sustainable supply chain management across the uk private sector-1

Sustainable supply chain management acrossthe UK private sector

Helen Walker

Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, and

Neil JonesAlliance Boots, Nottingham, UK

AbstractPurpose – Increasingly, private sector companies are aiming to buy and supply products and services in a sustainable way, termed “sustainable supplychain management” (sustainable SCM), using purchasing and supply to reduce negative impacts on the environment, economy and society. There isoften a gap between rhetoric and reality, with companies often accused of paying green lip service to sustainable SCM. This research aims to exploresustainable SCM issues in companies that have been recognized as leaders in their sectors, and investigate what factors influence sustainable SCM, andhow practice might change in the future.Design/methodology/approach – Current practice in sustainable SCM and predictions for the future were explored in case studies of seven UKcompanies, through semi-structured interviews with purchasers and CSR practitioners, and secondary data collection from reports and websites. Sectorsincluded aerospace, retail, pharmaceuticals, and food and drink.Findings – Companies were mapped onto a typology of approaches to sustainable SCM, based on internal and external enablers and barriers.Companies were classified as Internal focusers, Reserved players, External responders, and Agenda setters. Predictions for the future of sustainableSCM within the companies were also explored.Research limitations/implications – The typology could be further explored through a survey of firms from different sectors, and with firms not seenas leading in their field.Originality/value – The paper draws on contingency theory and existing sustainable SCM literature to develop a typology of approaches tosustainable SCM. The paper draws useful lessons from leading companies for practitioners seeking to implement sustainable SCM.

Keywords Case studies, Corporate responsibility, Sustainable supply chains, Sustainable development, Supply chain management, United Kingdom,Multiple retailers

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

It is no longer enough for firms to be concerned only withseeking a profit - they should also give something back tosociety at large, minimize their negative impacts on theenvironment and have some responsibility for the behaviourof their suppliers on issues such as child labour, health andsafety and pollution. Supply chain management (SCM) is themanagement of a network of interconnected organisationsinvolved in the provision of product and services to endcustomers (Harland, 1996). There has been increasinginterest in recent years in how organisations addresssustainability in their supply chains, which has beendescribed as SCM that incorporates the triple bottom lineof sustainability. Sustainable SCM means that organisationsare held responsible for the environmental and socialperformance of their suppliers.In this paper we define sustainable SCM as the pursuit of

sustainability objectives through the purchasing and supplyprocess, incorporating social, economic and environmental

elements. Sustainable SCM incorporates a variety of concepts

such as environmental or green SCM, where firms seek to

minimize negative environmental impacts in their supply

chains. It also includes the consideration of social issues in the

supply chain, such as ensuring suppliers have decent working

conditions, or ensuring goods are sourced ethically and fairly

along the supply chain. The economic aspect of sustainable

SCM can include buying from local suppliers to support local

economic regeneration. Organisations vary in the focus of

their sustainable supply chain activities, with some firms

putting greater emphasis on green issues and others

prioritising social aspects.Organisations face barriers and enablers to sustainable

SCM (Seuring and Muller, 2008), and these can be either

internal or external to the organisation (Hervani et al., 2005;Walker et al., 2008). What is less clear from previous research

is whether certain types of organisations are more internally or

externally motivated to engage in sustainable SCM. In this

research we aim to delve deeper into whether the support (or

constraint) for sustainable SCM lies within or outside a firm,

and develop a typology with which to classify organisations.

Firms differ in what causes them to engage in sustainable

SCM, with some firms being driven from within by their top

management to engage in sustainable supply issues, and

others responding reactively to outside influences such as

stakeholder pressures or customer requirements. The

approach to sustainable SCM is contingent on the context

and circumstances that the firm operates in. In this study, we

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

17/1 (2012) 15–28

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]

[DOI 10.1108/13598541211212177]

15

adopt a contingency theory perspective to explore theapproaches that seven large firms have to sustainable SCM.A contingency theory perspective is appropriate in thisresearch because we assume there is no one right way toapproach sustainable SCM, and that the best course of actionis contingent upon the internal and external situation.The following research questions are addressed in this

paper:. How do organisations vary in perceptions of internal and

external enablers and barriers to sustainable SCMpractices?

. How do organisations vary in predictions for the future ofsustainable SCM?

The contributions of this research are threefold. First, itexplores the practices of leading firms in sustainable SCM,providing lessons for organisations seeking to improve theirsustainable SCM practices. Second, the paper adopts acontingency theory perspective and brings together existingliterature to develop a typology of sustainable SCMapproaches, based on the variety of organisational approachesto sustainable SCM, and the best practice case studies aremapped onto this typology. Third, it explores predictions of thefuture of sustainable SCM within companies, to gauge wheresustainable SCM practices might head in years to come.The paper is structured as follows. A literature review

follows that introduces a contingency theory perspective andthen draws on previous research to develop a typology forsustainable SCM based on whether an organization isinfluenced more by external or internal enablers andbarriers. The methodology for the study is then presented.The next section outlines the findings of the study, which arethen discussed in the context of the literature. The sevenleading companies are classified according to the typology,and predictions for the future of sustainable SCM arediscussed. Finally, conclusions are drawn, includingimplications for practitioners and future research.

Literature review

Theoretical underpinnings: a contingency approach

This section sets out the theoretical underpinnings of thepaper. In this study, we adopt a contingency theory approachto sustainable SCM. Early proponents of contingency theoryinclude Lawrence and Lorsch, and Burns and Woodward(Burns and Stalker, 1961; Woodward, 1965; Lawrence andLorsch, 1967). Contingency theory suggests no singleorganizational structure is inherently more efficient than allothers. Since organizations differ in the tasks they performand environments they face, the appropriate organizationalstructure is in each case a function of such factors astechnology, market, and the predictability of tasks.A contingency theory perspective has been adopted in

supply chain management studies (Fisher, 1997; Lee, 2002;Stonebraker and Afifi, 2004; Ketokivi, 2006; Buttermannet al., 2008) and in studies of environmental SCM (Bowenet al., 2001a; Kogg, 2003; Stonebraker and Liao, 2006). Thisstudy aims to develop a typology of organisational responsesto sustainable SCM, based on perceptions of internal andexternal barriers and enablers.

