Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
This paper aims to provide necessary insights and information focused on SSCM concept, avenues of application and its impact on consumers purchasing behavior. It is advocated to investigate / survey consumers perceptions of a companys green initiatives towards sustainability and the implications on their purchasing behavior. In it, the concept of sustainable supply chains by a few multinational firms is explored, their initiatives are highlighted, and ways to reduce the carbon footprint and the image of a company to improve customer satisfaction selected.
Key words: SSCM concept, consumers purchasing behavior, sustainability, sustainable supply chains.
Introduction
Since the concerning and widely shared IPCC Reports release in October 2018, there appears to have been a renewed urgency in emphasizing the consequences existing production and consumption patterns have on the environment. People worldwide are thinking about their habits, but businesses are under more pressure from regulators, investors, and customers to reduce their influence. The well-known research company Nielsen designated 2018 as the year of the Influential Sustainable Consumer, with this trend expected to last into the next ten years (Shao et al., 2021). This indicates that both companies and customers are shifting to green practices.
For businesses, managing the supply chain is crucial to addressing the unsustainable practices that happen as part of their operational activities. Megatrends like globalization and outsourcing have caused supply chains to become more complicated, increasing the need to assess their environmental and social impacts. Academic studies frequently refer to this idea as sustainable supply chain management (Kot, 2018). Sustainable supply chain management, or SSCM, has gained ground in the last 20 years from the periphery of science to the center, as shown, among other things, by the sharp increase in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Even though there has been a lot of research on issues like the causes of and obstacles to SSCM and the practical strategies deployed, most of it still focuses on big, multinational corporations. This echoes a broader tendency to ignore how SSCM affects customer purchase behavior and what they consider green practices.
However, consumer behavior contributes significantly to the global economy regarding output and employment. Due to this, companies are constantly under pressure to retain and attract new customers. The fact that they are so completely ignored in academic study and public discourse is remarkable, especially given that their purchasing decisions pressure businesses to manage their supply chains sustainably (Toorajipour et al., 2021). When customers are researched in academia, the leading Customer satisfaction research focuses on consumers perceptions of their buying or purchasing experiences. It is a subset of marketing research, customer intelligence, and customer analytics. Rarely is the customers purchasing behavior considered to be the main factor influencing a companys supply chain.
As a result, there is a glaring gap in the literature regarding how green initiatives adopted by businesses affect consumer purchasing behavior. Since many scholars have called for more research into SSCM in the context of customers, this gap has been openly acknowledged (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Customers views on green initiatives might naturally differ depending on the products. Perhaps, for this reason, several studies even state explicitly that their conclusions do not apply to specific organizations.
This study aims to fill this significant knowledge gap by experimentally examining SSCM from the viewpoint of customers while taking into account their particular preferences for green efforts that affect their purchasing behavior. Since customers are the primary stakeholders for businesses and their purchasing decisions are influenced by SSCM, they are selected as the researchs focal point (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). Additionally, all companies in the sector, regardless of size, must deal with health, safety, and quality regulations, which shows a propensity for the supply chain management.
Definition of Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Different authors have different definition of sustainable supply chain management but all of them arrive at green pratices. Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, argue in their article with the intriguing title Implementing Sustainable Supply Chain Management (2019) that the addition of sustainability to conventional supply chain management has been a positive development. Therefore, in real world, there would be no need for a separate discipline known as sustainable supply chain management. The authors argue that all SCM research should be viewed as SSCM research rather than the novelty. This will help create genuinely sustainable supply chains, not just a bit more tolerable.
Although history will likely be on the side of Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, the two disciplines will eventually converge. It is still easy to comprehend what sustainable supply chain management means, particularly, given its precise segmentation in the literature, for the period Saeed and Kersten (2019, p. 1137) define SSCM as the management of material, information, and capital flows as well as cooperation among enterprises along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development. The three dimensions considered by the authors are economic, environmental, and social factors derived from stakeholders and customer requirements (see Figure 1). Academics frequently use this definition, and with good cause. The first is that it outlines the TBL orientation (environmental, social, and economic), which sets SSCM apart from conventional supply chain management (Kot, 2018). This TBL has been widely adopted throughout both popular and academic literature and asserts that a firms success should be judged by its bottom line and social and environmental performance. Additionally, it is claimed that achieving success in all three areas will result in long-term financial gains, a competitive advantage, and a favorable effect on people and the environment. Through the help of the TBL framework, Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe (2019) conceptualized SSCM as existing at the point where the three spheres above meet in a Venn diagram, as seen in the picture below.
