Table of Content: Page1. Article Review 1 PRINCIPLES IN HALAL SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT 41.0 Abstract 41.1 Introduction 41.2 Halal Supply Chain Model 51.3 Conclusion 6 1.4 References& Appendix 72. Article Review 2 A REVIEW OF MODELLING APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT 82.0 Abstract 82.1 Introduction 82.2 Modelling Approaches for Sustainable Supply Chain Management 92.3 Conclusion 102.4 References& Appendix 113. Article Review 3 GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE 123.0 Abstract 123.1 Introduction 12Table of Content: Page

3.2 Performance Impact by GSCM 133.3 Conclusion 143.4 References& Appendix 154. Article Review 4 - INTERACTION: A NEW FOCUS FOR SUPPLY CHAIN VS SUPPLY CHAIN COMPETITION 164.0 Abstract 164.1 Introduction 164.2 Interaction: A New Focus for Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competition 174.3 Conclusion 184.4 References& Appendix 19

ARTICLE REVIEW 1: PRINCIPLES IN HALAL SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENTAuthor: Marco Tieman, Jack G.A.J. Van der Vorst & Maznah Che Ghazali1.1 Abstract Principles in halal supply chain management are very vital and important to be implemented to ensure that all foods or products are fully aligned with the true manifestation of Islamic principles. Its important to maintain the halal integrity throughout the supply chain process to ensure we fulfil the promise of halal products to the end-consumer. What makes halal supply chain process different with the conventional supply chain process is the considering factors of ethics, sustainability and human values throughout the supply chain process. The article inputs are based on literature review, large discussion group and various focus group conducted in Malaysia, Netherlands and China.

1.1 IntroductionCurrent complexity of supply chains and more focus on cost reduction are the major contributors that trigger the needs of the halal supply chain management in the industry. Authors discuss about the consumption of Halal (lawful), Toyyib (wholesome) and Haram (unlawful) are essential according to Syariah. They also discuss about the grey areas (matters that fall between halal and haram) where the local Fatwas (religious rulings) and local customs will play a big role in judging the situation.Halal supply chain management can be defined as the management of a halal network with the objective to extend the halal integrity from source to the point of consumer purchase. The foundation of halal supply chain consist of three major elements, namely: direct contact with haram, risk of contamination and perception of Muslim consumer.

1.2 Halal Supply Chain ModelThe authors have come out with very good halal supply chain model that cover all aspect and elements according to Syariah (refer to figure 1 in the article). The model cover, Halal policy, Supply chain objectives, Logistics control, Supply chain resources, Supply chain business process, Supply chain network structure and even up to the Halal Supply Chain Performance measure.(Maznah Che Ghazali, 2013).Halal policy with involve organization like Department of Standards Malaysia that will act as the basis for the organization and as a certified body. Supply chain objective will be designed according to the parameters of halal food supply chain. Logistics control is very vital which involve the planning and control of all the goods flow from source to end-consumer.(Maznah Che Ghazali,2013). Procurement and purchasing of goods, manufacturing process and distribution process, all must follow accordingly to Syariah and all this fall in the logistics control division.Supply chain resources must ensure that all information and practices are halal compliance according to the halal standard. It is highly recommended that they get an independent party to audit all their process in line with the halal compliance standard. Supply chain network structure involves many parties internal and external along the process from source up to end-consumer. Its very important to ensure all parties involve are endorsed or followed halal compliance standard.Supply chain business processes are responsible in managing the business flow and transaction from upstream to downstream of the business. It cover purchasing, manufacturing and up to customer service department. The business process must follow Syariah and the halal compliance standard. (Mohamed Syazwan, 2014). Example, all process of buyer-supplier engagement must follow halal values as stated by Syariah. The final element in this model will be the halal supply chain performance. Its important to measure the performance in terms of efficiency and the effective in protecting the halal integrity and robust in its supply chain execution. Two key aspects are process quality and waste can be used as the indicator for the performance measurement.

1.3 ConclusionBase on the article and some other cross reference articles that we had read, below are some of my conclusion points that we gathered:a) Halal supply chain management (HSCM) should be applied to all Muslim countries to ensure the Halal and Toyibban products are produce and consume by the end-user.b) Non-Muslim countries should take the advantage of implementing the HSCM to broaden their market potential and most important is the quality of the end products.c) HSCM will help all manufacturers to improve their output, reduce waste and indirectly will help them in reducing their operation cost.d) HSCM cover the whole spectrum of the business process from upstream to downstream.e) HSCM will improve and develop more positive relationship between supplier, buyer, manufacturer and end-consumer.f) The performance measurement in HSCM will help company to increase productivity, reduce cost and future development planning.

1.4 References & Appendix1. Marco Tieman, Jack G.A.J. van der vorst, Maznah Che Ghazali, (2012), Principles in Halal Supply Chain Management, Jounal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 217 243.

2. Marco Tieman, Maznah Che Ghazali , (2013),"Principles in halal purchasing", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 281 293.

3. Mohamed Syazwan Ab Talib Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid , (2014),"Halal Logistics in Malaysia: A SWOT Analysis", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 5 Iss 3Appendix - Article

ARTICLE REVIEW 2A REVIEW OF MODELLING APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENTAuthor : Stefen, Seuring2.0 Abstract Past 15 years, sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) became one of the favourite topics by the researchers to publish the papers. However, from 300 papers published, only 36 papers apply quantitative models. SSCM is related to managing resources along the line while integrating goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development derived from customer and stakeholder requirements. This article review papers summarized quantitative modelling approaches towards sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) which take social, environmental and economic dimensions. Environmental aspect is widely covered as opposed to social aspect. This article summarized the findings and it limitations as well as suggested for more research in this topic. Keywords: supply chain management, quantitative modelling2.1 IntroductionGlobalization lead to change of government terms to adopt free-market systems and improvement technology usage especially in information technology had dramatically transformed the economic life around the world.(S. Seuring,2004)SCM also towards sustainable manner more increasingly concern by sizes of companies across wide range of industries. Many researches have done in this field that discuss different dimension and modelling of sustainable SCM. According to the author from the overall sample of 309 papers (status papers published up to 2010), only 36 of them apply quantitative models. These models are more appropriate and useful for supporting the decision making in the supply chain. Thus, quantitative models tools are essential for making decision in todays business environment. This article also aimed to focus on quantitative modelling approach that may provide directions for future research.2.2 Modelling Approaches for Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementThe categorized a set of criteria in choosing the sample of existing researches to meet the objective of the article. There are a) SSCM basic terminology applied on paper, b) Quantitative Modelling applied and c) Sample and Descriptive analysis made from the research, d) Finally, Criteria applied in the content analysis.The author also analysed and categorized the criteria of 36 papers into various types of modelling approaches. The categorization based on how it relates sustainable development. 34 papers address on the environmental issues, however none of it focuses on social issues and integrating other dimensions such as economic, environmental and integrations of all three dimensions(S. Seuring,2004). Through this analysis, the author point out the research gap social aspects and overall integrations of three sustainability dimensions. The author had group the research analysis into different type of models. Overall objective is to minimize the cost. Other objective classified in detail as follows: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - 11 papers assessing environmental impact in supply chain and minimizing them. Equilibrium Model- 9 papers focus on balancing environmental and economic factors and find optimal solution Multi-criteria decision- highlight on optimization of economic and environmental criteria Analytical hierarchy process (AH) - 8 papers include the element of structuring a decision process based on semi quantitative methods.2.3 ConclusionThe author addressed the limitation of the research made. Too little sample size papers (36) presented on quantitative method in sustainable supply management. However, from this paper, only a number of quantifiable criteria are used for the content analysis instead of different variables. Based on the article and other reference article that we had read, a few conclusions can be drawn as below:a) Discussions pertaining to sustainable supply chain management involve the economic, environmental and social dimensions and all three dimensions should be extensively made the research. b) Only a small number from the existing researches in this literature take quantitative modelling approach, as addressed by the author this should be improved by researchers.c) Wider areas should be discuss instead of environmental impact mostly been discussed as compared to social impact of sustainable supply chain management. Wider aspect of empirical data may be used more to support the future related research.d) Wider Quantitative modelling is the most useful and applicable in sustainable supply chain managementThus, we agreed with author proposal to have further research, more data expansion and further analysis on quantitative method especially to emphasize on the other dimensions like social and economic. Apart from that, more empirical research may be used to link between sustainability and quantitative model in this literature developing further developing sustainable supply chain.