Literature review of sustainable SCM contingent factors

Previous research has identified that organisations can face avariety of barriers and enablers to sustainable SCM (Seuring

and Muller, 2008), and that these can be either internal or

external to the organisation (Hervani et al., 2005; Walker et al.,2008). Internal enablers can be differentiated between

broader organisational factors and those specific to thepurchasing and supply function. Broad organisational issues

include having top management commitment (Min andGalle, 2001) and a supportive culture (Carter and Jennings,

2004; Hughes, 2005). The involvement of employees is alsobeneficial (Hanna et al., 2000) including middle management

(Drumwright, 1994; New et al., 2000). Sustainable SCM isalso benefited by adopting an Environmental ManagementSystem (EMS) (Chen, 2005; Handfield et al., 2005; Darnall

et al., 2008). Proactivity in sustainable SCM may lead to firmcompetitiveness (Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Zhu et al.,2005) or help manage reputational and environmental risk(Carter and Carter, 1998; Schwartz, 2000; Hall, 2001;

Cousins et al., 2004; Teuscher et al., 2006).Looking more specifically at the purchasing and supply

function, developing capabilities is important (Jennings andZandbergen, 1995; Green et al., 1996b; Maignan et al.,2002), and specifying a sustainable SCM strategy is of benefit(Drumwright, 1994; Hanna et al., 2000; Hervani et al., 2005),and ensuring it aligns with corporate strategy (Narasimhan

and Das, 2001; Day and Lichtenstein, 2006). Other internalcorporate social responsibility (CSR) practices can influence

sustainable SCM (Meehan et al., 2006).External drivers come from a range of stakeholders. Large

customers may influence smaller suppliers to meet sustainableSCM practices (Walton et al., 1998; Hall, 2000, 2001), and

exert pressure in the supply chain (Handfield et al., 1997).Collaboration with suppliers is important for sustainable SCM

(Seuring and Muller, 2007; Sharfman et al., 2007; Vachon andKlassen, 2007; Verghese and Lewis, 2007; Vachon and

Klassen, 2008). Sustainable SCM can enhance competitiveadvantage (Forman and Sogaard, 2004; Preuss, 2007).Governments are influential through policy (Carter and

Ellram, 1998; Linton et al., 2007) and regulation (Hall,2000; Min and Galle, 2001; Preuss, 2005; Zhu et al., 2005).NGOs exert pressure on firms (Hall, 2001; Maignan et al.,2002), as do investors (Green et al., 1996a; Trowbridge, 2001).Moving to barriers to sustainable SCM, a distinction can

been drawn between large and small firms, with larger firms

more likely to engage in sustainable SCM (Min and Galle,2001; Hervani et al., 2005). Other barriers include a lack of

supportive corporate structures and processes (Griffiths andPetrick, 2001; United Nations, 2003; Walker et al., 2008), alack of management commitment (Carter and Dresner, 2001;Min and Galle, 2001), and a reliance on traditional accountingmethods, which do not facilitate reporting on the triple bottom

line (Rao and Holt, 2005). A focus on cost reduction can runcounter to sustainable SCM (Min and Galle, 1997; 2001;

Sustainable Procurement Taskforce, 2005). Looking at thepurchasing and supply function, sustainable SCM can be

hindered by a lack of training (Cooper et al., 2000; Bowen et al.,2001b) and understanding (Cooper et al., 2000) and having

other SCM priorities (Tummala et al., 2006).External barriers include consumer desire for lower prices

(Orsato, 2006), competitive pressures (Cooper et al., 2000),and greenwashing (Greer and Bruno, 1996). Government

regulation can inhibit sustainable SCM (Porter and Van deLinde, 1995), as can a lack of commitment amongst suppliers(Wycherley, 1999; Walker et al., 2008), and industry type

(Min and Galle, 2001; Zhu and Sarkis, 2006).

Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector

Helen Walker and Neil Jones


Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

16

In sum, the literature reviewed in the sections above hasidentified internal and external enablers and barriers tosustainable SCM. These are summarized in Figure 1.

The future of sustainable SCM

Previous research has made predictions for supply, but notspecifically for sustainable SCM. For example, a five-yearforecast for supply shows academics have been making someeffort to try to look ahead (Carter and Smeltzer, 2003).Studies have brought practitioners and academics together totry to predict the future for purchasing and supply 20 yearsinto the future (Harland et al., 1999). Predictions for thefuture of consumer demand for environmentally productsexist (Carter and Narasimhan, 1998). This research enquiresinto what the future holds for sustainable SCM.

Developing a typology

It is apparent from the literature review that a variety ofbarriers and enablers influence organisations in their

approach to sustainable supply chain management, and that

these can be internal and external to the organisation. As an

outcome of the literature review, we are seeking to develop a

typology to help classify the variety of pressures and

organisational responses to sustainable SCM.Several existing models show how organisations differ in

their response to CSR and sustainable SCM, and go through

stages from basic to more advanced (Carroll, 1979; Cousins

et al., 2004; Department for Environment Food and Rural

Affairs, 2006; International Institute for Sustainable

Development, 2006). In our typology, four types of

companies can be observed. “Internally focused”

organisations are more influenced by internal factors (for

example, employee involvement and management

commitment). “Reserved Players” perceive external enablers

yet face internal barriers. “Agenda Setters” are affected by

enablers internal to the firm, and are less influenced by

external barriers. “External Responders” are more likely to be

influenced by aspects from outside the organisational

Figure 1 Enablers and barriers identified during the literature review




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

17

boundaries, including customer, NGO, and Government

pressure. The framework is presented in Figure 2, with scales

included to assist in positioning organisations on the typology,as discussed in the findings section.

