Factors affecting green supply chain management and sustainable supply chain innovations

ABSTRACT:

The challenges of sustainable development require whole supply chains and networks to drive change and innovation. Accordingly, the global sustainability movement encourages companies to adopt and implement green supply chain management (GSCM) practices. However, most existing researches on sustainable innovations is on a company level, and companies that dominates the market only focus on the silo approach with short-term and profit-driven plans. As a result, it is necessary to have researches facilitating sustainable supply chain innovations and green supply chain management. This paper is to identify, categorize, and evaluate the importance of critical factors for the realization of sustainable supply chain innovation and green supply chain management. By using the qualitative research method, conducting a systematic literature review and analyzing contents about sustainable supply chain innovation and green supply chain management, this study points out several main categories of critical factors. The study finds out that Collaboration is the most frequently observed main category, followed by Strategic orientation, Culture, Practices, and Political context.

Keywords: supply chain management, sustainable, green supply chain management (GSCM), sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI).

1. Introduction

The appearance of emerging economies, growing global population, and increasing environmental burden calls for innovations based on all three pillars of SD (Mclellan et al., 2014; UN General, 2015). Several researchers put forward the notion that it is no longer enough to improve existing operations or develop incremental innovations based on existing know-how or technology (Azevedo, 2014; Hellstro€m, 2007; Huesemann, 2003). Instead, radical innovations are needed; these typically emerge from paradigm shifts with high sustainability potential (Hellstro€m, 2007; Adams et al., 2015) and new logics of doing business, e.g., going from linear, one-way supply chains to circular supply chains (Ripanti and Tjahjono, 2019). While companies, authorities, and organizations individually engage in the creation of sustainable innovations (SI), it is when they are working together in supply chains and networks that they manifest the most significant potential impact (De Marchi and Grandinetti, 2013; Beske and Seuring, 2014; Carter and Easton, 2011).

Involving several stakeholders can be difficult, as established socio-technical systems often imply structural changes within existing supply chains (SC) (Markard and Truffer, 2008) and challenge present power structures. With increased transparency and public reporting of both social and environmental abuses, it is a fact that prominent actors like H&M, Dell, BP, etc., will suffer, and sometimes heavily, if their suppliers or sub-suppliers do not work and act in sustainable ways. However, while traditional strategies have been based on risk minimization such as enhanced contracts and demands on supplier certification, to realize SD, new concepts, systems, and business models involving several stakeholders are needed (Bocken et al., 2014). The concept of circular economy (Blomsma and Brennan 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018; Pearce and Turner, 1989) is a growing field of practice and research, targeting one-way, linear concepts on an SC level as well as addressing resource scarcity (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018). As identi?ed by Geissdorerfer et al. (2017), system design and innovations are the main drivers for fulfilling the purpose of both circular economy and SD. De Angelis et al. (2018) highlight new designs of products as well as SCs based on circular principles. However, they (ibid. p.433) conclude that “a prolonged period of transition involving the accommodation of traditional, waste-based thinking is expected before the full benefits of circular systems can take effect.” Consequently, innovation development on an SC level to drive such transition is paramount for SD.

Besides, most businesses have adopted the GSCM practices and integrated them into their business processes as long-term environmental responsibility (Masudin 2019). GSCM strikes a balance between adverse environmental effects, social advantages, and profit-generating operations that foster value along the so-called triple bottom line, giving adopting businesses a competitive advantage (Tyagi et al., 2015). GSCM is an environmentally friendly principle that aims to increase environmental performance (Diabat and Govindan 2011). According to Zhu et al. (2008), GSCM emerged to connect aspects of supply chain management (SCM) and environmental management. Companies with a sustainable supply chain and activities are better positioned in the market (Juma et al. 2021; Saade et al. 2019). Thus, green technology adoption in business operations has been recognized as having higher advantages and affecting supplier and customer relationships within companies (Lin et al. 2020). Researchers and practitioners have focused heavily on GSCM adoption issues since GSCM adoption profoundly affects an organizations environmental, social, and financial performance (Masudin 2019). The increasing value of GSCM due to depleting raw material supplies, overflowing waste sites, and emission levels (Ikram et al. 2019; Mathiyazhagan et al. 2013) has gained attention from several researchers to investigate the factors that influence GSCM implementation.

The purpose of this paper is to identify, categorize, and evaluate the importance of critical factors, identi?ed in academic literature, for the realization of SSCI, from those prosing policy guidelines for decision-makers and managers to focus on the essential issues that assist them in implementing GSCM practices according to the size of the firm.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable supply chains and innovation

The literature on sustainable SCs (Abbasi and Nilsson, 2012) is growing and it includes critical aspects such as greening suppliers, risk management, stakeholder alignment, information sharing, prioritization (De et al., 2019), and collaboration (Parthibaraj et al., 2018). However, the role of innovation in sustainable SCs is far less emphasized.

