is calculated can hide the
peculiarities of the different measures within a company. The
overall composite indicator should be designed in a way that it
encourages trust and transparency between the different supply
chain partners. We purposely left open the details of the different
measures and sub-indicators that can be used as these depend on
the nature of operations and strategies for each partner. Some of
78 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82

the authors are currently working on a more detailed model that
will also be tested empirically.
6. Case study
In this section we present a case study to illustrate the process
that companies have to go through in practice to develop supply
chain sustainability metrics. It is worth mentioning that the
company team of experts has noted the need for the development
of composite indicators in this field.
The case company is a major Canadian electric utility. It is a
Provincial Crown corporation that operates in a regulated energy
market. The case company provides generation, transmission, and
distribution services to nearly 750,000 customers in its home
province. It also exports electricity to over 50 electric utilities
throughout Canada and the United States. The case company has a
well-established sustainable development program. A sustainable
development policy was first developed in the early 1990s. The
policy is accompanied by a set of 13 sustainable development
principles. However, while the case company has implemented a
number of initiatives in support of its sustainable development
policy and principles, it has struggled to incorporate sustainable
development considerations into its key decision-making processes.
To help address this issue, the case company decided to develop
a system of sustainability indicators linked to its core management
infrastructure. The primary factor influencing the decision to
develop the indicators was an increasing expectation on the part
of the company’s major stakeholders, including customers and
government that the company would explicitly consider environ-
mental and social issues as a part of its decision-making process.
This is consistent with the market forces, policy, and social factors
Economic Environment Society
Measures Measures Measures
sub-indicators
Partners
Supplier
sub-indicators
discussed earlier in the paper. To provide a manageable pilot test,
the scope of the initiative was initially limited to the company’s
major high-voltage (115 kV and above) transmission system.
The indicators were developed through an iterative process consist-
ing of a needs assessment, detailed process planning, development
of draft indicators, refinement of the indicators, and integration of
the indicators with existing company infrastructure. A review of
the process and results was also conducted at the conclusion of the
process. Every stage in the process involved extensive consultation
with experts from both inside and outside of the case company. A
total of 16 internal experts and 10 external experts were consulted
throughout the process. Ultimately, a system of indicators was
developed to address the case company’s key sustainability themes,
including stakeholder relationships, land use practices, and govern-
ance issues. Although the focus of the initiative was not explicitly on
suppliers and the supply chain, these issues were considered as a
part of the process.
Several indicators focused on supply chain issues were incor-
porated into the company’s overall system of sustainability
indicators. The indicators that directly addressed supply chain
issues are listed in Table 4. As indicated in Table 4, four indicators
directly addressed supply chain issues. All of the indicators were
based on existing data collected by the case company. The
indicator on Aboriginal suppliers is in recognition of the impor-
tance of that stakeholder group in the Canadian energy industry.
Table 4 highlights that all of the selected indicators were
explicitly linked to goals. The goal of three of the indicators was
to increase the value of the measure, while the goal of the other
was to maintain a range identified by the case company. It is
important to note that several other indicators were included in
the overall system that indirectly addressed supply chain issues,
including ‘‘percent of wood used that is treated’’, ‘‘number of
regulatory violations by type’’, and ‘‘waste poles, line, and other
hardware recycled or reused’’. The complete system of indicators
is available in Searcy et al. (2007). Moreover, it is important to
note that other indicators were suggested by the participating
experts throughout the indicator development process that were
not reflected in the final system. Indicators relevant to supply
chain management in this regard included ‘‘supplier lead-time by
infrastructure type’’, ‘‘participation in voluntary or above com-
pliance level programs’’, and ‘‘number of warnings issued’’. It is
important to note that the indicators ultimately selected
addressed several of the relevant functions suggested in the

Manufacturer sustainable supply chain management framework discussed in

Distributor Section 5.1. Sourcing issues were of particular interest to the case
CI
utility. For example, the indicators ‘‘percent of suppliers with an
Retailer
up-to-date sustainable development policy’’, ‘‘percent of contracts
Customer with Provincial suppliers’’, and ‘‘percent of purchase orders placed
with Aboriginal companies’’ all addressed sourcing issues. The
Fig. 9. Framework for sustainable supply chain metrics. ‘‘level of stakeholder trust indicator’’ addressed customer issues.

Table 4
Supply chain indicators at the electric utility case company.