Method and analysis

This study chose to adopt a qualitative approach to

investigation, adopting a case study approach which is

beneficial when the subject of interest is in its infancy(Eisenhardt, 1989), and when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are

being asked (Yin, 2003), which seems applicable to

sustainable SCM in the private sector.In this study, an explorative study was conducted in the

summer of 2006 based on interviews from seven differentorganisations, to explore barriers and enablers to sustainable

SCM practices. Participating organisations were sought

through the Corporate Responsibility Group, a body ofpractitioners that seeks to work together and share learning on

the wider CSR topic. Of the twelve companies emailed, seven

agreed to take part. The companies agreeing to participate aredescribed in Table I, and the company names were made

anonymous to encourage openness of response frominterviewees. Conducting multiple case studies provided the

opportunity to increase the analytical generalisability of the

findings (Yin, 2003).Companies were chosen because they had been recognized

as leaders in sustainable SCM in their sectors (see Table II).

Long-standing work, in most cases going back at least five toten years, was evident in all seven companies. Interviews were

also conducted with the Chartered Institute of Purchasingand Supply (CIPS) and Business in The Community (BiTC

– a charity with 700 þ company members committed to

improving the positive impact of businesses on society), toprovide professional and expert perspectives.The unit of analysis for the study was sustainable SCM

projects or initiatives that the organisation engaged in orplanned for the future. Fourteen semi-structured face-to-face

interviews were conducted with at least one senior manager in

each organisation. Interviews lasted about one hour, due to

time constraints because of the seniority of some of the

interviewees. The participants included five Directors/ Heads

of CSR, four purchasing specialists, and five CSR or supplies

managers. All interviews were taped and transcribed, and

participants reviewed a draft case study report.Secondary data was collected from reports and web sites,

including annual reports, environmental/CSR policies,

supplier evaluation questionnaires and internal newsletters.

Triangulation with these secondary data sources was

conducted to enhance the validity and reliability of the

study (Yin, 2003).The use of protocols is advocated to enhance the reliability

of case studies (Yin, 2003), and an interview protocol was

developed on the basis of the reviewed literature. Interview

questions included:. Please can you describe what your company does in the

way of sustainable SCM?. How long has your company been active in sustainable

SCM?. Is sustainable SCM activity company-wide? Which

function is responsible?. What factors have led to these practices being carried out?. Which factors have been most important?. What have been the enablers you feel have helped make

progress?. What have been the barriers or constraints you feel have

held back progress?. Looking to the next three to five years, how do you see the

future for sustainable SCM practices?. Will there be consolidation or will there be developments

in sustainable development activity; what other changes

do you foresee that could affect sustainable procurement

here?

An analytical framework drawn from the literature review was

employed, which functioned as a “shell” for the gathered data

(Miles and Huberman, 1994), with additional categories

added based on interviewee comments. The analysis was

conducted iteratively through the course of data collection,

and the authors independently coded and compared their

coding structures to ensure similar themes were emerging,

and enhance reliability. The factors identified from the

literature review showed a good degree of fit with those

observed in the case studies, providing evidence of internal

validity.

Findings and discussion

The frequency of observations from the seven case studies is

presented in Table III. This allowed us to position the

organisations within the typology, and assisted us in

identifying dominant factors and making comparisons across

the cases. However, we retained the richness of the case data

by providing examples below of the specific barriers and

enablers given by the case organisations.The analysis revealed that most of the themes identified in

the literature review were observable within the case

organisations. However, some additional themes were

identified which are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 2 Typology of organisational responses to sustainable supplychain management




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

18

Table

ID

escr

iptio

nof

part

icip

atin

gco

mpa

nies

RetailCo

Gen

eral

retailer

PharmaC

o

Pharmaceu

tical

AeroCo

Defen

ce

Enginee

rCo

Aviationan

ddefen

ce

Supermarke

tCo

Foodretailer

FoodCo

Foodproducer

Beverag

eCo

Beverag

e

producer

Description

Ale

adin

g

inte

rnat

iona

l

phar

mac

y-le

dhe

alth

and

beau

tyre

taile

r

Are

sear

ch-b

ased

phar

mac

eutic

al

com

pany

oper

atin

g

inm

ore

than

100

coun

trie

s

Agl

obal

com

pany

enga

ged

inth

e

deve

lopm

ent,

deliv

ery,

and

supp

ort

ofde

fenc

e

aero

spac

esy

stem

s

Apr

ovid

erof

pow

er

syst

ems

and

serv

ices

tofo

ur

glob

alm

arke

ts(c

ivil

aero

spac

e,de

fenc

e

aero

spac

e,m

arin

e,an

d

ener

gy)

Ale

adin

gfo

od

reta

iler

with

inte

rest

sin

finan

cial

serv

ices

Ale

adin

gnu

triti

on

and

heal

th

com

pany

Aw

orld

lead

ing

prem

ium

drin

ks

busi

ness

trad

ing

in

over

than

180

coun

trie

s

Annual

turnover

£11.

9bn

£22.

7bn

£15.

7bn

£7.4

bn£1

9.3b

n£6

5.6b

n£9

.9bn

Number

ofem

ployees

110,

000

glob

ally

100,

000

97,5

0038

,000

150,

000

276,

050

glob

ally

22,0

00

CSR

/sustainab

le/environmen

tal

policy?

Yes,

avai

labl

eon

web

site

Yes,

avai

labl

eon

web

site

Yes,

avai

labl

eon

web

site

Yes,

avai

labl

eon

web

site

Yes,

onw

ebsi

teYe

s,su

pplie

rco

de

onw

ebsi

te

Yes,

Cor

pora

te

Citi

zens

hip

Rep

ort

onw

ebsi

te

Sustainab

leSC

Mpolicy?

Polic

yfo

cuse

son

Boo

tsbr

and

prod

ucts

and

invo

lved

the

Ethi

cal

Trad

ing

Initi

ativ

e

Yes,

deta

iled

supp

ly

chai

npo

licy

aspa

rt

of20

07C

SRre

port

Not

evid

ent

onw

ebsi

te.