Innovation is widely discussed in all types of contexts (e.g., on national/regional levels (Edquist, 2006), inter-organizational levels, group levels), while the dominating perspective is that of the firm (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Davila et al., 2006). One definition of innovation widely used, and chosen as the basis for our research, is the OECD Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2005, p. 46) definition: “Innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practice.” Therefore, for anything to be considered an innovation, it has to be widely implemented and diffused in practice and commerce (see Davila et al., 2006 for definitions of innovation). Innovation can be of different types where product and process are most denoted, followed by organizational innovation, business model innovation, and management innovation (Bessant et al., 2005; Chesbrough, 2007). According to Schumpeter (1934), one of the earliest scholars in this field, innovation emerges from entrepreneurial activities leading to new products, new processes, the opening of new markets, new organizational forms, and new sources of supply. Several dynamically related general factors such as entrepreneurship, creativity, culture, top management support, etc. (Davila et al., 2006) are needed to facilitate innovation and innovation processes. While the economic dimension of innovation is still predominant (Gao et al., 2017) and widely seen as the basis of a competitive economy (Porter and Ketels, 2003), the concept of innovation has also evolved into social and environmental considerations. Azevedo (2014) states that this increasing interest mainly depends on emerging economies, increasing demand for resources, and the need to decouple economic growth from natural resources.

2.1.1. Sustainable innovation

The concept of sustainable innovations derives from eco-innovation (Hellstrom, 2007), environmental/green innovation (Schiederig et al., 2012), and social innovation and builds on all dimensions of SD. Compared to the concept of green innovation, which has been chiefly researched on a macro level, and eco-innovation, which has its origin in greening technology and product design SI. SI is defined by Neutzling et al. (2018, p. 3449) as “the introduction of products, production processes, management practices, or business models, new or signi?cantly improved, that bring economic, social and environmental outcomes.” The authors (Neutzling et al., 2018) add that cultural necessities, temporal and spatial aspects, are intrinsic in SI.

Literature on SI has increased since 2012 (Tebaldi et al., 2018). However, while SI includes the pillars of SD, it is still within a company context providing single actors with innovation concepts that encompass the pillars but do not include the SC dimension to any great extent, neither in research nor in practice. This is true, even though research has shown that organizations with proactive approaches to collaboration with SC actors develop more successful and innovative solutions (Nair et al., 2016). Other researchers have highlighted the need for an increased holistic view on innovations and sustainability by incorporating a triple bottom line approach (Wstenhagen, 2008). Bocken et al. (2014) propose that companies incorporate business model practice with a triple bottom line approach to drive and implement SI. Sustainable business models can help companies form incentives to create SD and increase inter-organizational interaction and integration. Klewitz and Hansen (2014, p. 57) suggest that: “interaction with external actors (e.g., customers, authorities, research institutes) can ultimately increase the innovative capacity”. Consequently, to drive the implementation of SI initiatives, there are significant potential benefits in treating it on an SC level rather than on a company level (Govindan et al., 2016). This is especially the case for the transformation from one-way, linear SCs into circular and resource-effective setups, something that Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) state requires a paradigm shift.

2.1.2. Sustainable supply chain innovation

The concept of SSCI is relatively new. Gao et al. (2017) report that the first papers related to SSCI were published in 2007. Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) report that governments seem to ignore SCs and focus on single prominent actors in their sustainability efforts. It is only recently that SSCI is being defined in literature where Gao et al. (2017, p. 1530) define it from an SC innovation perspective: If the supply chain innovation results in the balanced performance of economic, social and environmental dimensions, in other words, all three dimensions have positive innovation performance. It is called a sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI). Tebaldi et al. (2018) thematically describe identified areas in the literature related to SSCI, namely: obstacles and motivations for implementation of SI, phases of innovation that have been studied, the degree and type of innovation and finally, the sustainability dimension by which the innovations are measured. Kusi-Sarpong et al. (2019) use the term SC sustainability innovation and emphasize the importance of sustainable innovation management in SSCM. De Medeiros et al. (2014) highlight internal, inter-functional integration, and broader stakeholder integration as critical success factors for sustainable product innovation. Adams et al. (2015, p.196) adopt a standpoint in sustainability-oriented innovations and present a three-stage framework: “Beyond Operational Optimization [stage 1] and Organizational Transformation [stage 2] lies highly radical, game-changing systemic innovation that targets transforming established social relationships and interactions between industry, consumer behavior and lifestyles, institutional orientations, and even the very aims of the business.” Lim and Sonko (2019), using the framework by Adams et al. (2015), conclude that the system (SC) perspective adopted by their case company is central to the realization of sustainable innovations. Finally, Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) propose circular SC management and highlight the need for technological, social, and organizational innovations if the sustainability paradigm shift is to happen.

To sum up, the field of SSCI is an emerging field of research and practice, with its roots in, and infiuences from, areas such as SD, innovation, SI, SSCM, and circular economy. Consequently, as claimed in literature (e.g., Adams et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2017; Tebaldi et al., 2018), there is a clear need for both theory building that can guide further research (Whetten, 1989) and practical, actionable models for practitioners to test, use, and develop further. Based on our literature analysis, for the rest of this paper, SSCIs are defined as innovations realized in an SC context that explicitly covers all three pillars of SD, while SIs are defined as innovations realized in a company context that explicitly covers all three pillars of SD.

