Accepted Manuscript

Environmental risk management in supply chains: a taxonomy, a framework and

future research avenues

Fabíola Negreiros de Oliveira, Adriana Leiras, Paula Ceryno

PII: S0959-6526(19)31985-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.032

Reference: JCLP 17201

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 15 January 2019

Accepted Date: 03 June 2019

Please cite this article as: Fabíola Negreiros de Oliveira, Adriana Leiras, Paula Ceryno,
Environmental risk management in supply chains: a taxonomy, a framework and future research
avenues, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.032

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Environmental risk management in supply chains: a taxonomy, a framework

and future research avenues

Fabíola Negreiros de Oliveiraa, Adriana Leiras a*, and Paula Ceryno b

a Industrial Engineering Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil

b Industrial Engineering Department, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil;

* Corresponding author – adrianaleiras@puc-rio.br

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)

[88887091739/2014-01, Finance Code 001]; and Foundation for Support of Research in the State of

Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) [203.178/2016; 2011.097/2015].

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Environmental risk management in supply chains: a taxonomy, a

framework and future research avenues

Risk management in supply chains has emerged as one of the most

attractive research topics in the supply chain management field. However,
much more is still needed towards hedging against environmental risks.
The recent environmental scandals and accidents bring to light the
negligence of the environmental issues by supply chains. The present
study analyses both external and internal factors of environmental risk and
their impact on supply chain management, as well as the mitigation
strategies through the literature study. Thus, by conducting a systematic
literature review and after analysing 767 abstracts and 70 full papers, we
identify fourteen environmental risks, three main consequences and
nineteen strategies to manage these risks. As a result, we develop an
Environmental Supply Chain Risk Management taxonomy, which covers
the existing body of knowledge on the topic. Moreover, a framework is
also proposed to synthesise and relate the environmental risks,
consequences and strategies covered by the academic research. Finally, we
provide a research agenda to support future works on environmental
supply chain risk management, building foundations towards the
formalisation and improvement of the field.

Keywords: Environmental Risk; Environmental Risk Management;

Supply Chain Management; Systematic Literature Review.

1. Introduction
Several risks emanate from supply chains, and managers have to be aware of these risks

(Hofmann et al., 2014). According to Bode et al. (2011), the risks materialise due to an

interruption somewhere in the chain, which subsequently clogs the flow of materials,

funds or information between the tiers of the supply chain. Ferreira et al. (2018) state

that companies must have a proper Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) to survive

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in a risky business environment. Thus, understanding how to mitigate these risks and

manage supply chain risk has become a priority issue to prevent potential losses (Manuj

and Mentzer, 2008a,b; Trkman and McCormack, 2009; Merz et al., 2013; Hofmann et

al., 2014; Zimmer et al., 2017); poor relationships with other members of the supply

chain, and conflict between stakeholders (Cousins et al., 2004; Cunha et al., 2019).

Some global events such as the Kodaikanal mercury poisoning in India (2001),

the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (2010), the explosions from hazardous chemicals at

Beijing’s Maritime Gateway (2015), Volkswagen’s emission scandal in Germany

(2015), and the Brazilian damming ruptures (2015 and 2019), highlight some

environmental damages in the supply chains of large firms. The negligence on the

environmental risks that arise due to companies’ operations and their interactions with

the environment brings environmental issue as an important topic to be considered in

supply chain management.

The risks related to the environmental dimension of the Triple Bottom Line,

initially proposed by Elkington (1994), are part of what researchers call sustainability-

related risks (Hofmann et al., 2014; Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016), where

sustainable development means achieving a more equal usage of natural resources that

respects planetary constraints (environmental sustainability) (Thöni et al., 2013). In this

paper, environmental risks are defined as ecological risks that represent the threats of

adverse effects on living organisms and the environment from emissions, effluents,

wastes and resource depletion arising from supply chain activities (Levner and Ptuskin,

2018).

In this sense, it is not a surprise that, due to increasing diversity and the growing

size of supply chains, environmental issues have today become a challenging research

topic in supply chain risk management (Levner and Puskin, 2018). Driven by increasing

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

pressure from government regulators, community activists, and non-governmental

organisations (Marconi et al., 2017), environmental practices are gaining attention from

both academia and industry. However, much still needs to be done concerning this

research topic, as the identification of risks caused by not adequately addressing

environmental hazards remains poorly explored in the literature (Torres-Ruiz and

Ravindran, 2018).

Hofmann et al. (2014) acknowledge that supply chain risk management has

largely overlooked ecological issues in supply chain operations. Freise and Seuring

(2015) indicate that many studies in supply chain risk management do not incorporate

ecological issues and focus on risk management in a purely economic way. Rebs et al.

(2019) also highlight that in supply chain management studies there is no explicit focus

on environmental issues. Environmental studies related to supply chains remain

characterized by limited theoretical knowledge and practical application, and an

important trend includes the need to address stakeholder effects on the supply chain risk

management (Reefke and Sundaram, 2017). According to Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran

(2018), the risks caused by supplier irresponsibility due to the lack of ethical and

environmental standards have only recently become a noticeable topic within the field

of supply chain management.

In light of the above, the present research aims to explore the environmental

risks in supply chains, addressing the consequences that these risks may generate for a

company and the strategies to mitigate them. More specifically, this paper aims to

address the following Research Questions (RQ):

RQ1: What are the environmental risks, consequences and environmental

strategies addressed by the academic literature and how often do they appear?

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RQ2: How do the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies relate to one

another in the academic literature?

To answer the research questions, we conduct a systematic literature and offer a

taxonomy embracing environmental risks, their consequences, and strategies to deal

with these risks. This paper also provides an environmental risk management

framework and highlights future research avenues, as proposed by Torraco (2005).

This paper endorses the supply chain risk management discussion since it

introduces the environmental perspective and addresses the stakeholder effects, through

the consequences that can be felt by companies. As a theoretical contribution, this study

presents a systematic literature review, which has the ability to be replicated in the

future and allows to avoid biases through more rigorous and objective criteria

(Evangelista et al., 2018). The critical analysis and synthesis provided by this paper

contributes to the academic knowledge about environmental supply chain risk

management and instigates new researches to validate, complement or contrast the

taxonomies and framework proposed. As practical implications, the present research

also may generate insights for practitioners on how to manage environmental supply

chain risks. The proposed taxonomies can be used as a guide to identify the relevant

environmental risks for their supply chains, as well as the related consequences and

strategies used to manage these risks.

The following section describes the methodology adopted for this study. The

results are presented and discussed in Section 3. In Section 4, an environmental risk

management framework is proposed. Finally, Section 5 concludes with main remarks

and proposes future directions for research.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Research Methodology
The present section describes the methodology adopted in conducting the systematic

literature review (SLR) in the field of environmental risks in supply chains. According

to Berends and Van der Bij (2006), systematic reviews increase the chance of finding

much of the relevant literature on the subject, reducing the likelihood of a partial

review, and thus increase the reliability of the research. Parahoo (2006) points out that

SLRs detail the timeframe within which the literature was selected, as well as the

methods used to evaluate and synthesise the findings of the studies in question. To

conduct the SLR, we adapted the review processes proposed by Thomé et al. (2016) and

Evangelista et al. (2018). The work of Thomé et al. (2016), which describes the SLR as

a method composed by eight steps, has been used to identify the different steps in each

of the three main phases adapted from Evangelista et al. (2018). Figure 1 presents the

SLR process:

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1. The systematic literature review process.

We provide a detailed presentation of the step-by-step procedures to search the

literature to ensure replicability of the method. The approach follows the principles of

Rosseau et al. (2008), as it seeks to be transparent and comprehensive - including all

relevant papers in the analysis - where the steps are standardised and replicable, and

where the approach applies specific searching criteria.

Having delineated the aims of the review, the main issues regarding the

investigated topic and the formulation of research questions in the introductory section,

the second phase details how the review process has been implemented. Firstly, the

Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected as per Mongeon and Paul-Hus

(2016), who indicate that the use of both databases for research evaluation favour

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Natural Sciences and Engineering and, when used together, broaden the research and

reduce the possibility of bias related to journals indexed exclusively in one of the

databases. Moreover, this searching procedure is broadly accepted and has been adopted

in previous literature reviews (e.g. Marchet et al., 2014; Ellram and Murfield, 2017;

Herold and Lee, 2017).