Focu

sis

onco

mpl

ianc

e,

supp

lier

perf

orm

ance

,

and

heal

th&

safe

ty

Focu

sis

onen

viro

nmen

tal

impa

cts

(e.g

.re

sear

chin

g

solu

tions

tocl

imat

e

chan

ge)

Yes,

onw

ebsi

teYe

s,ou

tline

s

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

as

sign

ator

yto

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Glo

bal

Com

pact

Yes,

aspa

rtof

Cor

pora

te

Citi

zens

hip

Rep

ort




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

19

Internal enablers

All previously identified internal enablers were reported by

the organisations, with RetailCo perceiving most internal

enablers and FoodCo the least. However, several enablers

which did not feature in the literature were identified

including leadership, and procurement’s willingness to work

with colleagues in other functions. An internal factor not

mentioned by the companies but by CIPS, and identified in

previous studies (Min and Galle, 2001; Hervani et al., 2005),was organisational size. It was suggested that large companies

are often able to do more as greater expertise, resource, and

buying power is available.

External enablers

Turning to external enablers SupermarketCo and RetailCo

perceive the most external enablers, and EngineerCo the

least. Customer requirements (Carter and Carter, 1998) were

raised by all seven company representatives, and CIPS and

BiTC. NGO activity (Maignan et al., 2002) as a driving force

was raised by four companies (RetailCo, BeverageCo,

FoodCo, and SupermarketCo) as well as by CIPS and BiTC.Increasing interest from investors (Green et al., 1996a;

Trowbridge, 2001) was highlighted by PharmaCo,

SupermarketCo, and CIPS. Government policy and

regulation was only reported by AeroCo and RetailCo as

driving them forward. This contrasts with previous research

showing SupermarketCo to be under regulatory pressure to

adopt sustainable SCM (Hall, 2000). BiTC and CIPS

recognised the importance of public sector developments for

private sector buyers. The public sector in the UK has been

particularly active in promoting sustainable procurement

amongst public sector buyers (Walker and Brammer, 2009),

and this may have had the effect of raising sustainable SCM

awareness amongst private sector suppliers.There was evidence of collaboration with suppliers (Seuring

and Muller, 2007; Sharfman et al., 2007; Vachon and

Klassen, 2007; Verghese and Lewis, 2007; Vachon and

Klassen, 2008). RetailCo demonstrated a willingness to share

purchasing expertise with its suppliers, and FoodCo explained

how they work directly with producers (i.e. farmers),

something that SupermarketCo also sees as important.

Sectoral differences (Zhu and Sarkis, 2006) were apparent

as the food and beverage industry organisations BeverageCo,

FoodCo and SupermarketCo were all particularly interested

in working with suppliers. Other new external enablers

include PharmaCo wanting to improve the whole

pharmaceutical industry performance, BeverageCo seeking

to work with leaders in other sectors, and RetailCo using the

Ethical Trading Initiative’s standard as the foundation of its

sustainable SCM work. Intense competition (Sharma and

Vredenburg, 1998; Zhu et al., 2005) was highlighted by

RetailCo and SupermarketCo. RetailCo and CIPS both noted

how academic involvement such as improving product

packaging.

Internal barriers

Moving on to barriers, a range of internal factors were

identified as shown in Table III. RetailCo perceived as many

internal barriers as they did internal enablers. SupermarketCo

and FoodCo perceived the least internal barriers. Cost

pressures (Min and Galle, 2001) were mentioned by

RetailCo, and AeroC0 stated how performance targets can

tend to dominate other initiatives. Resource (raised by

PharmaCo, EngineerCo, and BeverageCo) is linked to cost,

whereby these companies have not been able to invest in

people or systems to extend their sustainable SCM work right

throughout their supply chains so a more focused approach

has been needed. Other internal factors affirming previous

findings included a lack of management commitment (Carter

and Dresner, 2001; Min and Galle, 2001), a lack of strategy

(Griffiths and Petrick, 2001), a lack of knowledge on the part

of purchasers (Cooper et al., 2000), and an element of

organisational reluctance (Greer and Bruno, 1996) that can

all limit progress.New aspects identified were resource limitations, and the

sustainable SCM process not being robust enough.

External barriers

Fewer external constraints were identified by the interviewees.

AeroCo and RetailCo mentioned none at all, whereas

SupermarketCo mentioned the most. PharmaCo’s observed

that language barriers can make it difficult to communicate

Table II Relevant CSR and supply chain achievements for the seven companies

Company Year Relevant awards and achievements

AeroCo 2006 Shortlisted for a BiTC award

2003 Winner of two CIPS award

RetailCo 2006 Rated best non-food retailer by BiTC and runner-up to M&S as best company

2006 Three BiTC awards including for overall CSR work and for supply chain management.

2004 CIPS Supply Management Award: Most innovative project and Overall winner

2003 Winner of CIPS award

BeverageCo 2006 Rated best beverage company by BiTC

PharmaCo 2004 Winner of two CIPS award

FoodCo n/a No awards achieved but joint founder of bodies assessing sustainable procurement and a signatory to the United

Nations Global Compact

EngineerCo 2006 Rated best aerospace and defence company by BiTC

2005 Winner of “Best contribution to corporate responsibility” CIPS award

SupermarketCo 2006 Rated second best food and drug retailer by BiTC




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

20

Table

III

Patt

erns

ofin

tern

alan

dex

tern

alba

rrie

rsan

den

able

rsin

case

orga

nisa

tions

(pre

dict

ions

for

futu

rein

brac

kets

)

RetailCo

Gen

eral

retailer

PharmaCo

Pharmaceu

tical

AeroCo

Defen

ce

Enginee

rCo

Aviationan

d

defen

ce

Supermarke

tCo

Foodretailer

FoodCo

Foodproducer

Beverag

eCo

Beverag

e

producer

Total

Internal

enab

lers

People

issues

Topman

agem

entcommitmen

tU

UU

3

Employeeinvo

lvem

ent

UU

2

Culture

UU

U3

Strategicissues

Strategicalignmen

tU

U(U

)U

U(U

)U

5(2

)

Riskman

agem

ent

U1

Perform

ance

mea

suremen

tU

(U)

(U)

U(U

)U

3(3

)

Organ

isational

size

0

Functional

issues

Purchasingan

dsupply

function

U(U

)U

UU

(UU

U)

UU

U(U

)U

(U)