Second, the term focuses on collaboration between businesses along the supply chain. As the world becomes more globally interconnected and consumer demands for quality, responsiveness, and flexibility rise, cooperation is also a crucial component of traditional supply chain management (Kot, 2018). However, using SSCM, businesses frequently have to consider an even more extended portion of the supply chain than they would be based on economic considerations (Shao et al., 2021). Corporate crises have highlighted the necessity for a broader view of the supply chain when considering environmental and social/ethical components. For example, the Nike sweatshop controversy in the late 1990s led to the companys ouster of bad working conditions at its suppliers facilities (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). Additionally, the public, media, and other stakeholders are inclined to hold businesses accountable for violations far from the primary supplier, providing more motivation (Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, 2019). Generally, the usefulness of incorporating it in the definition stems from the fact that other authors emphasize how crucial teamwork and strong relationships are to SSCM.
Thirdly, customer and stakeholder requirements are mentioned explicitly in the definition as the source of a companys sustainability goals. Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), shareholders, communities, the media, and employees are just a few examples of stakeholders. Stakeholders should be acknowledged as having legitimate requirements for the supply chains activities, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in all definitions of SSCM. Additionally, scholars agree that stakeholder pressure is a significant factor in adopting SSCM policies and practices. Scuotto, Garcia-Perez, Cillo, and Giacosa (2020) claim that stakeholders play a critical role in increasing corporate sustainability knowledge and influencing the acceptance of specific targets. Generally, stakeholders often have channels to convey their sustainability-related requirements, which might seem to make or break organizations, especially in the current political and cultural context and with the rise of social media.
Lastly, the definition expands on the fundamental components of conventional SCM. Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha (2021) highlight the top three characteristics of SCM as (1) flow focus, (2) coordination focus, and (3) stakeholder focus, all of which are mentioned explicitly in Saeed and Kerstens definition. Another quality mentioned by Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha, performance focus, is also evident in the definition. In addition, including information and capital flows alongside material flows acknowledges the disciplines expansion from its earlier predominance of material flows.
Additionally, the definition helps understand what SSCM is not for this interim report. By incorporating the Triple Bottom Line viewpoint, the authors clearly distinguish between SSCM and green supply chain management, which strongly emphasizes the environmental side of sustainability at the expense of the social. There has been some confusion and misunderstanding caused by the literatures use of the terms sustainable and environmental. Still, there appears to be a tendency towards a more unifying equating sustainability with the triple bottom line (Toorajipour et al., 2021). Early on, research was also a propensity to stress environmental issues. Still, despite the TBL approaches higher level of complexity, it has been increasing adoption of it.
However, literature evaluations still strongly favor the environmental lens when comparing papers that only cover one or two dimensions. Even when both sides were mentioned, the emphasis was often on ecological rather than social behaviors (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). This may be because the social dimension is seen from a corporate perspective as more ambiguous. In contrast, the environment is seen as something that can be managed to produce discrete, observable, and measurable outcomes. Additionally, businesses may publish information on environmental benefits like C02 reductions more openly than they do about pay or working conditions, which can be seen as more delicate or problematic. Green and socially sustainable supply chain management overlap with SSCM in a significant way. Although they do not adhere to the triple bottom line perspective, they will be included in the scope of this interim report.
Development of the Discipline
SSCM is still a relatively new study area compared to other management and economics disciplines (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). It has only recently begun to receive more in-depth study. Since 2008, the area has witnessed an increase in articles, but significant research in sustainability and corporate social responsibility dates back to the 1970s and 1980s (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Understanding the strategic significance of supply chain activities for the companys successful long-term economic performance and sustainability outcomes gave rise to SSCM. The reduction of waste, a key element of SCM, initially led to integrating environmental management with the enhancement of economic performance, or green SCM (Shao et al., 2021). The early 2000s marked the beginning of the fields convergence from standalone notions of concerns like the environment and human rights to studying their interactions and other facets of social responsibility (Kot, 2018).
The area subsequently expanded to include a more holistic view of SCM and that above environmental-social-economic triple bottom line approach, despite initially being limited to specific SCM operations like purchasing and transportation. SSCM is closely related to corporate sustainability and could be viewed as coming under its purview (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). After the Brundtland Report, which summarized the findings of the World Commission on the Environment and Developments work, the phrase became popular.