2.4 References & Appendix1. Guide Jr., V.D.R., Jayaraman, V., Srivastava, R., Benton, W.C. Supply-chain management for recoverable manufacturing systems.

2. S. Seuring. Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative analysis and illustrative cases Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (810) (2004), pp. 10591071 [case, environment]

Appendix - Article

ARTICLE REVIEW 3GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:IMPACT ON PERFORMANCEAuthor: Kenneth W. Green Jr | Pamela J. Zelbst | Jeramy Meacham and Vikram S. Bhadauria3.0 Abstract Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has appeared as an environmental innovation which integrates environmental concerns into supply chain management. This is a review for article on significant contribution of empirical investigations related to the impact of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices on performance. Data for the article were collected from 159 manufacturing manager that provide data reflecting the degree to which their organizations work with suppliers and customers to improve environmental sustainability throughout the supply chain. This article review also will review how the adoption of GSCM practices by manufacturing organizations leads to improved environmental performance and economic performance, which, in turn, positively impact operational performance. Operational performance enhances organizational performance. Keywords: Green supply chain management, Environment, Economic, Operation, Organization Performance3.1 IntroductionThe growing concern in the global market for green issues and the insufficient of natural resources have forced executives to view supply chain from an environmental perspective. It is important to note that the growth in adoption of green practices is, in part, due to the effect of institutional pressures driven by market and regulatory demands. Economic performance remains top priority for manufacturers and, in particular, those in developing economies (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). The Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices performance in the article are defined and described with a focus on manufacturing organizations. Data collected from a sample of managers level working for US manufacturing organizations.

3.2 Performance Impact by GSCM Referred to the hypotheses table and result of the methodology in the article, overall overview show that the organizational performance measured by three dimension of performance which is environmental, economic and operational performance. Organizations that implement GSCM practices will improve environmental performance in the areas of reduction of air emission, reduction of waste water, reduction of solid wastes, decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials, decrease of frequency for environmental accidents, and improve an enterprises environmental situation, which all improve the company's environmental situation (Zhu et al. 2012a).An organizations take GSCM practices to reduce costs, promote market shares, and increase the profits. The central goals of the green supply chain are primarily centred on those process operations that influence environmental performance (Beamon, 2008)Here we would like to add of some example of company that already practices the GSCM. Xerox, GE, GM, Volvo, HP, 3M and Dow Chemical have made environmental sustainability a part of their corporate mission. 3Ms Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) and Dow Chemicals Waste Reduction Always Pays (WRAP) programmes have saved the respective companies millions of dollars and prevented thousands of tonnes of pollution over a number of years.3.3 ConclusionThe practice of GSCM leads to improvement and positive impact on performance of the organization.Observation in the article show that green supply chains tend to improve their performance by developing specific green capabilities and by building collaborative supply chain relationships. Supply chain improvement towards the green practices is enhanced through competitive pressure from the market or customers, regulatory certification schemes, incentives, and direct involvement.The adoption of GSCM practices by manufacturing organizations leads to better economic performance. Environmental performance and economic performance leverage improved operational performance which leads to improved organizational performance.However in addition, we felt the following measure should be included as well in the article - corporate image, first-mover advantage, long-term benefits, patenting of products and processes, and influencing policy makers. Adoption of environmentally sustainable practices provides a first-mover competitive advantage including patenting of products and processes, and influencing policy makers to frame rules and regulations to the advantage of the organization.The awareness of end users towards environment-friendly products and processes now has increased. The need for taking back used products and packaging for recovery has not only provided manufacturers with economic opportunities but also projected their environmental responsibility and enhanced corporate image.

3.4 References & Appendix1. Beamon, B.M. (2008). Sustainability and the Future of Supply Chain Management. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 1(1), 4-18.

2. Green Jr, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S., 2012. Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 290-305.

3. Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 18/19, pp. 4333-4355.

Appendix - Article

ARTICLE REVIEW 4INTERACTION: A NEW FOCUS FOR SUPPLY CHAIN VS SUPPLY CHAIN COMPETITIONAuthor: Imoh Antai | Hans Olson4.0 Abstract Competition is an immensely important area of study in economic theory, business and strategy. This article review papers summarized, it is important to recognize that supply chains has changed the way companies deal with each other both in confrontational or conciliatory terms. As such, with the rise of global markets and outsourcing destinations, increased technological development in transportation, communication and telecommunications has meant that geographical barriers of distance with regards to competition are a thing of the past in an increasingly flat world.Keywords: Supply chain management, supply chain vs. supply chain competition, competition, interaction, logistics centres4.1 IntroductionSupply chain competition and its burgeoning development continue to attract global attention. Given the conceptualization of competition based on interactions between supply chains. The purpose of this article is to investigate logistics centres as an essential source of interaction for supply chains. According to the author, this article that has points where supply chains meet provides a potential for competition between such supply chains. However, it is only when resources and services are known to be critical to a business survival and scarce that competition is most likely to occur at these points. This article is undertaken as a case study of the Katrineholm Logistics Centre (KLC) whose idea of recasting the way logistics centres function can shed new light to the idea of competition between supply chains.

4.2 Interaction: A New Focus for Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain CompetitionThe main findings of the article show that logistics centres represent interaction points as well as important resource points for supply chains and hence a possible point of competition for supply chains. The purpose of this article is to propose the concept of interaction (of supply chains) as the means through which competition can be practically operationalized between supply chains. As an essential source of interaction, logistics centres are used to illustrate the rivalry that might exist between supply chains given the finite nature of service capabilities at such points. It investigates a case logistics centres located in Sweden based on the ecological niche theory (Antai, 2011). The article also argues that interaction points also represent locations where value creation can be achieved by supply chains. The empirical aspect to this research cover an interaction point as conceptualized in the body of the body of the thesis work in the form of a logistics centres. Because the basis for competition in the current business environment is always changing, competition between supply chains will be limited to points where resources are obtained, capabilities are built and services are obtained to enable the supply chain meet the demands of an ever-changing marketplace. As such, interaction points will provide the basis upon which competition will be carried out, whether it is resource points, services points or manufacturing points. In its results, this part sought to show that it is possible that supply chains interact at logistics centres and when they do so they inevitably attract the same resource at these centres. It also tries that it is possible that when supply chains attract similar resources at such interaction points, they can become competitors. In this article, several bases for competition between supply chains have been identified. Because the surrounding environment within which the supply chain operates changes quickly the different bases of competition upon which a supply chain would have to compete can also very quickly change. Thus, this article contributes to supply chain management practice by bringing to the fore techniques with which the competition may be identified and measured. It also points out the most likely basis of rivalry for similar supply chains, even though these bases may be as variable as the weather and as such can quickly expire. The article, therefore also contributes to the supply chain management literature by adapting and applying the ecological niche theory of competition to the operationalization of supply chain vs. supply chain competition.4.3 ConclusionThe author addressed the limitation of the research made sought to develop further the concept of supply chain vs. supply chain competition, for use within supply chain management. Thus, the overarching objective of the study was to develop an empirical understanding of the critical operational factors within supply chain vs. supply chain competition. The study was based on the analysis of literature, modelling and a case study around the themes of competition, competitive advantage and competitiveness. As such one of the major achievements of this article is that it has effectively assisted in contributing to the process of development and understanding of the concept of supply chain vs. supply chain competition. The interaction principles investigated within the logistics centres reveals that supply chains not only converge at such points, they also use the resources, services and facilities available and provided by the logistics centres. Hence, if two or more supply chains target the same resources at the logistics centres to a significant extent, it is then likely than competition ensues. But because supply chains are regarded as business entities, they can decide to compete or diversify.4.4 References & Appendix1. James B. Rice, Jr, Richard M. Hoppe., 2001. Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain: The Hype & the Reality. Supply Chain Management Review.

2. Imoh Antai, 2011, Operationalizing Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competition. Publication of the Hanken School of Economic. Nr.234, Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2011.

3. Cox, A. (2001), The Power Perspective in Procurement and Supply Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 4-7.

4. James B. Rice, Jr, Richard M. Hoppe., 2001. Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain: The Hype & the Reality. Supply Chain Management Review.

5. Imoh Antai, 2011, Operationalizing Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competition. Publication of the Hanken School of Economic. Nr.234, Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2011.

6. Cox, A. (2001), The Power Perspective in Procurement and Supply Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 4-7.

