Content uploaded by Venkatesh Mani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Venkatesh Mani on Dec 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Impediments to Social Sustainability Adoption in the Supply
Chain: An ISM and MICMAC Analysis in Indian Manufacturing
Industries
V. Mani
1
•Rajat Agrawal
1
•Vinay Sharma
1
Received: 26 May 2015 / Accepted: 21 August 2015
Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2015
Abstract Although sustainability and its adoption have
been talked about for many years, attention to social sus-
tainability in the literature as well as practice has been
rather limited. In the developing countries, glaring social
issues, such as inequality, poor living conditions, child and
bonded labour, inappropriate wages and gender discrimi-
nation, combined with increased stakeholder awareness,
are exerting pressure on the corporates for social sus-
tainability. This research identifies the social sustainability
barriers and their inter-relationships, so as to determine
the practices that can lead to the adoption of social sus-
tainability in the supply chain of manufacturing industries.
The barriers to social sustainability have been identified
through an extensive literature review and their relevance
has been ascertained through a questionnaire survey and
interviews with the experts. The interpretive structural
modelling approach has been used to model the contextual
relationships among the barriers. The findings show that
lack of pressure from the employees’ unions, with high
driving power and low dependence, leads at the bottom of
the digraph. Lack of pressure by stakeholders occupies the
second level, while lack of customer requirements, lack of
pressure from social organisations and lack of zeal on the
part of the skilful policy entrepreneurs are positioned at the
middle level. The fourth level is occupied by lack of social
concern and inadequate competitive pressure, while at the
top of the digraph come lack of regulatory compliance and
lack of awareness of social sustainability. The model has
been developed based on the opinions of the academics and
industry experts, yielding a hierarchical structure of the
social barriers and their interrelationships, which is
expected to help the supply chain practitioners and policy
makers to address the problems in the adoption of social
sustainability in manufacturing supply chain.
Keywords Interpretive structural modelling (ISM)
MICMAC analysis Social sustainability
Social sustainability barriers
Supply chain social sustainability
Introduction
Due to rapid industrial development and innovative pro-
duction technologies, companies are increasingly focusing
their goals on high profits and fast paced development. Such
a development, however, may have a severe impact on the
people and the society. For example, Amalgamation Bean
Coffee (ABC), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tata group
in India, was on fire from the World Bank recently for
violation of social aspects in their plantations (World Bank
2014). In another instance, Zara, the world’s largest apparel
company, was severely indicted for unethical practices of
using hormone disrupting and cancer inducing chemicals in
its apparels (Green Peace 2012). In yet another instance, the
recent recovery of 297,632 children and bonded labourers in
India shows the lack of sustainable social practices in the
supply chain, particularly in manufacturing industries.
Today’s clients are concerned with not just consuming the
products and enjoying their features but also their manu-
facturing conditions, i.e. where they are produced and how.
This is exerting pressure on the companies to quickly adopt
the sustainable measures (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).
Sustainability is defined as ‘‘development that conforms to
&V. Mani
vmaniddm@iitr.ernet.in; maniv.iitr@gmail.com
1
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
DOI 10.1007/s40171-015-0106-0
the demands of today without compromising the ability to
help the future generations’’ (Bruntland 1987). The interre-
lationship of the economy, environment and society is a
crucial aspect to consider for overall sustainability (Elk-
ington 1997; Carter and Rogers 2008). It is important to
characterise these interactions to understand their overall
impact on the future generations (Carter and Easton 2011).
Until lately, social sustainability had received very little
attention in the literature which only emphasised the leg-
islative measures, wellness and safety, rather than cultural
and ethical aspects in a comprehensive way (Seuring 2004;
Linton et al. 2007; Seuring and Mu
¨ller 2008; Carter and
Easton 2011; Ashby et al. 2012;Seuring2013). Today, the
focal point of competition has shifted from the global
companies themselves to their supply chains. Thus, the
companies are striving to find the directions and means for
adopting innovative technologies and sustainability mea-
sures to distinguish themselves from others (Bai and Sarkis
2010). However, the supply chain consists of many collab-
orators and its sustainability depends on the several indi-
vidual partners. The impact of sustainability is not limited
merely to the manufacturing companies but also extends to
their suppliers (Ashby et al. 2012). Many manufacturing
companies are sourcing their suppliers from the developing
countries for low cost advantage. Invariably, these actions
and behaviours of the suppliers in the societies they operate
from; will have an impact on the global companies. Many
social sustainability issues in the developing countries, more
recently in China and India, have created a sense of urgency
for the supply chain managers and policy makers. In these
countries such issues, not only tarnish the image of their
buyers but also affect their financial performance (Preuss
2001; Graafland 2002). Most of the developing countries are
still plagued with child labour, gender inequality, poverty,
and health problems because of the lack of awareness of
social sustainability measures. Especially in the manufac-
turing supply chain, social responsibility still requires further
exploration (UNCTAD 2013;UN2013; Brandenburg et al.