With almost half of the articles having no theoretical framing, SSCM has criticized its apparent lack of theoretical foundation. As opposed to believing that a more varied application of theory could bring fresh insights into the field, research tends to be speculative or rely on a few widely accepted ideas (Kot, 2018). Some academics have even considered descriptive analysis conceptually weak and immature due to its perceived overrepresentation (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). At the moment, so-called macro theorieswhich adopt a strategic and organizational viewpoint rather than an individual or behavioral onedominate the area. According to Fraser, Müller, and Schwarzkopf (2020), this may be due to the fields emergence from SCM, which likewise frequently adopts a macro perspective.
The resource-based view (RBV) and stakeholder theory are now the most often used theories in SSCM research. RBV examines how a corporation uses its valuable, uncommon, unique, and non-substitutable resources to gain a competitive advantage (Makhloufi, Laghouag, Meirun, and Belaid, 2021). This describes the specific sustainability-related skills that the firms supply chain possesses in the context of SSCM. The dynamics capabilities theory, widely used in the literature, is closely related to and builds on RBV. Dynamic capabilities are an organizations ability to intentionally generate, extend, or adjust its resource base to outperform its rivals economically in shifting marketplaces (Duong and Ha, 2021). Instead of seeing the company as a collection of resources, the stakeholder theory sees it as a network of stakeholders whose participation in the firms decisions is essential to its long-term survival and success. The theory is normative in that it contends that the values of the organization and its managers, stakeholders expectations, and societal issues that will impact the firms ability to sell its products should all be compatible. While RBV and its related theories focus more on the performance outcomes of SSCM, stakeholder theory is often used to evaluate stakeholders pressures and duties towards them.
Given its position in the management sciences and its genesis in SCM, SSCM is typically regarded via an economic lens. This viewpoint is frequently demonstrated by the focus on ideas like competitive advantage and risk management, which either increase or protect the bottom line. According to Allen, Zhu, and Sarkis (2021), there is widespread agreement among SCM experts that businesses can gain a competitive edge through sustainability-focused S.C. operations. This is particularly clear in the resource-based and dynamic capabilities viewpoints. However, there is some disagreement over how the economic dimension is viewed. While Kot (2018) claims that responsibility frameworks do not explicitly consider financial performance, Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha (2021) disagree, believing that the field is skewed in favor of profit maximization and other advantageous business practices. Focusing on profitability may force researchers to miss innovative techniques. Therefore techniques with good economic and noneconomic impacts on chain performance will always be smaller than strategies that may improve some but not all triple bottom lines. The ultimate, if the implicit, determinant of SSCM performance, profit, appears to be a common theme in much of the literature.
Another critical aspect of the disciplines growth has been its overt emphasis on massive enterprises. The term corporate social responsibility, which is sometimes used synonymously with sustainable in SSCM literature, already denotes a focus on larger firms (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). The giant buyer firm has traditionally been the preferred unit of analysis. Even when corporations are not explicitly stated, expressions like shareholders and top management indicate the companys size to the reader. This emphasis on large corporations has also resulted in a somewhat top-down approach to SSCM, emphasizing procedures like codes of conduct that are not often adopted by SMEs (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). As previously indicated, there have been many requests for a more excellent study on SSCM as there currently seems to be a lack of studies in the area (Kot, 2018).
Beyond the theory, Morais and Barbieri (2022) discover that most reviewed SSCM studies conclude that SSCM implementation is generally poor in practice. No supply chain that satisfies the requirements of being really sustainable exists today, claim Shao et al. (2021). According to a study by Duong and Ha (2021, p. 20), internal energy efficiency measures were the most widely adopted sustainability strategy. In contrast, SSCM was the least used strategy across corporations in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. This might be perceived as reflecting a significant portion of media coverage, where the sustainability accomplishments of major corporations like Tesco frequently seem to be limited to things like more energy-efficient lighting or renewable energy sources.
Conceptualizing SSCM
Kitsis and Chen created the conceptual Framework that would serve as the theoretical foundation for this report (2019). It serves as the foundation for classifying and examining the many SSCM techniques businesses might use in their supply chains. The authors claim that the Framework is meant to be more practical than theoretical. This is appropriate for this report because the empirical research aims to identify the specific techniques used by the case companies.
The framework looks at the firms strategic values, supply chain architecture, and operational procedures to conceive how sustainable performance might be accomplished using SCM. Firm orientation, continuity, collaboration, risk management, and proactivity are included in these Meta categories (see Figure 2). Additionally, each categorys goals are operationally implemented by specific practices included in each category (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). Except for stakeholder management and life cycle assessment, the authors acknowledge that the bulk of methods are not unique but instead use this to highlight how SSCM is a theoretical and practical expansion of SCM. Thus, many activities in SSCM may also be included in SCM but may be emphasized more strongly or naturally have different objectives.
