Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Purpose -To make their supply chains more socially responsible, many companies are implementing supplier assessment tools and collaborative practices. The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic literature review on the governance structures used to extend sustainability to suppliers. More specifically, the authors aim to answer two questions: "What is the impact of these mechanisms or governance structures on sustainable performance?" and "What are the enablers of these mechanisms?". Design/methodology/approach -A structured literature review is carried out that analyses published studies, evaluates contributions, summarises knowledge and identifies managerial implications and lines for further research. Findings -Both assessment and collaboration have a positive impact on environmental performance and corporate social responsibility, although the most recent collaborative paradigm stresses that assessment alone is not enough. Some enablers of these practices are identified. Research limitations/implications -Although the authors believe that the right search terms have been used, the choice of these terms could be a limitation of this study. Also, the selection of the articles could be considered subjective, although the papers were reviewed by two researchers. Practical implications -Supplier assessment and collaboration are effective in improving sustainability. However, the results also indicate that assessment alone is not enough. Firms also need to adopt a collaborative approach. Finally, a list of enablers to implement these practices is provided. Originality/value -The paper summarises knowledge related to the impact of supplier assessment and collaboration on sustainability, and describes the enablers of such initiatives, providing some managerial implications and lines for further research.

Ethical Sourcing: An Analysis of the Literature and Implications for Future Research

“…The main path consists of 15 articles that play a major role in the development of this field, which are labelled with the first author's surname and publication year. There are two sources (Browning and Zabriskie 1983;Rudelius and Buchholz 1979) and 5 sinks (Gimenez and Tachizawa 2012;Hoejmose et al 2013;Lee et al 2013;Reimann et al 2012;Reuter et al 2012). They are depicted as black and blank nodes, respectively.…”

The Process of Responsibility, Decoupling Point, and Disengagement of Moral and Social Responsibility in Supply Chains: Empirical Findings and Prescriptive Thoughts

“…managers need to make BSus a priority (e.g. Côté et al, 2008;Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012;Winter and Kneymeyer, 2013); (xiii) 'responsibility' among employees is important for accountability and for decision making, in order to improve BSus, i.e. employees need to have support and a mandate for sustainable choices, even when they are costly (e.g.…”

“…move from arms-length relationships to partnerships (e.g. Fang et al, 2010;Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012;Verghese and Lewis, 2007); (iv) 'transparency' helps in the evaluation and improvement of BSus in supply chains, i.e. structures and activities in supply chains need to be made visible (e.g.…”

“…It was guided by an approach used by Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012). Their literature review applied suitable keywords for BSus in supply chains.…”

Inside out: The interrelationships of sustainable performance metrics and its effect on business decision making: Theory and practice

“…With customers' expectations 48 and demands rapidly changing, companies targeting a customer base with high 49 awareness of all three perspectives of sustainability need careful consideration of 50 these in their business decision-making. Unfortunately, one of the most challenging 51 aspects of decision-making to achieve sustainability, is that elements of the process 52 are beyond the reach of companies' control (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). A high 53 level of environmental performance achieved by one firm can be brought to nothing 54 by its supply chain partners' poor environmental/social performance (Faruk et al,55 2001).…”