2014). The United Nations’ Human Development Index
(HDI) periodically assesses the industrialised as well as the
developing countries and sets the benchmark for social
sustainability measures. This, in turn, acts as a driving force
for the countries to improve upon their social sustainability
aspects. Yet, the problem in the developing countries is to
identify the most persistent barriers impeding the acceptance
of social sustainability in the supply chain. Though there
have been numerous studies on sustainability, they have not
focussed on social sustainability to the extent desired
(Seuring 2013). Moreover, the social sustainability studies
that were taken place so far are either focussed on developed
societies or largely ignored social sustainability in the
manufacturing supply chain of developing countries (Seur-
ing and Mu
¨ller 2008; Ashby et al. 2012). There were
numerous studies on social sustainability pertain to supply
chain (Carter and Jennings 2002; Bai and Sarkis 2010;Lu
et al. 2012;Miaoetal.2012) but these were conducted in
developed countries. The social issues tend to vary; similarly
the antecedents and impediments to social sustainability
adoption would also vary. Further, there were few studies on
social sustainability in India, For example, Kumar et al.
(2014), Mani et al. (2014); both were analytic approaches
predominantly focussing on supplier sustainability activities.
Therefore, in our knowledge, there is still a research gap
exists that needs attention on social sustainability issues
especially in the manufacturing supply chain pertinent to
developing countries like India. And, the social issues are
society specific and highly contextual in nature; because the
society and social systems evolve over a long period of time.
Therefore, this research assumes significance as it identifies
the possible barriers to social sustainability adoption in the
Indian manufacturing supply chain. The contribution of the
study is two-fold: identifying and helping to find out major
obstacles that cause non-adoption of social sustainability
measures; and adding theory to the literature on social sus-
tainability in the supply chain and logistics related to
developing countries. In India, supply chain managers have
two problems in hand, first—not having clear idea and
awareness of the barriers which hamper social sustainability.
Second, to what extent these barriers contribute to unsus-
tainability as well the relationships among them. Hence, the
aim of this research paper is:
•to identify the barriers to social sustainability in the
supply chain of Indian manufacturing industries; and
•to model these barriers and their contextual relation-
ships using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM)
and MICMAC analysis.
Literature Review and Problem Definition
The following literature review is grouped into three major
divisions dealing with social sustainability, social sustain-
ability in the supply chain, and barriers to the adoption of
social sustainability in the supply chain.
Evolvement of Social Sustainability
Many scholars, when referring to ‘social sustainability’,
draw mainly on the definition of sustainable development
provided by Brundtland Commission’s report, ‘‘Our
Common Future: The Concept of Sustainable Growth’’.
Meeting human needs and aspirations is considered to
be a major objective of sustainable growth. The basic needs
of a vast number of people for food, clothing, shelter and
jobs are not being adequately met in the developing
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
countries. Further, beyond the basic needs, people also
have their legitimate aspirations for an improved quality of
life. A world with widespread poverty and inequality will
always be prone to ecological crisis. Hence, sustainable
development requires meeting the basic needs of all
(Bruntland 1987). This definition fits in well with the
concept of sustainability as it allows for merging people’s
needs with the bio-physical and environmental objectives
of economic growth. It aims at covering a much larger
dimension and addresses both tangible and less tangible
requirements of life which, in turn, depend on reviving
growth, creating jobs, improving the quality of life, pro-
viding food, water, energy and sanitation, and ensuring a
sustainable population level. It means that, until we address
the basic needs of the society, it will be very difficult to
achieve social and overall sustainability. This issue was
taken up by Crabtree (2005) in her research that addressed
questions, such as how poverty acts as a barrier in adopting
green technologies, like solar panels and other modes of
power generation. Other researchers argue that the sus-
tainability practices in the developed countries have not
fully eliminated serious problems revolving around mal-
nutrition, poor-health, poverty, and inadequate housing
(Macnaghten et al. 1995; Redclift 2005; Boone and
Modarres 2009). As they suggest, meeting people’s basic
needs everywhere is a crucial component of the wider
developmental goal. Similarly, Hens and Nath (2005)
emphasise poverty eradication describing how poverty
contributes to natural and environmental destruction.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) views social sustainability in two
different dimensions: human and societal. The human
dimension refers to man’s knowledge, skills, abilities and
endowments which define an individual’s performance in
the labour market and are relevant to the process of eco-
nomic development (OECD Insights 2008). On the other
hand, the societal dimension refers to the collective actions
that are beneficial to the society (Hobbs 2000; OECD
Insights 2008). There have been many studies on sustain-
ability. An earlier study by Hardin (1968), titled ‘‘The
Calamity of the Commune’’, asserts that whatever is
common to all, and given free access to, will be ruined by
man. He emphasises mutual coercion as a way to manage
natural resources. Sachs’ (1999) research on social sus-
tainability has been particularly helpful in identifying dif-
ferent facets of social sustainability and linking them to
sustainable development. In his research, titled ‘‘social
sustainability and whole development’’, Sachs identifies a
number of essential elements of social sustainability, which
include equitable income and access to goods, social
homogeneity, services and employment. Sachs (1999) also
points out the importance of ‘‘cultural sustainability’’
which requires balancing externally imposed change with
continuity and development from within, and ‘‘political
sustainability’’ based on human rights, democracy and
effective institutional control. Social responsibility has also
been viewed as the organisational ability to manage the
stakeholders (Clarkson 1995; Waddock and Bodwell
2004). ‘Human health aspects are all-important for the
well-being of a society, but they should not be confused
with environmental sustainability’(Wackernagel and Rees
1998).
Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) provide a representative
definition of corporate sustainability as ‘meeting the needs
of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (such as
shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, com-
munities, etc.), without compromising its power to satisfy
the demands of future stakeholders as well’. They have
emphasised the necessity of social sustainability on the part
of the corporates and their suppliers by increasing the
human capital of the individuals and the social capital of
the communities, adding sustainable value to their prod-
ucts. Many other scholars aver that social sustainability is
often compared with social cohesion, social capital, and
social inclusion. This also points at the importance of
focusing on higher order needs, such as access to necessary
goods and services and basic societal development
(Bramley and Power 2009). Some researchers have argued
for providing intra- and inter-generational equity, and the
distribution of power, employment, resources, education,
freedom, provision of basic infrastructure services, justice,
and access to influential decision-making fora (Mitlin and
Satterthwaite 1996;Ka
¨llstro
¨m and Ljung 2005; Redclift
2005; Bramley and Power 2009). Elkin et al. (1991) argue
that sustainable development also ‘embraces the need for
equity’. Social equity is an important component of social
sustainability and all the members of the society have equal
rights of access to resources and opportunities, which also
extend to the fair and equitable treatment of employees
(Bansal 2005; Krause et al. 2009). The other side of the
social problems is caused by the unmitigated migration of
the population to the cities. These migrations not only
cause environmental degradation but also create social
sustainability issues. The problem has been addressed by
Hens (2010) in his research paper, titled The Challenges of
Sustainable City. Others attempted through mathematical
modelling technique (Interactive fuzzy goal programming)
to demonstrate how social issues can be addressed in the
supply chain (Dubey et al. 2015a). There are many other
research papers focusing on different views of sustain-
ability and assessing how it affects the social well-being.
However, in order to be more focussed, we limit ourselves
to the social sustainability issues in the manufacturing
supply chain, in the rapidly evolving world.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Social Sustainability in Manufacturing Supply
Chain
Though the social aspects are essential for the overall sus-
tainability, the moot question is how the manufacturers can
address these social issues in their supply chains, leading to
long-term social sustainability. Social sustainability in the
supply chain can be ordained by the corporates through
socially responsible purchasing and Logistics Social
Responsibility (LSR) (Carter and Jennings 2002; Ciliberti
et al. 2008). As Drumwright (1994) argues, socially
responsible buying is the key to social sustainability in the
supply chain. According to him, socially responsible buying
happens because of two key understandings: a skilful policy
entrepreneur who puts in his resources to institute the poli-
cies; and the organisational setting in which these policies
operate. The other aspect of social sustainability stresses
how the companies take more interest in addressing the
concerns of the stakeholder groups rather than the society at
large (Clarkson 1995). Another non-economic aspect of
sustainability is fair trade principle and how it is used in
business. Fair trade is a concept of trade in which the trading
partner seeks to have an equal basis of exchange, whether it
is in a developed or developing nation (Strong 1997). Fur-
ther, socially responsible buying can be defined as the
inclusion of social implications in purchase decisions
advocated by the stakeholders. From this perspective,
socially responsible buying (SRB) and its impact on large
brands, such as Levi’s, BandQ, Mattel and Saks, have been
explained in various cases through value driven, perfor-
mance driven and stakeholder driven decisions (Maignan
and Ralston 2002). Few others, while discussing sustain-
ability; have advocated the social network analysis (SNA)
and how it helps to improve the logistics function (Carter
et al. 2007).