Looking more closely at the Framework, strategic values and direction are essentially the companys outlook and how it is incorporated into its strategy design. This is crucial since many activities alone will not produce the desired sustainable results; instead, they must be combined with a particular viewpoint. For instance, to improve sustainability performance, Enhanced Communication and S.C. Partner Selection must be in line with a sustainability plan (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). The Framework includes a triple bottom line and an SCM approach as prerequisites for implementing the following practices. The latter is probably included because it has been argued that efforts at sustainability will be facilitated by a supply chain that performs well in traditional operational measures.
The next component is structure, which entails consistency and cooperation. The second stage, as its name implies, is where the supply chains organization is built up, specifically how various partners collaborate. Inclusion of the continuity category means the underlying presumption that a consistent, long-lasting, trustworthy relationship that benefits all parties is essential to the sustainability performance of the focus firm (Gloet and Samson, 2020). This standard is demonstrated by behaviors including partner choosing, partner development, and long-term relationship building. Collaboration, closely related to continuity, falls under both the structural and operational (process) categories. It requires organizational, logistical, and technological structures to exist in the first place and ultimately be realized at the operational level. The characteristics of trust and longevity discussed in the continuity category are presupposed in collaboration, which is a step beyond cooperation. In essence, the association is where many of the supply chains sustainable outcomes are accomplished, as seen by procedures like improved communication and cooperative development, which promote information exchange and product creation.
Risk management and reactiveness are different categories within the processes. The inclusion of risk management is based on the idea that businesses using SSCM procedures and pursuing sustainability are more sensitive to unique hazards than those using SCM alone (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). One of the primary motivations for SSCM is frequently considered to reduce environmental and societal risk. Companies can employ standards and certifications more broadly to target a wider variety of stakeholders, as well as audits and corporate visits to monitor their specific suppliers selectively. One of the primary characteristics that distinguish SSCM from SCM is the challenging task of keeping track of environmental and social issues at the supplier and occasionally at the customer level. Lastly, proactivity is mentioned because it is assumed that businesses can be considered proactive just by using sustainability measures (Kot, 2018). This is connected to the notion that these businesses are walking a new road and, as a result, need to create new technology and operating procedures (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Businesses can learn and innovate by managing and working with their various stakeholders, ideally taking into account the entire life cycle of their product already at the layout stage.
While divided into five distinct categories, the conceptual model also has a lot of overlap and has some areas where it could be disputed. Companies are focusing on risk management in addition to continuity through careful partner selection and the establishment of long-term relationships. Along with collaboration, managing stakeholders was also highlighted in the proactivity category and is another risk management approach that aims to promote transparency and assurance in communication. Consequently, this prompts the question of whether risk management merits its category of activities or whether it might be better regarded as a form of motivator or mediating component in the model. Similar to how authors like Gloet and Samson (2020) view innovation capability and entrepreneurship as orientations in their conceptualizations of SSCM, proactivity may be deemed a strategic value or orientation rather than a category of practices. Stakeholder management may quickly come under the collaboration. Learning and innovation could be seen as practices that happen across all model areas, swiftly dissolving the need for the proactivity category. Furthermore, there is not always an apparent distinction between the categories of continuity and collaboration because both work to improve supply chain longevity and confidence. There are no drivers, pressures, or incentives governing the adoption of practices in a model that is just concerned with physician practices. The conceptual model will be utilized as a starting point for comprehending the many activities within SSCM and further developed to serve this studys aims better, even if it is not flawless and many academics may have different perspectives.
Drivers
Although Saeed and Kerstens (2019) conceptual model does not explicitly address the pressures or motivators for adopting SSCM practices, there is still a case for looking at them in the report. This is because there is a consensus in the literature that the drive to adopt SSCM originates from different internal and external sources. Rather than being created in a vacuum, a companys strategic beliefs and orientation are the outcomes of various variables. Said factors, or sustainability motivators/drivers, are often split into internal and external motivators, with internal motivators further subdivided into normative and instrumental motivators (Karmaker et al., 2021). CSR is seen by instrumental rationality as a tactical tool for advancing the companys economic goals, and the firm is seen as a vehicle for wealth creation. Corresponding drivers for SSCM could be risk management, efficiency improvements, or cost reduction (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). On the other hand, internal normative motivators result from the moral or ethical considerations of the companys owners, management, or employees. They typically include value-based orientations like honesty or care for the welfare of the environment or community (Kitsis and Chen, 2019).