Appendix - Article

18

ai

Kas

beee rmptitawarofenvoded asug

Globalization places demands on supplyreach beyond pure economic issues and maconditions and environmentally friendly prod

develoironmely chaitainablll sizesand soat (at l

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [71] and media can be com-

of models is in clear contrast to, for example, the neighboring eld

mainly in the domain of logistics and supply chain management. Yet,

Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Decision Supp

.eplemented by the development and introduction of sustainableproducts.

For the period 1990 to 2007 Seuring and Mller [70] reviewed atotal of 191 papers. Toward the end of 2010 this list has grown toabout 308 related papers which published about green and sustain-able supply chain management. Yet, sorting these papers accordingto the research methodology employed, only 36 remain which build

such a review has not been attempted for quantitative models appliedto the forward supply chain.

The aim of this paper is to summarize existing research on quanti-tative models for forward supply chains, thereby aiming at substan-tive justication as an important step in theory building [58]. Thisprovides insights toward future research directions and needs.

The paper is structured as follows: as the study deals with a liter-

or use quantitative models. Hence, this papeperiod into account than Seuring and Mllerkind of research method, i.e. quantitative mdetailed insights into this stream of researchclusions on how to develop it further. This s

E-mail address: seuring@uni-kassel.de.URL:http://www.uni-kassel.de/go/scm.

0167-9236/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. Alldoi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.053e reactive approach ofnments, consumers and

and Easton [42] evaluate particularly related empirical research,restricting themselves to a set of papers taken from seven journalsability performance is reached. This morresponding to external pressure from goverstages of the supply chain ensures thest in its intersection with sustainablecomprehended in an economic, an envsion (see e.g. [45]; for the link to supp[42]). Managing supply chains in a susincreasing concern for companies of aof industries. Meeting environmentalchain management totters like e.g. fair laboruction. This raises inter-pment, which is usuallyntal and a social dimen-n management see [70];e manner has become anand across a wide rangecial standards along alleast) minimum sustain-

[46] already provided a rst review on quantitative models for re-verse logistics. Furthermore, (wider) literature reviews on relatedelds are available: (1) closed-loop supply chains [50]; (2) green supplychains, but alsowith a focus on reverse logistics [73] and (3) sustainablesupply chain management [70]. Recently, further reviews have beenpublished, which address particular topics. Two examples are thoseon sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational re-sources [48] or those relating it to a wider set of constructs in supplychain management [49]. Mollenkopf et al. [61] have emphasized thelink to leanmanagement and globalization issues in their review. Carterof reverse or closed-loop supply chains, where Fleischmann et al.

1. IntroductionA review of modeling approaches for sust

Stefan SeuringSupply Chain Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Kassel, 34117

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 3 June 2012

Keywords:Supply chain managementSustainability managementQuantitative modelingLiterature reviewEnvironmental and social standards

More than 300 papers havesupply chains. Looking at thThis is in contrast to, for exareviews on respective quanquantitative models for foreld. While different kindstaken into account. On theclearly dominate. On the mcriteria decision making anso far. The paper ends with

j ourna l homepage: wwwr aims at taking a longer[70], but focuses on oneodels, only. This allowsand should reach con-mall number and share

rights reserved.nable supply chain management

sel, Germany

n published in the last 15 years on the topic of green or sustainable (forward)esearch methodologies employed, only 36 papers apply quantitative models.le, the neighboring eld of reverse or closed-loop supply chains where severaltive models have already been provided. The paper summarizes research ond supply chains and thereby contributes to the further substantiation of themodels are applied, it is evident that the social side of sustainability is notironmental side, life-cycle assessment based approaches and impact criterialing side there are three dominant approaches: equilibrium models, multi-nalytical hierarchy process. There has been only limited empirical researchgestions for future research.

2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ort Systems

l sev ie r .com/ locate /dssature review, a classical section labeled as such is not provided. In-stead, the paper starts by outlining the content analysis method asapplied in the research process. Next, some descriptive backgroundon the papers (e.g. years of publication, major journals) is presented.Further, the ndings from the content analysis are discussed, with aparticular focus on the sustainability dimensions and modeling ap-proaches. This will lead over to the discussion of the ndings andbrief conclusions.

justied:

1514 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 151315202. Describing the method and base for the literature review

This study forms part of a wider literature review at the intersec-tion of sustainability and supply chain management. The methodolo-gy applied has already been described in detail [70]. Papers wereidentied by means of a structured keyword search on major data-bases and publisher websites (Ebsco, Springerlink, Wiley Inter-science, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight). Keywords such aspurchasing, sourcing, supply and supply chain, and logistics/logistical were combined with sustainability related ones, such assustainable/sustainability, sustainable development, environ-ment(al), green, social and ethics/ethical. Subsequently, pa-pers were screened in detail in a two-step process. First, there werethree issues excluded from further analysis: (1) reverse logisticsand remanufacturing, as they have already been subject to self-contained literature reviews already [46,50], (2) ethical behavior ofpurchasing staff, and (3) public procurement. Second, the papers wereunanimously assigned to one research method, where ve categorieswere applied: modeling (the one used here), theoretical or conceptual,case study, survey or literature review.

A content analysis was conducted to systematically assess the pa-pers [55,56,63]. Material collection has already been described bymeans of the literature search and reduction mode. For the analysisitself, a set of criteria is used at rst for describing the sample. Then,the discussion is taken into the content analysis itself, where a mix-ture of deductive and inductive as well as quantitative and qualitativecriteria is chosen. Respective criteria applied for the content analysisare outlined below.

2.1. Basic terminology

2.1.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)

Fig. 1. Time distribution of the analyzed papers.The denition of Seuring and Mller [70] who take standard de-nitions of supply chain management [59] serves as a starting point:Sustainable SCM is the management of material, information andcapital ows as well as cooperation among companies along the sup-ply chain while integrating goals from all three dimensions of sustain-able development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, which arederived from customer and stakeholder requirements. In sustainablesupply chains, environmental and social criteria need to be fullledby the members to remain within the supply chain, while it isexpected that competitiveness would be maintained through meet-ing customer needs and related economic criteria.

2.1.2. Quantitative modelingAccording to Bertrand and Fransoo [39] this is model-based

quantitative research, i.e. research where models of causal relation-ships between control variables and performance variables are devel-oped, analyzed and tested. Such research methods are frequentlyIn the following sections, the different dimensions of the analysiswill be presented. To allow easier presentation of the material, tableswill be used summarizing the single dimensions as embedded in thepapers. Unless stated otherwise, all gures refer to the sample of 36 First, the environmental, social and economic criteria or perfor-mance objectives are assessed. In a second step, the integration ofenvironmental and/or social issues with economic objectives is an-alyzed. This is in line with the typical three dimensional compre-hension of sustainability (see e.g. [45]) and has been discussed inthe eld of supply chain management before (see e.g. [71,42]).

The modeling approach taken in the paper is described. As therewas no clear starting point for this analysis, the categories were de-rived inductively. Three categories, i.e. life-cycle assessmentmodels, equilibrium models and analytical hierarchy process, wereused right at the start, while the other two only appeared duringthe coding.

The link to empirical data forms the nal dimension of the analysis[42,69]. This allows insights into the eld research done toward ll-ing the models with empirical data.

The ndings from applying these dimensions are now presented.

3. Analysis of the papersThe overall sample contains 309 papers in total (status paperspublished up to the end of 2010). Out of this sample only 36 papersapply quantitative models, thereby only contributing little morethan 12% of the total number of papers.

Fig. 1 highlights the timely distribution of the 36 papers. Only twopapers were published before the year 2002 [29,31,6,7,24]. There is asmall peak in 2005 with seven papers, but this seems just accidentalas there was no special issue which would easily explain it. In currentyears, there is an almost stable output with four or ve papers pub-lished for each year in 200710 (see Fig. 1).

Regarding journals, where such papers appear most often, Journalof Cleaner Production (JCLEPRO) is the leading journal with nine pa-pers (or 24%) published. Four papers appeared in the EuropeanJournal of Operational Research (EJOR), and three each in the Interna-tional Journal of Production Economics (IJPE) and the InternationalJournal of Production Research (IJPR), in total contributing another27% of the sample. The rest of the papers are distributed across arange of other journals.

2.3. Criteria applied in the content analysis

Establishing criteria for content analysis can be based on a deduc-tive or an inductive approach. Here, the criteria are mainly deriveddeductively and are based on the already mentioned literature re-views in the eld (particularly [70] criteria). Yet, this would not besufcient for addressing all relevant issues, so in some cases, criteriacan only be established while working with the material. This wasthe case here for the assessment of the modeling approaches appliedin the paper.