2.2. Green supply chain management (GSCM)

In this section, the prior studies in the fields of adoption of GSCM and so on are reviewed. Zhu et al. (2008) observed whether organizations in China vary in adopting GSCM practices based on the firms size. They undertook a comparative analysis of five practices of GSCM among small, medium, and large-sized organizations. The results showed that organizations vary in adopting GSCM practices where medium and large firms were more progressive in adopting some GSCM practices than small-sized firms. De Sousa Jabbour et al. (2013) investigated the impact of the factors including firm size, EMS, hazardous materials as inputs, and supply chain structure: bargaining power on GSCM adoption.

Moreover, all the elements except the bargaining power of a supply chain member were positively associated with the adoption of GSCM practices. The commitment of top management, the linkage of performance with reward, effective organizational communication, in-house training on green adoption, employee empowerment, team building, mutual trust, and respect, minimizing the barriers to adopt change, green motivation, and strategic planning toward green innovation are some of the behavioral factors that were assessed to detect their effects on GSCM practices (Muduli et al. 2013). After examining several drivers of GSCM practices, Govindan et al. (2016) found that top management commitment for green practices and competitiveness were the two most influential drivers, and on the other hand, the least significant driver was employee pressure.

According to the study of Saade et al. (2019), the adoption of GSCM practices helps organizations to capture new market opportunities at the national and international level, which motivates the market to go green and is an attraction for employees. Moreover, GSCM adoption was impeded by external stakeholder pressure and a lack of government support. Lin et al. (2020) assessed the impact of technological innovation, organizational, and environmental factors on GSCM adoption where the results showed that perceived relative advantage, perceived cost, top management support, complexity, compatibility, firm size, customer pressure, regulatory pressure, and human resource were significantly related to GSCM adoption. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2018) identified and prioritized several factors that drive the implementation of GSCM. The most significant category was the government, followed by market, supplier, customer, internal drivers, and finally, environment. Asif et al. (2020) dug out three high-priority drivers of GSCM adoption: government regulations, customer demands, and supplier performance.

Researchers have long considered SCM, but it was not until the early 2000s that the emphasis shifted to GSCM. GSCM is defined as a set of business practices that continuously monitor and improve a supply chains environmental impact (Vanalle et al., 2017). It is also characterized as incorporating environmental considerations into SCM, including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing procedures, final product delivery to customers, and product end-of-life management (Asif et al. 2020). The green operations are incorporated into the supply chains overall management phase. According to Andiç et al. (2012), incorporating green supply chain necessitates in business processes minimizing or attempting to eliminate the supply chains adverse environmental effects. GSCM is a complex process involving many stakeholders such as vendors, manufacturers, dealers, retailers, and clients (Saade et al., 2019). Strategic and operational business policies such as internal environmental management, green acquisition, customer relationship management, and eco-design should all be part of GSCM practices (Sinaga et al., 2019). GSCM has been described as a valuable measure for improving the enterprises ecological performance and reducing environmental risk (Abid et al., 2021). The adoption of green practices in SCM also aids in the improvement of business enterprises and their partners ecological competence (Wang et al., 2016). Managers of different firms adopt GSCM by getting influenced by ecological competencies. Also, by incorporating GSCM, the managers of the manufacturing firm would be able to fulfill societys standards for environmental conservation during the product lifecycle (Juma et al., 2021). According to the framework developed in this study, several factors would enable companies to adopt GSCM practices as GSCM has become a popular topic of interest for researchers and industrial practitioners. The factors include government factor, supplier factor, market factors, environmental factor, customer factor, cost factor, and internal factor (Asif et al. 2020)

2.3. Gaps and contribution

There is a lack of knowledge when it comes to innovations on an SC level. For example, Boons and Ldeke-Freund (2013) conclude that the knowledge of drivers for SI on a company level is much more investigated and understood than how SIs are developed in inter-organizational relationships. A number of studies focusing on different aspects of SI also highlight the need for research and theory development on an SC level (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; Karakaya et al., 2014) as well as specific concerns for sustainability-related to innovation (Barth et al., 2017; Bocken et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2019). Furthermore, in the literature review by Gao et al. (2017), it is concluded that most studies are in a company context, and few studies address the process of SI on an SC level, i.e., sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI). Finally, Leo´nBravo et al. (2019) conclude a lack of clear assessment of the leading innovative actions needed for achieving sustainability.

To sum up, most existing research on SI is on a company level, and, as highlighted by several researchers, there is a need for research of SI on an SC level, i.e., SSCI. There is little research exploring what critical factors are central to and essential for the creation of SSCI and how SSCI can be realized. Consequently, in line with Welfords (2000) reasoning, there is a need to develop, test, and evaluate knowledge and models that are actionable. The purpose of this paper is to identify, categorize, and evaluate the importance of critical factors, identified in academic literature, for the realization of SSCI, and to contribute with a process model for SSCI development to guide researchers and practitioners in increasing the scope of transitions needed for SD.

3. Methodology

A systematic literature review methodology provides collective insights on fields and sub-fields of inquiry by synthesizing theoretical and empirical work in a replicable and transparent process that reviews the existing literature based on a set of search criteria (Tranfield et al., 2003).

These terms were used to find out the related literature merely. Because to search the related paper in bulk and then screened the most relevant, the exact phrases used for the main criterion in the study have been considered. The terms that have been used, evaluated by a panel of experts in the supply chain, sustainability, and resilience fields to help ensure completeness and accuracy. When confirmed, the terms were suitable and valid for exploring the factors for GSSC and SI, then moved to next for literature searching. These terms were employed to relationships are built from the listed articles.