Pressures are coming from various sources, including governments, customers, NGOs, and competitors, which are strongly tied to external motivators in stakeholder theory and stakeholder management. Based on a taxonomy of institutional variables first proposed by Hoffmann, Malik, Abdallah, Orr, and Chaudhary (2019) created, a suitable classification for these motivators. Resource, regulatory, market, and social variables are used to classify external drivers (see Figure 3). In Figure 3, external motivators/drivers include customer demands, governmental regulations, competitive advantage, and pressure from civil society, like Greenpeaces campaign against Nestle for importing unsustainable palm oil (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). However, not all academics would precisely agree with the taxonomy since Kitsis and Chen (2019) perceive investors and shareholders as an internal motivator, while Gloet and Samson (2020) see the competitive advantage as an essential internal motivator.
Hoffman, Malik, Abdallah, Orr, and Chaudhary used the idea of salience and stakeholder theory to further account for the fact that not all motivators are created equal in all situations. The three components of saliencelegitimacy (validity of claims), urgency (degree of pressure), and power (degree of power/dominance)define the criticality of sustainability demands and, consequently, the likelihood that they will result in sustainability actions. This is closely related to the conclusions of Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone (2021), who found that stakeholder pressure could lead to either simple awareness of sustainability, adoption of sustainability goals, or actual implementation of sustainability practices, and that different stakeholder types appear to have a distinct influence on SSCM decisions.
External, internal, instrumental, or normative motivators do not need to be mutually exclusive for the motivation to adopt SSCM policies to exist. For instance, managers reported that managerial sustainability values were a key component of SSCM introduction and implementation in a study of New Zealand companies conducted by Sajjad, Eweje, and Tappin (2019). Additionally, they acknowledged the significance of SSCM as a potent risk management strategy. There does not seem to be much agreement in the literature about how important or influential external versus internal motivators are, especially regarding performance outcomes. Even though Saeed and Kersten (2019) do point out in their literature review that more studies have focused on identifying external as opposed to internal factors. Some elements, especially internal normative ones like personal attitudes, can be challenging to research because they may not indeed transfer into tangible outcomes, which contributes to the difficulty of generalization (Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone, 2021). While the typical success indicators for SSCM outcomes, such as customer loyalty rates, are frequently drawn from more economic drivers, it is possible that they unintentionally disregard those drivers that are harder to quantify
Strategic Values
The first component in Saeed and Kerstens conceptual model, strategic values, refers to the firms orientation or, to put it another way, the preconditions necessary for SSCM operations. As discussed in the preceding section, different motivators or motivations may cause sustainability awareness. Still, other circumstances are required to transform understanding into the acceptance of goals or implementing practices. For instance, government regulations, frequently cited as a significant impetus for SSCM practices, do not necessarily result in enhanced sustainability performance because firms may choose to act only in reaction (Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, 2020). However, the law can be a powerful accelerator for exceptional sustainability performance when combined with a TBL, proactive approach.
While most businesses today are likely aware of sustainability, the difference between reactive businesses and those who try to alter their supply chains is sustainability or TBL as a core value (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Sustainability goals, practices, and cognitions are linked to SCM in this form of integration, according to Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone (2021). Due to that, sustainability becomes an integral part of everyones job and a daily discourse rather than something that occurs in a distinct entity. In practice, this entails, among other things, creating written policies, providing personnel with sustainability training, managing performance, and offering appropriate incentives and rewards (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). Additionally, sustainability must be a fundamental, explicit component of the companys strategy, not something added later or handled separately (Karmaker et al., 2021). Once the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, finding the motivation to move forward can be challenging if sustainability is only a business case (and not a value in and of itself). Top management involvement and support are essential to achieving TBL orientation. Management commitment to sustainability is significant in customer satisfaction when a single manager/owner controls the companys resources and strategy.
An SCM orientation is the second strategic value mentioned in the conceptual model. This is not surprising, given that SSCMs roots may be traced back to the initial identification of the importance of SCM operations in achieving long-term performance and addressing sustainability challenges through business capabilities (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). The goal is to include supply chain goals and thinking into all decisions, even those that do not immediately affect the supply chain, similar to the TBL perspective (Malik, Abdallah, Orr and Chaudhary, 2019). As previously mentioned, it has been asserted that efforts to achieve sustainability will be facilitated by a supply chain that performs well in conventional operational metrics (Gloet and Samson, 2020). In their 2018 analysis of the food business, Accorsi, Cholette, Manzini, and Tufano discovered a substantial correlation between SCM and sustainability performa
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.