Regarding keywords search, the study considered the two following groups of

keywords, which were defined based on previous research. The keywords were strictly

defined, enough to exclude undesirable results but also sufficiently broad to avoid any

artificial limitation on the retrieved papers (Cooper 2010; Thomé et al. 2012):

• The keywords of group 1 were defined to address the field of risk management

in the supply chain following previous papers on the topic (Ho et al., 2015):

“supply chain” and “risk management”; and

• The keywords of group 2 were defined to select documents related to

environmental risks, following previous papers on the topic (Seuring and

Müller, 2008; Fahmnia et al., 2015): “environment*”, “sustainab*” “ecological”,

and “green”.

The keywords of group 1 and group 2 were combined and searched in title,

abstract and keywords in Scopus and Web of Science databases. The query used on the

database was ("supply chain" AND "risk management") AND ("environment*" OR

"sustainab*" OR "ecological" OR "green") to retrieve papers associated with

environmental risks in supply chains. The terms “sustainab*” and “environment*” were

used with an asterisk, referring to the keywords that consider combination of the radicle

and any suffix. The term “sustainab*” was used to cover all documents related to

sustainability risks since the sustainability-related risks encompass the environmental

risks. The term “green” is closely related to environmental issues. Finally, the term

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“ecological” was also used to cover papers on risks related to the ecological

environment.

The database search for papers was conducted in May 2018 and resulted in 648

documents from the Scopus database and 360 documents from the Web of Science

database with no initial exclusions. Two hundred and six of the 360 documents present

in Web of Science were also found in the Scopus database, and after the removal of

duplicates, the total number of articles was reduced to 802.

The first exclusion criterion was to retain only the papers classified as Articles,

Reviews, Articles in Press and Conference papers, thus resulting in 767 papers that were

selected for the title and abstract review. With the reading of the titles and abstracts, the

second exclusion criterion was to retain only articles related to environmental risks and

their management. For research purposes, the word “environment” considers a “green”

connotation. Therefore, we excluded articles in which the word “environment” was

related to the “business environment” used to describe the institutional surroundings of

the firm. Thereby, 71 documents were selected to continue the SLR.

After the exclusion of documents according to their titles and abstracts, we

proceeded to reading the remaining articles in full. During the full text review, a third

exclusion criterion was defined inductively - where it was derived from the material

under analysis itself - as proposed by Seuring and Gold (2012). Thus, we consider only

documents related to the environmental risks that supply chains can generate to the

environment and/or documents related to how the environment can affect supply chains,

including risk types, factors and drivers, environmental risk management methods and

research gap identification. Unavailable documents were also excluded, resulting in 53

documents.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The reference lists of the shortlisted articles were also meticulously evaluated to

guarantee that there were no other publications of relevance omitted in the search. Thus,

to complete the SLR, ‘snowball’ backward and forward searches were performed. The

backward search reviews the literature cited in the papers that were generated from the

keyword search, whereas the forward search reviews the extra sources that have been

mentioned in the retrieved articles by querying citation databases. These additional

papers were selected based on their number of citations, and the content of each

document was carefully reviewed by the three authors of this paper to ensure that the

article fits into the paper’s context. Therefore, seventy (70) documents were eligible for

the study. Figure 2 summarises the systematic literature review process.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the research methodology.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Data gathering considered of a concept matrix which listed the unit of analysis

in lines (articles) and categories in columns. Thus, it was possible to validate the

suitability of the documents selected by the authors for the literature review process.

Concerning quality evaluation, 84% of the selected documents are peer-reviewed

papers, which reinforces the quality of the works that are included in the present

research and minimises the chances of including poor-quality works. Both peer-

reviewed and conference papers (grey literature) are considered for the study to reduce

any publication bias.

In the analysis, results and updating phase, descriptive analysis considered the

distribution of the selected articles by year of publication, the frequency of publications

by journal and the number of citations of each paper to highlight the publication trends

(Section 3.1). Regarding data analysis, each document from the selected literature was

critically evaluated by the authors in order to build the following taxonomies: (a)

environmental risks, (b) consequences and (c) environmental strategies.

The categories proposed for the taxonomies were defined based on the content

analysis that represents an effective tool for analysing a sample of research documents

in a systematic way (Seuring and Gold, 2012). The definition of these categories

followed an inductive approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Mayring, 2000) derived from the

material examination and had an iterative process of category building, testing, revising,

and constantly comparing categories and data. Regarding the scope of content analysis,

the present study adopted the latent content of the text and documents, which require

interpretation of the underlying meaning of terms and arguments, i.e. the mental

schemes of the researchers (Seuring and Gold, 2012).

Hence, the latent content approach involved the three authors of this paper to

define the categories and validate the analysis, since the conclusions of the content

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

analysis are contestable if they are based only on the judgements of a single researcher

(Brewerton and Millward, 2001; Duriau et al., 2007). A discursive alignment of the

interpretation was performed between the authors in order to deliberate the potential

discrepancies in the content analyses and the categories building. Data synthesis, the

interpretation and the presentation of results are presented through the taxonomies and

the framework presented in Section 3 and 4, respectively. The final step, updating the

review, proposed by Thomé et al. (2016) is suggested as a part of future research

directions.

3. Theoretical perspectives on Environmental Risks

This section presents the study descriptors and the data analysis including the proposed

taxonomy for the environmental risks, their consequences and strategies.

3.1 Descriptive analysis

Figure 3 illustrates the number of papers (out of the 70 that were selected) published by

year. After 2008, the topic gained more relevance and more papers were published. The

distribution of papers by publication year across the period 1999-2018 depicts an

increasing interest of researchers in the topic. More than half of the papers (67%) were

published recently, from 2013 to 2018.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 3. Evolution of the selected papers by year of publication.

Seventy percent of the articles adopt a case study methodology, design science

or a dual approach including mathematical models and case studies. The remaining

articles are theoretical (focusing on pure mathematical models), reviews or conceptual

papers. Most of the articles presenting case studies specified the country in which the

study was developed. China and India were the most frequent common countries in the

case studies with nine and seven case studies for China and India, respectively. There

were four case studies from each of the United Kingdom and Germany; three case

studies from each of the USA and Iran; two from each of Taiwan, Mexico, Canada,

Sweden, Switzerland, Poland and Turkey; and finally one from Portugal, Korea,

Finland, Romania, Serbia, Austria, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Brazil.

Fifty-four articles also presented the type(s) of industry(ies) in which the study

was applied. In some articles, multiple case studies were developed, thus adding more

industries to the analysis. Figure 4 depicts the frequency of the industrial sectors

addressed in these articles. Case studies from the chemicals and metals industry were

the most frequent among all studies, followed by the automotive, textile, mechanical

and electronics industries.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ls

ive

ile

od

ns

e
/

n
ga

ho

ac
ca cs
ica

io

tio
xt

Fo
ot

sp
ni ni

ct

rs
nd
Te
em

ica
m

ha tro

tru

ro
he
la
l
to

/
ch

un

Ae
ng

ec c

ns

at
oi
Au

M / Ele

m
nd

hi

Le
Co
e

m
d
ot
sa

ru
ch

nd

co
Cl
al

/c
Te

ga

le
et

um

Te
in
M

le

in
tro

M
Pe

Figure 4. Frequency of the type of industry

Table 1 presents the most frequent journals in the sample of selected documents

and the number of papers published in each one. The “Journal of Cleaner Production”

was the journal with the most publications and was followed by the “International

Journal of Production Research” with four publications and the "International Journal of

Production Economics" with three publications. "Sustainability" and "Human and

Ecological Risk Assessment" had two publications each. Table 1 only lists the journals

that have published at least two articles.

Table 1 - Ranking of the publications per journal

Number of
Journals
publications
Journal of Cleaner Production 10
International Journal of Production Research 4
International Journal of Production Economics 3
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2
Sustainability 2
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2
TOTAL 23

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5 depicts the number of citations of each selected paper, verified in

December 2018, which is used to measure the impact of the papers in other peer-

reviewed articles that were indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Tang

(2006) is the most cited, followed by Zhu et al. (2008), Manuj and Mentzer (2008),

Angell and Klassen (1999), Lee (2011), Rao and Goldsby (2009) and Dües et al. (2013).

In more recent papers, after 2013, Govindan et al. (2014), Hofmann et al. (2014) and

Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) appear as the most cited articles. Figure 5 only

includes the authors who received at least five citations.