4. Results

4.1. Factors affecting intention to adopt GSCM

4.1.1 Market/financial factor

GSCM has played an influential role in developing sound economic-environmental performance on different levels of the industry over the last few years (Centobelli et al. 2020; Rao and Holt 2005). The financial implications demonstrate a direct link between the adoption of green production and green logistics, all of which are GSCM components, and the organization's financial success (Tippayawong et al., 2015). GSCM assists the companies in portraying themselves and their goods as environmentally conscious in the minds of consumers (Diabat and Govindan 2011). Government tax credits are available for green construction, both industrial and residential (Arif et al., 2009). Moreover, a green building's reduced construction and operating costs raise the property value with rising energy costs. Further, energy-efficient buildings use less electricity from the municipal grid and water supply, allowing local facilities to expand (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2018). Further, it is related to Phuah and Fernando's (2015) report, which showed that the primary goal of implementing GSCM is to achieve a combination of financial and environmental supply chain success.

4.1.2. Supplier factor

Integrating suppliers into EMS is known as GSCM (KAFA et al. 2013; Vanalle et al. 2017). Suppliers and distributors' guiding forces represent the supply chain's typical demands for GSCM improvement (Zhu and Xu 2019). Suppliers play a critical role in improving green supply chain efficiency (Mangla et al. 2014a). Suppliers may assist in providing valuable ideas that can be used both before and after the building process (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014). According to the study of Mitra and Datta (2014), supplier collaboration for environmental protection has a significant effect on environmentally friendly product design and logistics, which in turn is positively linked to the firm's productivity and economic efficiency (Ikram et al. 2021). Integration and cooperation with the designer of products with supply chains aids in successfully handling environmental problems (Govindan et al., 2014). Vendors in the design process and technology suppliers are often hesitant to make the transition to GSCM, and this behavior impacts the supply chain's overall efficiency (Govindan et al. 2014). Zhu and Xu (2019) observed that GSCM adoption by suppliers and distributors would reduce the risk and complexity of target enterprises' green orientation, thus growing their passion for GSCM. A company's collaboration with its suppliers to achieve environmental objectives of reducing the environmental footprint of the supply chain will motivate all parties to follow GSCM practices (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong 2017).

4.1.3. Governmental factor

According to the research conduction by Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013), the two most important drivers for the implementation of GSCM are "central governmental environmental regulations" and "regional environmental regulations," which are at the bottom of the hierarchical structure. Government entities are among the most visible stakeholders influencing companies' adoption of environmental practices (Delmas and Toffel 2004; Vanalle et al. 2017). Government regulations and legislations serve as drivers that enable organizations to restrict the use of non-renewable energy and to limit greenhouse gas emissions (Rehman et al., 2021; Balaji et al., 2014). The government offers capital for businesses to buy renewable production equipment and provides sustainable energy advisory services (Ikram et al. 2020b; Wu et al. 2012). As a result, government intervention will assist businesses in removing barriers to environmental protection (Darnall and Edwards Jr 2006; Vanalle et al. 2017). According to the statement of Lee (2008), governments will attract businesses by providing tax breaks and capital improvements for environmentally friendly complexes. Delmas (2002) and Ikram et al. (2020a) also discovered that governments play a significant role in a company's decision to follow ISO 14001 standards. Adoption of ISO 14001 standards ensures the companies' compliance with government rules and regulations regarding the environment.

The legal profession should ensure regulatory compliance with government regulations while also emphasizing the importance of environmental concerns across the product's life cycle (Saade et al., 2019). GSCM will be an incentive to maintain constant control and monitoring of the company's environmental impact and ensure compliance with rules (Gandhi et al., 2015). Government policies and schemes, both at the national and state level, are among the most critical factors in encouraging businesses to start green initiatives (Mangla et al., 2014b). So, based on the above statements, the following hypothesis is concluded:

4.1.4. Environmental factor

Environmental certifications such as ISO 14001, EMAS, ECO-Label are critical because they serve as the first step toward a green initiative (Diabat and Govindan 2011; Jum'a et al. 2021). GSCM procedures are activities or actions that would minimize the environmental effects of industrial operations while maintaining quality, competitiveness, and operating costs (Golicic and Smith 2013). Green supply chains ensure that all of an organization's usable productive resources are used sustainably (Bhool and Narwhal 2013). Construction and demolition generate a significant amount of toxic waste. In GSCM, waste generation is drastically reduced as building deconstruction is used instead of complete demolition (Ghazilla et al., 2015).

Environmental management refers to long-term management techniques that seek to engage in green processes and procedures to reduce the environmental effects of a company's operations (Gotschol et al., 2014). GSCM helps to minimize the environmental impact of production operations through paradigm shifts and create profits in companies by balancing economic and environmental sustainability (Zhu et al., 2007). Darnall et al. (2008) conducted a study and found that the adoption of EMSs assists the organization to incorporate sustainable supply chain practices and procedures, implying that the EMS is a catalyst for GSCM. Moreover, the prior registration of EMS is more likely to follow GSCM procedures (Abid et al., 2021).