Indicator Significance Measurement Goal

Percent of suppliers with an up-to-date Although the existence of a policy does not necessarily indicate more sustainable Percent of total Increase
sustainable development policy development, it does indicate that the company has given some thought to
the issue. This indicator is a starting point in developing a more robust measure
Percent of contracts with Provincial The company seeks to utilize local suppliers wherever practical Percent of total Increase
suppliers
Percent of purchase orders placed with The company seeks to strengthen relationships with aboriginal peoples and to Percent of total Maintain
Aboriginal companies support their businesses where practical target
range
Level of stake-holder trust by category Trust is one of the most important factors in relationships with interested stake-holders Likert scale (1–5) Increase
from survey
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
Related indicators, such as ‘‘waste poles, line, and other hardware
recycled or reused’’ addressed other aspects of the framework.
Moreover, the framework provides insight into possible exten-
sions of the set of indicators in the future. For example, although
they were not included in the initial version of the indicators,
other indicators such as ‘‘supplier lead-time by infrastructure
type’’ would be consistent with other relevant functions with the
supply chain.
Building on the discussion above, one of the key points empha-
sized in the process of developing the indicators was that they
would evolve over time. For example, the experts recognized that an
indicator such as ‘‘percentage of suppliers with an up-to-date
sustainable development policy’’ would likely be replaced by a more
sophisticated indicator in the future. While the experts recognized the
challenges in developing broadly applicable indicators for supply chain
management, a composite indicator that addresses key supplier factors
could therefore be an area of future work. The system of indicators
developed by the case company reflects the fact that it is at different
stages of development for different issues. Since the case company
was in the early stages of evaluating the sustainability of its supply
chain, the experts felt it did not make sense to develop indicators
that were overly prescriptive at this time. Time would be needed to
agree with the company’s suppliers on more sophisticated indica-
tors, align strategies throughout the supply chain, and to resolve
difficulties in streamlining the different types of supply chain
parties. Indicators would also need to be developed that accommo-
date the dynamic nature of supply chains. These points are all
consistent with the hurdles for the development of reliable metrics
discussed earlier.
The indicators developed by the case company closely align
with the most commonly reported indicators on supply chain
management in Canada. A review of 100 Canadian corporate
sustainability reports (published as of July 1, 2010) shows that
the most commonly reported supply chain indicator was ‘‘policy,
practices, and proportion of spending on locally based suppliers’’
(Morali and Searcy, 2011). This indicator was reported by 25 of
the 100 companies. No other indicator focused on the supply
chain was reported by more than 5 of the Canadian companies
sampled. The indicators developed by the case company are also
consistent with the GRI indicators focusing on supplier issues,
namely ‘‘policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally
based suppliers at significant locations of operation’’ and ‘‘per-
centage of significant suppliers and contractors that have under-
gone screening on human rights and actions taken’’ (GRI, 2006).
The experience at the case company demonstrates some of the
challenges and opportunities in developing supply chain-focused
sustainability indicators. The study helps illustrate that there is a
tradeoff between selecting technically sophisticated indicators
and choosing indicators that can be reasonably implemented by
the company at that time (Searcy et al., 2007). Different indicators
will be needed by different companies and the indicators ulti-
mately selected must reflect the unique needs of the company
that will use them. Recognizing their inexperience in measuring
sustainability in the supply chain, the experts at the case
company felt it was in the company’s best interest to start with
straightforward indicators that provide insight into some of the
company’s key priority areas. Given the complexity of measuring
sustainability in the supply chain, it may be appropriate for
companies to start with fairly top-level indicators and extend
them over time. In any case, the study shows that there is a strong
demand for indicators in this area. While the indicators ultimately
selected by the experts were heavily debated, there was a
consensus on the need to address supply related issues in the
overall system of indicators. However, the experience at the case
company also illustrates the difficulty in developing innovative
indicators tailored to the unique needs of the organization. There
79
is a need for further case studies that shed light on the indicators
companies use to measure the success of their sustainable supply
chain management initiatives.
7. Conclusions and suggestions for further research
We have reviewed research on sustainable supply chain
management with a focus on studies that were published in the
last decade. After providing a definition for sustainable supply
chain management we presented our literature survey results.
Based on these results we have developed an original framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Recognizing the
importance of reliable performance measures for the mainte-
nance of sustainable supply chain practices we have also included
a case study describing the experience of a utility company in
setting performance indicators. This case showed that there is a
strong demand in industry for such indicators and that more
complex indicators are required. Based on these findings we also
developed a framework for sustainable supply chain metrics. As
shown in Fig. 2 there is an increasing interest in studying
sustainable supply chains. Below we outline a research agenda
based on our findings in the literature and experience with the
case study company:
 Industry specific research: we feel that more attention should
be given to industry-specific research on sustainable supply
chain management. For example, although in practice the ICT
industry has been judged to be successful in greening their
supply chains, they haven’t been well studied in the literature.