1100
965

1000
900
800
700
600
515

500
367

400
264
252

300
233
184

200
135
133
73
71

100
61
58
54
41
32
23
22
22
21
21
20
18
17
14
10
10
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
0
Cruz (2008)
Angell and Klassen (1999)

Zhao et al. (2012)

Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016)

Song et al. (2017)

Swarr et al. (2004)

Boström and Karlsson (2013)

Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)

Manuj and Mentzer (2008b)

Christopher et al. (2011)

Govindan et al. (2014)
Hofmann et al. (2014)
Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016)

Peng et al. (2014)

Freise and Seuring (2015)

Soni and Jain (2011)

Merz et al. (2013)

Mickovski et al. (2013)

Prakash et al. (2017)

Tang (2006)

Rao and Goldsby (2009)

Dües et al. (2013)

Chen et al. (2013)

Kowalska (2014)

Oldham and Votta (2003)

Chen et al. (2016)

Karmakar et al. (2017)
Zhu et al. (2008)

Lee (2011)

Hu (2011)

Gupta et al. (2002)

Paksoy et al. (2012)

Dogaru et al. (2009)

Busse et al. (2017)

Manning (2008)

Glickman and White (2007)

Liu et al. (2006)

Munguía et al. (2010)
Fazli et al. (2015)

Figure 5. Number of citations of each paper.

3.2 Environmental analysis and synthesis

This section presents the data analysis, synthesis, interpretation and the presentation of

results. Based on Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016), during the full-text reading of

the documents, it was possible to identify two perspectives regarding the environmental

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

risks: the endogenous and exogenous. Endogenous risks are caused by companies’

activities along their supply chains and exogenous risks are brought to supply chains

due to their interaction with the external environment that they operate (Faisal 2009;

Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016).

Thus, endogenous environmental risks are related to the environmental

dimension of sustainability, which according to the Global Reporting Initiative (2013)

refers to the organisation’s impact on living and non-living natural systems, including

land, air, water and ecosystems. For Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018), endogenous

environmental risks evaluate the exposure related to climate change issues; resource use

including water, land, energy and materials; recycling and disposal. On the other hand,

Jüttner et al. (2003) affirm that exogenous environmental risks comprise any

uncertainties arising from supply chain environmental interactions, such as natural

disasters (e.g., extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes etc.) and man-made disasters

(e.g., terrorist attacks, wars etc.).

Considering both perspectives, it was possible to define five categories: four of

them related to endogenous environmental risks and one related to the exogenous

environmental risks. As explained in Section 2, the categories are based on content

analysis through latent content approach. The categories, classified according to their

similarity of subjects, are detailed below and schematized in Figure 6.

 Environmental pollution: includes water, soil and air contamination

(Blackburn 2007), including the harmful emissions caused by greenhouse gas

and ozone depleting substances;

 Waste: encompasses the inefficient use of resources (in terms of raw materials,

water, and energy) and scrap generation (Dües et al., 2013);

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Non-compliance: Failure to comply with environmental, employment and

safety regulations (Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016)

 Environmental accidents: accidents that affect the environment, which are

caused by a firm’s operations, machines or staff (Blackburn, 2007) and

 Natural and man-made hazards: encompasses natural disasters and man-made

disasters (Prakash et al., 2017);

Figure 6. Categories of endogenous and exogenous environmental risks

Table 2 presents the environmental risks and the related frequency:

16
Table 2. Environmental Risks Taxonomy

Categories Environmental Risk Frequency References

Environmental Greenhouse gas emissions 33 Gupta et al. (2002); Swarr et al. (2004); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008);
(GHG) and ozone-depleting Christopher et al. (2011); Lee (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Zhao et al. (2012);
Pollution substances (ODS) Dües et al. (2013); Hofmann et al. (2014); Kowalska (2014); Chand et al.
(2015); Fazli et al. (2015); Kuo et al. (2015); Dai (2016); Ganguly (2016);
Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Bai et al. (2017); Busse et al. (2017);
Karmakar et al. (2017); Marconi et al. (2017); Meinel and Abegg (2017);
Multaharju et al. (2017); Schulte and Hallstedt (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Xiaofeng (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018); Shankar et
al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)

Other significant air harmful 9 Liu et al. (2006); Glickman and White (2007); Manning (2008); Munguía et al.
emissions (persistent organic (2010); Ruifang (2010); Chen et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Freise and
pollutants, volatile organic Seuring (2015); Marconi et al. (2017)
compounds, hazardous air
pollutants and particulate
matter)

17
 Chemicals and toxic effluents
released into water or
groundwater
Chemicals and toxic effluents
released into the soil
Waste Inefficient use of raw
materials
Inefficient use of water
24 Gupta et al. (2002); Oldham and Votta (2003); Liu et al. (2006); Levner et al.
(2008); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Dogaru et al. (2009); Ruifang,
(2010); Chen et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kowalska (2014); Kuo et al.
(2015); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Bai et al. (2017);
Karmakar et al. (2017); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Marconi et al. (2017);
Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
15 Levner et al. (2008); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Ruifang (2010); Chen
et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Karmakar et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al.
(2017); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
7 Dües et al. (2013); Hofmann et al. (2014); Busse et al. (2017); Marconi et al.
(2017); Song et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran
(2018)
12 Gupta et al. (2002); Levner et al. (2008); Manning (2008); Dües et al. (2013);
Kuo et al. (2015); Busse et al. (2017); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Song et al.
(2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al.
(2018); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)
18
 Inefficient use of energy
Excessive of hazardous or
non-hazardous product waste
(including packaging)
Non- Intensive or unaware use of
compliance chemicals
Lack of health and safety
management (in terms of
radiation, vibration, light,
ventilation and noise)
Inadequate warehouse area
for hazardous materials and
waste storage
16 Swarr et al. (2004); Manning (2008); Lee (2011); Dües et al. (2013); Hofmann
et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Busse et
al. (2017); Marconi et al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga (2018);
Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018); Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)
22 Angell and Klassen (1999); Carley (2005); Cruz (2008); Munguía et al. (2010);
Zhao et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2013); Dües et al. (2013); Kuo et al. (2015);
Dai (2016); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Busse et al.
(2017); Marconi et al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Foroozesh et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Levner and Ptuskin,
(2018); Reinerth et al. (2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and
Ravindran (2018); Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)
8 Swarr et al. (2004); Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007);
Zhu et al. (2008); Munguía et al. (2010); Christopher et al. (2011); Boström
and Karlsson (2013); Levner and Ptuskin (2018)
11 Munguía et al. (2010); Kowalska (2014); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al.
(2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Shankar et al. (2018); Valinejad
and Rahmani (2018)
2 Munguía et al. (2010); Gao et al. (2018)
19
 Non-compliance with 5 Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Levner and Ptuskin
sustainable laws and (2018); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)
regulations
Environmental Explosions, fires, chemical 12 Gupta et al. (2002); Liu et al. (2006); Manning (2008); Zhu et al. (2008);
accidents accidents, etc. Dogaru et al. (2009); Ruifang (2010); Kowalska (2014); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Kwesi-Buor et al. (2016); Foroozesh et al. (2018);
Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)

Natural and Natural disasters, extreme 28 Gupta et al. (2002); Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008b); Rao and
man-made weather, terrorist attacks, etc. Goldsby (2009b); Christopher et al. (2011); Hu (2011); Soni and Jain (2011);
hazards Hilgers et al. (2013); Merz et al. (2013); Qin and Zhang (2013); Peng et al.
(2014); Chand et al. (2015); Fazli et al. (2015); Huang et al. (2016); Mohapatra
et al. (2015); Prakash et al. (2017); Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast, (2016); Kwesi-Buor et
al. (2016); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Shenoi et al. (2016); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Foroozesh et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018);
Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Given the two perspectives of environmental risks found during the SLR, a

schematisation (Figure 7) is elaborated in order to depict the interaction between these

risks (represented by their categories), the environment, and the supply chain. The

endogenous environmental risks that emanate from supply chain activities impact the

environment, which, in turn, also present environmental risks that impact supply chain

activities.

Endogenous
environmnetal risks

Environmental Pollution
Supply Manufacturing Demand Waste
Non-Compliance
Environmental Accidents
SUPPLY CHAIN ACTIVITIES

Natural and mand made EXTERNAL

hazards ENVIRONMENT
Exogenous
environmental risks

Figure 7. Environmental risk interactions between the supply chain and the external

environment.

Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) studied the sustainability-related supply

chain risks and concluded that the majority of the most eminent sustainability-related

risks originate from a company’s activities, the goods that it generates, or its supply

chain processes. Hence, Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) observed that endogenous

risks are perceived as being more relevant than exogenous risks since endogenous risks

originate from the actions, or lack of action thereof, of a company or its suppliers,

which/who have the direct responsibility of controlling or mitigating these risks. On the

other hand, exogenous risks are generally unpredictable and tougher to manage since it

is difficult to assign responsibility.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Similarly, Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018) argue that the endogenous

environmental risks are directly controllable by supply chains, for example, the type of

fuel used in manufacturing and transportation, wastewater amount released, among

others; while the exogenous environmental risks are non-directly controllable since they

occur suddenly. In their findings, Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016) also argued that

among the sustainability-related supply chain risks, awareness of environmental risks

such as greenhouse gases, pollution, non-compliance with sustainability laws and

natural disasters head the list of the most eminent perceived risks. According to Carter

and Jennings (2004), irresponsible supplier behaviour might cause adverse publicity,

reputational damage, and costly legal obligations. Thus, Hofmann et al. (2014) state that

companies may experience severe losses from social, ecological or ethical problems that

exist in their supply chains.

The similarity of subjects has also been adopted to define the categories of the

consequences. In this sense, articles addressing damages to the company’s most

important asset (its reputation and brand) were classified in the Reputational category.

Papers related to the consequences which affected the company's profit directly were

clustered in the Financial category. Finally, those articles that addressed consequences

related to specific fines and sanctions applied from the government were grouped in the

Legal category. The categories are presented below:

 Reputational: the consequences generated for the company related to its

reputational capital (Christopher et al., 2011);

 Financial: financial consequences, including liquidity reduction, decreased

profits, increased costs etc. (Hofmann et al., 2014);

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Legal: the consequences related to legal actions and government imposed

penalties in the case of non-compliance with sustainable laws and regulations

(Shankar et al., 2018).

All articles that addressed exogenous environmental risks and their

consequences highlighted that the main and frequent losses perceived by the companies

and suppliers were financial losses. According to Chen et al. (2016), the losses caused

by natural catastrophes ranged from US$11.8 billion in 2006 to US$110 billion in 2011

and totalled US$71.2 billion in 2012. In addition to the financial consequences,

Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016) point out that the disruptions caused by these

events can also result in the loss of reputation and even the loss of life. For endogenous

environmental risks, the media can disclose the environmental scandals and abuses of

the companies, exposing the supply chains to the reputational, financial and legal

penalties losses. Table 3 describes these consequences that may accrue to the company

due to the negligence of the environmental risks.

23
Table 3. Consequences that companies may suffer

Categories Consequence Frequency References

Reputational Damages to the company’s
reputation (brand damage)
20 Cruz (2008); Christopher et al. (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Hofmann et al.
(2014); Freise and Seuring (2015); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Bai et al. (2017);
Busse et al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Schulte and Hallstedt (2017); Song
et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017); Göçer et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga
(2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018); Torres-Ruiz and
Ravindran (2018); Valinejad and Rahmani (2018);

Financial Increased costs/ reduced 27 Glickman and White (2007); Rao and Goldsby (2009b); Christopher et al.
profits/ financial (2011); Soni and Jain (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Merz et al. (2013); Kowalska
consequences (2014); Chen et al. (2016); Connelly et al. (2016); Ganguly (2016); Giannakis
and Papadopoulos (2016); Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Kwesi-Buor
et al. (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016); Busse et al. (2017); Cuesta and Nakano
(2017); Meinel and Abegg (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Song et al. (2017);
Vujović et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2018); Göçer et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga
(2018); Levner and Ptuskin (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018);
Valinejad and Rahmani (2018)

Legal Government penalties and 6 Glickman and White (2007); Zhao et al. (2012); Ganguly (2016); Song et al.
legal actions (2017); Göçer et al. (2018); Shankar et al. (2018)

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Christopher et al. (2011) affirm that the losses will first affect the focal firm and,

subsequently, will have a negative impact on downstream and upstream parts of the

chain. As observed in Table 3, the most frequent consequences identified in the sample

of articles are reputational and financial losses. They are closely related, since damages

to a company's brand directly affect its profits. The legal consequences are also

associated with financial losses since fines and legal penalties minimise the company’s

profits. According to Cousins et al. (2004), high perceived losses can motivate

companies to manage environmental risks. Table 4 presents the environmental policies

and strategies to control and mitigate environmental risks in order to avoid undesirable

consequences. Managers take actions to reduce risks through prevention or mitigation,

reducing the probability of an incident or decreasing the consequences in case of an

incident (Glickman and White, 2007).

As aforementioned, the exogenous environmental risks that come from outside

the supply chains are tougher to identify and control through strategies (Giannakis and

Papadopoulos, 2016) because they are non-directly controllable (Torres-Ruiz and

Ravindran, 2018). Sinha et al. (2004) affirm that companies should mitigate endogenous

risks first, before making efforts to deal with exogenous risks, since these risks are out

of the companies’ control.

As for risks and consequences, the categories for strategies are also based on the

similarity of subjects. The Waste Prevention and Management category considers

documents related to the management of solid and liquid waste through various policies

in order to prevent or reduce or eliminate waste generation. Documents that addressed

strategies and management of chemical and toxic substances were grouped into the

Hazardous Substance Management category.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The documents associated with the management of greenhouse gases (GHG)

and ozone-depleting substances were incorporated into the GHG Management category.

Documents related to policies and actions with the supplier (upstream side of the chain)

and customer (downstream side of the chain) were grouped in the Relationship with

suppliers and customers category. Those papers which addressed strategies related to

compliance with environmental and sustainability regulations were clustered in the

Compliance category. Finally, documents associated with contingency, emergency and

flexible responses and practices were clustered in the Contingency Plans category. Each

category is detailed below:

 Waste Prevention and Management: waste of all types, including water and

energy, need to be reduced or eliminated at the source or by practices such as

modifying production, maintenance and facility processes or substituting,

conserving, recycling and re-using materials (Kuo et al., 2015);

 Hazardous Substance Management: chemicals and other materials posing a

hazard if released into the environment need to be identified and managed to

ensure their safe handling, movement, storage, use, recycling or reuse and

disposal (Kuo et al., 2015);

 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management: greenhouse gas emissions need to be

tracked and documented at the facility and corporate level, and cost-effective

methods to improve energy efficiency and to minimise their energy consumption

and greenhouse gas emissions should be performed (Electronic Industry

Citizenship Coalition Code of Conduct Version 5 2014);

 Relationship with suppliers and customers: includes practices on the supplier

side such as environmental audits for suppliers’ internal management, suppliers’

ISO14000 certifications, cooperation with suppliers that are motivated to meet

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

environmental objectives (Zhu et al., 2008) and also includes relationships with

customers in order to promote incentive and environmental awareness;

 Compliance: includes the environmental management system that is designed

according to environmental, safety and health regulations; and

 Contingency plans: includes all the practices, including the contingency plans,

emergency plans and flexible responses.

Table 4 presents the policies and environmental strategies to manage

endogenous and exogenous environmental risks.

27
Table 4. Environmental strategies taxonomy for environmental risks
Categories Environmental Risk Strategies
Waste Prevention Wastewater and solid waste management
and Management (including reducing, recycling, reusing,
remanufacturing, refurbishing, etc.)
Introduction of eco-designed (products
requiring less material/packaging) and
environmentally friendly products
Introduction of lean management
practices
Carbon and water footprint monitoring
(including supplier monitoring)
Frequency References
18 Angell and Klassen (1999); Zhu et al. (2008); Carley (2005);
Chen et al. (2013); Cuesta and Nakano (2017); Dai (2016);
Dües et al. (2013); Mickovski et al. (2013); Ganguly (2016);
Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Gouda and Saranga
(2018); Govindan et al. (2014); Gupta et al. (2002); Kuo et al.
(2015); Manning (2008); Multaharju et al. (2017); Reinerth et
al. (2018); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)
5 Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007); Zhu
et al. (2008); Dües et al. (2013); Giannakis and Papadopoulos
(2016)
1 Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016)
5 Manning (2008); Lee (2011); Zhao et al. (2012); Giannakis
and Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017)
28
 Focus on efficient natural resource
consumption (reduction programmes, use
of energy efficient technology and green
technology, etc.)
Hazardous Substitution, precaution, and reduction in
Substance the consumption of chemicals and toxic
Management waste
Eco-labelling of chemicals
Accomplish a precise inventory of
chemical consumption
Greenhouse Gas Introduction of carbon emission
(GHG) management reduction initiatives and practices (e.g.,
use of renewable energy/alternative fuels,
filters, freight consolidation, driver
efficiency, reduce fuel consumption etc.)
Relationship with Audit and monitor suppliers and use
suppliers and sustainable criteria for supplier selection
customers
14 Glickman and White (2007); Levner et al. (2008); Manning
(2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Lee (2011); Dües et al. (2013); Kuo
et al. (2015); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016); Cuesta and
Nakano (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Vujović et al.
(2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018);
Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)
7 Oldham and Votta (2003); Glickman and White (2007); Zhu
et al. (2008); Munguía et al. (2010); Boström and Karlsson
(2013); Chen et al. (2014); Kuo et al. (2015)
2 Zhu et al. (2008); Boström and Karlsson (2013)
1 Oldham and Votta (2003)
14 Lee (2011); Paksoy et al. (2012); Zhao et al. (2012); Dües et
al. (2013); Kuo et al. (2015); Dai (2016); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Cuesta and Nakano (2017); Marconi et
al. (2017); Multaharju et al. (2017); Vujović et al. (2017);
Xiaofeng (2017); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Shankar et al.
(2018)
8 Carley (2005); Zhu et al. (2008); Zhao et al. (2012); Boström
and Karlsson (2013); Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and
Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017); Torres-Ruiz
and Ravindran (2018)
29
 Encourage suppliers and partners to 2 Zhu et al. (2008); Gouda and Saranga (2018)
promote sound environmental policies