4.1.5. Internal factor

Internal green management practices at the organizational level assess how businesses are evident in environmental protection activities that are the responsibility of various stakeholders (Lai and Wong 2012). The internal dimensions of green management also include departments' environmental auditing, environmental monitoring, overall management of environmental quality, communication and training, and ISO 14001 (Ikram et al. 2019; Shaw et al. 2010). Companies that implement internal sustainability policies can minimize future environmental emissions by using safe products, recycling discarded components, and properly disposing of exhausted equipment (Wang et al., 2018). According to Luthra et al. (2016), personal intention at the top and middle management levels are needed to accelerate the successful application of GSCM. It is widely assumed that senior management support is required and, in many cases, a key driver for the effective adoption and implementation of most inventions, technology, programs, and activities (Yu and Ramanathan 2015). Masa'deh et al. (2017) found that personal intentions and behavior at the workplace play a vital role in effectively implementing GSCM practices. The successful application of GSCM necessitates collaboration across disciplines (Masudin et al., 2018). Internal green management is becoming more widely regarded as a systemic and comprehensive approach to producing superior environmental results (Zhu et al., 2008).

4.1.6. Customer factor

Customers are externally focused drivers of adopting green supply chain policies (Wang et al., 2018). Customers are the most significant variable influencing environmental management policies (Walker et al., 2008). The demand for green goods has surged due to increased consumer awareness (Jum'a et al., 2021). When customers desire and expect an environmentally sustainable product, an organization will go great lengths to meet those demands and implement GSCM practices (Luthra et al., 2015). A study of Brazilian electrical/electronic businesses conducted by Govindan et al. (2013) discovered that customer cooperation for eco-design practice is the root practice driving other green practices.

Moreover, customer pressure is the second most quoted source of pressure to implement an environmental management plan, trailing only government pressure (Delmas and Toffel 2004; Vanalle et al. 2017). Customers should also promote environmentally-friendly practices by educating their supply chain partners. The proximity of the supply chain's final consumer is an essential factor influencing an organization's environmental proactivity (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2013). As customers have the market power to make green practices more widely adopted, they may encourage businesses to embrace green policies by putting pressure on the corporation (Jayaram and Avittathur 2015).

4.1.7. Cost factor

Combining SCM and green practices offers an excellent opportunity to minimize costs while addressing environmental problems (Zhu et al., 2012). Green supply chain practices result in cost cuts and increased profitability for companies rendering them competition in creating long-term strategic advantages (Vanalle et al., 2017). Baumann-Pauly et al. (2013) stated that larger businesses have lower overall overhead costs than small businesses, and the cost savings from green practices are more relevant for big businesses. Companies will be more likely to accept GSCM because it would make it easier to take advantage of all available economic saving opportunities, increase the possibility of attracting investors, obtain bank loan eligibility, and take advantage of grant opportunities. It has been proposed that buying eco-friendly products will significantly raise costs and reduce the buying company's productivity from purchasing management (Wang et al., 2018). Moreover, overall cost savings across the supply chain may require a considerable investment to launch an environmental program. The high initial cost required implementing various green methodologies such as green design, green manufacturing, and green packaging labeling. Previous studies suggested that long-term and life-cycle cost analysis would aid in the effective operation of an environmental program.

4.2. Critical factors for the realization of sustainable supply chain innovations

The findings show that more than one factor is critical to the realization of SSCI. Based on the coding process, these factors were grouped into subcategories and four main categories. While all the main categories are vital for the realization of SSCIs, the emphasis in the literature varies from collaboration being the most frequently mentioned critical factor down to timing only being mentioned nine times. Overall then, based on their occurrence in literature, four different clusters of critical factors can be established.

The first and most prominent is the main category of collaboration, which is the most frequently observed critical factor for SSCI realization. This is in line with sustainable SC management theory, where collaboration among SC actors is essential for successful practice. For example, Neutzling et al. (2018, p. 3451) state that "when collaborative relationships are integrated and synergistic, it is possible to exchange knowledge, develop innovative capabilities, and generate complementary resources, thereby increasing the possibility of value creation for the entire supply chain." Other researchers provide collaborative setups, such as Berti and Mulligan (2016, p. 2), who report on food hubs (local/regional) as organizational innovations. The food hubs are based on collaboration in clusters that overcome "the organizational and infrastructural limitations that impede small farms to reach the growing demand of local produce." Papers where collaboration has not been identified as a critical factor may, however, not necessarily consider collaboration as an unimportant factor for SSCI, rather more of a prerequisite.

A second cluster covers the categories of strategic orientation, culture, practices, and political context. Strategic orientation can be defined as the overall direction and objectives of a firm, driven by top management and oriented in the business context for the future (Voss and Voss, 2000). Hsu et al. (2016, p. 88) provide "evidence of the critical role of eco-reputation and eco-innovation strategic orientations in deploying sustainable supply chain initiative programs." Internal and external practices are seen as critical factors for SSCI. Beske et al. (2014, p.132) describe SSCM practices as activities that "enhance relationships between the partners, the flow of goods and information or issues of sustainability." One example of practice characteristics is systematic behavior. "Sustainable supply chain innovation is a collection of interacting activities that different participants operate to achieve a common goal, and it is the typical systematic behavior." (Gao et al., 2017, p. 1530). Kahkonen et al. (2017, p. 413) provide evidence that "green and ethical practices in supplier collaboration lead to higher innovation performance of the focal firm." Culture in organizations and SCs is viewed as a critical factor. The organizational or SC culture represents the collective values, beliefs, and managerial mindset of its members. Strategic Direction (2014, p. 28) states that "innovation that increases sustainability must consider culture, institutions, behaviors, and norms if it is to prove genuinely transformational. They continue to elucidate the importance of the managerial mindset by stating, "The success of innovation for sustainability will often demand a compelling blend of top-down and bottom-up initiatives.