As per Table 3 it is also clear that different performance
measurement systems need to be developed for different
industries. Searcy et al. (2007) and Hassini and Surti (2011)
provide example studies in the utilities and transportation/
logistics sectors, respectively.
 Pricing: the operations management literature is currently
thriving with research at the interface of marketing and
operations that would usually incorporate pricing as an
important decision making lever (e.g., see recent review by
Tang, 2010). However, as shown in Fig. 4 we found only one
paper that addresses the pricing issue in a sustainable supply
chain context. As we stressed in our framework for sustainable
supply chains, we believe it is important that, pricing, as part
of the value proposition to the customer, be more strongly
emphasized.
 Inventory Management: As shown in Fig. 4 we did not find
any study that explicitly addressed inventory management
within a sustainable supply chain. If examined from the TBL
principle, we find that the traditional inventory models focus
only the economic aspect. For example, if it is cheap to dispose
leftover stock, a news vendor model would recommend stock-
ing more. The US life-cycle inventory database (described in
Section 4.5 can aid in empirical research.
 Firm Size: While it is acknowledged that large firms have an
advantage for adopting sus- tainable practices more than SMEs
and that SMEs adoption is necessary in the long run, reviewed
studies found that the rate of return on early adoption is not
encouraging. More research is thus needed on how SMEs and
large firms should approach investment in and adoption of
sustainable practices.
 Sustainable Supply Chain Metrics: As we outline in Section
5.2.2, the existing perfor- mance management theory has
several principles that makes it incompatible for implementa-
tion in a supply chain context. We suggested the use of
80 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
composite indicators. More empirical research is required to
validate the proposed framework. In addition more theoretical
re- search is required to develop principles that take into
account the intricacies of supply chain structures that distin-
guishes them from the management of individual firms.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that helped
improve the presentation and content of the paper. We also
would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Natural
Science and Engineering Research Council.
References3
Adamides, E.D., Karacapilidis, N., Pylarinou, H., Koumanakos, D., 2008. Supporting
collaboration in the development and management of lean supply networks.
Production Planning and Control 19 (1), 35–52.
Badurdeen, F., Iyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H., Gupta, S., Jawahir, I.S., 2009.
Extending total life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design. Inter-
national Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 4 (1–3), 49–67.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey
system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production
Economics 124 (1), 252–264.
Barratt, M., Oke, A., 2007. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply
chains: a resource-based theory perspective. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 25 (6), 1217–1233.
Blackhurst, J., Wu, T., O’Grady, P., 2007. A network-based decision tool to model
uncertainty in supply chain operations. Production Planning and Control 18
(6), 526–535.
Chan, H.K., 2007. A pro-active and collaborative approach to reverse logistics—a
case study. Production Planning and Control 18 (4), 350–360.
Che, Z.H., 2010. Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and particle swarm
optimisation for balanced and defective supply chain problems considering
weee/rohs directives. International Journal of Production Research 48 (11),
3355–3381.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A., 2004. Strategic purchasing, supply management,
and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 22 (5), 505–523.
Chen, Y.J., Sheu, J.-B., 2009. Environmental-regulation pricing strategies for green
supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 45 (5), 667–677.
Christensen, W.J., Germain, R., Birou, L., 2005. Build-to-order and just-in-time as
predictors of applied supply chain knowledge and market performance.
Journal of Operations Management 23 (5), 470–481.
Da Silveira, G.J.C., Arkader, R., 2007. The direct and mediated relationships
between supply chain coordination investments and delivery performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 27 (2),
140–158.