Develop local suppliers for reverse 1 Christopher et al. (2011)

logistics

Encourage customers to make green and 5 Cruz (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Glickman and White (2007);
sustainable consumption choices Paksoy et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2014)

Compliance Compliance with sustainability 9 Cruz (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Boström and Karlsson (2013);
regulations and certifications (e.g., ISO Dües et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014); Giannakis and
14001, REACH, etc.) Papadopoulos (2016); Multaharju et al. (2017); Gouda and
Saranga (2018); Reinerth et al. (2018)

Internal auditing programmes 1 Zhu et al. (2008)

Programmes and training focused on 5 Carley (2005); Cruz (2008); Liu et al. (2006); Munguía et al.
sustainability, health, and safety (2010); Vujović et al. (2017)

Contingency plans Build emergency and contingency plans 12 Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008b); Christopher et al.
(2011); Hu (2011); Chand et al. (2015); Fazli et al. (2015);
Connelly et al. (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016);
Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016);

30
 Vujović et al. (2017); Rostamzadeh et al. (2018)

Develop a flexible supply chain 9 Tang (2006); Manuj and Mentzer (2008); Soni and Jain
(2011); Mickovski et al. (2013); Mohapatra et al. (2015);
Chen et al. (2016); Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016);
Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast (2016); Shenoi et al. (2016)

Insure against disasters 1 Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016)

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Discussion and future research directions

This section presents the proposed framework that integrates the other frameworks

found in our literature searchers and the environmental risks, consequences, and

strategies we defined to help practitioners to manage environmental supply chain risks.

The section also presents future research avenues to enhance the conceptual foundations

of environmental supply chain risk management towards the formalisation and

improvement of the field.

4.1 Towards a conceptual environmental risk framework

Figure 8 presents the framework we propose to synthesise the state of the art of

academic literature showing how the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies

relate to one another.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 8. Environmental Risk Management Framework

Three frameworks serve as a basis for the construction of Figure 7. Freise and

Seuring (2015) was a starting point to the proposed framework of this study. The

authors explored why companies in the clothing industry managed environmental and

social risks in their supply chain. In this, they tested five hypotheses related to external

and internal drivers and related to the supply chains characteristics. Regarding external

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

drivers, they include (i) stakeholder pressure and (ii) legal requirements. The internal

drivers encompass (iii) corporate orientation and (iv) competitive differentiation. The

last driver, (v) risk exposure of the supply chain, can be used to analyse the supply

chain characteristics and to understand the vulnerability of the environment in which

companies are operating. Thus, the drivers encompass both endogenous and exogenous

environmental risks.

Busse et al. (2017) highlight that drivers lead the companies to identify their

external and internal expectations. According to Thöni et al. (2013), the external drivers

such as the pressure of different stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations,

society, the media, and governmental regulatory requirements lead companies to adopt

corporate sustainability initiatives in anticipation of damages to or further pressure on

the company and its reputation. Regarding the internal drivers, companies proactively

increase corporate sustainability in their operations due to driving factors that represent

opportunities to improve its competitiveness, for example, reduce energy consumption

to reduce costs (Thöni et al., 2013). The last driver, risk exposure, can motivate

companies to develop contingency strategies in order to prepare themselves in case of

exogenous environmental risks.

The proposed framework considers the differentiation of the traditional supply

chain and the sustainable supply chain based on the diagram presented by Hofmann et

al. (2014). Given the environmental risks in the supply chain, discussed in Section 3.2,

if the companies do not react to the drivers, automatically they will not identify its

expectations and, consequently, they will not manage their environmental risks,

neglecting them. This will prompt a stakeholder reaction, and consequences will be felt

by the organisation and consequently by the supply chain. The consequences were

broadly discussed in the previous section and referenced in their categories in the

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

framework. If the company reacts positively to the drivers, consequently the company

will identify the expectations and an environmental supply chain risk management will

be developed by the company. To construct the phases of environmental supply chain

risk management (ESCRM), the work of Ceryno et al. (2013) has been adopted.

Ceryno et al. (2013) discuss and analyse SCRM based on the main pillars that

can be grouped into three different phases: Risk identification, Risk Assessment, and

Instruments for SCRM. Risk identification characterises the risk. Risk assessment

identifies the probability of the occurrence of the event, the risk level, and the risk

impact. The third phase considers the instruments of SCRM that compose risk

mitigation strategies.

ESCRM is developed based on these three phases of the SCRM and based on

the taxonomies of environmental risks and strategies presented in Section 3.2, also

referenced in their categories in the framework. In the first phase, Risk identification, the

endogenous and exogenous environmental risks are characterised, and in the third

phase, the environmental strategies are listed. The second phase, Risk Assessment,

identifies the risk impact and probability, but this aspect remains beyond the scope of

this work. However, this phase has been added to the framework because it constitutes

an important part of the SCRM process. Nevertheless, future studies may be needed to

detail the probabilities and impacts of environmental risks.

The proposed framework raises some relevant insights into what happens when

companies react or fail to react to these drivers. As managerial implications, the

framework suggests that the drivers should be considered in managing a company's

supply chain environmental risks. Thus, managers should consider the stakeholder's

expectations, companies’ internal expectations and also the vulnerability of the supply

chain to develop an environmental supply chain risk management, otherwise, there will

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

be a stakeholder effect/reaction and severe consequences will affect the companies. The

framework can be used by practitioners as a management tool to motivate them to

develop an integrated environmental risk management in their supply chains. Managers

should consider the interactions of the risks, consequences, and strategies to be aware of

the environmental risks that emanate from their supply chains as well as the

environmental risks that come from outside the chains.

4.2 Future research avenues

Based on our analysis, two perspectives of the environmental risks were identified and

considered in the study: the endogenous and exogenous perspectives. As a theoretical

insight, this study revealed the interaction that exists between the endogenous and

exogenous environmental risks and highlighted the features of them. According to the

Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit Report (2017), natural disasters, for example, are

increasingly linked to environmental pollution and climate change which made extreme

events more frequent, longer-lasting and more intense. Thus, there is a clear interaction

between these risks, which leads to the conclusion that future research efforts are

needed to investigate this interesting research topic more in depth.

Another theoretical insight of this study is associated with the development of

the framework, which relates the environmental risks, consequences, and strategies. The

proposed framework composes a basis of the academy view, allowing new researches to

validate, add or contrast the existing literature. Hence, as for future research avenues,

this study proposes the validation of the framework under different scenarios, contexts,

and industries. The environmental risks can be distinguished according to the type of

industry. In this sense, Levner and Ptuskin (2018) point out that although the types of

adverse environmental impacts are universal, the risk types should be specified for

every individual industrial enterprise.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To test the effectiveness of solutions proposed in the academic literature, Yu et

al. (2017) attach the relevance of carrying out empirical studies. The authors point out

the importance of the analyses of large samples to identify more potential risks and

interactions in different case studies. Thus, to strengthen the field and build a basis for a

comparison between academia and practice, case studies should be conducted across

various industries and companies with different supplier profiles. Case studies should

also consider different country perspectives to yield interesting insights from other

cultures, mainly due to the high frequency of research addressing the view of Asian

countries.

Moreover, case studies conducted in different economic and climatic regions

may result in different perceptions and effects of environmental risks. The region in

which the company is located, the exposure to the risk, the intensity of stakeholder

pressure and the legal requirements of the region will certainly influence the

environmental supply chain risk management. Besides, case studies may also reveal

other types of environmental risks or strategies that can be added to these taxonomies.