The following dimensions will be discussed, briey explained andused in supply chain management research (see e.g. [38,60,57]). Sub-sequently, four different quantitative approaches are distinguished,which are briey introduced, while the full justication for usingthem as categories is provided later in the paper.

2.2. Sample and descriptive analysispapers analyzed here.

be subject to a simplistic comprehension of just a single factor putinto any kind of quantitative model. While this is a normative state-ment, the ongoing debate on CSR supports such a statement (e.g. [47]).This would basically leave all assumptions of supply chain managementunquestioned and rather support a marginally changed business asusual, where sustainability is still subordinate to economic issues. Just asone closely related example, Halldrsson et al. [52] pointed out thatsuch an assumption is insufcient for addressing sustainability.

A much wider perspective is taken by a few other papers. Rathermacro-economic social aspects are put forward by Clift [5], Foran et

aspects as well as the overall integration of the three sustainability di-

aim at nding a balance between different (environmental and eco-

1515S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 151315203.1. Sustainability dimensions

Conceptualizing sustainability in three dimensions seems to bewidely accepted [45,42]. It allows an easy comprehension of theintegration of economic, environmental and social issues. This also of-fers the justication of applying it in this paper. Hence, the papers arecategorized, based on how they relate to sustainable development. Asall papers are taken from management related literature, the eco-nomic dimension forms an integral part and was therefore nottaken as a separate category. Yet, the papers show a very strong dom-inance of addressing environmental issues (34 papers). There are nopapers that exclusively focus on social issues, and also integratingall three dimensions of sustainability is only present in two of them(i.e. [5,15]).

Seuring and Mller [70] emphasize the need for increasing coop-eration along the supply chain, if sustainability goals are to bereached (also [49]). Hence, this should be reected in related goals.A closer look is therefore taken on each dimension and on whichgoals are put forward.

3.1.1. Economic dimensionAs only papers dealing with supply chain management are taken

into account, it is logical that economic issues are addressed. Mostoften, total cost or net revenue is taken as indicators. Yet, there area number of papers not providing insights into what kind of economicgoals is pursued. This holds for a rst set of papers that mainly followa life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach (e.g. [34]). Often, such paperscompare different alternatives toward their environmental perfor-mance (e.g. [11,13]). In a number of cases, the current economicsituation is (inherently) seen as a kind of baseline for evaluating al-ternatives on their environmental impact. This holds particularly forthe LCA related papers (e.g. [34,35,4,11]) or those applying AHP[31,19,20,25,26].

3.1.2. Environmental dimensionMost papers spend much more effort on explaining related envi-

ronmental issues. In many cases, life-cycle assessment data formsthe starting point for the analysis. Hence, energy demand and CO2-emissions (e.g. [4,11,35,28]) are among the frequently mentionedtopics. Yet, in a number of cases, rather comprehensive lists of envi-ronmental impact criteria are taken up, such as referring to all kindsof natural capital (e.g. [36]) or resources, such as water or energy aswell as waste (e.g. [26,23,17]). Overall a wide range of environmentalaspects is taken into account. A deeper look provides some critique tothe typical approach chosen. The relationship between the LCA-basedenvironmental impacts and their management in the supply chainoften points to supplier selection (e.g. [29,20,25]) and optimizationissues, such as transport to end customers [33,11]. Hence, LCA basedapproaches seem to dominate here as they allow comprehendingand modeling product-related impacts (for a conceptual note see[64]).

3.1.3. Social dimensionThe social dimension is the one that is addressed the least often in

the papers. Building on a rather strict assessment, 34 of the 36 papersdo not mention it at all. In four cases one could even argue that theterm corporate social responsibility (CSR) is rather misused in thetitle of the papers looking at their content [810,21]. While all carryCSR in their title, they rather model environmental issues, but not so-cial impact related ones. Cruz [8,9] as well as Cruz and Matsypura [10]briey refer to risk associated with not having (enough) CSR. Hsuehand Chang [21] use it as starting point for a discussion on protsharing.

Yet, turning to the denition of CSR (for an overview see [44]), it isevident that this is about voluntary measures of companies, particu-

larly in the relation between business and society. Hence, CSR cannotnomic) performance criteria. As a further issue, there are three papersapplying simulation as their method [24,34,14,30]. Yet, they do so ei-ther for providing insights into LCA cases [24,34] or for evaluating

Table 1Goal relations among the three sustainability dimensions.

Goal relations Seuring and Mller [70](N=191 papers)(N=234, multiple counting allowed)

Modeling papers(N=36 papers)

Winwin-situations 124 (53%) 7 (19%)Trade-offs 72 (31%) 20 (56%)Minimum performancefor environmentaland social issue

37 (16%) 9 (25%)mensions. While this will not be an easy or simple task, such researchis much needed and would also allow links of sustainable supplychain management toward other emerging elds, such as the Base-of-the-Pyramid debate (see e.g. [51,66]).

3.2. Modeling approaches

Looking at the models proposed, they can be grouped into fourcategories (see Table 2). The four categories were not chosen deduc-tively, but emerged inductively while trying to group them whenreading and analyzing the material: (1) life-cycle assessment basedmodels, (2) equilibrium models, (3) multi-criteria decision making(MCDM), and (4), applications of the analytical hierarchy process(AHP). The overall objective is usually a cost minimization effort,where the entities that incur costs and the respective cost elementsare specied. Each approach and the typical elements pertainedtherein will be briey presented.

It has to be mentioned that each paper is assigned to one categoryonly. The equilibrium models and the multi-objective decision mak-ing (MCDM) models take somewhat similar starting points and bothal. [15] and Ukidwe and Bakshi [36]. They cover employment and in-come distribution, thereby pointing to the wide range of responsibil-ities of companies.

3.1.4. Integration of the three dimensionsThe integration of all the three dimensions plays a central role, but

is not often addressed so far in related research [70]. Previous ndingshave rather conrmed that the social dimension needs much betterintegration with the economic and environmental ones.

A second approach is taken by looking at the goal relations amongthe three dimensions (see Table 1). It has to be noted rst that eachpaper is assigned here to one category only, while Seuring and Mller[70] assigned papers into more than one category, therefore having atotal of 234 entries for 191 papers. Comparing the gures, it can beseen that trade-offs among the environmental and the economic di-mensions are most often taken as a starting point for building themodels. This will be discussed subsequently, after the modeling tech-niques have been introduced.

This analysis already points to a clear research gap regarding social

Table 2 provides an outline of the different modeling approachesused, briey describing the typical approach taken and listing the pa-

1516 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520pers that were grouped into the respective category.

3.2.1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) based studiesLife-cycle assessment is a product based on environmental assess-variables among a multi-objective decision making approach [14].Hence, they are grouped into the respective categories.

Table 2Grouping papers according to modeling techniques.

Modeling approach Typical element ofthe model

Related papers

Life-cycle assessment (LCA)models (11 papers)

Assessingenvironmentalimpacts along asupply chain andminimizing them.

[36,11,13,15,18,24,34,35]

Equilibrium models (9papers)

Balancingenvironmental andeconomic factors andnding anequilibrium oroptimal solution.

[710,21,23,27,30,36]

Multi-criteria decisionmaking (6 papers)

Optimization ofeconomic andenvironmentalcriteria, usuallybalancing trade-offsor identifying opti-mal solutions.

[14,16,17,22,28,33]

Analytical hierarchyprocess (8 papers)

Structuring adecision processthereby obtaining asolution based onsemi-quantitativecriteria and respec-tive weights.

[1,2,12,19,20,25,26,29,31,32]ment techniques (e.g. [54]), which was even standardized in the ISO14041. It is rst discussed here, as it often forms a kind of backgroundfor the other modeling approaches. LCA-type data is pointed to in 29of the 36 papers. The papers mainly present life-cycle assessmentdata and illustrate its use in a specic context or case application.This is well in line with earlier analysis, such as the concept suggestedby Pesonen [64], who already pointed to the use of life-cycleassessment based criteria in supply chains. Furthermore, Seuring[67] elaborates that LCA-based criteria usually provide the productoptimization perspective which precedes the supply chain optimiza-tion. In this respect, it is no surprise that LCA type data serves as abackground for subsequent optimization in the papers reviewedhere (e.g. [14,13]). The link to products is evident, as a core line of re-lated research is labeled as supply chain management for sustainableproducts (e.g. [70,69]).