3 the value offering in grocery supply chains. Production Planning and Control
The references are divided in two parts: References (Adamides et al., 2008;
Badurdeen et al., 2009; Bai and Sarkis, 2010; Barratt and Oke, 2007; Blackhurst et
al., 2007; Chan, 2007; Che, 2010; Chen et al., 2004; Chen and Sheu, 2009;
Christensen et al., 2005; Da Silveira and Arkader, 2007; Ding et al., 2007; Dou
and Sarkis, 2010; Efendigil et al., 2008; Fahmy Salama et al., 2009; Ferguson, 2009;
Field and Sroufe, 2007; Foulds and Luo, 2006; Fritz and Schiefer, 2009;
Geldermann et al., 2007; Georgiadis and Vlachos, 2004; Guide and Van
Wassenhove, 2006a, 2006b; Guide et al., 2000; Higgins et al., 2010; Hu and
Bidanda, 2009; Huang et al., 2009; Isaksson and Steimle, 2009; Jayaraman, 2009;
Jayaraman et al., 2010; Ji, 2008; Kaipia et al., 2007; Kannan et al., 2008; Kim et al.,
2007; Kim, 2009; Kim and Narasimhan, 2002; Klibi et al., 2010; Lee and Klassen,
2008; Lejeune, 2006; Levner et al., 2008; Linton et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2008; Loch
and Wu, 2008; Lu et al., 2007; Macpherson et al., 2005; Marsillac, 2008; Matos and
Hall, 2007; Mazhar et al., 2007; Miles and Snow, 2007; Mudgal et al., 2010;
Narasimhan and Kim, 2002; Nyaga et al., 2010; Pilkington and Fitzgerald, 2006;
Pullman and Dillard, 2010; Neto et al., 2009, 2010; Rao, 2002; Robertson et al.,
2002; Savaskan et al., 2004; Sheu, 2008; Sheu et al., 2005; Simpson, 2010; Singh et
al., 2008; Srivastava, 2008; Triantafyllou and Cherrett, 2010; Tsai and Hung, 2009;
Vachon, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Van Der Vorst et al., 2009; Van Hoek,
2002; Vinodh et al., 2007; Vlachos et al., 2007; Wang and Hsu, 2010; Wang and Ip
Gao, 2010; White and Lee, 2009; Wu and Kleindorfer, 2005; Xanthopoulos and
Iakovou, 2010; Yan et al., 2008; Yang and Sheu, 2007; Yang et al., 2010; Zheng et
al., 2006; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Zhu et al., 2005, 2008a,
2008b; Zhuo and He, 2007) were included in the literature review study and
reference (Adriana, 2009) onwards are other references that are not included in
the review.
Ding, F.-Y., Raghavan, B., Pollard, S., 2007. Supplier capacity analysis for a
manufacturing firm with a case study. Production Planning and Control 18
(6), 514–525.
Dou, Y., Sarkis, J., 2010. A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for
a strategic offshoring decision. International Journal of Production Research 48
(2), 567–592.
Efendigil, T., €onu€t, S., Kongar, E., 2008. A holistic approach for selecting a third-
party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Computers and
Industrial Engineering 54 (2), 269–287.
Fahmy Salama, K., Luzzatto, D., Sianesi, A., Towill, D.R., 2009. The value of auditing
supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics 119 (1), 34–45.
Ferguson, M., 2009. Strategic and tactical aspects of closed-loop supply chains.
Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Manage-
ment 3 (2), 101–200.
Field, J.M., Sroufe, R.P., 2007. The use of recycled materials in manufacturing:
implications for supply chain management and operations strategy. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4439–4463.
Foulds, L.R., Luo, Y., 2006. Value-added services for sustainable third-party ware-
housing. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 2 (2),
194–216.
Fritz, M., Schiefer, G., 2009. Tracking, tracing, and business process interests in
food commodities: a multi-level decision complexity. International Journal of
Production Economics 117 (2), 317–329.
Geldermann, J., Treitz, M., Rentz, O., 2007. Towards sustainable production
networks. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19),
4207–4224.
Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D., 2004. The effect of environmental parameters on
product recovery. European Journal of Operational Research 157 (2), 449–464.
Guide Jr., V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2006a. Closed-loop supply chains: an
introduction to the feature issue (part 1). Production and Operations Manage-
ment 15 (3), 345–350.
Guide Jr., V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2006b. Closed-loop supply chains: an
introduction to the feature issue (Part 2). Production and Operations Manage-
ment 15 (4), 471–472.
Guide Jr., V.D.R., Jayaraman, V., Srivastava, R., Benton, W.C., 2000. Supply-chain
management for recoverable manufacturing systems. Interfaces 30 (3),
125–142.
Higgins, A.J., Miller, C.J., Archer, A.A., Ton, T., Fletcher, C.S., McAllister, R.R.J., 2010.
Challenges of operations research practice in agricultural value chains. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 61 (6), 964–973.
Hu, G., Bidanda, B., 2009. Modeling sustainable product lifecycle decision support
systems. International Journal of Production Economics 122 (1), 366–375.
Huang, X.-Y., Yan, N.-N., Qiu, R.-Z., 2009. Dynamic models of closed-loop supply
chain and robust HN control strategies. International Journal of Production
Research 47 (9), 2279–2300.
