A systematic literature review on sustainability-oriented supplier development

Figures & data

Table 1. Survey of relevant literature reviews.

Paper	Topic covered	Analysis focus	Methodology covered	Sustainability focus	Time horizon	Theoretical lens	SLR or not
Gimenez and Tachizawa 2012	Sustainability-oriented supplier assessment & collaboration	Enabler and performance outcome	Empirical papers	TBL	1996–2011	–	SLR
Zimmer, Fröhling, and Schultmann 2016	Sustainability-oriented supplier selection & development & monitoring	Analytical models employed to achieve SSM	Analytical papers	TBL	1997–2014	–	SLR
Chen et al. 2017	Sustainability-oriented supplier development & collaboration & monitoring	Collaboration within the supply chain	Not limited	TBL	1998–2015	–	SLR
Yawar and Seuring 2017	Sustainability-oriented supplier assessment & development & monitoring	Strategies employed to manage social issues within supply chain	Not limited	Social issue	2000–2013	–	Non-SLR
Jia et al. 2018	Sustainability-oriented supplier assessment & collaboration	SSM achievement in developing countries	Not limited	TBL	2000–2016	–	SLR
This review	Sustainability-oriented supplier development	All aspects of SSD	Not limited	TBL	Until end of 2019	Contingency theory	SLR

Figure 1. The systematic literature review process.

Table 2. Systematic literature review search strings.

	Searching string used
Supplier development	TITLE-ABS-KEY (‘supplier engagement’ OR ‘engaging supplier’ OR ‘supplier development’ OR ‘developing supplier’ OR ‘supplier relationship management’ OR ‘managing supplier relationship’ OR ‘supplier management’ OR ‘managing supplier’ OR ‘buyer supplier relationship’ OR ‘supplier collaboration’ OR ‘collaborating supplier’ OR ‘vertical integration’)
	AND
Sustainability	TITLE-ABS-KEY (‘triple bottom line’ OR ‘TBL’ OR sustainability OR sustainable OR green OR environmental OR ethical OR social OR ‘sustainability stewardship’ OR responsible OR multi-tier OR lower-tier OR sub-tier)

Figure 2. The three forms of fit (adapted from Sousa and Voss 2008).

Table 3. Distribution of the papers by journal and year.

Journal	Number of papers	2005–2009	2010–2014	2015–2019
Journal of Cleaner Production	12		2	10
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management	8		2	6
International Journal of Production Economics	7		3	4
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal	6	2	1	3
International Journal of Operations and Production Management	5	1	2	2
Journal of Business Ethics	4	1		3
Journal of Supply Chain Management	4		2	2
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management	3		2	1
European Journal of Operational Research	3		1	2
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management	3			3
Production and Operations Management	3	1		2
Benchmarking	2			2
Business Strategy and the Environment	2			2
Computers and Industrial Engineering	2			2
International Journal of Production Research	2		1	1
Journal of Environmental Management	2			2
Annals of Operations Research	1			1
Applied Economics	1			1
California Management Review	1	1
Competition and Change	1		1
Global Business and Economics Review	1			1
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research	1			1
Journal of Business Logistics	1		1
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal	1			1
Management Research Review	1		1
Management Science	1			1
Politics & Society	1	1
Production Planning and Control	1			1
Regulation and Governance	1			1
Review of International Business and Strategy	1			1
Supply Chain Forum	1		1
Total	83	7	20	56

Table 4. Sustainability scope of the retrieved papers.

Sustainability scope	Definition	Number of papers	2005–2009	2010–2014	2015–2019	Sample papers
Environmental	SSD practices aimed at making suppliers more environmentally friendly	27	2	8	17	Vachon and Klassen 2006; Ehrgott et al. 2013; Nguyen Donohue and Mehrotra 2019
Social	SSD practices aimed at making suppliers more socially responsible	18	3	3	12	Mamic 2005; Sancha et al. 2015; Awasthy and Hazra 2019
Sustainability in general	SSD practices aimed at making suppliers more sustainable in general	38	2	9	27	Keating et al. 2008; Harms, Hansen, and Schaltegger 2013; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019

Table 5. Research method applied by the papers.