Future research should also focus on companies that successfully manage

sustainability risks, and particularly on how several suppliers can be managed towards

conducting sustainable business. Additionally, to more rigorously discuss stakeholders'

reactions, losses, and consequences, future research may address companies that have

neglected their environmental risks and suffered severe losses. In addition to case

studies, other methods may also be used to validate the proposed framework, such as

surveys and the validation of specialists. Finally, the development of a framework

integrating social and environmental risks is proposed to simultaneously reach two of

the three pillars of the triple bottom line, which may generate academic and practical

gains in this emergent area of sustainable risks in supply chains. To continue the review,

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the eighth step of the SLR - proposed by Thomé et al. (2016) - is further suggested as an

arena for future work.

5. Conclusion

This paper explored the research field of environmental supply chain risk management

through a systematic literature review based on 70 articles. We answered the two

research questions with the definition of taxonomies for the environmental risks,

consequences, and strategies covered by the academic literature, as well as proposed a

framework as a tool to synthesise the relationship between the environmental risks,

consequences and strategies addressed by the academic research.

The main criteria for this review, which are (a) quality and content of the

research; (b) quality, brevity and clarity of presentation; (c) significance, relevance and

timeliness of the topic, were contemplated, where the literature review process was

presented in detail and the studied topic and its relevance were presented through a

coherent and clear manner in the introductory section. As this study covered the

relevant literature in the studied field, the findings from the paper can be useful as input

to other analyses and decision-making for both academics and practitioners.

This study also has the potential to inspire future research in the area, as the

method adopted here is replicable, and the proposed taxonomies allow new studies to

validate, add, or contrast what already exists. Moreover, this review also contributes to

increasing the understanding of recent developments in environmental risks issues in

supply chains. The findings of our study reveal that the consequences for business

raised from the negligence of environmental risks go beyond financial consequences.

Companies may also face severe reputational consequences, boycotts from customers,

media exposure and loss of credibility that can be irreversible.

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A further contribution of this paper is the provision of a systematisation of the

existing knowledge on environmental risk management in supply chains. An interesting

finding of the systematic literature review is that two perspectives of the environmental

risks were identified: the endogenous and exogenous perspectives. Some studies pointed

out that the endogenous environmental risks are perceived to be more directly

controllable by supply chains since the actions to manage them are the responsibility of

the companies. Conversely, the exogenous risks are not directly controllable since they

occur unexpectedly, and contingency plans and flexible responses constitute the main

ways to deal with these types of risks.

It is also relevant to highlight that this paper is limited to “environmental risk

management” and the use of different keywords could lead to generate different results.

For example, this paper considers GHG emissions as an environmental risk factor. In

this sense, a considerable amount of papers in Green and Sustainable supply chain

addresses the same topic. However, they might not be found because of the keywords

limitation. The research is also limited to the Scopus and Web of Science databases,

which offer a comprehensive coverage of the academic literature but may not cover all

peer-reviewed publications. Further knowledge could be also found in grey literature

(theses, reports etc.). However, even if the list of documents included in this study may

not be considered exhaustive, it is comprehensive enough and delivers a reasonable

representation of the research carried out on environmental risk management in supply

chains. Finally, although the categorisations were elaborated following a rigorous

research process, involving judgments from the three authors in the content analysis

step, the identification of different categories could provide opportunities for additional

insights and interpretations.

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nevertheless, the taxonomies and the framework developed here can be

considered as an academic contribution and help practitioners identify the

environmental risks present in their supply chain, to be aware of the consequences that

the company may suffer and to manage environmental risks through effective strategies.

Building on the research findings presented in this literature review, this study

contributes to further research avenues in the development of environmental risk

management in supply chains.

References

Angell, Linda C., and Robert D. Klassen. 1999. "Integrating environmental

issues into the mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management." Journal

of Operations Management 17(5):575-598.

Bai, Libiao, Yi Li, Qiang Du, and Yadan Xu. 2017. “A Fuzzy Comprehensive

Evaluation Model for Sustainability Risk Evaluation of PPP Projects.” Sustainability

9(1):1890.

Blackburn, W. R. 2007. “The sustainability handbook: The complete

management guide to achieving 29 social, economic, and environmental responsibility.”

Environmental Law Institute.

Bode, Christoph, Stephan M. Wagner, Kenneth J. Petersen, and Lisa M. Ellram.

2011. “Understanding Responses to Supply Chain Disruptions: Insights from

Information Processing and Resource Dependence Perspectives.” Academy of

Management Journal 54(4):833-56.

Boström, Magnus, and Mikael Karlsson. 2013. "Responsible procurement,

complex product chains and the integration of vertical and horizontal governance."

Environmental Policy and Governance 23(6):381-394.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brewerton, Paul M., and Lynne J. Millward. 2001. “Organizational research

methods: A guide for students and researchers.” London: Sage Publications, 2001 Sage.

Busse, Christian, Martin C. Schleper, Jenny Weilenmann, and Stephan M.

Wagner. 2017. "Extending the supply chain visibility boundary: utilizing stakeholders

for identifying supply chain sustainability risks." International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management 47(1):18-40.

Carley, Judith A. "Establishing Key Waste Disposal and Recycling Performance

Indicators." 2005. In SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental

Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, pp. 263-267.

Carter, Craig R., and Marianne M. Jennings. 2004. "The role of purchasing in

corporate social responsibility: a structural equation analysis." Journal of business

Logistics 25(1):145-186.

Ceryno, Paula Santos, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Katja Klingebiel, and Gökhan

Yüzgülec. 2013. "Supply chain risk management: a content analysis approach."

International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 4(3):141-150.

Chand, Mahesh, Tilak Raj, and Ravi Shankar. 2015. "Risk mitigations strategy

in supply chain planning and control: an ANP approach." International Journal of

Productivity and Quality Management 16(1):92-113.

Chen, Amy, Chih-Ying Hsieh, and H. M. Wee. 2016. "A resilient global

supplier selection strategy—a case study of an automotive company." The International

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 87 (5-8):1475-1490.

Chen, Pi-Cheng, Douglas Crawford-Brown, Chi-Hui Chang, and Hwong-wen

Ma. 2014. "Identifying the drivers of environmental risk through a model integrating

substance flow and input–output analysis." Ecological Economics 107:94-103.

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chen, Pi-Cheng, Hung-Jen Su, and Hwong-Wen Ma. 2013. "Trace

anthropogenic arsenic in Taiwan—substance flow analysis as a tool for environmental

risk management." Journal of Cleaner Production 53:13-21.

Christopher, Martin, Carlos Mena, Omera Khan, and Oznur Yurt. 2011.

“Approches to Managing Global Sourcing Risk.” Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal. 16(2):67-81.

Coalition, Electronic Industry Citizenship. 2014. "Electronic Industry

Citizenship Coalition® Code of Conduct."

Connelly, Elizabeth B., James H. Lambert, and Shital A. Thekdi. 2016. "Robust

investments in humanitarian logistics and supply chains for disaster resilience and

sustainable communities." Natural Hazards Review 17(1):04015017.

Cooper, H., 2010. Fourth ed. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-

step approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 2. Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Cousins, Paul D., Richard C. Lamming, and Frances Bowen. 2004. "The role of

risk in environment-related supplier initiatives." International Journal of Operations &

Production Management 24.6: 554-565.

Cronin, P., F. Ryan, and M. Coughlan. 2008 . “Undertaking a Literature Review:

A Step-by-Step Approach.” British Journal of Nursing 17(1):38–43.

Cruz, Jose M. 2008. "Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social

responsibility through integrated environmental decision-making." European Journal of

Operational Research 184(3): 1005-1031.

Cuesta, Victor, and Masaru Nakano. 2017. "Chain of command: A sustainable

supply chain management serious game." International Journal of Automation

Technology 11 (4):552-562.

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Cunha, L., Ceryno, P., & Leiras, A. 2019. “Social Supply Chain Risk

Management: a taxonomy, a framework and a research agenda”. Journal of Cleaner

Production.

Dai, Zhuo. 2016. "Multi-objective fuzzy design of closed-loop supply chain

network considering risks and environmental impact." Human and Ecological Risk

Assessment: An International Journal 22(4):845-873.

Dogaru, D., Zobrist, J., Balteanu, D., Popescu, C., Sima, M., Amini, M., &

Yang, H. 2009. “Community Perception of Water Quality in a Mining-Affected Area: A

Case Study for the Certej Catchment in the Apuseni Mountains in Romania.”

Environmental Management 43(6):1131-45.