(UU

)8

(8)

Internal

integration

UU

(U)

UU

4(1

)

Totalinternal

enab

lers

26

25

25

24

24

22

23

229

(Future

internal

enab

lers)

(22)

(23)

(22)

(22)

(22)

(23)

(0)

(214

)

External

enab

lers

Governmen

tU

(U)

(UU

)U

2(3

)

NGOs

U(U

)U

U(U

)U

4(2

)

Competitors

UU

2

Customers

U(U

)U

U(U

)U

4(2

)

Suppliers

UU

UU

UU

UU

8

Investors

UU

2

Academ

ics

U1

Med

iaU

UU

UU

(U)

5(1

)

Sectoral

U(U

)U

UU

(U)

U(U

)5

(3)

Global

(U)

(U)

(U)

(U)

(4)

Totalexternal

enab

lers

75

31

73

533

(Future

external

enab

lers)

(5)

(3)

(0)

(0)

(1)

(3)

(3)

(15)

Internal

barriers

Culture

U2

1

Strategicissues

Resource

UU

UU

UU

26

Rep

utational

risk

U2

1

Perform

ance

man

agem

ent

U2

1

Organ

isational

size

U2

1

Functional

issues

Purchasingan

dsupply

function

UU

UU

U2

5

Internal

integration

UU

UU

24

(con

tinue

d)




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

21

Table

III

RetailCo

Gen

eral

retailer

PharmaCo

Pharmaceu

tical

AeroCo

Defen

ce

Enginee

rCo

Aviationan

d

defen

ce

Supermarke

tCo

Foodretailer

FoodCo

Foodproducer

Beverag

eCo

Beverag

e

producer

Total

Totalinternal

barriers

26

22

23

24

21

21

22

219

External

barriers

Governmen

t

NGOs

U1

Competitors

U1

Customers

U1

Suppliers

UU

2

Med

iaU

1

Sectoral

U1

Global

UU

U3

Totalexternal

barriers

02

01

51

110

Totalen

ablers

andbarriers,to

positionon

typology(arrow

indicates

future

direction)

1En

able

rs

26

Bar

riers

(3Fu

ture

enab

lers

)

0En

able

rs

0B

arrie

rs

(0Fu

ture

enab

lers

)

22

Enab

lers

23

Bar

riers

(22

Futu

re

enab

lers

)

23

Enab

lers

23

Bar

riers

(22

Futu

reen

able

rs)

3En

able

rs

4B

arrie

rs

(21

Futu

re

enab

lers

)

1En

able

rs

0B

arrie

rs

(0Fu

ture

enab

lers

)

2En

able

rs

21

Bar

riers

(3Fu

ture

enab

lers

)




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

22

requirements to suppliers in other countries, EngineerCo

identified cultural barriers across different locations,

BeverageCo has observed different standards in different

countries, and BiTC raised the point that international

standards are perceived by some to be barriers to competition.Remaining external barriers were only mentioned by one

interviewee in each case. Insufficient supplier commitment,

only mentioned by PharmaCo, was seen to hold back

progress. EngineerCo explained how its very strong brand

reputation means that extra sustainable SCM work is not

likely to create more demand for its products. Demanding

requirements from NGOs were raised by FoodCo, and

SupermarketCo felt the sheer volume of CSR information

makes it difficult to define priorities.

Dominant internal factors

Some of the factors identified in the study were mentioned

repeatedly by interviewees and emerged as a pattern across

the case organisations in their discussion of present and future

issues. The dominant internal themes emerging across the

seven case organisations (and the number of times they are

mentioned, N ¼ X) in Table III include the need to:. support sustainable SCM within the purchasing and

supply function (n ¼ 16);. align purchasing and supply strategy and CSR strategy

with corporate strategy (n ¼ 7);

. ensure performance measures support sustainable SCM

(n ¼ 6); and. devote resources to support sustainable SCM (n ¼ 6).

It is encouraging that many of the enablers of sustainable

SCM are internal to a company, and practitioners can use

these dominant themes as pointers to guide activity in

implementing sustainable SCM. Interviewees discussed

specific purchasing and supply activities that support

sustainable SCM which are summarized in the list below:. Supportive structures and processes within the purchasing

and supply function; e.g. Availability of toolkits, inclusion

in contract documentation and terms and conditions;

inclusion in standard supplier selection criteria;

importance of including sustainability criteria in new

contracts; assess more suppliers.. Prioritise sustainable SCM with key suppliers, and work

with suppliers, support certain suppliers (e.g. producers/

farmers) build long supplier relationships, increase

supplier communication, knowledge sharing with

suppliers, Keep eye on activity after supplier relationship

established.. Ensure other procurement priorities do not compete with

sustainable SCM.. Ensure sufficient resource to support sustainable SCM.. Buyer knowledge needed, enhanced through training

programmes.

Figure 3 Additional themes identified in the study




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

23

. Prioritisation of key commodities depending on criticality

of supply and supply continuation.. Support for procurement within the organisation.. Share good practice in sustainable SCM.

Dominant external factors

The most influential stakeholders and external factors appear

to be:. Suppliers (n ¼ 8).. Sectoral issues (n ¼ 8).. Media and corporate reputation (n ¼ 6).. NGOs (n ¼ 6).. Customers (n ¼ 6).

The dominance of suppliers in influencing sustainable SCM

is a novel finding compared to previous research (Walker et al.,

2008), which did not identify suppliers as driving sustainable

SCM. This may be because the case organisations in this

research are fairly well-developed in terms of implementing

sustainable SCM, and may attach a greater importance to the

value of working with suppliers.

The sustainable SCM typology

By analyzing the frequency of responses, it is possible to plot

each firm’s current sustainable SCM position in relation to

internal and external factors, as shown in Figure 4.The seven companies take their respective positions

depending on the frequency of observations of the various

factors, which are summarized as follows.

Reserved players. RetailCo: strong internal barriers plus customer, NGO,

and media pressure.. BeverageCo: companywide CSR targets and work with

NGOs and suppliers.

External responders. PharmaCo: process and training plus media, investor, and

customer enablers.