Isaksson, R., Steimle, U., 2009. What does gri-reporting tell us about corporate
sustainability? TQM Journal 21 (2), 168–181.
Jayaraman, V., 2009. What is the buzz about the cross-functional role of purchas-
ing in a sustainable supply chain environment? International Journal of
Logistics Systems and Management 5 (1–2), 7–20.
Jayaraman, V., Baker, T., Lee, Y.J., 2010. Strategic end-of-life management of
electronic assembly product recovery in sustainable supply chain systems.
International Journal of Operational Research 7 (1), 54–73.
Ji, G., 2008. Performance evaluation of complaint management and virtual enterprise
in closed-loop supply chains by using exergoeconomics and extenics. Interna-
tional Journal of Services and Operations Management 4 (3), 368–397.
Kaipia, R., Holmstr€om, J., Hellstr€om, M., 2007. Measuring the benefit of changing
18 (2), 131–141.
Kannan, G., Noorul, A., Sasikumar, P., Subramaniam, A., 2008. Analysis and
selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling and
analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and Decision
Making 9 (1), 163–182.
Kim, K.I., Syamil, A., Bhatt, B.J., 2007. A resource-based theory of supplier strategy.
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 3 (1), 20–33.
Kim, S.W., 2009. An investigation on the direct and indirect effect of supply chain
integration on firm performance. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics 119 (2), 328–346.
Kim, S.W., Narasimhan, R., 2002. Information system utilization in supply chain
integration efforts. International Journal of Production Research 40 (18),
4585–4609.
Klibi, W., Martel, A., Guitouni, A., 2010. The design of robust value-creating supply
chain networks: a critical review. European Journal of Operational Research
203 (2), 283–293.
Lee, S.-Y., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental
management capabilities in small- and medium-sized suppliers in supply
chains. Production and Operations Management 17 (6), 573–586.
Lejeune, M.A., 2006. A variable neighborhood decomposition search method for
supply chain management planning problems. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 175 (2), 959–976.
Levner, E., De Pablo, D.A.L., Ganoulis, J., 2008. Risk management of transboundary
water resources using the green supply chain approach. International Journal
of Risk Assessment and Management 10 (4), 357–372.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an
introduction. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1075–1082.
 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
Liu, J.J., So, S.C.K., Choy, K.L., Lau, H., Kwok, S.K., 2008. Performance improvement
of third-party logistics providers—an integrated approach with a logistics
information system. International Journal of Technology Management 42 (3),
226–249.
Loch, C.H., Wu, Y., 2008. Social preferences and supply chain performance: an
experimental study. Management Science 54 (11), 1835–1849.
Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.-C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to green
supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International
Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4317–4331.
Macpherson, A., Jones, O., Zhang, M., 2005. Virtual reality and innovation net-
works: opportunity exploitation in dynamic SMEs. International Journal of
Technology Management 30 (1–2), 49–66.
Marsillac, E.L., 2008. Environmental impacts on reverse logistics and green supply
chains: similarities and integration. International Journal of Logistics Systems
and Management 4 (4), 411–422.
Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:
the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.
Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1083–1102.
Mazhar, M.I., Kara, S., Kaebernick, H., 2007. Remaining life estimation of used
components in consumer products: life cycle data analysis by Weibull and
artificial neural networks. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1184–1193.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 2007. Organization theory and supply chain management:
an evolving research perspective. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2),
459–463.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010. Modelling the barriers of green
supply chain practices: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Logistics
Systems and Management 7 (1), 81–107.
Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on the
relationship between diversification and performance: evidence from Japa-
nese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations Management 20 (3), 303–323.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F., 2010. Examining supply chain relation-
ships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships
differ? Journal of Operations Management 28 (2), 101–114.
Pilkington, A., Fitzgerald, R., 2006. Operations management themes, concepts and
relationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 26 (11), 1255–1275.
Pullman, M.E., Dillard, J., 2010. Values based supply chain management and
emergent organizational structures. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 30 (7), 744–771.
Frota Neto, J.Quariguasi, Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T.,
2009. A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in logistics networks.
European Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 670–682.
Neto, J.Quariguasi Frota, Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., Van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T.,
2010. From closed-loop to sustainable supply chains: the weee case. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 48 (15), 4463–4481.
Rao, P., 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in south east Asia.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22 (5–6),
632–655.
Robertson, P.W., Gibson, P.R., Flanagan, J.T., 2002. Strategic supply chain develop-
ment by integration of key global logistical process linkages. International
Journal of Production Research 40 (16), 4021–4040.