Dües, Christina Maria, Kim Hua Tan, and Ming Lim. 2013. "Green as the new

Lean: how to use Lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain." Journal of

Cleaner Production 40:93-100.

Duriau, Vincent J., Rhonda K. Reger, and Michael D. Pfarrer. 2007. "A content

analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data

sources, and methodological refinements." Organizational research methods 10 (1): 5-

34.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. "Building theories from case study research."

Academy of management review 14(4):532-550.

Elkington, J. 1994.” Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the third

millennium.” Australian CPA 69:75.

Ellram, L.M.; Murfield, M.L.U. 2017. “Environmental Sustainability in Freight

Transportation: A Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for Future Research”.

Transportation Journal 56(3) 263-298.

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Evangelista, Pietro; Santoro, Lodovico; Thomas, Antonio. 2018.

“Environmental sustainability in third-party logistics service providers: A systematic

literature review from 2000–2016”. Sustainability 10(5): 1627.

Fahimnia, Behnam; Sarkis, joseph; Davarzani, Hoda. 2015.”Green supply chain

management: A review and bibliometric analysis”. International Journal of Production

Economics 162:101-114.

Faisal, M. N., 2009. “Prioritization of risks in supply chains”.

In:Wu,T.,Blackhurst,J. (Eds.), Managing Supply Chain Risk and Vulnerability, vols.41–

66. Springer.

Fazli, Safar, Reza Kiani Mavi, and Mohammadali Vosooghidizaji. 2015. "Crude

oil supply chain risk management with DEMATEL–ANP." Operational Research

15(3):453-480.

Ferreira, F. D. A. L., Scavarda, L. F., Ceryno, P. S., & Leiras, A. 2018. “Supply

chain risk analysis: a shipbuilding industry case”. International Journal of Logistics

Research and Applications, 21(5), 542-556.

Foroozesh, N., R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, and S. Meysam Mousavi. 2018.

"Sustainable-supplier selection for manufacturing services: a failure mode and effects

analysis model based on interval-valued fuzzy group decision-making." The

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 95(9-12):3609-3629.

Freise, Matthias, and Stefan Seuring. 2015 "Social and environmental risk

management in supply chains: a survey in the clothing industry." Logistics

Research 8(1):2.

Ganguly, Anirban, and Debdeep Chatterjee. 2016. "Using multiple criteria

approach to evaluate risks associated with supply chain sustainability." Proceedings of

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management pp.

206-216.

Gao, Yue, Zhiwei Li, Fangming Wang, Fang Wang, Raymond R. Tan, Jun Bi,

and Xiaoping Jia. 2018. "A game theory approach for corporate environmental risk

mitigation.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 130: 240-247.

Giannakis, Mihalis and Thanos Papadopoulos. 2016. “Supply Chain

Sustainability: A Risk Management Approach.” International Journal of Production

Economics 171:455–70.

Glickman, Theodore S., and Susan C. White. 2007. "Safety at the source: green

chemistry's impact on supply chain management and risk." International Journal of

Procurement Management 1(1-2):227-237.

Göçer, Aysu, Stanley Fawcett, and Okan Tuna. 2018. "What Does the

Sustainability-Risk Interaction Look Like? Exploring Nuanced Relationships in

Emerging Economy Sustainability Initiatives." Sustainability 10(8):2716.

Gouda, Sirish Kumar, and Haritha Saranga. 2018. "Sustainable supply chains for

supply chain sustainability: impact of sustainability efforts on supply chain

risk." International Journal of Production Research 1-16.

Govindan, Kannan, Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, and V. Cruz-

Machado. 2014. "Impact of supply chain management practices on sustainability."

Journal of Cleaner Production 85:212-225.

GRI, 2013. Sustainability Report Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative,

Amsterdam. Accessed February 2019.

https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/grig4-part1-reporting-principles-and-

standard-disclosures.pdf.

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gupta, Anil K., Inakollu V. Suresh, Jyoti Misra, and Mohammad Yunus. 2002.

"Environmental risk mapping approach: risk minimization tool for development of

industrial growth centres in developing countries." Journal of Cleaner Production 10(3):

271-281.

Herold, D.M.; Lee, K.-H. 2017. “Carbon management in the logistics and

transportation sector: An overview and new research directions”. Carbon Management

8(1) 79-97.

Hilgers, Michael G., Cassandra C. Elrod, and Jonathan B. Kampunzu. 2013.

"Supply chain dynamics relief of sudden-onset disasters." International journal of

emergency management 9(2):93-112.

Ho, William, Tian Zheng, Hakan Yildiz, and Srinivas Talluri. 2015. “Supply

Chain Risk Management: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Production

Research 53 (16): 5031–5069.

Hofmann, Hannes, Christian Busse, Christoph Bode, and Michael Henke. 2014.

“Sustainability-Related Supply Chain Risks: Conceptualization and Management.”

Business Strategy and the Environment 23(3):160–72.

Hu, Zhi-Hua. 2011. “A container multimodal transportation scheduling approach

based on immune affinity model for emergency relief.” Expert Systems with

Applications 38(3):2632-2639.

Huang, Lu, Jing-Sheng Song, and Jordan Tong. 2016. "Supply chain planning

for random demand surges: Reactive capacity and safety stock." Manufacturing &

Service Operations Management 18(4):509-524.

J.E. Van Aken, H. Berends, H. Van Der Bij. 2007. “Problem Solving in

Organizations: a Methodological Handbook for Business Students”. Cambridge

University Press, United Kingdom.

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jüttner, Uta, Helen Peck, and Martin Christopher. 2003. "Supply chain risk

management: outlining an agenda for future research." International Journal of

Logistics: Research and Applications 6(4):197-210.

Kamalahmadi, Masoud, and Mahour Mellat-Parast. 2016. "Developing a

resilient supply chain through supplier flexibility and reliability assessment."

International Journal of Production Research 54(1): 302-321.

Karmakar, Snigdha, Sujit Kumar De, and A. Goswami. 2017. "A pollution

sensitive dense fuzzy economic production quantity model with cycle time dependent

production rate." Journal of Cleaner Production 154:139-150.

Kowalska, Izabela Jonek. 2014. “Risk Management in the Hard Coal Mining

Industry: Social and Environmental Aspects of Collieries’ Liquidation.” Resources

Policy 41(1):124–34.

Kuo, Tsai Chi, Chia-Wei Hsu, and Jie-Ying Li. 2015. "Developing a green

supplier selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR." Sustainability 7(2):1661-

1689.

Kwesi-Buor, John, David A. Menachof, and Risto Talas. 2016. "Scenario

analysis and disaster preparedness for port and maritime logistics risk

management." Accident Analysis & Prevention.

Lee, Ki-Hoon. 2011. "Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain

management: the case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry.".

Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (11):1216-1223.

Levner, Eugene, and Alexander Ptuskin. 2018. "Entropy-based model for the

ripple effect: managing environmental risks in supply chains." International Journal of

Production Research 56(7): 2539-2551.

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Levner, Eugene, David Alcaide Lopez de Pablo, and Jacques Ganoulis. 2008.

"Risk management of transboundary water resources using the green supply chain

approach." International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management10(4):357-372.

Liu, Liping, Jianhua Ji, Tijun Fan, Lili Qi, and Zhe Wu. 2006. "Risk

management in chemical industry supply chain." In Service Operations and Logistics,

and Informatics. IEEE International Conference on, pp. 415-418.

Manning, Louise. 2008. "The impact of water quality and availability on food

production." British Food Journal 110(8):762-780.

Manuj, I. and John T. Mentzer. 2008b. “Global Supply Chain Risk Management

Strategies.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

38(3):192–223.

Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. 2008a, “Global supply chain risk management

strategies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,

Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 192-223.

Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. 2008b, “Global supply chain risk management”,

Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 133-56.

Marchet, G.; Melacini, M.; Perotti, S. 2014. “Environmental sustainability in

logistics and freight transportation: A literature review and research agenda”. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management 25(6) 775-811.

Marconi, Marco, Eugenia Marilungo, Alessandra Papetti, and Michele Germani.

2017. "Traceability as a means to investigate supply chain sustainability: the real case of

a leather shoe supply chain." International Journal of Production Research 55(22):6638-

6652.

Mayring, Philipp. 2000. "Qualitative Content Analysis”. Forum Qual.

Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-10.

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Meinel, Ulrike, and Bruno Abegg. 2017. "A multi-level perspective on climate

risks and drivers of entrepreneurial robustness–Findings from sectoral comparison in

alpine Austria." Global environmental change 44:68-82.