	Number of papers	(Sample) Papers
Research method
Theoretical
Review	3	Gimenez and Tachizawa 2012; Zimmer, Fröhling, and Schultmann 2016; Yawar and Seuring 2017
Conceptual framework	3	Hajmohammad and Vachon 2016; Akhavan and Beckmann 2017; Sauer and Seuring 2018
Empirical
Case study	30	Mamic 2005; Huq, Stevenson, and Zorzini 2014; Liu, Zhang, and Ye 2019
Survey	25	Vachon and Klassen 2006; Luzzini et al. 2015; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
Mixed method	2	Vachon and Klassen 2006; van Hoof and Thiell 2015
Analytical
Modelling	16	Bai and Sarkis 2010; Bai, Dhavale, and Sarkis 2016; Awasthy and Hazra 2019
Modelling + empirical	3	Akman 2015; Thakker and Rane 2018; Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis 2018
Experimental
Behavioural experiment	1	Rogers, Carter, and Kwan 2019

Table 6. Research perspective, unit of analysis, and use of theory.

	Number of papers	(Sample) Papers
Research perspective
Buyer perspective only	38	Vachon and Klassen 2006; Leppelt et al. 2013; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
Supplier perspective only	6	Lee and Klassen 2008; Wu 2017; Chen and Chen 2019
Multi-stakeholder perspective	13	Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2014; Rodríguez, Gimenez, and Arenas 2016; Liu et al. 2018
Unit of analysis
Buyer-direct supplier dyad	49	Mamic 2005; Ehrgott et al. 2013; Liu, Zhang, and Ye 2019
Buyer-multi-tier supplier relationship	8	De Marchi, Di Maria, and Ponte 2013; Aßländer, Roloff, and Nayır 2016; Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann 2019
Use of theory
(Natural) Resource-based view	12	Pagell, Wu, and Wasserman 2010; Kumar and Rahman 2016; Yadlapalli, Rahman, and Gunasekaran 2018
(Neo-) Institutional theory	9	Blome, Hollos, and Paulraj 2014; Tachizawa, Gimenez, and Sierra 2015; Yawar and Kauppi 2018
Transaction cost economics	6	Vachon and Klassen 2006; Huq, Stevenson, and Zorzini 2014; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
Relational view	4	Sancha et al. 2015; Rodríguez, Gimenez, and Arenas 2016; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
Stakeholder theory	4	Pagell, Wu, and Wasserman 2010; Ehrgott et al. 2013; Kumar and Rahman 2016
Agency theory	4	Aßländer, Roloff, and Nayır 2016; Yadlapalli, Rahman, and Gunasekaran 2018; Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann 2019
Dynamic capability view	2	Foerstl et al. 2010; Reuter et al. 2010
Resource dependence theory	2	Leppelt et al. 2013; Lo et al. 2018
Social capital theory	2	Rodríguez, Gimenez, and Arenas 2016; Rodríguez et al. 2016
Absorptive capacity theory	1	Liu, Zhang, and Ye 2019
Antecedent theory	1	Large and Gimenez Thomsen 2011
Critical success factor theory	1	Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2014
Contingency theory	1	Ni and Sun 2018
Goal setting theory	1	Busse et al. 2016
Legitimacy theory	1	Stekelorum, Laguir, and Elbaz 2018
Network theory	1	van Hoof and Thiell 2015
Prospect theory	1	Chen and Chen 2019
Self-determination theory	1	Roehrich, Hoejmose, and Overland 2017
Stewardship theory	1	Aßländer, Roloff, and Nayır 2016

Table 7. Country and industry context.

	Developed countries only	Developing countries only	Developed and developing countries
Overall
Total	20	20	11
2005–2009	3	1	3
2010–2014	11	3	0
2015–2019	6	16	8
Country setting
Single country	13	17	–
Multiple countries	7	3	11
Industry sector setting
Consumer discretionary	11	13	4
Materials	10	6	4
Industrials	8	6	4
Consumer staples	4	9	2
Financials	4	0	0
Information technology	3	6	5
Energy	3	0	0
Health care	2	3	2
Utilities	2	0	0
Communication services	1	1	1

Table 8. Practices and performance outcome measurements.

