Leagile supply chains and sustainable business performance: application of total interpretive structural modelling

Figures & data

Table 1. Leagile supply chain practices and their appearance in the literature.

Key references	Research focus	Leagile supply chain practices
		JIT	TQM	TPM	HRM	CF	SP	SPV	KC	MAC	SCI	PD	MS	SCR	TU	SCL
Oliveira-Dias et al. (2023)	Lean and Agile	*	*			*						*	*	*
Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson (2023)	Lean	*					*		*	*					*
Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi (2023)	Agile					*		*		*		*	*	*	*	*
Gohr (2023)	Lean	*	*		*	*	*		*	*	*	*				*
Meng et al. (2023)	Agile											*	*	*
Lotfi and Sodhi (2022)	Agile	*	*		*	*	*				*	*	*	*	*	*
Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes (2022)	Lean and Agile	*	*			*		*					*	*
Raji et al. (2021)	Lean and Agile	*	*	*	*	*	*				*	*	*	*	*
Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler (2021)	Lean and Agile	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*
Al Humdan et al. (2020)	Agile				*	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*
Geyi et al. (2020)	Agile				*	*	*		*	*	*		*		*	*
Chavez et al. (2020)	Lean	*	*	*	*				*
Iqbal et al. (2020)	Lean and Agile	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*		*			*	*
Green et al. (2019)	Lean	*	*			*	*					*
Virmani, Saha, and Sahai (2018)	Lean, Agile, and Leagile	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta (2018)	Lean and Agile	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*
Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin (2017)	Lean	*	*			*	*	*	*		*
Piercy and Rich (2015)	Lean	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Chavez et al. (2015)	Lean	*				*	*
Alves and Alves (2015)	Lean	*		*				*	*	*						*
Dubey and Gunasekaran (2015)	Agile				*	*	*		*			*	*		*	*
Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese (2015)	Lean	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*
Blome, Schoenherr, and Rexhausen (2013)	Agile											*	*	*
Yusuf et al. (2012)	Agile				*	*	*				*		*	*		*
Inman et al. (2011)	Lean and Agile	*	*	*		*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Yang, Hong, and Modi (2011)	Lean	*	*		*
Kisperska-Moron and Haan (2011)	Leagile					*	*				*		*		*
Shah and Ward (2007)	Lean	*	*	*	*	*	*
Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández (2007)	Agile				*	*	*				*	*			*	*
Yusuf et al. (2004)	Agile				*	*	*			*	*		*	*	*	*
Shah and Ward (2003)	Lean	*	*	*	*
Lin, Chiu, and Chu (2006)	Agile					*	*				*	*	*		*	*
Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim (2006)	Lean and Agile	*	*		*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*
Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy (2006)	Agile					*						*	*
Cua, McKone, and Schroeder (2001)	Lean	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*					*
Christopher (2000)	Agile				*	*	*				*	*	*		*	*
Naylor, Naim, and Berry (1999)	Leagile										*			*		*
Gunasekaran (1998, 1999)	Agile				*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

JIT: just-in-time; TQM: total quality management; TPM: total productive maintenance; HRM: human resource management; CF: customer focus; SP: supplier partnership; SPV: strategic planning and visioning; KC: Kaizen (continuous improvement) culture; MAC: managerial attention and commitment; SCI: supply chain integration; PD: product/process development; MS: market sensitivity; SCR: supply chain reconfiguration; TU: technology utilization; SCL: supply chain learning and information sharing.

Table 2. Leagile supply chain practices: Description and how they appear in key references.