Savaskan, R.C., Bhattacharya, S., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2004. Closed-loop supply chain
models with product remanufacturing. Management Science 50 (2), 239–252.
Sheu, J.-B., 2008. Green supply chain management, reverse logistics and nuclear
power generation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-
tion Review 44 (1), 19–46.
Sheu, J.-B., Chou, Y.-H., Hu, C.-C., 2005. An integrated logistics operational model
for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review 41 (4), 287–313.
Simpson, D., 2010. Use of supply relationships to recycle secondary materials.
International Journal of Production Research 48 (1), 227–249.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2008. Integrated environment
management in steel industries. International Journal of Management and
Decision Making 9 (1), 103–128.
Srivastava, S.K., 2008. Network design for reverse logistics. Omega 36 (4),
535–548.
Triantafyllou, M.K., Cherrett, T.J., 2010. The logistics of managing hazardous waste:
a case study analysis in the UK retail sector. International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications 13 (5), 373–394.
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.
Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental
technologies. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4357–4379.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain:
the impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 26 (7), 795–821.
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.
Van Hoek, R.I., 2002. Case studies of greening the automotive supply chain
through technology and operations. International Journal of Technology
Management 23 (1–3), 89–112.
81
Vinodh, S., Devadasan, S.R., Rajanayagam, D., 2007. Roadmap for lucrative greening
of supply chains: theoretical and practical perspectives. International Journal
of Process Management and Benchmarking 2 (1), 29–44.
Vlachos, D., Georgiadis, P., Iakovou, E., 2007. A system dynamics model for
dynamic capacity planning of remanufacturing in closed-loop supply chains.
Computers and Operations Research 34 (2), 367–394.
Wang, H.-F., Hsu, H.-W., 2010. A closed-loop logistic model with a spanning-tree
based genetic algorithm. Computers and Operations Research 37 (2), 376–389.
Wang, J.W., Gao, F., Ip, W.H., 2010. Measurement of resilience and its application to
enterprise information systems. Enterprise Information Systems 4 (2), 215–223.
White, L., Lee, G.J., 2009. Operational research and sustainable development: tackling
the social dimension. European Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 683–692.
Wu, D.J., Kleindorfer, P.R., 2005. Competitive options, supply contracting, and
electronic markets. Management Science 51 (3), 452–466.
Xanthopoulos, A., Iakovou, E., 2010. A strategic methodological optimisation
framework for the design of a reverse logistics network with forward supply
channel synergies. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management
7 (2), 165–183.
Yan, W., Chen, C.-H., Huang, Y., Mi, W., 2008. An integration of bidding-oriented
product conceptualization and supply chain formation. Computers in Industry
59 (2–3), 128–144.
Yang, C.-L., Sheu, C., 2007. Achieving supply chain environment management: an
exploratory study. International Journal of Technology Management 40 (1–3),
131–156.
Yang, C.-L., Lin, S.-P., Chan, Y.-H., Sheu, C., 2010. Mediated effect of environmental
management on manufacturing competitiveness: an empirical study. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 123 (1), 210–220.
Zheng, J., Bakker, E., Knight, L., Gilhespy, H., Harland, C., Walker, H., 2006. A
strategic case for e-adoption in healthcare supply chains. International Journal
of Information Management 26 (4), 290–301.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-
mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 22 (3),
265–289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. International Journal
of Production Research 45 (18–19), 4333–4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in china:
pressures, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 25 (5), 449–468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J., Lai, K.-H., 2008a. Firm-level correlates of emergent
green supply chain management practices in the Chinese context. Omega 36
(4), 577–591.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H., 2008b. Green supply chain management implications
for closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-
tion Review 44 (1), 1–18.
Zhuo, J., He, X.J., 2007. Analysis of e-marketplace for the textile industry in China.
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 4 (3),
337–353.
Adriana, B., 2009. Environmental supply chain management in tourism: the case of
large tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (16), 1385–1392.
Albino, V., Izzo, C., Kuhtz, S., 2002. Input–output models for the analysis of a local/
global supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 78 (2),
119–131.
Bala, A., Munoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Ysern, P., 2008. Experiences with greening
suppliers. the universitat autonoma de Barcelona. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion 16 (15), 1610–1619.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information
Management 12 (4), 332–342.
Bendoly, E., Rosenzweig, E.D., Stratman, J.K., 2007. Performance metric portfolios:
a framework and empirical analysis. Production and Operations Management
16 (2), 257–276.
Beske, P., Koplin, J., Seuring, S., 2008. The use of environmental and social
standards by German first-tier suppliers of the Volkswagen AG. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (2), 63–75.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin
(Italy): The role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. Journal
of Cleaner Production 18 (10–11), 1021–1030.