	Dimensions	Specific items	Number of papers	(Sample) Papers
Direct SSD practices	Training/education	Technical training, training on codes of conduct, sustainability knowledge transfer workshop/courses, etc.	50	Mamic 2005; De Marchi, Di Maria, and Ponte 2013; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
	Personnel transfer	Site visit, joint team, visit suppliers’ premises, invite suppliers to buyers’, etc.	25	Andersen and Skjoett‐Larsen 2009; Hoejmose, Brammer, and Millington 2013; Yadlapalli, Rahman, and Gunasekaran 2018
	Management involvement	Build top management commitment of supplier, formal long-term plan/contract, process/product design with supplier, etc.	10	Locke, Amengual, and Mangla 2009; Ağan et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2018
	Financial investment	Direct financial support, asset investment, assist with obtaining loan from the bank, etc.	8	Mamic 2005; Rodríguez et al. 2016; Yawar and Kauppi 2018
Indirect SSD practices	Evaluation and feedback	Corrective action plan, regular audit/evaluation with feedback, etc.	34	Mamic 2005; Tachizawa, Gimenez, and Sierra 2015; Yawar and Kauppi 2018
	Improvement incentives	Better terms and conditions in the contract, cost-sharing, increase of business, etc.	12	Locke, Amengual, and Mangla 2009; Porteous, Rammohan, and Lee 2021; Liu et al. 2018
Performance outcome	Operational	Cost, delivery, quality, responsiveness, innovation, HR, BSR	17	Reuter et al. 2010; Blome, Hollos, and Paulraj 2014; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
	Social	Occupational health and safety, human rights, awareness	13	Locke, Amengual, and Mangla 2009; Sancha et al. 2015; Ni and Sun 2018
	Environmental	Energy, waste, emission, environmental reputation	11	Lee and Klassen 2008; Yadlapalli, Rahman, and Gunasekaran 2018; Chen and Chen 2019
	Economic	Profit/EBIT, income, return on asset, sales	8	Perez-Aleman and Sandilands 2008; Rodríguez et al. 2016; Subramaniam et al. 2019
	No impact	Social – labour rights, wages and working hours, reputation	5	Distelhorst et al. 2015; Kumar and Rahman 2016; Yang and Zhang 2017
		Economic – return on asset, sales, resource efficiency
		Operational – cost, delivery, quality, responsiveness, BSR
	Negative impact	Economic – sales/EBIT/financial strength	3	Large and Gimenez Thomsen, 2011; Ehrgott et al. 2013; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
		Operational – technical capabilities/purchasing performance

Table 9. Contingencies.

	Types	Specific items	Number of papers	(Sample) Papers
Contingencies	External	Characteristics of SSD process/practices	31	Mamic 2005; Fu, Zhu, and Sarkis 2012; Hultman and Elg 2018
		Institutional pressure
		Impact of external organizations
		Market context
		Complexity of sustainability
		Interrelationship among different contingencies
	Buyer side	Commitment to sustainability	31	Locke, Amengual, and Mangla 2009; Blome, Hollos, and Paulraj 2014; Awasthy and Hazra 2019
		Sustainability relevant capability and knowledge
		Supportive resources/strategies
		Organizational context factors
		Goal of the SSD
		Behavioural factors
	Supplier side	Sustainability relevant capability and knowledge	24	Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis 2014; Roehrich, Hoejmose, and Overland 2017; Nguyen, Donohue, and Mehrotra 2019
		Organizational context factors
		Commitment to sustainability
		Profitability
		Behavioural factors
	Buyer-supplier dyad	BSR	23	Vachon and Klassen 2006; Rodríguez et al. 2016; Sancha, Wong, and Gimenez 2019
		Supplier integration level
		Characteristic of supply base
		Geographical/cultural distance
		Agency problems

Table 10. Response actions.