Leagile practices	Description and relevant activities (conceptual/empirical items to operationalize practices)	Key references
Just-in-time (JIT)	Technical practices with the aim of continually eliminating production-related waste (e.g. scrape and inventory) Kanban pull system Small lot sizes Low setup times Low inventories and fast throughput JIT scheduling	Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Chavez et al. 2015, 2020; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Gohr 2023; Green et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Piercy and Rich 2015; Raji et al. 2021; Shah and Ward 2003; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011
Total quality management (TQM)	Technical practices with the aim of improving and sustaining the quality of the product which in turn result in meeting/exceeding customer expectations Extensive use of statistical techniques Having processes under quality control Using control charts Process standardization	Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Chavez et al. 2020; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Gohr 2023; Green et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Piercy and Rich 2015; Raji et al. 2021; Shah and Ward 2003; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011
Total productive maintenance (TPM)	Technical practices with the aim of eliminating waste associated with low equipment availability and failures Daily planned equipment maintenance To maintain records of all equipment maintenance Routine proactive and preventive maintenance	Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Chavez et al. 2020; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Piercy and Rich 2015; Raji et al. 2021; Shah and Ward 2003; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018
Human resource management (HRM)	Practices related to people management and human relations Flat organizational structure Continuous training and regular development Small problem-solving groups Employee participation and empowerment	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Christopher 2000; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Piercy and Rich 2015; Power, Sohal, and Rahman 2001; Raji et al. 2021; Shah and Ward 2003; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Customer focus (CF)	Forward coordination with customers Close contacts with customers Formal customer satisfaction programs/customer feedback in place Responsiveness to customer requirements Consideration of customer requirements in early product design	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Chavez et al. 2015; Christopher 2000; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Green et al. 2019; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Kisperska-Moron and Haan 2011; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Piercy and Rich 2015; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Tse et al. 2016; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Supplier partnership (SP)	Backward coordination with suppliers Long-term contacts with suppliers High degree of mutual trust with suppliers Partnership and cooperative relationships with suppliers Fair return to suppliers Supplier inputs for product development	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Chavez et al. 2015; Christopher 2000; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Green et al. 2019; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Kisperska-Moron and Haan 2011; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Piercy and Rich 2015; Raji et al. 2021; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Tse et al. 2016; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Strategic planning and visioning (SPV)	Formal strategic planning with the particular focus on written mission, long-term goals, and clear implementation strategies Formal planning Development of long-range strategic plans Well-defined manufacturing strategies in line with the corporate strategy Continuous monitoring and adjustment of strategies in response to changing environments	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Gunasekaran 1999; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Piercy and Rich 2015; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018
Kaizen (continuous improvement) culture (KC)	A culture of sustained improvement as a shared responsibility throughout the organization Continual improvement (rather than a static approach) of all aspects of the organization, e.g. products, processes, and people Constant learning and mistake proofing Improvement as a moving target (a never-ending cycle) Organization as a dynamic entity	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1999; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Mohaghegh, Blasi, and Größler 2021; Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018
Managerial attention and commitment (MAC)	Top management commitment and support to create an environment where supply chain practices can successfully payoff. This involves promoting: Improvement initiatives and quality management tools Training Kaizen (continuous improvement), learning culture, and change management Resource allocation for supply chain strategies Knowledge transfer Staff empowerment	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Cua, McKone, and Schroeder 2001; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson 2023; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004
Supply chain integration (SCI)	To collaboratively remove all boundaries to ease the flow of material, resources, and information between different actors involved in the supply chain Rapid partnership with customers, suppliers, and other supply chain actors Virtual enterprise Teams across company boarders Joint planning and collaborative problem-solving teams	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Christopher 2000; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Kisperska-Moron and Haan 2011; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Naylor, Naim, and Berry 1999; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Tse et al. 2016; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Product/process development (PD)	Fast and concurrent design and development of products and processes based on customer requirements Quick new product development Adaptation of products sufficiently fast to new customer requirements Concurrent engineering Flexible production planning/processes in accordance with varying customer requirements	Aslam et al. 2018; Blome, Schoenherr, and Rexhausen 2013; Christopher 2000; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Meng et al. 2023; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018
Market sensitivity (MS)	A firm’s capability to sense, perceive, and anticipate market changes which could eventually lead to quick responses to unexpected customer requirements Learning about customer requirements Identifying market trends and customer segments Immediate reactions to market changes Customer-driver innovation	Agarwal, Shankar, and Tiwari 2006; Al Humdan et al. 2020; Aslam et al. 2018; Blome, Schoenherr, and Rexhausen 2013; Christopher 2000; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Eckstein et al. 2015; Geyi et al. 2020; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Kisperska-Moron and Haan 2011; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tortorella, Miorando, and Marodin 2017; Tse et al. 2016; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Supply chain reconfiguration (SCR)	A firm’s capability to strategically reallocate and adapt its supply chain resources to create a new configuration that aligns with the demands of a changing environment Rapid and effective responses to market changes through accommodating changes in supply chain activities Rapid and effective response to competitor’s actions through accommodating changes in supply chain activities Efficient and effective communication with cooperative organization	Agarwal, Shankar, and Tiwari 2006; Al Humdan et al. 2020; Blome, Schoenherr, and Rexhausen 2013; Eckstein et al. 2015; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Naylor, Naim, and Berry 1999; Oliveira-Dias, Maqueira Marín, and Moyano-Fuentes 2022; Oliveira-Dias et al. 2023; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Tse et al. 2016; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012
Technology utilization (TU)	Adopting a wide range of high-impact technologies (including information and communication technologies) to respond to market changes and uncertain customer requirements Appropriate technology and technological capabilities for quick and effective responses to changes Real time information and communication technologies to facilitate communication and best-cooperation for value creation	Al Humdan et al. 2020; Christopher 2000; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Kisperska-Moron and Haan 2011; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Naranjo, Menor, and Johnson 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Power, Sohal, and Rahman 2001; Raji et al. 2021; Sharifi and Zhang 1999; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004
Supply chain learning and information sharing (SCL)	Using information and market knowledge to exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile marketplace Availability of information to everyone within the firm and across the supply chain Decision-making based on market knowledge Available knowledge and skills to manage changes Knowledge management database Formal mechanisms to disseminate knowledge among supply chain partners	Agarwal, Shankar, and Tiwari 2006; Al Humdan et al. 2020; Christopher 2000; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015; Gohr 2023; Gunasekaran 1998, 1999; Gunasekaran et al. 2019; Inman et al. 2011; Iqbal, Huq, and Bhutta 2018; Iqbal et al. 2020; Lin, Chiu, and Chu 2006; Lotfi and Sodhi 2022; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023; Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim 2006; Naylor, Naim, and Berry 1999; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, and Fernández 2007; Virmani, Saha, and Sahai 2018; Yusuf et al. 2004, 2012