This also offers a link to the already discussed environmental di-mension and related performance objectives (see Section 3.1). Intotal, a broad range of environmental emissions and impacts is re-ferred to, while related impact assessments usually concentrate onthe direct emission level.

One further typical element is the focus of a number of papers onone product or industry, such as aluminum [24,35,13], milk [34], elec-tronics [18] or services, particularly book distribution [11] or winedistribution [4]. This allows reducing the environmental issues dealtwith as well as making respective supply chain related decisionsmore evident. While the LCA-studies therefore often stay on generalsupply chain wide aspects and in many cases do not center on a singleactor or actor network in the supply chain, such is usually the case inthe other approaches taken in respective papers.3.2.2. Equilibrium modelsThe already mentioned line of research on assessing performance

of an overall supply chain or even industry is continued within thepapers aiming at indentifying an equilibrium. This is a standardmodeling technique [62] and is well established (e.g. [57]). Such equi-librium would be established by assessing what the optimal level ofinvestment into environmental (abatement) technologies and re-spective economic returns would be. Kainuma and Tawara [23] startthis debate by proposing a multiple utility function approach, whichbuilds on metrics in three dimensions: (1) LCA, (2) supply chain re-turn on assets and (3) customer satisfaction. A starting point for relat-ed research was presented with the shared savings contract model forindirect material [7]. The environmental consideration is easy to com-prehend as it aims at reducing the amount of indirect materials beingapplied. Staying with environmental considerations but aiming at amuch wider equilibrium among natural and economic capitals,Ukidwe and Bakshi [36] present their model, mainly building on ther-modynamic inputoutput analysis. Nagurney and Toyasaki [27] for-mulate a more specic model based on manufacturers, retailers andconsumers, but stay vague about what kind of emissions is actuallydealt with.

The above already criticized papers modeling CSR activities alsofall into this category. Hsueh and Chang [21] stay particularly vagueabout what CSR would imply: Herein, undertaking CSR is originallyutilized for coordinating the decentralized supply chain. In themodel itself, this is only present in a production function as per-ceived production and inventory cost of manufacturer (consideringCSR) [21]. Cruz [8] handles this in a similar manner, even claiming:We note that any level of social responsibility activities between anytwo parties in the supply chain requires a strong level of collaboration/cooperation between them. Such an approach ismade somewhat clear-er in the paper by Cruz andMatsypura [10]who claim that engagementin CSR is assumed to reduce transaction costs, waste, aswell as risk. Thisis one of the assumptions forming the background for modeling a re-spective network of manufacturers and retailers. In the equilibrium, anoptimal solution is found for CSR related investments, products' owsalong the supply chain and respective prices.

A similar approach is presented by Saint Jean [30], but is based onemission standards, which seems easier to comprehend. Here, theminimum performance level of environmental and social standards[70] is pointed to, which seems much more straightforward thanunspecied investments into CSR. This refers to the overall contribu-tion of these models, which evaluate the consequences of introducingsome sort of minimum performance criteria. While the problemstatement and model formulation for environmental issues seemstraightforward, the integration of social issues needs further elabora-tion and a clearer positioning whether minimum standards, e.g. forworking conditions and payment, are reached or whether voluntaryCSR activities are expected. It is emphasized again that these modelsevaluate the overall equilibrium among a given set of market actors,but do not directly aim at their decisions. Such focus is taken withinthe other modeling approaches.

3.2.3. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)The link to the previous category is evident, in e.g. the paper of

Sheu et al. [33], who use multi-objective programming but also assessthe equilibrium among manufacturing chain and reverse chain, in-cluding e.g. transaction costs and recycling fees. This showcases thetypical idea of the papers where different objectives have to be metat the same time, which makes the point for such multi-criteria deci-sion making approaches (e.g. [60]). Hence, the focus is usually not somuch on reaching an equilibrium situation, but rather dealing withtrade-offs among conicting objectives. There is a somewhat weakline among these papers looking more at single company/supplychain based decisions and the previous category. An efcient logistics'

network conguration is at the core of the arguments presented by

Neto et al. [28]. In line with the LCA studies and equilibrium models,they mention that trade-offs would be based on societal decisionsbased on Pareto efciency. Their model could help in making respec-tive decisions and is clearly linked to the equilibrium models alreadydescribed. Hugo and Pistikopoulos [22] also use LCA data as theirstarting point and integrate this into modeling the supply chain forenvironmentally conscious strategic investment planning.

More into detail are e.g. Fichtner et al. [14], assessing joint invest-ments into inter-rm energy supply and respective savings. Quitesimilarly, Geldermann et al. [16] look at a bicycle manufacturer inChina. Heat integration, water management and solvent recoveryare the environmental issues addressed and optimized. While these

This kind of construct validity is derived from the two analytic di-mensions, jointly offering interesting insights into how the typicalmodels look and thus allowing a distinction among them (discrimi-nant validity). This is shown in Table 3.

The equilibrium models as well as the multi-objective decisionmaking build on trade-off situations among environmental and eco-nomic goals. There is only one MCDM paper which takes its startingpoint from a winwin situation [14]. This is also the only one buildingon data from a practical environment.

point. Both apply an analysis of statistical data. The latter looks at

1517S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520two papers already point to supply chain design, this is emphasizedin the two papers remaining in this category.

3.2.4. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)The logic of LCA-data is also evident in the paper applying the

AHP, similar techniques or modications thereof. The AHP is also amulti-objective decision making technique [65]. The major differenceis that it is not based on a full mathematical formulation of a certainproblem, but is called a semi-quantitative decision making techniquesimplifying and structuring decisions (e.g. [65,53]). This justies anown category, different from the two previous ones. The two paperspublished early in the entire data set are based on this semi-quantitative decision technique [29,31]. The AHP allows evaluatingnot only complex decision situations, where environmental and eco-nomic goals are assessed at the same time (e.g. [31,32,19,12]), butalso more specialized decisions, such as looking at the role ofhazardous substance management [20] or green supplier selection[29,26,25] and supplier development practices [1,2]. The last two pa-pers somewhat form their own category as they apply rough set the-ory. Yet, as this also deals with incomplete information and followssimilar aims as the AHP, it was decided to keep them in the samecategory.

Overall, the decisions evaluated focus on improving environmentalperformance toward greening respective products [41,70]. Comparedto the previous two categories, the aim is not somuch reaching an equi-librium or optimal approach but rather pointing toward the complexityof decision making and emphasizing the inuence of the decisionmakers. AHP allows taking different decision criteria into account andevaluating them without necessarily connecting all of them into onequantitative model. Hence, such an approach may also be calledmulti-objective decision making (e.g. [26]), but building on managerialjudgments.

3.3. Interrelation of modeling approaches and goal relations

As a further step, it is interesting to combine the two analytic di-mensions of goal relations and modeling approaches. As briey men-tioned, the analytic dimensions and categories for the contentanalysis are often derived inductively and are then validated againstthe interpretation and understanding they offer.

Table 3Relationship among goal relations and modeling approaches.

Goal relations Modeling approach Sum

LCAmodel

Equilibriummodel

Multi-criteriadecisionmaking

Analyticalhierarchyprocess

Winwin situations 2 0 1 4 7Trade-offs 6 9 5 0 20Minimum performancefor environmental andsocial issues

3 0 0 6 9

Sum 11 9 6 10 36cleaner production and process improvements in the aluminum sup-ply chain. Foran et al. [15] look at different products relevant for pri-vate consumption (e.g. cotton and vegetables).

There are three papers arguing for minimum conditions for envi-ronmental and social performance [34,3,18]. The paper by Sonessonand Berlin [34] is based on the milk supply chain, while Brent ad-dresses the automotive one. All papers have in common that theyrather argue on a macro-level, well in line with the winwin-categoryones. It seems to be more straightforward to depart from a trade-offassumption if the level of analysis is not focused on just a single com-pany and its respective supply chain.

For the AHP papers, there are contrasting ndings as there are nopapers dealing with trade-offs. While four look at winwin situations[31,32,26,12], there are six taking environmental issues as minimumstandards against which economic decisions have then to be made(see Table 2). The selection of the decision criteria is more exiblewithin the AHP as they are rather connected in a logical but not in amathematical matter. This allows choosing criteria that represent ei-ther winwin-situations or minimum standards. The most recent de-velopment in this category, namely being the application of rough settheory [1,2], also allows evaluating performance issues of each com-pany as well as the supply chain in total, an issue not addressed inthe previous publications in this category.