The third cluster of critical factors for SSCI realization contains five main categories, namely, market infiuence, governance mechanism, technology development and innovation, training and education, and organizational capabilities. Rodriguez and Da Cunha (2018) identify several of these critical factors in their conceptual framework on how big data and predictive analytics can affect SSCI (i.e., market infiuence, technology development, and innovation, capabilities, as well as the aforementioned critical factors of collaboration and political context). They found several external drivers for SSCI. Some examples are customer pressure on organizations to engage in sustainable practices and consumer and NGO demands for environmentally friendly performances. Furthermore, they found it crucial to understand the use and implications of big data and predictive analytics in disrupting traditional business patterns. In addition, absorptive capacity is presented as a "mediating factor on the relationship between disruptive innovation and the performances of sustainable supply chain inside the company." (Rodriguez and Da Cunha, 2018, p. 156). Whalen (2012, p. 67) stresses the need for governance strategies as "enormous business value is hidden in the 'white space' of sustainability that individual players cannot easily access on their own," and Govindan et al. (2016) state that governing strategies can foster high impact on an organization's sustainability management. Finally, Silvestre (2015b) states that SC learning is essential for SD, especially in turbulent environments. He continues by stating that becoming a sustainable SC is not a destination but a journey. As a result, sustainable SCs can occur only through learning and innovative solutions.

The fourth cluster of critical factors for SSCI realization are power balance, cost and revenue sharing, SC metrics, and timing. The innovation strategies of an SC are highly dependent on the power balance constellation within an SC or network. Mylan et al. (2015) argue that retailers within food SCs (power dominant) can act as SC champions to stimulate upstream eco-innovation. Another power constellation within the food industry is discussed by Peano et al. (2017). They state that cluster organizations can rebalance the contractual power within the SC and act as drivers for innovation in the agricultural sector. Silvestre (2015a) states that collaboration enhances innovation and sustainability in SCs. However, critical elements for innovation in sustainable SCs have aligned objectives, open communication, resources, risks, and rewards. Yenipazarli (2017, p. 583) continues the discussion on sharing resources by arguing that "revenue-sharing is more appropriate for collaboration in terms of the impact of upstream environmental innovation on the total environmental performance of the supply chain and the resulting supply chain profits." SSCI can be promoted, and SD can be monitored by introducing sustainability metrics. Nevertheless, Miller and Buys (2013) stress the need for better and more generic (more minor industry specific) measures. 

5. Conclusion and Implications

The need for multiple transitions in both industries and society is emphasized in most literature related to SD. SCs represent strong institutions in our globalized economies that, due to rigid structures, efficient processes, and established businesses, are often obstacles when significant changes are required.

However, to transform industries to adopt SD, innovations that can change the setup of SCs and their way of sourcing, producing, and delivering value to their customers might represent a significant potential. While collaboration is a central critical factor to deal with barriers of SSCI, this research indicates that it is also essential to include critical factors such as political context, governance mechanisms, and power balance. These findings are in line with the conclusions drawn by Nari et al. (2016). They (ibid.) conclude that the effectiveness of initiatives depends both on the controllability of an individual (dominant) company and the ability to respond and nurture self-organizing processes in related industries/nations or parts of SCs. In the study of green innovation key determinants, Zailani et al. (2015) report the top six as being: regulations (68%), market demand (40%), firm internal initiatives (68%), technological capability (8%), competitive advantage (8%), and customer benefit (4%). While these determinants can be compared to similar categories in our study (political context, market infiuence, strategic orientation, etc.), it is interesting that collaboration is not put forward as a critical determinant as it is both in the results of this paper and Tebaldi et al. (2018). One reason might be the perspective of the firm in Zaloni et al.s (2015) study and the SC perspective in our studies.