Figure 1. Flow diagram of TISM-MICMAC methodology.

Table 3. Industry characteristics.

Distinguishing attributes	Industry
	Clothing (fashion)	Chemical	Agricultural	Electronics
Environment	Volatile and unpredictable due to rapidly changing customer preferences/fashion trends	Volatile and unpredictable due to regulatory changes as well as emerging environmental sustainability concerns	Highly dynamic due to uncertain customer requirements/intense competition	Volatile and unpredictable due to rapid technological advances/need for continuous innovation for consumer electronics devices
Product life cycle	Short	Medium to long	Short	Short
Product variety	Medium	Medium to high	Medium compared to other competitors	Medium to high
Profit margin	Moderate	High	Moderate	Moderate

Table 4. The profile of practitioners.

Industry experts	Industry	Job position	Experience (year)	Firm size (no. of employees)
Professional 1	Clothing (fashion)	Quality manager	9	50
Professional 2	Chemical	Supply chain manager	12	3100
Professional 3	Agricultural	Plant manager	5	200
Professional 4	Electronics	Supply chain manager	4	160

Table 5. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).

No.	Leagile practices	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	JIT		X	X	A	X	X	A	A	A	V	V	V	V	O	V	V	V	O
2	TQM	–		X	A	X	X	A	A	A	V	V	V	V	O	V	V	V	V
3	TPM	–	–		A	O	O	A	A	A	O	O	O	O	O	O	V	V	O
4	HRM	–	–	–		V	V	A	X	A	V	V	V	V	O	V	V	V	V
5	CF	–	–	–	–		O	A	A	A	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	O
6	SP	–	–	–	–	–		A	A	A	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	O
7	SPV	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V
8	KC	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		A	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V
9	MAC	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V
10	SCI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	V	V	A	X	V	V	V
11	PD	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		A	X	A	A	V	V	V
12	MS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	A	A	V	V	V
13	SCR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		A	A	V	V	V
14	TU	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	V	V	V
15	SCL	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		V	V	V
16	Econ.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		A	A
17	Env.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–		O
18	Social	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Table 6. Reachability matrix.