	Types	Specific items	Number of papers	Most discussed contingencies	(Sample) Papers
Response actions	Configuration in the use of SSD practices	Differentiate between direct/indirect SSD practices	30	Supplier side contingencies (14)	Keating et al. 2008; Bai et al. 2016; Awasthy and Hazra 2019
		Rank of SSD practices
		Combined use of different SSD practices
	Adoption of SSD practices	Deploy SSD practices without specifying details	22	Buyer side contingencies (16)	Leire and Mont, 2009; Ehrgott et al. 2013; Liu, Zhang and Ye, 2019
	Actions taken to complement the use of SSD practices	Adjust the deployment strategy according to supplier capability/needs	14	External contingencies (9)	Mamic 2005; Locke, Amengual, and Mangla 2009; Yawar and Seuring 2018
		Dynamic perspective of the process
		Localization/standardization of SSD process
		Build good buyer-supplier relationships
	Collaboration with other organizations	Collaboration with external stakeholders	10	External contingencies (6)	Mamic 2005; Rodríguez, Gimenez, and Arenas 2016; Liu et al. 2018
		Collaboration with first-tier suppliers
		Collaboration with business partners
		Horizontal collaboration with other buying firms

Table 11. Employed form of fit.

Form of fit	Definition	Number of papers	(Sample) Papers
Selection	Fit is a congruence between one contingency factor and one response action	45	Mamic 2005; Fu, Zhu, and Sarkis 2012; Rashidi and Saen 2018
Interaction	Focuses on pairs of contingency-response actions and the impact on performance of each pair individually	17	Perez-Aleman and Sandilands 2008; Distelhorst et al. 2015; Chen and Chen 2019
System	Considers multiple contingency factors and response actions simultaneously and holistically	14	Lee and Klassen 2008; Bai, Dhavale, and Sarkis 2016; Nguyen Donohue and Mehrotra 2019

Table 12. Papers employing the system fit approach.

Papers	Contingency – response pairs	Specific contingencies – response actions – performance outcomes	Method/Dimension/Form
Busse et al. 2016	External/buyer-supplier dyad – actions taken to complement the use of SSD practices	Complexity of sustainability/socio-economic/spatial/linguistic/cultural distance – build good buyer-supplier relationships – improved sustainability situation at suppliers	Empirical
			Sustainability in general
			System-partial
Ni and Sun 2018	External – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Environmental dynamism/stakeholder pressure – combined use of different SSD practices – improved environmental, social and economic performance at buyers	Empirical
			Sustainability in general
			System-partial
Thakker and Rane 2018	Buyer side/external – actions taken to complement the use of SSD practices	Commitment to sustainability/sustainability relevant capability and knowledge/supportive resources/institutional pressure/characteristics of SSD process/practices – dynamic perspective of the process – performance outcome on environment aspect at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-partial
Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann 2019	Buyer-supplier dyad – actions taken to complement the use of SSD practices/collaboration with other organizations	Goal conflict/information asymmetry – standardization of SSD process/horizontal collaboration with other buyers – address agency problems/improved compliance at suppliers	Empirical
			Sustainability in general
			System-partial
Lee and Klassen 2008	Supplier side – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Size & commitment to sustainability & sustainability relevant capability and knowledge – differentiate between direct/indirect SSDs – improved environmental management capabilities at suppliers	Empirical
			Environmental
			System-full
Bai and Sarkis 2010	Buyer side/supplier side – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Buyer sustainability relevant capability and knowledge & supplier size & profitability &industry – rank of SSD practices – performance outcome on environmental and operational aspects at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full
Bai, Sarkis, and Wei 2010	Buyer side/supplier side – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Buyer sustainability relevant capability & supplier size/profitability/industry – rank of SSD practices – performance outcome on environmental and operational aspects at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full
Bai, Dhavale, and Sarkis 2016	Buyer side/supplier side – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Buyer sustainability relevant capability & supplier learning ability/size/profitability – rank of SSD practices – performance outcome on environmental and operational aspects at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full
Rodríguez et al. 2016	Buyer side/buyer-supplier dyad/external – collaboration with other organizations	Buyer sustainability relevant capability and knowledge/supportive resources & fair relationship & NGOs knowledge and bridging capability – collaboration with external stakeholders – Improved social condition at suppliers	Empirical
			Social
			System-full
Karaer, Kraft, and Khawam 2017	Buyer-supplier dyad/external – configuration in the use of SSD practices	The characteristic of supply base & market opportunity – combined use of different SSDs – performance outcome on environment aspect at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full
Tong et al. 2018	Buyer side/supplier side/external – actions taken to complement the use of SSD practices/collaboration with other organizations	Behaviour factors of the buyer & supplier & impact of external organizations – dynamic perspective of the process & collaborate with external stakeholder – performance outcome at suppliers	Analytical
			Sustainability in general
			System-full
Awasthy and Hazra 2019	Buyer side/supplier side – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Sustainability relevant capability & commitment to sustainability of the buyer & supplier – differentiate between direct/indirect SSDs – performance outcome on social and economic aspects at buyer & suppliers	Analytical
			Social
			System-full
Bai et al. 2019	Supplier side/external – configuration in the use of SSD practices	The characteristics of the SSD practices & supplier sustainability relevant capability and knowledge – rank of SSD practices – performance outcome on environmental performance at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full
Nguyen, Donohue, and Mehrotra 2019	Supplier side/external – configuration in the use of SSD practices	Sustainability relevant capability and knowledge & impact of external organizations – differentiate between direct/indirect SSDs – performance outcome on environmental performance at suppliers	Analytical
			Environmental
			System-full