A refiection can also be made about collaboration, as it is the most emphasized factor for SSCI. This is not a surprise since collaboration is one of the central factors raised in SC management (Bowersox et al., 2000) and SSCM literature (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Consequently, collaboration and its constituent constructs (e.g., integration (Dai et al., 2015), information sharing (Lee and Whang, 2000), trust (Fawcett et al., 2017)) have been researched to a large degree and knowledge in this area has significantly been supplemented. However, with the theory of the firm underlying most SC management theory (Nilsson and Gammelgaard, 2012) and the economic/financial dimension being central in much of existing SC management research, key characteristics and central assumptions might be different when innovations for SD is being worked on. For example, in efforts to increase transparency (e.g., product origin and impact) or infiuence social dimensions of societies (e.g., increased equality), information sharing in SCs might be treated differently than in the case of strictly competitive situations. This is in line with Tebaldi et al. (2018, p.13), concluding that “no research exploring how supply chain collaboration can improve social sustainability.” As a result, further research could investigate and compare collaboration constructs such as trust or information sharing when innovations are developed for purely competitive reasons or when these innovations target broader sustainability effects. Another factor we found in the literature review was that of power balance, which infiuences the collaborative ability of companies in SCs. Lee (2019, p.13) reports on the need for collaborative and implementation activities for SSCI and concludes “firm size may be a decisive factor in altering implementation activities while performing eco-friendly activities in sustainable SCM.” Consequently, as explained by Kim et al. (2017), fairness and referent power positively impact innovativeness among SC partners. Finally, in the case of SSCI, it is reported that collaboration with stakeholders (Dewick and Foster, 2018) and other industry partners, i.e., others than direct suppliers and customers (Nair et al., 2016), as well as universities (Bendavid and Cassivi, 2012) is more central to SSCI than it is to innovation in general. This might be as SD addresses both new and more complex issues while challenging existing structures and the close relationships established in existing SCs.

The critical factors found in this paper for SSCI contribute with some of the necessary elements for researchers and practitioners to develop and implement SSCIs more successfully than up to the present. However, treating the critical factors as separate constructs will not sufficiently target the issues of SSCI due to the complexity inherent in SD (Kumar et al., 2016) and the “wicked” nature of the challenges to be addressed (Russell et al., 2018). Instead, comprehensive and integrative models and frameworks (Kumar et al., 2016) that combine the critical factors are needed to guide researchers and practitioners in approaching and developing SSCI. The primary motivation for initiating this study was to find a framework or model to guide a significant research and innovation project aiming to develop and implement SSCIs.

REFERENCES:

1. Abbasi, M., Nilsson, F. (2012). Themes and challenges in making supply chains environmentally sustainable. Supply Chain Manag. 17(5), 517-530.
2. Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: a review. Int. J. Manag. Rev.,8(1), 21-47.
3. Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P. (2015). Sustainability oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18, 180-205.
4. Barth, H., Ulvenblad, P.O., Ulvenblad, P. (2017). Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 9, 16-20.
5. Bendavid, Y., Cassivi, L. (2012). A living laboratory environment for exploring innovative RFID-enabled supply chain management models. Int. J. Product Development, 17, 94-118.
6. Berti, G., Mulligan, C. (2016). Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: the role of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability, 8, 6-16.
7. Beske, P., Land, A., Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 152, 131-143.
8. Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation 25, 1366-1376.
9. Blomsma, F., Brennan, G. (2017). The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603-614.
10. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod., 65, 42-56.
11. Mangla S., Madaan J., Sarma P. R. S., Gupta M. P. (2014). Multi-objective decision modelling using interpretive structural modelling for green supply chains. Int J Logist Syst Manag, 17, 125-142.
12. Masadeh R., Alananzeh O., Algiatheen N. et. al. (2017). The impact of employees perception of implementing green supply chain management on hotels economic and operational performance. J Hosp Tour Technol, 8, 395-416.
13. Masudin I. (2019). A literature review on green supply chain management adoption drivers. J Ilm Tek Ind, 18, 103-115.
14. Masudin I., Wastono T., Zulfikarijah F. (2018). The effect of managerial intention and initiative on green supply chain management adoption in Indonesian manufacturing performance. Cogent Bus Manag, 5(1), 1-19.
15. Mathiyazhagan K., Govindan K., NoorulHaq A., Geng Y. (2013). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod., 47, 283-297.
16. Mathiyazhagan K., Govindan K., Noorul Haq A. (2014) Pressure analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J. Prod. Res., 52, 188-202.
17. Mathiyazhagan K., Datta U., Singla A., Krishnamoorthi S. (2018). Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction industries. Opsearch 55, 202-219.
18. Mauricio A. L., de Jabbour A. B. L. S. (2017). Critical success factors for GSCM adoption: case studies in the automotive battery industry. Gestão e Produ, 24, 78-94.
19. Mitra S., Datta P. P. (2014). Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms. Int J. Prod. Res., 52, 2085-2107.
20. Muduli K., Barve A. (2013). Sustainable development practices in mining sector: a GSCM approach. Int J. Environ. Sustain. Dev., 12, 222-243.
21. Muduli K., Govindan K., Barve A., Kannan D., Geng Y. (2013). Role of behavioural factors in green supply chain management implementation in Indian mining industries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 76, 50-60.
22. Phuah J. S., Fernando Y. (2015). Green supply chain integration in automotive industry. In M. Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. (Ed.), encyclopedia of information science and technology, third edition (pp 5056-5064). USA: IGI Global.
23. Rao P. (2002). Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. Int J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 22, 632-655.
24. Rao P., Holt D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int J. Ope.r Prod. Manag., 25, 898-916.
25. Rehman E., Ikram M., Rehman S., Feng M. T. (2021). Growing green? Sectoral-based prediction of GHG emission in Pakistan: a novel NDGM and doubling time model approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 23, 12169-12191.
26. Ringle C. M., Wende S., Becker J. M. (2017). SmartPLS 3. Bưnningstedt: SmartPLS.
27. Saade R., Thoumy M., Sakr O. (2019). Green supply chain management adoption in Lebanese manufacturing industries: an exploratory study. Int J. Logist. Syst. Manag., 32, 520-547.
28. Sarkis J., Gonzalez-Torre P., Adenso-Diaz B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag., 28, 163-176.
29. Schrettle S., Hinz A., Scherrer-Rathje M., Friedli T. (2014). Turning sustainability into action: explaining firms sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance. Int J. Prod. Econ.,147, 73-84.
30. Sharma S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. J., 43, 681-697.
31. Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130, 1-15.
32. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management e an exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42, 180-192.
33. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: an Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. USA: Social Science Electronic Publishing.
34. Seuring, S., Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain. Manag., 17, 544-555.
35. Seuring, S., Mller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699-1710.
36. Silva, G.M., Gomes, P.J., Sarkis, J. (2019). The role of innovation in the implementation of green supply chain management practices. Bus. Strat. Environ., 28, 819-832.
37. Silvestre, B.S. (2015). A hard nut to crack! Implementing supply chain sustainability in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod., 96, 171-181.
38. Silvestre, B.S. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: environmental turbulence, institutional voids and sustainability trajectories. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 167, 156-169.
39. Soosay, C.A., Hyland, P.W., Ferrer, M. (2008). Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Manag: Int. J., 13(2), 160-169.
40. Tebaldi, L., Bigliardi, B., Bottani, E. (2018). Sustainable supply chain and innovation: a review of the recent literature (N.PAG). Sustainability 10, 2071-1050.
41. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation e Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change. John Wiley & sons, Ltd, UK.
42. Tran?eld, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag., 14, 207-220.
43. Vachon, S., Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 111, 299-315.
44. Van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A., Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of Operations Management. J. Oper. Manag., 47-48, 1-8.
45. Verghese, K., Lewis, H. (2007). Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. Int. J. Prod. Res., 45, 4381-4401.
46. Voss, G.B., Voss, Z.G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. J. Market., 64, 67-83.
47. Wacker, J. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theorybuilding research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag., 16, (4), 361-386.
48. Wang, Y., Jia, F., Schoenherr, T., Gong, Y. (2018). Supply chain-based business model innovation: the case of a cross-border E-commerce company. Sustainability, 10, 1-23.
49. Whalen, J. (2012). Big change fast, systemic change and sustainability in the US dairy industry. AI Practitioner, 14, 66-69.
50. Wheelright, S.C., Clark, K. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. The Free Press, NY, USA.
51. Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manag. Rev., 14, 490-495.
52. Wolf, C., Seuring, S. (2010). Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party logistical services. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., 40, 84-102.
53. Wstenhagen, R., Hamschmidt, J., Sharma, S., Starik, M. (Eds.). (2008). Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship. UK: Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
54. Yang, J., Han, Q., Zhou, J., Yuan, C. (2015). The infiuence of environmental management practices and supply chain integration on technological innovation performance evidence from Chinas manufacturing industry. Sustainability 7, 15342-15361.