No.	SC practices	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	Driving power
1	JIT	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	13
2	TQM	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	14
3	TPM	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	6
4	HRM	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	15
5	CF	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	11
6	SP	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	11
7	SPV	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	18
8	KC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	16
9	MAC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	17
10	SCI	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
11	PD	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	5
12	MS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	6
13	SCR	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	5
14	TU	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9
15	SCL	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
16	Econ.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
17	Env.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
18	Social	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
Dependence power		9	9	7	4	7	7	1	4	2	11	14	12	14	9	11	18	16	12	–

Table 7. Final reachability matrix.

No.	SC practices	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	Driving power
1	JIT	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*	14
2	TQM	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	14
3	TPM	1	1	1	0	1*	1*	0	0	0	1*	1*	1*	1*	1	1*	1	1	1*	14
4	HRM	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1*	1	1	1	1	16
5	CF	1	1	1*	0	1	1*	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*	14
6	SP	1	1	1*	0	1*	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*	14
7	SPV	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	18
8	KC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	16
9	MAC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	17
10	SCI	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
11	PD	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	5
12	MS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	6
13	SCR	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	5
14	TU	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9
15	SCL	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
16	Econ.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
17	Env.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
18	Social	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2
Dependence power		9	9	9	4	9	9	1	4	2	12	15	13	15	10	12	18	16	16	–

^1* : transitive links.

Table 8. Level partitioning.

No.	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection	Level
1	1,2,3,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	1, 2, 3, 5, 6	7
2	1,2,3,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	1, 2, 3, 5, 6	7
3	1,2,3,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	1, 2, 3, 5, 6	7
4	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	4, 7, 8, 9	4, 8	8
5	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	1, 2, 3, 5, 6	7
6	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	1, 2, 3, 5, 6	7
7	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	7	7	10
8	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	4, 7, 8, 9	4, 8	8
9	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	7, 9	9	9
10	10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15	10, 15	5
11	11, 13, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15	11, 13	3
12	11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15	12	4
13	11, 13, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15	11, 13	3
14	10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14	14	6
15	10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15	10, 15	5
16	16	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	16	1
17	16, 17	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17	17	2
18	16, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18	18	2

Table 9. Interaction matrix.

No.	SC practices	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	JIT	–	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*
2	TQM	1	–	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
3	TPM	1	1	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1*	0	0	1	0	1	1	1*
4	HRM	1	1	1	–	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1*	1	1	1	1
5	CF	1	1	0	0	–	1*	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*
6	SP	1	1	0	0	1*	–	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*
7	SPV	1	1	1	1	1	1	–	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
8	KC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	–	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
9	MAC	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	–	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
10	SCI	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	–	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1
11	PD	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	1	0	0	1	1	1
12	MS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	–	1	0	0	1	1	1
13	SCR	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	–	0	0	1	1	1
14	TU	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	–	1	1	1	1
15	SCL	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	–	1	1	1
16	Econ.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0
17	Env.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	–	0
18	Social	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	–

^1* : significant transitive links.

Table 10. Interpretive matrix (only with significant transitive links).

SC practices	CF	SP	PD	TU	Social
JIT	–	–	–	–	T1: Less waste leads to less rework and hence employees feel satisfied being more productive.
TPM	–	–	T2: Improved equipment reliability, efficiency, and reduced downtime contribute to more efficient development.	–	T3: Implementing machinery maintenance programs enhances employee safety, thereby contributing to improved social performance.
HRM	–	–	–	T4: Employing effective practices, such as training or job rotation results in the development of skills and competences necessary to manage technologies.	–
CF	–	T5: A customer centred firm establishes supplier relationship to collaboratively meet customer requirements.	–	–	T6: Sustainability as a newly emphasised customer requirement leads to the development of social sustainability practices.
SP	T7: Supplier partnership results in shared customer focus, leading to enhanced product quality and timely delivery.	–	–	–	T8: Collaboration with suppliers promotes social sustainability standards.

T: transitivity links.