Figure 3. Conceptual framework of SSD for future research.

*Gimenez, C., and E. M. Tachizawa. 2012. “Extending Sustainability to Suppliers: A Systematic Literature Review.” Supply Chain Management 17 (5): 531–543. doi:10.1108/13598541211258591.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zimmer, K., M. Fröhling, and F. Schultmann. 2016. “Sustainable Supplier Management – A Review of Models Supporting Sustainable Supplier Selection, Monitoring and Development.” International Journal of Production Research 54 (5): 1412–1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, L., X. Zhao, O. Tang, L. Price, S. Zhang, and W. Zhu. 2017. “Supply Chain Collaboration for Sustainability: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda.” International Journal of Production Economics 194: 73–87. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.04.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yawar, S. A., and S. Seuring. 2017. “Management of Social Issues in Supply Chains: A Literature Review Exploring Social Issues, Actions and Performance Outcomes.” Journal of Business Ethics 141 (3): 621–643. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2719-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jia, F., L. Zuluaga-Cardona, A. Bailey, and X. Rueda. 2018. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Developing Countries: An Analysis of the Literature.” Journal of Cleaner Production 189: 263–278. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.248.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sousa, R., and C. A. Voss. 2008. “Contingency Research in Operations Management Practices.” Journal of Operations Management 26 (6): 697–713. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.06.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vachon, S., and R. D. Klassen. 2006. “Extending Green Practices across the Supply Chain.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26 (7): 795–821. doi:10.1108/01443570610672248.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ehrgott, M., F. Reimann, L. Kaufmann, and C. R. Carter. 2013. “Environmental Development of Emerging Economy Suppliers: Antecedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Business Logistics 34 (2): 131–147. doi:10.1111/jbl.12015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nguyen, J., K. Donohue, and M. Mehrotra. 2019. “Closing a Supplier's Energy Efficiency Gap through Assessment Assistance and Procurement Commitment.” Management Science 65 (1): 122–138. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2941.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mamic, I. 2005. “Managing Global Supply Chain: The Sports Footwear, Apparel and Retail Sectors.” Journal of Business Ethics 59 (1–2): 81–100. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3415-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sancha, C., C. Gimenez, V. Sierra, and A. Kazeminia. 2015. “Does Implementing Social Supplier Development Practices Pay off?” Supply Chain Management 20 (4): 389–403. doi:10.1108/SCM-07-2014-0239.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Awasthy, P., and J. Hazra. 2019. “Responsible Sourcing by Improving Workplace Safety through Buyer–Supplier Collaboration.” European Journal of Operational Research 274 (1): 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Keating, B., A. Quazi, A. Kriz, and T. Coltman. 2008. “In Pursuit of a Sustainable Supply Chain: insights from Westpac Banking Corporation.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13 (3): 175–179. doi:10.1108/13598540810871217.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Harms, D., E. G. Hansen, and S. Schaltegger. 2013. “Strategies in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: An Empirical Investigation of Large German Companies.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20 (4): 205–218. doi:10.1002/csr.1293.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sancha, C., C. W. Y. Wong, and C. Gimenez. 2019. “Do Dependent Suppliers Benefit from Buying Firms’ Sustainability Practices?” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (4): 100542. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2019.100542.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hajmohammad, S., and S. Vachon. 2016. “Mitigation, Avoidance, or Acceptance? Managing Supplier Sustainability Risk.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 52 (2): 48–65. doi:10.1111/jscm.12099.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Akhavan, R. M., and M. Beckmann. 2017. “A Configuration of Sustainable Sourcing and Supply Management Strategies.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 23 (2): 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2016.07.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sauer, P. C., and S. Seuring. 2018. “A Three-Dimensional Framework for Multi-Tier Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain Management 23 (6): 560–572. doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2018-0233.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Huq, F. A., M. Stevenson, and M. Zorzini. 