Inhoud
Week 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Making sustainability sustainable........................................................................................................ 2
Shareholder value effects of ethical sourcing: Comparing reactive and proactive initiatives ............. 7
Week 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Supplier development for sustainability contextual barriers in global supply chains ......................... 9
Week 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 13
A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains ................... 13
Week 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 17
A more sustainable supply chain. Harvard Business Review ............................................................. 17
Week 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Alliance governance mechanisms in the face of disruption .............................................................. 20
Inter-organizational governance: a review, conceptualisation and extension .................................. 25
Week 6 ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The circular economy in detail. 2022. ................................................ 28
Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy ............................................ 29
Week 7 ................................................................................................................................................... 34
Sustainable purchasing and supply management: a structured literature review of definitions and
measures at the dyad, chain and network levels .............................................................................. 34
Diffusion of environmental business practices: A network approach ............................................... 39
Week 8 ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Ethical issues in international buyer-supplier relationships: A dyadic examination ......................... 45
Environmental purchasing and supplier management (EPSM): Theory and practice ....................... 50
Week 9 ................................................................................................................................................... 54
Toward resilient agriculture value chains: Challenges and opportunities ......................................... 54
Week 10 ................................................................................................................................................. 59
The triple-A supply chain ................................................................................................................... 59
Short of drugs? Call upon operations and supply chain management ............................................. 60
,Week 1
Making sustainability sustainable
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 52(2), 11-27.
Introduction
Previous research on sustainable supply chains has generally been framed using an instrumental logic
that asks ‘how can a supply chain benefit from addressing environmental or social issues’ as
compared to how can a supply chain become sustainable and the link between being more
sustainable and economic performance.
The key to the instrumental logic is that economic performance is the goal, not sustainability.
However, previous research has noted that an instrumental logic dominated by economics, especially
as manifested as profit, is antithetical to humanity’s well-being.
In this paper, we offer an alternative logic, which we call Ecologically Dominant (ED), that we argue
can lead to truly sustainable supply chains.
The instrumental logic has two significant weaknesses:
1. Sustainability is mainly addressed from the perspective of what can existing firms do to reduce
their harm while maintaining or increasing their profits. Research of this nature cannot lead to truly
sustainable supply chains because it addresses trade-offs by prioritizing the profits of existing firms
over other sustainability outcomes including the survival of society and the environment.
2. While sustainable supply chain research is ostensibly aimed at the entire chain and all of its
stakeholders, the reality is that it is usually conducted from the perspective of a focal firm. This
results in overlooking other members of the supply chain and the communities in which the supply
chain operates (stakeholders).
The Ecologically Dominant logic presented in this study is explicit in its priorities when trade-offs are
encountered and is aimed at creating a truly sustainable supply chain, not at reducing the harm from
a single focal firm.
Recap: We see significant weaknesses in current sustainable supply chain research, namely that it is
focused on a focal firm’s profits now rather than the entire supply chain’s future impact on the
environmental and society. We offer an alternative Ecologically Dominant logic, which by being very
explicit in its trade-offs overcomes these weaknesses. The name we have given to our proposed logic,
Ecologically Dominant, implies that a firm using this logic will rank environmental issues ahead of
economic issues when making decisions.
THE NEED FOR A NEW LOGIC (Critique on current literature and concepts)
To build a new way of thinking, we must consider culture, logic, and cognition. Culture is typically
viewed as an organization’s or society’s values, beliefs, and ideology. Logic occurs at the institutional
level of analysis while cognitions are typically firm or individual level; institutional logics drive
organizational and individual cognitions and decisions. logic refers to the framework(s) that guide
research and practice in sustainable supply chain management. Cognitions are driven by the logic but
occur at the individual, firm or supply chain level, and reflect how decisions are made within the
supply chain.
Sustainability as a (potentially) integrated Logic
The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) has been a dominant concept in sustainability research. A common
,definition of the TBL is “an accounting framework that incorporates three dimensions of
performance: social, environmental and financial. However, the problem with the TBL is that there is
typically not agreement between stakeholder issues and societal issues, so the TBL may not be as
inclusive of all stakeholders.
For example: firms in a supply chain can argue that it is not their fault that customers do not buy
more sustainable products. Thus, it is not surprising that firms choose to emphasize the economic
nature of the TBL over the other two aspects as there are no institutions that can ensure that all
three aspects of the TBL are given equal treatment and thus supply chains can shift blame to
customers.
The Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) is an integrative theory of sustainability with the natural
environment as a key constraint. Later, it was noted that research was still too focused on short-term
economic gains from being green.
Win-win perspectives
Over the years different forms of the win-win perspective have been proposed which makes it a
recurring theme in sustainability research. Stating firms and supply chains can be environmentally
friendly and make a profit.
Examples: They argued that pollution elimination could use many of the same principles embodied in
quality management, especially using inputs more efficiently, eliminating hazardous materials, and
eliminating unneeded process steps to reduce pollution while increasing profits. A specific example of
this argument in the supply chain management literature is the extension of total quality
management into total quality environmental management (TQEM).
A newer form is the concept op creating shared value (CSV) shared value (CSV), which they define as
“policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while
simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it
operates”. This concept, similar to the TBL, attempts to give the three aspects of sustainability equal
importance; unfortunately, practice has shown the limitations of this concept.
However there is crique of the CSV and by extension all win–win perspectives:
Firms isolate and publicize their “sustainability” efforts, while in fact keeping their primary focus on
generating economic value. The economic aspect of sustainability has won out over the social and
environmental aspects. Win–win is attractive in that it suggests that the demands on supply chains to
be socially and environmentally responsible are actually opportunities to increase profits. However,
while there are certainly win–win opportunities, creating truly sustainable supply chains will involve
both changes that have win outcomes and changes that will force trade-offs that are inevitable given
the complex nature of sustainability
Thus, the TBL and win are fine in theory, but not in practice. The former in practice is not treating
each of the three elements equally and the latter does not resolve trade-offs in a sustainable way.
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LOGIC
Different definitions of sustainability have been proposed. The main components are meet the need
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their owns,
safeguarding Earth’s life support system on which the welfare of current and future generations
depends.
, Ordering of TBL: Since a functioning ecosystem is necessary for mankind’s survival, the environment is
the central constraint of our proposed Ecologically Dominant logic. We next turn to the social aspect
of sustainability, which is our second constraint after the environment. For people to thrive, social
systems for employment, health, housing, and overall quality of life will need to be supported by the
environment. Similarly, the economic system is last and subservient to the social system.
Thus, when trade-offs exist the logics diverge. The Ecologically Dominant logic is explicit in its
hierarchy, with environmental systems being of the highest priority, followed by social and then
economic systems.
We recognize that there are significant political and public policy implications of our argument. The
economic aspect of the TBL presently dominates political and public policy discussions. (Example: the
measure gross domestic product, which rewards economic growth no matter how it is achieved)
Two possible paths to implementation seem likely:
1. Changing regulation and enforcement: Currently most of the reporting required of firm is
economically based, although firm are required to report their risks. Future regulation is likely to
require much more transparency in firms reporting and to inhibit many activities that are presently
allowed. (Like environmental regulation)
2. The second path will likely come from supply chains themselves where (new) firms start with
adopting sustainability related strategies that are beyond what the current law requires.. (e.g. Toyota
is planning to have a combustion engine-free supply chain by 2050, while Tesla is engine free today).
In summary, sustainability is not conceptually instrumental, but it is generally researched and
implemented in an instrumental manner that gives primacy to profits over environmental and social
outcomes. This then creates a feedback loop where becoming less unsustainable is conflated with
becoming sustainable, effectively enabling organizational irresponsibility any time there is a trade-off
between profits and other outcomes. The Ecologically Dominant logic explicitly places profits in a
subservient position to the environment and society. Adopting the Ecologically Dominant logic will
likely lead to significant creative destruction, starting with the instrumental logic that has led to
unsustainable supply chains. The new logic should drive research in new directions.
RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS (New developed framework)
We argue that that the instrumental and Ecologically Dominant logics are very different and lead to
researchers asking different questions and addressing different stakeholders with distinctive views on
what is sustainable, both of which will engender different outcomes.
The Ecologically Dominant logic in essence says make as much money as possible after you have
satisfied ecological and societal stakeholders.
A new developed framework is composed of six propositions:
Proposition 1: When trade-offs exist the instrumental logic favours supply chain economic outcomes
while the Ecologically Dominant logic favours ecology first, society next and supply chain economic
outcomes last.
Example: In food supply chain, who have a clear societal role in sustaining human life, don’t focus
much on consuming resources (water) or the workers (often illegal immigrants) who are poorly paid
and exposed to health and safety risks.