Table 11. Interpretation of direct relationships (literature enfolding).

Link code	Relationship	Interpretation	Key references
D1	Principal antecedents → Soft/hard lean practices	Principal antecedents (SPV, MA, KC, and HRM) are necessary to provide an environment where LSC/ASC practices can flourish.	Bortolotti, Boscari, and Danese 2015; Dubey and Gunasekaran 2015
D2	Soft/hard lean practices → TU	Reducing waste, which encompasses waste generated during production as well as waste related to customers and suppliers, requires collecting data from production processes and supply chain partners. This data collection necessitates the utilization of information and communication technology (ICT) and advanced data processing technologies, such as Big Data analytics.	Ding, Ferràs Hernández, and Agell Jané 2023
D3	TU → SCL (and SCI)	Immediate access to data and effective data management could lead to a more agile firm with a deeper understanding of market trends and customer requirements, including sustainability-related demands. Furthermore, the effective use of technologies could facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among supply chain actors.	Christopher 2000; Raji et al. 2021; Yusuf et al. 2004
D4	SCL → MS	Supply chain learning entails continuous monitoring of market trends, customer demands, and changes in business environments. Knowledge sharing among supply chain partners empowers firms to understand and effectively respond to evolving market dynamics, including the growing emphasis on sustainability preferences among their customers	Christopher 2000
D5	SCI → MS	Close and collaborative relationships among supply chain actors (customers and suppliers) enhance responsiveness. Integrated supply chains with real-time data sharing facilitate the effective identification of market trends (e.g. sustainability preferences of customers) and enable immediate responses to address customers’ sustainability requirements (e.g. sustainable product development)	Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2006
D6	MS → SCR (and PD)	Market-sensitive firms are well-positioned to understand market trends and respond to them successfully. To this end, agile firms are required to adjust their supply chain (supply chain reconfiguration) as well as their operations and products (product/process development) quickly and effectively.	Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023
D7	SCR → Social	Easily reconfigured supply chains offer a flexible environment to implement social sustainability practices throughout the supply chain, including supplier evaluation measures aimed at ensuring compliance with social sustainability standards.	Geyi et al. 2020; Mohaghegh, Åhlström, and Blasi 2023
D8	PD → Env.	Developing products and processes while considering environmental factors leads to improvements in environmental sustainability performance.	Geyi et al. 2020
D9	Social → Econ.	Adopting social sustainability practices (e.g. training and employee engagement) fosters a more skilled workforce, elevating productivity and ultimately driving higher profitability.	Nath and Agrawal 2020
D10	Env → Econ	Implementing environmental sustainability practices (e.g. green supply chain/production practices) leads to resource efficiency and reduced waste, thereby resulting in cost savings.	Nath and Agrawal 2020

D: direct connections.

Figure 2. Final TISM diagram.

Figure 3. MICMAC analysis.

Oliveira-Dias, Diéssica de, J. M. Maqueira-Marin, J. Moyano-Fuentes, and H. Carvalho. 2023. “Implications of Using Industry 4.0 Base Technologies for Lean and Agile Supply Chains and Performance.” International Journal of Production Economics 262 (May): 108916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108916.

 Google Scholar

Naranjo, F., L. J. Menor, and P. F. Johnson. 2023. “Lean Supply Chain Management: A Contextual Contingent Reconceptualization and Delphi Method Study.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 43 (9): 1456–1480. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2022-0436.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mohaghegh, M., P. Åhlström, and S. Blasi. 2023. “Agile Manufacturing and Transformational Capabilities for Sustainable Business Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective.” Production Planning & Control 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2229264.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gohr, F. 2023. “A Graph-Theoretic Approach for Assessing the Leanness Level of Supply Chains.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 28 (1): 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2021-0079.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meng, J., Z. Hao, J. Yang, and Y. Hong. 2023. “How Does Digital Transformation Affect Organisational Sustainable Performance: The Mediating Roles of Supply Chain Agility and Integration.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2257139.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lotfi, M., and M. M. S. Sodhi. 2022. “Resilient Agility under the Practice-Based View.” Production Planning & Control 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2121778.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oliveira-Dias, Diessica de, J. M. Maqueira Marín, and J. Moyano-Fuentes. 2022. “Lean and Agile Supply Chain Strategies: The Role of Mature and Emerging Information Technologies.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 33 (5): 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2022-0235.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raji, I. O., E. Shevtshenko, T. Rossi, and F. Strozzi. 2021. “Industry 4.0 Technologies as Enablers of Lean and Agile Supply Chain Strategies: An Exploratory Investigation.” International Journal of Logistics Management 32 (4): 1150–1189.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mohaghegh, M., S. Blasi, and A. Größler. 2021. “Dynamic Capabilities Linking Lean Practices and Sustainable Business Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 322 (September): 129073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129073.