2014. “Social Sustainability in Developing Country Suppliers: An Exploratory Study in the Ready Made Garments Industry of Bangladesh.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34 (5): 610–638. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0467.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Liu, L., M. Zhang, and W. Ye. 2019. “The Adoption of Sustainable Practices: A Supplier's Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Management 232: 692–701. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.067.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Luzzini, D., E. Brandon-Jones, A. Brandon-Jones, and G. Spina. 2015. “From Sustainability Commitment to Performance: The Role of Intra- and Inter-Firm Collaborative Capabilities in the Upstream Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 165: 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*van Hoof, B., and M. Thiell. 2015. “Anchor Company Contribution to Cleaner Production Dissemination: experience from a Mexican Sustainable Supply Programme.” Journal of Cleaner Production 86: 245–255. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bai, C., and J. Sarkis. 2010. “Green Supplier Development: Analytical Evaluation Using Rough Set Theory.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (12): 1200–1210. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bai, C., D. Dhavale, and J. Sarkis. 2016. “Complex Investment Decisions Using Rough Set and Fuzzy c-Means: An Example of Investment in Green Supply Chains.” European Journal of Operational Research 248 (2): 507–521. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.059.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Akman, G. 2015. “Evaluating Suppliers to Include Green Supplier Development Programs via Fuzzy c-Means and VIKOR Methods.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 86: 69–82. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Thakker, S. V., and S. B. Rane. 2018. “Implementation of Green Supplier Development Process Model in Indian Automobile Industry.” Management of Environmental Quality 29 (5): 938–960. doi:10.1108/MEQ-03-2018-0052.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Dou, Y., Q. Zhu, and J. Sarkis. 2018. “Green Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management: An Enabler Investigation.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 24 (2): 95–107. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2017.07.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rogers, Z. S., C. R. Carter, and V. Kwan. 2019. “Making Tough Choices: A Policy Capturing Approach to Evaluating the Tradeoffs in Sustainable Supplier Development Initiatives.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (5): 100574. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2019.100574.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Leppelt, T., K. Foerstl, C. Reuter, and E. Hartmann. 2013. “Sustainability Management beyond Organisational Boundaries-Sustainable Supplier Relationship Management in the Chemical Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 56: 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lee, S. Y., and R. D. Klassen. 2008. “Drivers and Enablers That Foster Environmental Management Capabilities in Small- and Medium-Sized Suppliers in Supply Chains.” Production and Operations Management 17 (6): 573–586. doi:10.3401/poms.1080.0063.

 Google Scholar

*Wu, G. C. 2017. “Effects of Socially Responsible Supplier Development and Sustainability-Oriented Innovation on Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence from SMEs.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24 (6): 661–675. doi:10.1002/csr.1435.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Chen, Y., and I. J. Chen. 2019. “Mediated Power and Sustainable Supplier Management (SSM): Linking Power Use, Justice, and Supplier Performance.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 49 (8): 861–878. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2018-0393.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Grimm, J. H., J. S. Hofstetter, and J. Sarkis. 2014. “Critical Factors for Sub-Supplier Management: A Sustainable Food Supply Chains Perspective.” International Journal of Production Economics 152: 159–173. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rodríguez, J. A., C. Gimenez, and D. Arenas. 2016. “Cooperative Initiatives with NGOs in Socially Sustainable Supply Chains: How is Inter-Organisational Fit Achieved?” Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 516–526. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.115.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Liu, L., M. Zhang, L. C. Hendry, M. Bu, and S. Wang. 2018. “Supplier Development Practices for Sustainability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective.” Business Strategy and the Environment 27 (1): 100–116. doi:10.1002/bse.1987.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*De Marchi, V., E. Di Maria, and S. Ponte. 2013. “The Greening of Global Value Chains: Insights from the Furniture Industry.” Competition & Change 17 (4): 299–318. doi:10.1179/1024529413Z.00000000040.