3.4. Illustrations and empirical data

Many modeling papers contain a theoretical example of numericalillustration of the model presented (see Table 4). This is also foundhere, as 28 papers in total do so. The purpose of such an illustrationusually emphasizes the consequences of the decision making for areal life application. Yet, very few papers actually build on empiricalresearch. On most occasions, the illustration is made up. Only onepaper is purely theoretical and does not contain any such information[5]. Few examples are found to be different. Fichtner et al. [14] use an

Table 4Empirical research presented in the papers.

Empirical content No. of papers (N=36)

Theoretical or numerical example 28 (all others not listed below)Statistical data 5 [6,15,24,34,36]Empirical data 2 [14,19]None 1 [5]It almost seems obvious that these models take their starting pointfrom trade-offs between the economic and environmental dimen-sions. Such trade-offs are a critical aspect of sustainable supplychain management and often form the starting point for respectiveaction [71]. Further, trade-offs are more straight forward to modelin these approaches.

All three goal relations are observed only for the LCA based papers.This is in line with the previous nding that LCA data forms a back-ground for many of the studies presented here. While the trade-offsdominate, the two other categories are also found. Foran et al. [15]as well as Tan and Khoo [35] take winwin-situations as their starting

1518 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520industrial network in the Karlsruhe area, Germany, as background fortheir model, thereby relating to real world data. Others take industrialsector data, such as the example of the European pulp and paper in-dustry [28], but stay at an illustrative level. Such statistical data isused most often in LCA-type studies, which make up four of the vepapers offering such an approach [6,15,24,34]. Only Ukidwe andBakshi [36] build a thermodynamic inputoutput model on 488 sec-tor data sets for the USA, thereby assessing an equilibrium situationbetween natural and economic capitals (Table 4).

Besides the already mentioned model based on real technical databy Fichtner et al. [14], there is only one paper presenting empiricaldata. A survey feeding into the decision making process is found inHsu and Hu [19], who take responses from 87 managers for validatingtheir AHP model.

Overall, it has to be concluded that the link to empirical data ismissing for most of the related research. Yet, combining the modelspresented with empirical data should offer interesting insights andhence provides a sound direction for future research.

4. Discussion

This paper provides a rst review of publications applying amodeling approach for green or sustainable supply chain issues. Thecontribution of this review lies in aggregating the so far scatteredpublications on this topic and providing an overview on the ap-proaches taken therein.

4.1. Sustainability dimensions

Several conclusions can be drawn, which rst of all relate to thethree dimensions of sustainability:

The social dimension is almost completely missing or sometimescomprehended in a far too simplied manner. It might be difcultto model social impacts. This is in line with wider literature reviews(e.g. [73,70,49]), which also found a lack of research on social as-pects. Hence, there seems to be a challenge for the wider range ofrelated research, while social aspects might have to be evaluated indetail before they are suitably integrated in such (multi-objective)modeling approaches.

The environmental dimension is mainly treated by building on life-cycle assessment-based categories. Yet, many papers stay vagueabout the kind of environmental impacts taken into account.Some specify the environmental impacts of a particular product orsupply chain process and mention how to deal with them. Suchmodels would offer the chance to look at particular impacts andoffer guidance to practitioners on how to deal with them. Thisalso points to a more theoretical stream of research, which assessesthe role of LCA-data in supply chain decisions. Here, a link to empir-ical research on the decisionmakers would be relevant in particular.

In the economic dimension, total cost-based or decision relatedcost and revenue approaches dominate. This does not really capturehow proactive companies strive to implement green or sustainablesupply chains and thereby actively managing a number of perfor-mance objectives. Some of the AHP related papers point to thisand thereby get closer to what Seuring [69] calls supply chain man-agement for sustainable products. Widening the scope of economicperformance criteria would be a welcome contribution.

Last but not least, the integration of the three dimensions as well asthe interrelations among sustainability dimensions and objectivesdemand further research. Previous modeling research mainlylooks at trade-offs. While this might be a sound starting point fordecision making, the consequences of either winwin situations orenvironmental and social standards as minimum criteria also war-

rant further research.4.2. Limitations

The rst limitation of this paper comes from the small sample sizeof only 36 papers. This has been justied as no previous literature re-view or similar approach has been presented on quantitative model-ing approaches in sustainable supply chain management. A secondlimitation is that only a number of quantiable criteria are used forthe content analysis. Only meaning embedded into these categoriesis extracted from the papers. Yet, it is obvious that each paper wasread more than once during the coding and thereby other aspectscame forward in a more inductive manner. The range of codes couldbe expanded, so that e.g. the environmental dimension is analyzedin more detail. Furthermore, the quantitative models could beassessed toward the constraints taken into account and based onthe different variables being modeled. Taking the analysis to suchdepth might even require restricting the sample further. This leadsover to directions for future research.

4.3. Research directions

Further conclusions are drawn regarding the modeling ap-proaches taken as well as the so far weak link to empirical data:

A critical link is the one to empirical research. While there is plen-ty of empirical research on sustainable supply chain management(see [42,69]), such data is not linked to the formal assessments of-fered by quantitative models. While this might be challenging,building on empirical data for the model development should pro-vide a sound link into other streams of research within the widereld.

There is also the open question about the popularity of models forclosed-loop supply chain management and reverse logistics andnot for the forward supply chain in research. The reasons can onlybe speculated on. This cannot be concluded from the current bodyof literature, but might be an issue for further analysis.

One further direction might be the link to supply chain contracts.While a review of this topic has already been provided by Tsay etal. [74], this has not been connected to environmental and sustain-ability issues. The single link to this topic is the analysis of sharedsavings contracts ([7], as a further paper see [43]).

Finally, the link into the supply chain management literature shouldbe strengthened. There is rarely a link into the literature on strate-gic supply chain design (e.g. [68]), supply chain performance andcollaboration literature, which sees a number of interesting devel-opments (see e.g. [72,37]). One such attempt has been made in a re-cent paper by Wang et al. [75], who analyze supply chain networkdesign against environmental criteria. A further example linksgreen supply chain management to stock market performance [40].

The analysis needs further expansion. Future research can take upsome of the challenges to ll gaps in the still emerging intersection ofsustainability and supply chain management.

4.4. Future research questions

As a consequence of the previous analysis and research directions,a number of broader research questions can be raised. Two broadgroups of research questions are proposed. The rst one relates to as-pects of sustainability, while the second group integrates with supplychain management thought.

Regarding questions on sustainability, it is obvious that the envi-ronmental side has been addressed more often so far. This alsoholds for the many contributions already looking at carbon basedemissions. Therefore, the link into the social dimension of sustainabil-

ity is emphasized here.

1519S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520 How can the social dimension be integrated into respective models?Such approaches might have to build on the assessment of particularsocial impacts, thereby reducing the overall complexity.

What is the interrelation among the social and the environmentaldimensions? This might be an issue where multi-objective optimi-zation or the AHP allows reaching further conclusions.

Can the interrelation among all three dimensions of sustainabilitybe modeled? What are suitable approaches for doing so? Address-ing this question, it would be worthwhile taking a look at functionsother than logistics, operations and supply chain management. Thisshould allow shedding light on the challenges but also respectiveopportunities in research on sustainable supply chain management.

Questions on supply chain management:

How does environmental and social performance impact supplychain performance? While there are a number of contributions al-ready on this question, a wider or more detailed analysis wouldstill be benecial.

How can contracts and supply chain cooperations be understoodfurther, so that sustainability issues are not just seen as trade-offs.As the analysis in Table 3 is revealed, the assumption of trade-offsdominates this stream of research. It might be interesting to see al-ternative approaches and identify winwin solutions without beingoverly simplistic.

These research directions and questions would help developingthe eld further while only a selected set of them can be discussedhere.

5. Conclusion

The paper provides a review of the status of research on sustain-able supply chain management applying (mathematical) modelingtechniques. The sustainability dimensions, the particular modelingapproaches taken as well as the empirical content as presented inthe papers have been assessed. It is evident that the environmentaldimension clearly dominates and social aspects are widely ignoredor interpreted in an unusual manner. Life-cycle assessment type stud-ies and respective data form the backbone of the environmental de-bate in the papers, while cost minimization still seems to dominatethe economic dimension. The different modeling approaches (equi-libriummodels, multi-objective optimization and analytical hierarchyprocess) form only a subset of the wider range of methods available.The ndings of the paper summarize the status of research on apply-ing modeling techniques in sustainable supply chain managementand offer insights into directions for future research.