. FoodCo: business practice drives work from within with

NGO influence.. SupermarketCo: CSR team, customer, NGO, and

competitor pressures.

Internally focussed. EngineerCo: supply chain personnel recognise importance

and employee forum enabling more work.. AeroCo: heavily influenced by government, yet emphasis

on incorporating sustainable SCM within the purchasing

and supply function.

Agenda settersNone of the companies fell within the Agenda setter quadrant.

An example might be the Body Shop (Wycherley, 1999), an

organisation with strong internal enablers such as senior

management commitment and culture.The mapping approach developed in this typology and the

list of factors in Table III, can be used by firms in other

sectors to identify the barriers and enablers they experience

internally and externally as they engage with the sustainability

agenda. This contingent approach can help organisations

decide the best course of action in sustainable SCM,

depending on their internal and external circumstances.

The future

The second research question led to an investigation of

predictions for the future of sustainable SCM, and whether

more internal or external drivers or constraints are predicted.

When asked about the next three to five years RetailCo,

PharmaCo, FoodCo, and AeroCo suggested that similar work

would be going on as is currently being carried out.

EngineerCo is likely to be more active but mainly as it is

starting from a slightly lower base. BeverageCo and

SupermarketCo see significantly more work being needed.The greater changes predicted by SupermarketCo are due

to increasing customer demands, a need to prioritise certain

CSR activities, and the growing importance of health debates

around nutrition and obesity impacting on a food retailer. For

BeverageCo there is the need to be aware of country

differences in terms of procurement standards and the need to

be able to react to any unforeseen events that could impact on

supply chains. Emerging economies are seen by the majority

of the companies to include China and India.One area where there is widespread agreement is around

the skills and knowledge needed by individual buyers.

Practitioners, CIPS, and BiTC alike see a need for

purchasers to be more knowledgeable on the whole

sustainability and CSR subject and in future to be able to

integrate demands in this area into their purchasing practices.Based on predictions for the future it is possible to plot

movements for each firm, shown in Figure 4. The reasons for

the suggested movements include:. AeroCo: demands from Government but performance

focus limiting internal enablers.. RetailCo: increasing pressure from customers and NGOs.. BeverageCo: understanding country differences and more

suppliers to consider.. PharmaCo: a balance between internal and external

pressures in the future.. FoodCo: desire to be doing more driven jointly from within

and by NGOs.. EngineerCo: individuals exploring CSR internally and

making proposals.

Figure 4 Case organisations mapped onto the typology




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

24

. SupermarketCo: combination of external and internalfactors.

The next section goes on to draw conclusions that result fromthe study.

Conclusions

This study sought to investigate private sector sustainableSCM in the UK, and senior representatives from seven largecompanies that are seen to be leaders in the subject wereinterviewed. Our first objective was to identify the variousinternal and external factors that encourage or constrainorganisations in engaging in sustainable SCM. A contingencytheory approach was adopted, exploring differentorganisational responses to sustainable SCM. A literaturereview initially identified a variety of internal and externalbarriers and enablers to sustainable SCM. Key enablers werecustomer requirements, reputational risk, organisationalfactors including strategic, people and functional issues, andstakeholder involvement (including NGOs and Government).Barriers to progress included pressures to reduce costs, otherorganisational priorities, the ability of buyers to tackle thesubject, and accounting methods that focus on short termmeasures.When we conducted the data collection, we found that all

of the factors identified in the literature were corroborated asthey were mentioned by at least one of the interviewees. Somenew factors have been identified for the first time from thecase studies. Enabling factors included a procurement team’sability to work with other areas of the company, buyers’abilities to embrace new skills, the increasing role beingplayed by the public sector, academics and investors, and adesire for a whole industry to be adopting new practices. Thisstudy has also identified new constraints, including limitedresource, weak processes, communication and knowledgedeficiencies, insufficient supplier commitment, and culturalbarriers.The research questions that the study sought to answer

explored how organisations vary in perceptions of internal andexternal enablers and barriers to sustainable SCM practices,and how organisations vary in predictions for the future ofsustainable SCM. The literature review led to identification ofinternal and external barriers and enablers to sustainableSCM, and the case studies confirmed and added to these. Wethen used the interview data to map the organisations onto atypology of approaches to sustainable SCM, to show how theyvaried in their perceptions of internal and eternal barriers andenablers. Companies were classified as Internal focusers,Reserved players, External responders, and Agenda setters.Predictions for the future of sustainable SCM within thecompanies were also explored, with each companyanticipating their sustainable supply activities increasing inthe coming years. The study therefore met its aim of exploringwhether the perceived support (or constraint) for sustainableSCM lies within or outside a firm, and developing a typologywith which to classify organisational approaches to sustainableSCM.

Implications for practice

The companies included in this study are widely seen to besustainable SCM leaders, and yet variety was found across theseven companies in terms of what influences them. It isencouraging that many of the enablers of sustainable SCM are

internal to the company, which means it is within

practitioner’s sphere of influence to bring about changes in

the direction a company takes in sustainable SCM. First,practitioners could explore the implementation of purchasing

and supply activities that support sustainable SCM, aspreviously listed. There is also a need to be doing more to

train buyers in sustainable SCM. Second, the purchasing andsupply department needs to ensure that sustainable SCM

strategy aligns with the corporate strategy. Third, more cross-functional working within the company and a need to

communicate requirements to supply chain partners is likely

to demand new buyer skills. Fourth, adopting a collaborativeapproach to sustainable SCM seems to be of benefit. There

appears to be an emerging trend of a willingness to sharesustainable SCM practices and experiences across industries,

and even with competitors. Practitioners could initiate suchsharing of expertise at industry events.The typology is intended to be generalisable across

industries and sectors. Practitioners could use the typology

and list of factors in Table III to reflect upon how theycurrently engage with sustainable SCM, and how they might

wish to change their approach in the future. This contingent

approach suggest there is no single best course of action, andthat a firm’s approach to sustainable SCM is dependent on

the internal and external circumstances it faces.