 Google Scholar

*Aßländer, M. S., J. Roloff, and D. Z. Nayır. 2016. “Suppliers as Stewards? Managing Social Standards in First- and Second-Tier Suppliers.” Journal of Business Ethics 139 (4): 661–683. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3148-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lechler, S., A. Canzaniello, and E. Hartmann. 2019. “Assessment Sharing Intra-Industry Strategic Alliances: Effects on Sustainable Supplier Management within Multi-Tier Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production Economics 217: 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Pagell, M., Z. Wu, and M. E. Wasserman. 2010. “Thinking Differently about Purchasing Portfolios: An Assessment of Sustainable Sourcing.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 46 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03186.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kumar, D., and Z. Rahman. 2016. “Buyer Supplier Relationship and Supply Chain Sustainability: Empirical Study of Indian Automobile Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 131: 836–848. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yadlapalli, A., S. Rahman, and A. Gunasekaran. 2018. “Socially Responsible Governance Mechanisms for Manufacturing Firms in Apparel Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production Economics 196: 135–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.11.016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Blome, C., D. Hollos, and A. Paulraj. 2014. “Green Procurement and Green Supplier Development: Antecedents and Effects on Supplier Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 52 (1): 32–49. doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.825748.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Tachizawa, E. M., C. Gimenez, and V. Sierra. 2015. “Green Supply Chain Management Approaches: drivers and Performance Implications.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35 (11): 1546–1566. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yawar, S. A., and K. Kauppi. 2018. “Understanding the Adoption of Socially Responsible Supplier Development Practices Using Institutional Theory: Dairy Supply Chains in India.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 24 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Foerstl, K., C. Reuter, E. Hartmann, and C. Blome. 2010. “Managing Supplier Sustainability Risks in a Dynamically Changing environment-Sustainable Supplier Management in the Chemical Industry.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 16 (2): 118–130. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2010.03.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Reuter, C., K. Foerstl, E. Hartmann, and C. Blome. 2010. “Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Achieving Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 46 (2): 45–63. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.03189.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lo, S. M., S. Zhang, Z. Wang, and X. Zhao. 2018. “The Impact of Relationship Quality and Supplier Development on Green Supply Chain Integration: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production 202: 524–535. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.175.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rodríguez, J. A., C. Gimenez Thomsen, D. Arenas, and M. Pagell. 2016. “NGOs’ Initiatives to Enhance Social Sustainability in the Supply Chain: Poverty Alleviation through Supplier Development Programs.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 52 (3): 83–108. doi:10.1111/jscm.12104.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Large, R. O., and C. Gimenez Thomsen. 2011. “Drivers of Green Supply Management Performance: Evidence from Germany.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 17 (3): 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2011.04.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ni, W., and H. Sun. 2018. “A Contingent Perspective on the Synergistic Effect of Governance Mechanisms on Sustainable Supply Chain.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23 (3): 153–170. doi:10.1108/SCM-08-2017-0260.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Busse, C., M. C. Schleper, M. Niu, and S. M. Wagner. 2016. “Supplier Development for Sustainability: Contextual Barriers in Global Supply Chains.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46 (5): 442–468. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2015-0300.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Stekelorum, R., I. Laguir, and J. Elbaz. 2018. “CSR Disclosure and Sustainable Supplier Management: A Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises Perspective.” Applied Economics 50 (46): 5017–5030. doi:10.1080/00036846.2018.1466990.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Roehrich, J. K., S. U. Hoejmose, and V. Overland. 2017. “Driving Green Supply Chain Management Performance through Supplier Selection and Value Internalisation: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 (4): 489–509. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-09-2015-0566.