Boons, F., Mendoza, A., 2010. Constructing sustainable palm oil: how actors define
sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (16–17), 1686–1695.
Cannon, M., Kouvaritakis, B., Huang, G., 2005. Modelling and optimisation for
sustainable development policy assessment. European Journal of Operational
Research 164 (2), 475–490.
Carter, C., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion and Logistics Management 38 (5), 360–387.
Chopra, S., Meindl, P., 2007. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operation. Prentice-Hall.
Chung, C.-J., Wee, H.-M., 2008. Green-component life-cycle value on design and
reverse manufacturing in semi-closed supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics 113 (2), 528–545.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility:
standard adoption and practices in Italian companies. International Journal
of Production Economics 113 (1), 88–106.
Clemens, B., 2006. Economic incentives and small firms: does it pay to be green?
Journal of Business Research 59 (4), 492–500.
82 E. Hassini et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 69–82
Corbett, C.J., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending the horizons: environmental excellence
as key to improving operations. Manufacturing and Service Operations
Management 8 (1), 5–22.
Cox, A., Chicksand, D., Yang, T., 2007. The proactive alignment of sourcing with
marketing and branding strategies: a food service case. Supply Chain Manage-
ment 12 (5), 321–333.
Dawson, G.F., Probert, E.J., 2007. A sustainable product needing a sustainable
procurement commitment: the case of green waste in Wales. Sustainable
Development 15 (2), 69–82.
de Brito, M.P., Carbone, V., Blanquart, C.M., 2008. Towards a sustainable fashion
retail supply chain in Europe: organisation and performance. International
Journal of Production Economics 114 (2), 534–553.
Early, C., Kidman, T., Menvielle, M., Geyer, R., McMullan, R., 2009. Informing
packaging design decisions at Toyota motor sales using life cycle assessment
and costing. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (4), 592–606.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone, Oxford.
Ferretti, I., Zavanella Zanoni, S., Diana, A.L., 2007. Greening the aluminium supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics 108 (1–2), 236–245.
Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., Kornilaki, M., 2008. Sustainable supply chain
management in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (4), 260–271.
Frota Neto, J.Q., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Nunen, J., Van Heck, E., 2008.
Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks. International Journal
of Production Economics 111 (2), 195–208.
Frota Neto, J.Q., Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., van Nunen, J.A.E.E., Spengler, T., 2009.
A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in logistics networks. European
Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 670–682.
Frota Neto, J.Q., Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., Van Nunen, J., Spengler, T., 2010. From
closed-loop to sustainable supply chains: the weee case. International Journal
of Production Research 48 (15), 4463–4481.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines:
Version 3.0. GRI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gunasekaran, A., Kobu, B., 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logistics
and supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for
research and applications. International Journal of Production Research 45
(12), 2819–2840.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., McGaughey, R.E., 2004. A framework for supply chain
performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 87
(3), 333–347.
Haibin, L., Zhenling, L., 2010. Recycling utilization patterns of coal mining waste in
China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (12), 1331–1340.
Hall, J., Matos, S., 2010. Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainable
supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 40 (1–2), 124–147.
Handfield, R.B., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K., Melnyk, S.A., 1997. ‘green’ value chain
practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management 15 (4),
293–315.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., 2011. A composite indicators performance measurement
framework for sustainable logistics and transportation. In: Proceedings of the
Third Annual Translog 2011 Conference.
Hawkins, D.E., 2004. Sustainable tourism competitiveness clusters: application to
world heritage sites network development in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research 9 (3), 293–307.
Hawkins, T.R., Matthews, D.H., 2009. A classroom simulation to teach economic
input–output life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (4), 622–637.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green supply
chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4), 330–353.
Holt, D., Ghobadian, A., 2009. An empirical study of green supply chain manage-
ment practices amongst UK manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Tech-
nology Management 20 (7), 933–956.
Hsu, C.-W., Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier
selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2),
255–264.
Johnson, M.L., Lai, H.-Y., Wortman, D., 2008. Preventing mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants using environmentally preferable coal purchasing
practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (6), 716–721.
Kainuma, Y., Tawara, N., 2006. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean
and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production
Economics 101 (1), 99–108. (special issue).
King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and green? an empirical examination of the
relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Pro-
duction and Operations Management 10 (3), 244–256.
Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., 2003. Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain:
the impact on plant-level environmental investment. Production and Opera-
tions Management 12 (3), 336–352.