Constraints of the research

The findings of this research are based on case studies of

seven companies already acknowledged as progressive in

sustainable SCM, and there is an issue of how generalisablethe findings are for organisations in the UK and developed

countries. This research has focused on large firms that areseen to be leading in sustainable SCM, but this will not be

representative of those firms that are less advanced in terms ofintroducing sustainable SCM. In addition, the majority of

sustainable SCM studies have focused on researching largefirms, and this study is no exception as it has focused on large

companies with the resources to commit to sustainable SCM.

As small firms make up 99 percent of companies worldwide,investigating sustainable SCM from a small firm perspective

would also be of benefit (Walker and Preuss, 2008), althoughit is beyond the scope of the current study. The results of the

study may be generalisable to other large firms in developedcountries who have already made some progress with their

sustainable SCM agenda, and are interested in learning fromthe practices of firms seen as leaders in sustainable SCM.

Implications for future research

The research could be extended through a large-scale cross-

sectoral survey, exploring interrelationships between factorsaffecting sustainable SCM more fully. Future research could

also focus on how sustainability issues are approached inbuyer-supplier dyads or in supply networks, in order to

encompass the supplier’s perspective. In addition, the external

factors influencing organisational adoption of sustainableSCM could more thoroughly be explored from a stakeholder

theory perspective (Freeman, 1984).The contingent approach could also be adopted to explore

the factors influencing organisations that have not progressedso far along to road to sustainability as the leading companies

included in our research. In addition, more research is neededinto the challenges facing smaller firms as they engage in the

sustainability agenda.




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

25

Our attempt to develop a typology aims to contribute to an

understanding of how and why firms develop their

sustainability initiatives. More research is needed to explore

the contingent factors affecting organisational responses to

sustainable SCM, and how these factors interrelate and vary

in different sectors and contexts, and over time. Overall,

sustainable SCM is seen to be of increasing importance and is

likely to rise up the agenda for companies, individual buyers,

and researchers alike.

References

Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Faruk, A. (2001a),

“Horses for courses: explaining the gap between the theory

and practice of green supply”, Greener Management

International, Vol. 35, Autumn, pp. 41-60.Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Faruk, A. (2001b),

“The role of supply management capabilities in green

supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10

No. 2, pp. 174-89.Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961), The Management of

Innovation, Tavistock, London.Buttermann, G., Germaina, R. and Iyer, K. (2008),

“Contingency theory “fit” as Gestalt: An application to

supply chain management”, Transportation Research Part E:

Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 44 No. 6,

pp. 955-69.Carroll, A. (1979), “A three dimensional conceptual model of

corporate social performance”, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-505.Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Inter-organizational

determinants of environmental purchasing: initial evidence

from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences,

Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 659-84.Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasing’s role in

environmental management: cross-functional development

of grounded theory”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37

No. 3, pp. 12-26.Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics:

a review of the literature and framework for future

investigation”, International Journal of Purchasing and

Materials Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 28-38.Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M. (2004), “The role of

purchasing in corporate social responsibility: a structural

equation analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25

No. 1, pp. 145-86.Carter, J. and Narasimhan, R. (1998), “Purchasing and

supply management: future directions and trends”,

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials

Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 2-12.Carter, J. and Smeltzer, L. (2003), “Critical strategy areas for

purchasing and supply management”, Business Briefing:

Global Purchasing and Supply Chain Strategies, AT Kearney,

London, January.Chen, C.-C. (2005), “Incorporating green purchasing into

the frame of ISO 14000”, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 927-33.Cooper, R., Frank, G. and Kemp, R. (2000), “A multinational

comparison of key ethical issues, helps and challenges in the

purchasing and supply management profession: the key

implications for business and the professions”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 83-100.

Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Bowen, F. (2004), “The role of

risk in environment-related supplier initiatives”,

International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 554-65.Darnall, N., Jolley, G. and Handfield, R. (2008),

“Environmental management systems and green supply

chain management: complements for sustainability?”,

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 1,

pp. 30-45.Day, M. and Lichtenstein, S. (2006), “Strategic supply

management: the relationship between supply management

practices, strategic orientation and their impact on

organisational performance”, Journal of Purchasing

& Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 313-21.Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2006),

“Procuring the future – the sustainable procurement task

force national action plan”, London, available at: www.

sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/procurement-

action-plan/documents/full-document.pdf(accessed 21 July

2006).Drumwright, M. (1994), “Socially responsible organisational

buying: environmental concern as a non-economic buying

criteria”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-19, July.Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study

research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,

pp. 532-50.Fisher, M. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your

product?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 2,

pp. 105-16.Forman, M. and Sogaard, J. (2004), “Organising

environmental supply chain management: experience from

a sector with frequent product shifts and complex product

chains: the case of the Danish textile sector”, Greener

Management International, No. 45, pp. 43-62.Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach, Pitman, Marshfield, MA.Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1996a), “Purchasing and

environmental management: interactions, policies and

opportunities”, Business Strategy and the Environment,

Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 188-97.Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1996b), “Purchasing

and environmental management: interactions, policies and

opportunities”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,

pp. 89-95.Greer, J. and Bruno, K. (1996), Greenwash: The Reality behind

Corporate Environmentalism, Apex Press, New York, NY.Griffiths, A. and Petrick, J.A. (2001), “Corporate

architectures for sustainability”, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12,

pp. 1573-85.Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chain dynamics”,

Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 455-71.Hall, J. (2001), “Environmental supply chain innovation”,

Greener Management International, No. 35, pp. 105-19.Handfield, R., Sroufe, R. and Walton, S. (2005), “Integrating

environmental management and supply chain strategies”,


pp. 1-19.Handfield, R., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K. and Melnyk, S.A.

(1997), “Green value chain practices in the furniture

industry”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,

pp. 293-315.




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

26

Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000),

“Linking operational and environmental improvement

through employee involvement”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 148-65.

Harland, C. (1996), “Supply chain management:

relationships, chains and networks”, British Journal ofManagement, Vol. 7, special issue, pp. S63-S80.