 Google Scholar

*Andersen, M., and T. Skjoett‐Larsen. 2009. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (2): 75–86. doi:10.1108/13598540910941948.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hoejmose, S., S. Brammer, and A. Millington. 2013. “An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Business Strategy and Socially Responsible Supply Chain Management.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33 (5): 589–621. doi:10.1108/01443571311322733.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Locke, R., M. Amengual, and A. Mangla. 2009. “Virtue out of Necessity? Compliance, Commitment, and the Improvement of Labor Conditions in Global Supply Chains.” Politics & Society 37 (3): 319–351. doi:10.1177/0032329209338922.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ağan, Y., C. Kuzey, M. F. Acar, and A. Açıkgöz. 2016. “The Relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Supplier Development, and Firm Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 1872–1881. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.090.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Porteous, A. H., S. V. Rammohan, and H. L. Lee. 2015. “Carrots or Sticks? Improving Social and Environmental Compliance at Suppliers through Incentives and Penalties.” Production and Operations Management 24 (9): 1402–1413. doi:10.1111/poms.12376.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Perez-Aleman, P., and M. Sandilands. 2008. “Building Value at the Top and the Bottom of the Global Supply Chain: MNC-NGO Partnerships.” California Management Review 51 (1): 24–49. doi:10.2307/41166467.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Subramaniam, P. L., M. Iranmanesh, K. M. Kumar, and B. Foroughi. 2019. “The Impact of Multinational Corporations’ Socially Responsible Supplier Development Practices on Their Corporate Reputation and Financial Performance.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 50 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2019-0002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Distelhorst, G., R. M. Locke, T. Pal, and H. Samel. 2015. “Production Goes Global, Compliance Stays Local: Private Regulation in the Global Electronics Industry.” Regulation & Governance 9 (3): 224–242. doi:10.1111/rego.12096.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yang, F., and X. Zhang. 2017. “The Impact of Sustainable Supplier Management Practices on Buyer-Supplier Performance: An Empirical Study in China.” Review of International Business and Strategy 27 (1): 112–132. doi:10.1108/RIBS-08-2016-0043.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Fu, X., Q. Zhu, and J. Sarkis. 2012. “Evaluating Green Supplier Development Programs at a Telecommunications Systems Provider.” International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 357–367. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hultman, J., and U. Elg. 2018. “Developing CSR in Retail–Supplier Relationships: A Stakeholder Interaction Approach.” International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 28 (4): 339–359. doi:10.1080/09593969.2018.1462235.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Dou, Y., Q. Zhu, and J. Sarkis. 2014. “Evaluating Green Supplier Development Programs with a Grey-Analytical Network Process-Based Methodology.” European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2): 420–431. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.03.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Leire, C., and O. Mont. 2009. “The Implementation of Socially Responsible Purchasing.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17 (1): 27–39. doi:10.1002/csr.198.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yawar, S. A., and S. Seuring. 2018. “The Role of Supplier Development in Managing Social and Societal Issues in Supply Chains.” Journal of Cleaner Production 182: 227–237. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.234.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rashidi, K., and R. F. Saen. 2018. “Incorporating Dynamic Concept into Gradual Efficiency: Improving Suppliers in Sustainable Supplier Development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 202: 226–243. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.092.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bai, C., J. Sarkis, and X. Wei. 2010. “Addressing Key Sustainable Supply Chain Management Issues Using Rough Set Methodology.” Management Research Review 33 (12): 1113–1127. doi:10.1108/01409171011092176.

 Google Scholar

*Karaer, Ö., T. Kraft, and J. Khawam. 2017. “Buyer and Nonprofit Levers to Improve Supplier Environmental Performance.” Production and Operations Management 26 (6): 1163–1190. doi:10.1111/poms.12612.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Tong, X., J. Chen, Q. Zhu, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2018. “Technical Assistance, Inspection Regime, and Corporate Social Responsibility Performance: A Behavioural Perspective.” International Journal of Production Economics 206: 59–69. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.027.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bai, C., K. Govindan, A. Satir, and H. Yan. 2019. “A Novel Fuzzy Reference-Neighborhood Rough Set Approach for Green Supplier Development Practices.” Annals of Operations Research 2019>: 1–35. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03456-z.

 Google Scholar