 Google Scholar

Al Humdan, Eias, Yangyan Shi, Masud Behnia, and Arash Najmaei. 2020. “Supply Chain Agility: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Enablers and Performance Implications.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 50 (2): 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2019-0192.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geyi, D. G., Y. Yusuf, M. S. Menhat, T. Abubakar, and N. J. Ogbuke. 2020. “Agile Capabilities as Necessary Conditions for Maximising Sustainable Supply Chain Performance: An Empirical Investigation.” International Journal of Production Economics 222: 107501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chavez, R., W. Yu, M. S. S. Jajja, Y. Song, and W. Nakara. 2020. “The Relationship between Internal Lean Practices and Sustainable Performance: Exploring the Mediating Role of Social Performance.” Production Planning & Control 33 (11): 1–17.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iqbal, T., M. S. S. Jajja, M. K. Bhutta, and S. N. Qureshi. 2020. “Lean and Agile Manufacturing: Complementary or Competing Capabilities?” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31 (4): 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2019-0165.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Green, K. W., R. A. Inman, V. E. Sower, and P. J. Zelbst. 2019. “Impact of JIT, TQM and Green Supply Chain Practices on Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 30 (1): 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Virmani, N., R. Saha, and R. Sahai. 2018. “Leagile Manufacturing: A Review Paper.” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 23 (3): 385. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2018.089807.