CÁC YẾU TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN

QUẢN LÝ CHUỖI CUNG ỨNG XANH

VÀ ĐỔI MỚI CHUỖI CUNG ỨNG BỀN VỮNG

• ThS. VƯƠNG THỊ BÍCH NGÀ

• ThS. LÊ SƠN ĐẠI

Trường Đại học Ngoại thương Cơ sở II tại TP. Hồ Chí Minh

TÓM TẮT:

Những thách thức của phát triển bền vững đòi hỏi sự thay đổi và đổi mới trong toàn bộ chuỗi cung ứng và mạng lưới. Theo đó, xu hướng phát triển bền vững trên toàn cầu khuyến khích các công ty áp dụng và thực hiện các hoạt động quản lý chuỗi cung ứng xanh (GSCM) trong hoạt động của mình. Tuy nhiên, hầu hết các nghiên cứu hiện có về đổi mới bền vững đều ở cấp độ công ty và các công ty thống trị thị trường lại tập trung vào các phương pháp tiếp cận “silo”, với các kế hoạch ngắn hạn và tối đa hóa lợi nhuận. Do đó, cần có các nghiên cứu thúc đẩy các đổi mới chuỗi cung ứng bền vững và quản lý chuỗi cung ứng xanh. Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là xác định, phân loại và đánh giá tầm quan trọng của các yếu tố quan trọng đối với việc thực hiện đổi mới bền vũng chuỗi cung ứng và quản lý chuỗi cung ứng xanh. Bài nghiên cứu được thực hiện bằng phương pháp định tính, thông qua thu thập và tổng hợp các tài liệu có hệ thống và phân tích nội dung về đổi mới chuỗi cung ứng bền vững và quản lý chuỗi cung ứng xanh. Kết quả phân tích đưa ra một số danh mục chính của các yếu tố quan trọng. Hợp tác cho đến nay là hạng mục chính được quan sát thường xuyên nhất, tiếp theo là định hướng chiến lược, văn hóa, thực tiễn và bối cảnh chính trị.

Từ khóa: quản lý chuỗi cung ứng, quản lý chuỗi cung ứng xanh, bền vững (GSCM), đổi mới chuỗi cung ứng bền vững (SSCI).

[Tạp chí Công Thương - Các kết quả nghiên cứu khoa học và ứng dụng công nghệ, Số 25, tháng 11 năm 2021]