Corporate responsibility, supply chain management and strategy

Abstract

Purpose -In search of new perspectives on sustainable food production, this paper focuses on three fields of literature, namely corporate responsibility (CR), supply chain management (SCM) and strategy. The purpose of this paper is to identify the recent theoretical developments and then integrate them in a framework for studying and managing corporations. Design/methodology/approach -Conceiving socio-cultural and economic systems within the ecosystem, this paper call for research in the food sector that takes the planetary boundaries into consideration and places the essential needs of the world's poor onto the research agenda of CR, SCM and strategy. Findings -First, a new perspective on CR could be "holistic and beyond responsive", as it emphasizes the focal actor's role. Second, SCM could be strengthened at its interface with sustainability by the "bottom of the pyramid" view, as it looks for new ways to make business models and operations beneficial for poor communities. And third, in examining the strategies for these two, the strategy-as-practice perspective might prove useful, as it is not only limited to organizational practice but also includes the concepts of organizational praxis and practitioners. Research limitations/implications -This paper argues that these new perspectives are promising avenues for managing and studying business in the food sector, and thus have implications for both academia and industry. Originality/value -The framework provided in the paper combines three important areas of business research for sustainable development, namely CR, SCM and strategy.

Stakeholder Engagement and its Impact on Supply Chain Sustainability in the Context of Renewable Energy

“…Furthermore, the alignment of objectives among various stakeholders is critical for ensuring the consistent prioritization of sustainability goals across the supply chain. Each stage of the renewable energy supply chain, from raw material extraction to the manufacturing of components and installation of energy systems, presents unique sustainability challenges (Gold & Heikkurinen, 2018). Effective stakeholder engagement facilitates the identification of these challenges and promotes coordinated efforts to address them.…”

“…Moreover, stakeholder engagement helps in aligning the objectives of various actors in the supply chain, ensuring that sustainability goals are consistently prioritized. This alignment is particularly important in the context of renewable energy, where the supply chain spans from raw material extraction to the manufacturing of components, and finally to the installation and maintenance of energy systems (Gold & Heikkurinen, 2018). Each stage of this supply chain has its own sustainability challenges, which can be better addressed through coordinated efforts and shared commitments to sustainable practices (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2018).…”

Legitimacy Contexts of BoP Markets: Characterization and Implications for Supply Chain Functions

“…This creates challenges and opportunities for the supply chain functions of the firm, and such deserves more attention from the mainstream supply chain research. Operating in the BoP market requires organizations to adapt their strategies for different supply chain functions as it becomes impractical to do business in markets surrounded by extreme poverty and heterogeneity [27,34] using the developed economy mindset. Designing supply chain functions that are compatible with the BoP market environment is a major challenge for organizations.…”

Enhancing environmental wellbeing: What social workers can learn from hybrid business activities

“…The model contains aspects of the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors (Doherty et al, 2014). Other authors have used a variety of terminology, including the fourth sector (Sabeti, 2011), B-Corporations (Jones and Donmoyer, 2015; Sabeti, 2011), social enterprise (Doherty et al, 2014; Jones and Donmoyer, 2015), community enterprise (Barraket et al, 2017), Fair Trade (Bacon, 2010) or organisations that use triple bottom-line accounting (Gold and Heikkurinen, 2013). The terminology is inconsistently applied to organisations with a variety of outcomes.…”