Lee, S.-Y., 2008. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers
in green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Management 13 (3), 185–198.
Lehtinen, J., Ahola, T., 2010. Is performance measurement suitable for an extended
enterprise? International Journal of Operations and Production Management
30 (2), 181–204.
McCutcheon, D.M., Meredith, J.R., 1993. Conducting case study research in
operations management. Journal of Operations Management 11 (3), 239–256.
Moore, S.B., Manring, S.L., 2009. Strategy development in small and medium sized
enterprises for sustainability and increased value creation. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17 (2), 276–282.
Morali, O., Searcy, C., (2011). Building Sustainability into Supply Chain Management in
Canadian Corporations. Canadian Purchasing Research Foundation, January 2011.
Nawrocka, D., 2008. Environmental supply chain management, ISO 14001 and
rohs. how are small companies in the electronics sector managing? Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (6), 349–360.
NewsWeek, 2010. Green rankings. /http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/
green-rankings-2010-full-methodology.htmlS.
Nunes, B., Bennett, D., 2010. Green operations initiatives in the automotive
industry: an environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Bench-
marking 17 (3), 396–420.
Ofori, G., 2000. Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6 (3–4), 195–206.
Park, J., Sarkis, J., Wu, Z., 2010. Creating integrated business and environmental
value within the context of China’s circular economy and ecological moder-
nization. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (15), 1492–1499.
Preuss, L., 2009. Addressing sustainable development through public procurement:
the case of local government. Supply Chain Management 14 (3), 213–223.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., Seth, N., 2006. Firm performance impacts of digitally
enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems 30 (2), 225–246.
Roome, N., 2005. Teaching sustainability in a global mba: insights from the
onemba. Business Strategy and the Environment 14 (3), 160–171.
Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., 2002. State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies
and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the
Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit.
Sarkis, J., 2006. The adoption of environmental and risk management practices:
relationships to environmental performance. Annals of Operations Research
145 (1), 367–381.
Schieble, T.M., 2008. Advertised sustainability practices among suppliers to a
university hospital operating room. Journal of Hospital Marketing and Public
Relations 18 (2), 135–148.
Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S., 2007. Sustainable development indica-
tors for the transmission system of an electric utility. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management 14 (3), 135–151.
Searcy, C., Karapetrovic, S., McCartney, D., 2009. Designing corporate sustainable
development indicators: reflections on a process. Environmental Quality
Management 19 (1), 31–42.
Seitz, M.A., Wells, P.E., 2006. Challenging the implementation of corporate
sustainability: the case of automotive engine remanufacturing. Business
Process Management Journal 12 (6), 822–836.
Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16
(15), 1699–1710.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art litera-
ture review. International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1), 53–80.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., Chinnam, R.B., 2009. Remanufacturing for the
automotive aftermarket-strategic factors: literature review and future
research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (13), 1163–1174.
Tang, C.S., 2010. A review of marketing-operations interface models: from co-
existence to coordination and collaboration. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 125 (1), 22–40.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. Shadows and lights of gscm (green supply chain
management): determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-
national study. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10–11), 953–962.
Teuteberg, F., Wittstruck, D., 2010. A systematic review of sustainable supply
chain management. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010: Gttingen,
23.-25. Februar, Kurzfassungen der Beitrge, p. 203.
Thun, J.H., Mu€ller, A., 2010. An empirical analysis of green supply chain manage-
ment in the German automotive industry. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment 19 (2), 119–132.
Tomomi, T., 2010. Environmental management strategy for small and medium-
sized enterprises: why do smbs practice environmental management? Asian
Business and Management 9 (2), 265–280.
Tweed, K., September 29, 2010. Sustainability practices are really risk manage-
ment. /http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sustainability-is-real
ly-risk-management/S.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 111 (2), 299–315.
Vachon, S., Mao, Z., 2008. Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development:
a country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1552–1560.
Varnas, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental consideration in procure-
ment of construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities
in green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17 (13), 1214–1222.
Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., 2003. Indicators for measuring
environmental sustainability: a case study of the pharmaceutical industry.
Benchmarking 10 (2), 107–119.
Wang, L., Lin, L., 2007. A methodological framework for the triple bottom line
accounting and management of industry enterprises. International Journal of
Production Research 45 (5), 1063–1088.
Wells, P., Seitz, M., 2005. Business models and closed-loop supply chains: a
typology. Supply Chain Management 10 (4), 249–251.
Zafirovski, M., 2003. Market and Society: Two Theoretical Frameworks. Praeger
Publishers.