Harland, C., Lamming, R. and Cousins, P. (1999),

“Developing the concept of supply strategy”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19

No. 7, pp. 650-73.Hervani, A., Helms, M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance

measurement for green supply chain management”,

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4,

pp. p330-53.Hughes, A. (2005), “Corporate strategy and the management

of ethical trade: the case of the UK food and clothing

retailers”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 37 No. 7,pp. 1145-63.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2006),

“The sustainable development journey”, available at:www.bsdglobal.com/sd_journey.asp (accessed 1 August

2006).Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995), “Ecologicallysustainable organisations: an institutional approach”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1015-52.Ketokivi, M. (2006), “Elaborating the contingency theory ororganisations: the case of manufacturing flexibility

strategies”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 215-28.

Kogg, B. (2003), “Power and incentives in environmental

supply chain management”, in Seuring, S., Muller, M.,

Goldbach, M. and Schneidewind, U. (Eds), Strategy andOrganisation in Supply Chains, Springer, London, pp. 65-82.

Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967), Organisation andEnvironment: Managing Differentiation and Integration,Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with

product uncertainties”, California Management Review,Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-19.

Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007),

“Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.

Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. and McAlister, D. (2002),

“Managing socially-responsible buying: how to integratenoneconomic criteria into the purchasing process”,

European Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 641-8.Meehan, J., Meehan, K. and Richards, A. (2006), “Corporate

social responsibility: the 3C-SR model”, InternationalJournal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 386-98.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative DataAnalysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (1997), “Green purchasing

strategies: trends and implications”, International Journalof Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,

pp. 10-17.Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices

of US firms”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-38.

Narasimhan, R. and Das, A. (2001), “The impact of

purchasing integration practices on manufacturing

performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19

No. 5, pp. 593-609.New, S., Green, K. and Morton, B. (2000), “Buying the

environment: the multiple meanings of green supply”,

in Fineman, S. (Ed.), The Business of Greening, Routledge,

London, pp. 33-53.Orsato, R. (2006), “Competitive environmental strategies:

when does it pay to be green?”, California Management

Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 127-43.Porter, M.E. and Van de Linde, C. (1995), “Green and

competitive”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5,

pp. 120-34.Preuss, L. (2005), “Rhetoric and reality of corporate

greening: a view from the supply chain management

function”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14

No. 2, pp. 123-39.Preuss, L. (2007), “Buying into our future: the range of

sustainability initiatives in local government procurement”,


pp. 354-65.Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to

competitiveness and economic performance?”, International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25

Nos 9-10, pp. 898-916.Schwartz, P. (2000), “When good companies do bad things”,

Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 4-12.Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2007), “Core issues in

sustainable supply chain management – a Delphi study”,


pp. 455-66.Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review

to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain

management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,

pp. 1699-710.Sharfman, M., Shaft, T. and Anex, R. (2007), “The road to

cooperative supply-chain environmental management: trust

and uncertainty among pro-active firms”, Business Strategy

and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-13.Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. (1998), “Proactive corporate

environmental strategy and the development of

competitively valuable organisational capabilities”,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 729-53.Stonebraker, P. and Afifi, R. (2004), “Toward a contingency

theory of supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 42

No. 9, pp. 1131-44.Stonebraker, P.W. and Liao, J. (2006), “Supply chain

integration: exploring product and environmental

contingencies”, Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 34-43.Sustainable Procurement Taskforce (2005), Report by the

Capacity Building and, Skills, and Training Work Group,

Defra, London.Teuscher, P., Gruninger, B. and Ferdinand, N. (2006), “Risk

management in sustainable supply chain management:

lessons learnt from the case of GMO-free soybeans”,

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-10.Trowbridge, P. (2001), “A case study of green supply-chain

management at advanced micro devices”, Greener

Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 121-35, Autumn.Tummala, V.M., Phillips, C. and Johnson, M. (2006),

“Assessing supply chain management success factors: a




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

27

case study”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 179-92.

United Nations (2003), “Global compact policy dialogue:Latin American workshop on supply chain management”,United Nations, Nova Lima, available at: www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/7.5/scm_brazil_rep.pdf

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. (2008), “Environmentalmanagement and manufacturing performance: the role ofcollaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2007), “Supply chainmanagement and environmental technologies: the role ofintegration”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 401-23.

Verghese, K. and Lewis, H. (2007), “Environmentalinnovation in industrial packaging: a supply chainapproach”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 45 Nos 18/19, p. 4381.

Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2009), “Sustainableprocurement in the UK public sector”, Supply ChainManagement: an International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 127-38.

Walker, H. and Preuss, L. (2008), “Fostering sustainabilitythrough sourcing from small businesses: public sectorperspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,pp. 1600-9.

Walker, H., diSisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers andbarriers of environmental supply chain practices: lessonsfrom the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasingand Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 69-85.

Walton, S., Handfield, R. and Melnyk, S. (1998), “The greensupply chain: integrating suppliers into environmental

management processes”, International Journal of Purchasingand Materials Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 2-11.

Woodward, J. (1965), Industrial Organization: Theory andPractice, Oxford Press, Oxford.

Wycherley, I. (1999), “Greening supply chains: the case of theBody Shop International”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-7.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Zhu, Q.H. and Sarkis, J. (2006), “An inter-sectoralcomparison of green supply chain management in China:drivers and practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14No. 5, pp. 472-86.

Zhu, Q.H., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supplychain management in China: pressures, practices and

performance”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5-6, pp. 449-68.

About the authors

Professor Helen Walker is Chair in Operations and SupplyManagement at Cardiff Business School. Her research

focuses on sustainable supply chain management, andsustainable public procurement. Helen Walker is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected] Jones is a CSR Analyst for Boots UK in Nottingham,

part of the Alliance Boots Group. He is involved in CSR

strategy, reporting, communication, and stakeholderdialogue. Prior to working for Boots, he undertook a varietyof roles for The Consortium Ltd, a purchasing and logisticscompany that supplies goods and services to the public sector.




Volume 17 · Number 1 · 2012 · 15–28

28

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

sustainable supply chain management across the uk private sector-1

Documents

green scm

sustainable development

sustainable way

sustainable supply chains

supply chain management

exploresustainable scm

leading companies

supply products