 Google Scholar

Iqbal, T., F. Huq, and M. K. S. Bhutta. 2018. “Agile Manufacturing Relationship Building with TQM, JIT, and Firm Performance: An Exploratory Study in Apparel Export Industry of Pakistan.” International Journal of Production Economics 203: 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.05.033.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tortorella, G. L., R. Miorando, and G. Marodin. 2017. “Lean Supply Chain Management: Empirical Research on Practices, Contexts and Performance.” International Journal of Production Economics 193: 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Piercy, N., and N. Rich. 2015. “The Relationship between Lean Operations and Sustainable Operations.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35 (2): 282–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0143.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chavez, R., W. Yu, M. Jacobs, B. Fynes, F. Wiengarten, and A. Lecuna. 2015. “Internal Lean Practices and Performance: The Role of Technological Turbulence.” International Journal of Production Economics 160: 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alves, J. R. X., and J. M. Alves. 2015. “Production Management Model Integrating the Principles of Lean Manufacturing and Sustainability Supported by the Cultural Transformation of a Company.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (17): 5320–5333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1033032.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dubey, R., and A. Gunasekaran. 2015. “Agile Manufacturing: Framework and Its Empirical Validation.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 76 (9–12): 2147–2157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6455-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bortolotti, T., S. Boscari, and P. Danese. 2015. “Successful Lean Implementation: Organizational Culture and Soft Lean Practices.” International Journal of Production Economics 160: 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blome, D., T. Schoenherr, and C. Rexhausen. 2013. “Antecedents and Enablers of Supply Chain Agility and Its Effect on Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (4): 1295–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.728011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yusuf, Yahaya Y., A. Gunasekaran, A. Musa, M. Dauda, N. M. El-Berishy, and S. Cang. 2012. 2000. “A Relational Study of Supply Chain Agility, Competitiveness and Business Performance in the Oil and Gas Industry.” International Journal of Production Economics 147: 531–543.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Inman, R. A., R. S. Sale, K. W. Green, and D. Whitten. 2011. “Agile Manufacturing: Relation to JIT, Operational Performance and Firm Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 29 (4): 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yang, M. G., P. Hong, and S. B. Modi. 2011. “Impact of Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Management on Business Performance: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Production Economics 129 (2): 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kisperska-Moron, D., and J. De Haan. 2011. “Improving Supply Chain Performance to Satisfy Final Customers: “Leagile” Experiences of a Polish Distributor.” International Journal of Production Economics 133 (1): 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.12.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2007. “Defining and Developing Measures of Lean Production.” Journal of Operations Management 25 (4): 785–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vázquez-Bustelo, D., L. Avella, and E. Fernández. 2007. “Agility Drivers, Enablers and Outcomes: Empirical Test of an Integrated Agile Manufacturing Model.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (12): 1303–1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710835633.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yusuf, Y. Y., A. Gunasekaran, E. O. Adeleye, and K. Sivayoganathan. 2004. “Agile Supply Chain Capabilities: Determinants of Competitive Objectives.” European Journal of Operational Research 159 (2): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2003. “Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles, and Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 21 (2): 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, C., H. Chiu, and P. Chu. 2006. “Agility Index in the Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 100 (2): 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.11.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Narasimhan, R., M. Swink, and S. W. Kim. 2006. “Disentangling Leanness and Agility: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (5): 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swafford, P. M., S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy. 2006. “The Antecedents of Supply Chain Agility of a Firm: Scale Development and Model Testing.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (2): 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cua, K. O., K. E. McKone, and R. G. Schroeder. 2001. “Relationships between Implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and Manufacturing Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 19 (6): 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00066-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christopher, M. 2000. “The Agile Supply Chain Competing in Volatile Markets.” Industrial Marketing Management 29 (1): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00110-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Naylor, J. Ben., M. M. Naim, and D. Berry. 1999. “Leagility: Integrating the Lean and Agile Manufacturing Paradigms in the Total Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 62 (1–2): 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00223-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunasekaran, A. 1998. “Agile Manufacturing: Enablers and an Implementation Framework.” International Journal of Production Research 36 (5): 1223–1247. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075498193291.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunasekaran, A. 1999. “Agile Manufacturing: A Framework for Research and Development.” International Journal of Production Economics 62 (1–2): 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00222-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunasekaran, A., Y. Y. Yusuf, E. O. Adeleye, T. Papadopoulos, D. Kovvuri, and D. G. Geyi. 2019. “Agile Manufacturing: An Evolutionary Review of Practices.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (15–16): 5154–5174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530478.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Power, D. J., A. S. Sohal, and S. U. Rahman. 2001. “Critical Success Factors in Agile Supply Chain Management an Empirical Study.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 31 (4): 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030110394923.

 Google Scholar

Sharifi, H., and Z. Zhang. 1999. “Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing Organisations: An Introduction.” International Journal of Production Economics 62 (1–2): 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tse, Y. K., M. Zhang, P. Akhtar, and J. MacBryde. 2016. “Embracing Supply Chain Agility: An Investigation in the Electronics Industry.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21 (1): 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0237.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aslam, H., C. Blome, S. Roscoe, and T. M. Azhar. 2018. “Dynamic Supply Chain Capabilities: How Market Sensing, Supply Chain Agility and Adaptability Affect Supply Chain Ambidexterity.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (12): 2266–2285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agarwal, A., R. Shankar, and M. K. Tiwari. 2006. “Modeling the Metrics of Lean, Agile and Leagile Supply Chain: An ANP-Based Approach.” European Journal of Operational Research 173 (1): 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.12.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eckstein, D., M. Goellner, C. Blome, and M. Henke. 2015. “The Performance Impact of Supply Chain Agility and Supply Chain Adaptability: The Moderating Effect of Product Complexity.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (10): 3028–3046. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970707.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ding, B., X. Ferràs Hernández, and N. Agell Jané. 2023. “Combining Lean and Agile Manufacturing Competitive Advantages through Industry 4.0 Technologies: An Integrative Approach.” Production Planning & Control 34 (5): 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1934587.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nath, V., and R. Agrawal. 2020. “Agility and Lean Practices as Antecedents of Supply Chain Social Sustainability.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 40 (10): 1589–1611. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2019-0642.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.