References

Papers reviewed

[1] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using roughset theory, Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (12) (2010) 111.

[2] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, X. Wie, Addressing key sustainable supply chain management is-sues using rough set methodology, Management Research Review 33 (12) (2010)11131127.

[3] A. Brent, Integrating LCIA and LCM: evaluating environmental performances forsupply chain management in South Africa, Management of Environmental Quality:An International Journal 16 (2) (2005) 130142.

[4] S. Cholette, K. Venkat, The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: Astudy of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers, Journal of CleanerProduction 17 (16) (2009) 113.

[5] R. Clift, Metrics for supply chain sustainability, Cleaner Technology and Environ-mental Policy 5 (34) (2003) 240247.

[6] R. Clift, L. Wright, Relationships between environmental impacts and added valuealong the supply chain, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65 (3)(2000) 281295.

[7] C.J. Corbett, G.A. DeCroix, Shared-savings contracts for indirect materials in sup-ply chains: channel prots and environmental impacts, Management Science 47

(7) (2001) 881893.[8] J.M. Cruz, Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibilitythrough integrated environmental decision-making, European Journal of Opera-tional Research 184 (3) (2008) 10051031.

[9] J.M. Cruz, The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management:multicriteria decision-making approach, Decision Support Systems 48 (1) (2009)224236.

[10] J.M. Cruz, D. Matsypura, Supply chain networks with corporate social responsibil-ity through integrated environmental decision-making, International Journal ofProduction Research 47 (3) (2009) 621648.

[11] J.B. Edwards, A.C. McKinnon, S.L. Cullinane, Comparative analysis of the carbonfootprints of conventional and online retailing: a last mile perspective, Interna-tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 40 (12) (2010)103123.

[12] M.N. Faisal, Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers,Business Process Management Journal 16 (3) (2010) 508529.

[13] I. Ferretti, S. Zanoni, L. Zavanella, A. Diana, Greening the aluminium supply chain,International Journal of Production Economics 108 (12) (2007) 236245.

[14] W. Fichtner, M. Frank, O. Rentz, Inter-rm energy supply concepts: an option forcleaner energy production, Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (810) (2004)891899.

[15] B. Foran, M. Lenzen, C. Deyb, M. Bilek, Integrating sustainable chain managementwith triple bottom line accounting, Ecological Economics 52 (2) (2005) 143157.

[16] J. Geldermann, M. Treitz, O. Rentz, Towards sustainable production networks, In-ternational Journal of Production Research 45 (18) (2007) 42074424.

[17] P. Georgiadis, M. Besiou, Environmental strategies for electrical and electronicequipment supply chains: which to choose? Sustainability 1 (3) (2009) 722733.

[18] S. H'Mida, S.Y. Lakhal, A model for assessing the greenness effort in a product sup-ply chain, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 7 (1) (2007) 424.

[19] C.-W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, Green supply chain management in the electronic industry,International journal of Environmental Science and Technology 5 (2) (2008)205216.

[20] C.-W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selec-tion using analytic network process, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2) (2009)255264.

[21] C.F. Hsueh, M.S. Chang, Equilibrium analysis and corporate social responsibilityfor supply chain integration, European Journal of Operational Research 190 (1)(2008) 116129.

[22] A. Hugo, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Environmentally conscious long-range planning anddesign of supply chain networks, Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (15) (2005)14711491.

[23] Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara, A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean andgreen supply chain management, International Journal of Production Economics101 (1) (2006) 99108.

[24] H.H. Khoo, T.A. Spedding, I. Bainbridge, D.M.R. Taplin, Creating a green supplychain, Greener Management International 35 (2001) 7188.

[25] S.S. Lin, Y.S. Juang, Selecting green suppliers with analytic hierarchy process forbiotechnology industry, Operations and Supply Chain Management 1 (2)(2008) 115129.

[26] L.Y.Y. Lu, C.H. Wu, T.-C. Kuo, Environmental principles applicable to green suppli-er evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis, International Journal ofProduction Research 45 (18) (2007) 43174331.

[27] A. Nagurney, F. Toyasaki, Supply chain supernetworks and environmental criteria,Transportation Research: Part D 8 (3) (2003) 185213.

[28] J.F. Neto, J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.A.E.E. van Nunen, E. van Heck, Designing andevaluating sustainable logistics networks, International Journal of ProductionEconomics 111 (2) (2008) 195208.

[29] G. Noci, Designing green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier'senvironmental performance, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Manage-ment 3 (2) (1997) 103114.

[30] M. Saint Jean, Polluting emissions standards and clean technology trajectoriesunder competitive selection and supply chain pressure, Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction 16 (1) (2008) 113123 (S1).

[31] J. Sarkis, Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices, European Jour-nal of Operational Research 107 (1) (1998) 159174.

[32] J. Sarkis, A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management,Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (4) (2003) 397409.

[33] J.-B. Sheu, Y.-H. Chou, C.-C. Hu, An integrated logistics operational model forgreen-supply chain management, Transportation Research: Part E 41 (4) (2005)287313.

[34] U. Sonesson, J. Berlin, Environmental impact of future milk supply chains inSweden: a scenario study, Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3) (2003) 253266.

[35] R.B.H. Tan, H.H. Khoo, An LCA study of a primary aluminum supply chain, Journalof Cleaner Production 13 (6) (2005) 607618.

[36] N.U. Ukidwe, B.R. Bakshi, Flow of natural versus economic capital in industrialsupply networks and its implications to sustainability, Environmental Scienceand Technology 39 (24) (2005) 97599769.

Further references

[37] B.J. Angerhofer, M.C. Angelides, A model and a performance measurement systemfor collaborative supply chains, Decision Support Systems 42 (1) (2006) 283301.

[38] B.M. Beamon, Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods, Interna-tional Journal of Production Economics 55 (3) (1998) 281294.

[39] J.W.M. Bertrand, J.C. Fransoo, Operations management research methodologiesusing quantitative modeling, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management 22 (2) (2002) 241264.

[40] I. Bose, R. Pal, Do green supply chain management initiatives impact stock pricesof rms? Decision Support Systems 52 (3) (2012) 624634.

[41] F.E. Bowen, P.D. Cousins, R.C. Lamming, A.C. Faruk, The role of supply manage-ment capabilities in green supply, Production and Operations Management 10(2) (2001) 174189.

[42] C.R. Carter, P.L. Easton, Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and fu-ture directions, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Man-agement 41 (1) (2011) 4662.

[43] C.J. Corbett, G.A. DeCroix, A.Y. Ha, Optimal shared-savings contracts in supplychains: linear contracts and double moral hazard, European Journal of Operation-al Research 163 (3) (2005) 653677.

[44] A. Dahlsrud, How corporate social responsibility is dened: an analysis of 37 def-initions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (1)(2008) 113.

[45] T. Dyllick, K. Hockerts, Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability, Busi-ness Strategy and the Environment 11 (2) (2002) 130141.

[46] M. Fleischmann, J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, R. Dekker, E. van der Laan, J.A.E.E. vanNunen, L.N. Van Wassenhove, Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review,European Journal of Operational Research 103 (1) (1997) 117.

[47] E. Garriga, D. Mel, Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territo-ry, Journals of Business Ethics 53 (12) (2004) 5171.

[48] S. Gold, S. Seuring, P. Beske, Sustainable supply chain management andinter-organizational resources: a literature review, Corporate Social Responsibil-ity and Environmental Management 17 (4) (2010) 230245.

[49] S. Gold, S. Seuring, P. Beske, The constructs of sustainable supply chainmanagement:a content analysis based on published case studies, Progress in Industrial Ecology AnInternational Journal 7 (2) (2010) 114137.

[50] V.D.R. Guide, V. Jayaraman, R. Srivastava, W.C. Benton, Supply chain managementfor recoverable manufacturing systems, Interfaces 30 (3) (2000) 125142.

[51] R. Hahn, The ethical rational of business for the poor: integrating the conceptsbottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship, Jour-nal of Business Ethics 84 (3) (2009) 313324.

[52] A. Halldrsson, H. Kotzab, T. Skjott-Larsen, Supply chain management on the cross-road to sustainability: a blessing or a curse? Logistics Research 1 (2) (2009) 8394.

[60] H. Min, G. Zhou, Supply chain modeling: past, present and future, Computers andIndustrial Engineering 43 (12) (2002) 231249.

[61] D. Mollenkopf, H. Stolze, W.L. Tate, M. Ueltschy, Green, lean, and global supplychains, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management40 (12) (2010) 1441.