Merz, Mirjam, Michael Hiete, Tina Comes, and Frank Schultmann. 2013. “A

composite indicator model to assess natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level.”

Journal of Risk Research 16 (9):1077-1099.

Mickovski, Slobodan B., James D. Black, and Martyn J. Smith. 2013.

"Innovative use of ECC (NEC3) for procurement and management of infrastructure

projects with limited funding: Bervie Braes case study." Proceedings 29th Annual

Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference, ARCOM 2013

Mohapatra, Priyabrata, Sourabh Nanda, and Tanmoy Adhikari. 2015.

"Resilience measurement of a global supply chain network." Proceedings of 2015 IEEE

9th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control, ISCO 2015

Mongeon, Philippe and Adèle Paul-Hus. 2016. “The Journal Coverage of Web of

Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis.” Scientometrics 106(1):213–28.

Multaharju, Sirpa, Katrina Lintukangas, Jukka Hallikas, and Anni-Kaisa

Kähkönen. 2017. "Sustainability-related risk management in buying logistics services:

An exploratory cross-case analysis." The International Journal of Logistics

Management 28 (4):1351-1367.

Munguía, Nora, Andrea Zavala, Amina Marin, Rafael Moure-Eraso, and Luis

Velazquez. 2010. "Identifying pollution prevention opportunities in the Mexican auto

refinishing industry." Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

21(3):324-335.

Oldham, Jennie, and Votta, Tom. 2003. “Chemical Management Services

Greening the Supply Chain”. Greener Management International (41), pp. 89-100.

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Paksoy, Turan, Nimet Yapici Pehlivan, and Eren Özceylan. 2012. "Fuzzy multi-

objective optimization of a green supply chain network with risk management that

includes environmental hazards." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An

International Journal 18(5):1120-1151.

Parahoo, Kader. 2006. “Nursing Research – principles, process and issues”. 2nd

edn. Palgrave, Houndsmill.

Peng, Min, Yi Peng, and Hong Chen. 2014. "Post-seismic supply chain risk

management: A system dynamics disruption analysis approach for inventory and

logistics planning." Computers & Operations Research 42:14-24.

pp.799-808.

Prakash, Surya, Gunjan Soni, Ajay Pal Singh Rathore, and Shubhender Singh.

2017. "Risk analysis and mitigation for perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy

industry." Benchmarking: An International Journal 24(1):2-23.

Qin, Jin, and Lu Zhang. 2013. "Risk analysis of E-tourism service supply chain."

Proceedings - Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 6517647

Rao, Shashank, and Thomas J. Goldsby. 2009. "Supply chain risks: a review and

typology." The International Journal of Logistics Management 20(1):97-123.

Rebs, Tobias, Marcus Brandenburg, and Stefan Seuring. 2018. "System

dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and

systems thinking approach." Journal of Cleaner Production.

Reefke, Hendrik, and David Sundaram. 2017. "Key themes and research

opportunities in sustainable supply chain management–identification and

evaluation." Omega 66: 195-211.

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Reinerth, Dagmar, Christian Busse, and Stephan M. Wagner. 2018. "Using

Country Sustainability Risk to Inform Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A

Design Science Study." Journal of Business Logistics.

Rostamzadeh, Reza, Mehdi Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Kannan Govindan, Ahmad

Esmaeili, and Hossein Bodaghi Khajeh Nobar. 2018. "Evaluation of sustainable supply

chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-CRITIC approach." Journal

of Cleaner Production 175:651-669.

Rousseau, D.M.; Manning, J.; Denyer, D. 2008. “Evidence in Management and

Organizational Science: Assembling the Field’s Full Weight of Scientific Knowledge

through Syntheses”. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2, 475–515.

Ruifang, Mou. 2010. “Environmental risk assessment model on dangerous

goods during transportation”. Proceedings of 2010 8th International Conference on

Supply Chain Management and Information Systems: Logistics Systems and

Engineering 5681668.

Samvedi, Avinash, Vipul Jain, and Felix TS Chan. 2013. "Quantifying risks in a

supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS." International

Journal of Production Research 51(8): 2433-2442.

Schulte, Jesko, and Sophie Hallstedt. 2017. "Challenges for integrating

sustainability in risk management–current state of research." Proceedings of the

International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2 (DS87-2), pp. 327-336.

Seuring, Stefan, and Martin Müller. 2008. "From a literature review to a

conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management." Journal of Cleaner

Production 16(15):1699-1710.

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seuring, Stefan, and Stefan Gold. 2012. "Conducting content-analysis based

literature reviews in supply chain management." Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal 17 (5):544-555.

Shankar, Ravi, Divya Choudhary, and Sanjay Jharkharia. 2018. "An integrated

risk assessment model: A case of sustainable freight transportation systems."

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 63:662-676.

Shenoi, V. Viswanath, TN Srikantha Dath, and Chandrasekharan Rajendran.

2016. "Supply chain risk management in the Indian manufacturing context: a conceptual

framework." International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 25(3):313-

335.

Sinha, Pankaj, Raj, Larry E. Whitman, and Don Malzahn. 2004. "Methodology

to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace supply chain." Supply Chain Management: an

International Journal 9(2):154-168.

Song, Wenyan, Xinguo Ming, and Hu-Chen Liu. 2017. "Identifying critical risk

factors of sustainable supply chain management: A rough strength-relation analysis

method." Journal of Cleaner Production 143:100-115.

Soni, Umang, and Vipul Jain. 2011. "Minimizing the vulnerabilities of supply

chain: A new framework for enhancing the resilience." In Industrial Engineering and

Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 933-

939.

Swarr, Thomas E., H. James Cline, Soontae Jeong, David A. Dickinson, and

Reggie J. Caudill. 2004. "Evaluating supply line sustainability and business

environmental risk." In Electronics and the Environment, 2004. Conference Record.

2004 IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 264-269.

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tang, Christopher S. 2006. "Perspectives in supply chain risk management."

International journal of production economics 103(2):451-488.

Thomé, Antônio Márcio Tavares, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, and Annibal José

Scavarda. 2016. “Conducting Systematic Literature Review in Operations

Management.” Production Planning & Control 27(5):408–20.

Thöni, A., L. Madlberger, and A. Schatten. 2013. “Companies as Drivers of

Sustainability - Towards Requirements for an Integrative Sustainability Risk

Management System.” Proc. of the 6th Int. Workshop on SAME 2013 – Workshop

Defining the Research Agenda for Inf. Management and Systems Supporting

Sustainable Communities with Smart Media and Automated Systems (2):1–7.

Torraco, Richard J. 2005. “Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines

and Examples.” Human Resource Development Review 4(3):356–67.

Torres-Ruiz, Aineth, and A. Ravi Ravindran. 2018. "Multiple criteria framework

for the sustainability risk assessment of a supplier portfolio." Journal of Cleaner

Production 172:4478-4493.

Trkman, P., & McCormack, K. 2009. “Supply chain risk in turbulent

environments—A conceptual model for managing supply chain network

risk”. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(2), 247-258.

Valinejad, Fatemeh, and Donya Rahmani. 2018. "Sustainability risk

management in the supply chain of telecommunication companies: A case

study." Journal of Cleaner Production 203:53-67.

Vujović, Aleksandar, Aleksandar Đorđević, Ranka Gojković, and Milan Borota.

2017. "ABC Classification of Risk Factors in Production Supply Chains with Uncertain

Data." Mathematical Problems in Engineering.

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Xiaofeng, Xiang. "Pilot Experimental Study of New Urea Hydrolysis for

DeNOx in Coal Plant." 2017. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Power

Division (Publication) POWER 2.

Yu, T., Shen, G. Q., Shi, Q., Lai, X., Li, C. Z., & Xu, K. 2017. “Managing

Social Risks at the Housing Demolition Stage of Urban Redevelopment Projects: A

Stakeholder-Oriented Study Using Social Network Analysis.” International Journal of

Project Management 35(6):925–41

Zhao, Rui, Gareth Neighbour, Jiaojie Han, Michael McGuire, and Pauline

Deutz. 2012. "Using game theory to describe strategy selection for environmental risk

and carbon emissions reduction in the green supply chain." Journal of Loss Prevention

in the Process Industries 25(6):27-936.

Zhu, Qinghua, Joseph Sarkis, and Kee-hung Lai. 2008. "Confirmation of a

measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation."

International journal of production economics 111(2): 261-273.

Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Breun, P., & Schultmann, F. 2017. “Assessing social

risks of global supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to

supplier selection in the German automotive industry”. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 149, 96-109.

54