[62] A. Nagurney, J. Dong, D. Zhang, A supply chain network equilibriummodel, Trans-portation Research: Part E 38 (5) (2002) 281303.

[63] K.A. Neuendorf, The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2002.[64] H.L. Pesonen, Environmental management of value chains, Greener Management

International 33 (2001) 4558.[65] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Jour-

nal of Operational Research 48 (1) (1990) 926.[66] C. Schrader, J. Freimann, S. Seuring, Business strategy at the base of the pyramid,

Business Strategy and the Environment (forthcoming) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.727.

[67] S. Seuring, Industrial ecology, life-cycles, supply chains: differences and interrela-tions, Business Strategy and the Environment 13 (5) (2004) 306319.

[68] S. Seuring, The product-relationship-matrix as framework for strategic supplychain design based on operations theory, International Journal of Production Eco-nomics 120 (1) (2009) 221232.

[69] S. Seuring, Supply chain management for sustainable products: insights from re-search applying mixed-methodologies, Business Strategy and the Environment20 (7) (2011) 471484.

[70] S. Seuring, M. Mller, From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sus-tainable supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15) (2008)16991710.

[71] S. Seuring, M. Mller, Core issues in sustainable supply chain management: a Del-phi study, Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (8) (2008) 455466.

[72] C. Shepherd, H. Gnter, Measuring supply chain performance: current researchand future directions, International Journal of Productivity and PerformanceManagement 55 (3/4) (2006) 242258.

[73] S. Srivastava, Green supply-chain management: a state-of the-art literature re-view, International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1) (2007) 5380.

[74] A.A. Tsay, S. Nahmias, N. Agrawal, Modelling supply chain contracts: a review, in:Sridhar Tayur, Ram Ganeshan, Michael Magazine (Eds.), Quantitative Models for

work design, Decision Support Systems 51 (2) (2011) 262269.

1520 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 15131520view, European Journal of Operational Research 186 (1) (2008) 211228.[54] D. Hunkeler, K. Saur, H. Stranddorf, G. Rebitzer, W.P. Schmidt, A.A. Jensen, K.

Christiansen, Life Cycle Management, SETAC, Brussels, 2003.[55] P. Mayring, Qualitative content analysis, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1 (2)

(2000) 110 (http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386, accessed on 25 January 2012).

[56] P. Mayring, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 9th editionBeltz, Weinheim, 2007.

[57] M.J. Meixell, V.B. Gargeya, Global supply chain design: a literature review and cri-tique, Transportation Research: Part E 41 (6) (2005) 531550.

[58] J.T. Mentzer, K.B. Kahn, A framework of logistics research, Journal of Business Lo-gistics 16 (1) (1995) 231250.

[59] J.T. Mentzer, W. DeWitt, J.S. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D. Smith, Z. Zacharia, De-ning supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2) (2001)126.aHStefan Seuring is a full professor of supply chain management at the University ofKassel, Germany. Previously, he worked at theWaikato Management School, Hamilton,New Zealand and was a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He holdPhD and habilitation from the Carl von Ossietzky-University of Oldenburg, Germany.e has published widely on sustainability and supply chain management.Supply Chain Management, Kluwer, Boston, 1999, pp. 299337.[75] F. Wang, X. Lai, N. Shi, A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain net-[53] W. Ho, Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: a literature re-

A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management1. Introduction2. Describing the method and base for the literature review2.1. Basic terminology2.1.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)2.1.2. Quantitative modeling

2.2. Sample and descriptive analysis2.3. Criteria applied in the content analysis

3. Analysis of the papers3.1. Sustainability dimensions3.1.1. Economic dimension3.1.2. Environmental dimension3.1.3. Social dimension3.1.4. Integration of the three dimensions

3.2. Modeling approaches3.2.1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) based studies3.2.2. Equilibrium models3.2.3. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)3.2.4. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

3.3. Interrelation of modeling approaches and goal relations3.4. Illustrations and empirical data

4. Discussion4.1. Sustainability dimensions4.2. Limitations4.3. Research directions4.4. Future research questions

5. ConclusionReferences

Supply Chain Management: An International JournalGreen supply chain management practices: impact on performanceKenneth W. Green Jr Pamela J. Zelbst Jeramy Meacham Vikram S. Bhadauria

Article information:To cite this document:Kenneth W. Green Jr Pamela J. Zelbst Jeramy Meacham Vikram S. Bhadauria, (2012),"Green supply chain managementpractices: impact on performance", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 290 - 305Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126

Downloaded on: 06 October 2014, At: 21:58 (PT)References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6241 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Tritos Laosirihongthong, Dotun Adebanjo, Keah Choon Tan, (2013),"Green supply chain management practices andperformance", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 113 Iss 8 pp. 1088-1109Aref A. Hervani, Marilyn M. Helms, Joseph Sarkis, (2005),"Performance measurement for green supply chain management",Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 330-353Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Yong Geng, (2005),"Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices andperformance", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 449-468

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 434496 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 2

1:58

06

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Green supply chain management practices:impact on performance

Kenneth W. Green Jr

Department of Management, Marketing, and Management Information Systems, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas, USA

Pamela J. ZelbstDepartment of Management and Marketing, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA, and

Jeramy Meacham and Vikram S. BhadauriaDepartment of Management, Marketing, and Management Information Systems, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas, USA

AbstractPurpose The aim is to contribute significantly to the first wave of empirical investigations related to the impact of green supply chain management(GSCM) practices on performance. The paper also aims to theorize and empirically assess a comprehensive GSCM practices and performance model.The model incorporates green supply chain practices that link manufacturers with supply chain partners (both suppliers and customers) to supportenvironmental sustainability throughout the supply chain.Design/methodology/approach Data collected from 159 manufacturing managers were analyzed using a structural equation modelingmethodology. Manufacturing managers provide data reflecting the degree to which their organizations work with suppliers and customers to improveenvironmental sustainability of the supply chain.Findings Generally, the adoption of GSCM practices by manufacturing organizations leads to improved environmental performance and economicperformance, which, in turn, positively impact operational performance. Operational performance enhances organizational performance.Research limitations/implications As a first wave empirical investigation of the impact of GSCM practices on performance, the study is bynecessity exploratory.Practical implications Practitioners are provided with a framework for assessing the synergistic impact of GSCM practices on performance. Internalenvironmental management and green information systems are identified as necessary precursors to the implementation of green purchasing,cooperation with customers, eco-design, and investment recovery.Originality/value A comprehensive GSCM practices performance model is proposed and empirically assessed. The results of this investigationsupport the proposition that GSCM practices are both environmentally necessary and good business. A structured two-wave approach to theimplementation of GSCM practices is recommended.

Keywords Green supply chain management, Green information systems, Environmental performance, Economic performance,Operational performance, Organizational performance

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Supply chain management (SCM) requires the integrationand coordination of business processes and strategy alignmentthroughout the supply chain for the purpose of satisfying thefinal customers of the supply chain (Green et al., 2008, 2006;Cohen and Roussel, 2005; Ho et al., 2002). Businessprocesses that must be integrated and coordinated includepurchasing, manufacturing, marketing, logistics, andinformation systems. Strategic imperatives that must bealigned include customer focus, efficiency, quality, andresponsiveness (Zelbst et al., 2010), and most recentlyenvironmental sustainability. With competition at the supply

chain level and a focus on the changing demands of final

customers, it is necessary to identify and adopt practices that

yield competitive advantage at the supply chain level which, in

turn, yield improved performance for the individual supply

chain partners (Green et al., 2008). Environmental

sustainability is a supply chain imperative rather than an

organizational imperative (Vachon and Klassen, 2007; Vachon

and Klassen, 2006; Vasileiou and Morris, 2006).

Development of environmentally friendly processes,

products, and services requires a unified effort by all

members of the supply chain to avoid sub-optimization at

the partner level (Vasileiou and Morris, 2006).Manufacturing organizations have begun to implement

green supply chain management (GSCM) practices in

response to customer demand for products and services thatThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

17/3 (2012) 290305

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]

[DOI 10.1108/13598541211227126]

Received: 10 August 2011Revised: 1 September 20111 December 20113 January 2012Accepted: 6 January 2012

290

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 2

1:58

06

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

are environmentally sustainable and that are created through

environmentally sustainable practices and in response togovernmental environmental regulations (Murray, 2000;

Green et al., 1998). These practices require thatmanufacturers work in concert with suppliers and customers

to enhance environmental sustainability. The implementation