Spangenberg et al. (2002) distinguish social sustainability
‘which concentrates on the personal assets like education,
accomplishments, experience, consumption, income and
work, while institutional sustainability aims at interpersonal
processes like democracy and participation’ (institutional
mechanisms). Carter and Jennings (2002) have identified
various social sustainability dimensions, such as diversity,
philanthropy, safety and human rights, and their relationship
with supply chain sustainability. However, they could not
establish a direct relationship between social dimensions and
supply chain performance; instead, they have identified
mediating constructs, such as collaboration, supplier learning
and trust, that invariably reduce supply chain costs (Carter
2005). Chiu (2002,2003) has analysed the importance of
housing and social equity in Hong Kong. However, there are
other dimensions of social sustainability in the supply chain.
For instance, Whooley (2004) points out the importance of
employees’ satisfaction and describes how it drives
sustainability in the supply chain. As he elaborates, work-
place benefits, wellness and prophylactic measures, com-
pensation benefits, organisational commitment, retirement
funds, equality and diversity amongst workers, training and
development, and work-life balance help in improving the
morale and company culture. The next dimension is related to
the community and guild. In another route to social sustain-
ability, many organisations are involved in charity founda-
tions, giving donations to the less privileged in order to
promote their brand image and thus increase competitiveness
(Jones 2005). Hutchins and Sutherland (2008)alsodescribe
various social sustainability parameters which include wages,
equity, health, safety, quality of life and philanthropy, and
their impact on countries’ economic and internal standards of
sustainability, through life cycle analysis.
Lu et al. (2012) posit the importance of socially respon-
sible supplier development (SRSD), focusing on ethical
dimensions and explain how the buyer can influence the
vendors in their ethical behaviour which affects the buyer’s
operational performance. In several other surveys carried by
many researchers in many countries, including the UK,
Sweden and China, many other social performance indica-
tors have been identified, such as moral philosophy, the
surroundings, the employees’ compensations, philanthropy,
child labour, bonded labour, housing facilities, etc.
(Schlossberg and Zimmerman 2003; Andersen and Skjoett-
Larsen 2009;Luetal.2012; Yakovleva et al. 2012; Kogg
and Mont 2012). In the changing business scenario, corpo-
rations should understand the flexibility in their practices in
addressing various stakeholders expectations vice versa
employees, suppliers and vendors reciprocate for achieving
sustainability (Sushil 2014). Further, Pagell and Shevchenko
(2014) advocated the importance of future research on
supply chain sustainability that should capture stakeholder’s
perspectives in order to gain new insights. Similarly, a
research conducted by Mani et al. (2015a,b,c)haveiden-
tified social issues such as equity, child and bonded labour,
philanthropy, safety, health and ethics in Indian manufac-
turing supply chain. The researchers have used various
social parameters to measure the social dimensions in dif-
ferent geographic locations in the supply chain. Yet, it is not
very clear as to how these measures are practised, and what
encourages or discourages the partners in the supply chain to
take on social sustainability measures in the developing
nations. In this respect, there are different barriers that
hamper the growth and adoption of social sustainability
practices, especially in the developing countries, which
therefore need to be thoroughly examined. Again, social
sustainability is highly contextual and varies from country to
country, and therefore the impediments also vary based on
the social conditions prevailing in the host country. We
attempt to bridge the gap in this field of research by finding
out the barriers to social sustainability and their
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
relationships, relevant to the Indian manufacturing supply
chain. Our research also indicates barriers with more driving
power which, if addressed, will lead to a quicker adoption of
social sustainability. In the next section, we seek to identify
the social sustainability barriers associated with the supply
chain.
Identification of Barriers to Social Sustainability
For identifying and naming the barriers to social sustain-
ability in the supply chain, we carried out an extensive
literature review through the Scopus, Science Direct,
EBSCO Business Source Premier, Emerald, ProQuest,
Taylor and Francis, and Springer databases, by using
keywords such as social sustainability, sustainability bar-
riers, social sustainability barriers, social sustainability
drivers, social sustainability, sustainability in the supply
chain, sustainability and supply chain, and social sustain-
ability in the supply chain. The period of the literature
surveyed was 1981–2013 as social sustainability gained
importance only after Brundtland Commission (1987)
report, followed by Rio Declaration (1992) through agenda
21. In all, 48 academic papers from several journals related
to social sustainability were shortlisted. From these 48
academic papers, 15 barriers were identified suitable to our
study. Out of these 15 barriers, following 10 were identi-
fied as relevant to social sustainability in the supply chain.
The procedure for selection and validation of barriers is
briefed in ‘‘Validation of Barriers’’ section.
Lack of Awareness
Lack of awareness of social sustainability measures may
hinder sustainable development in the supply chain. On the
other hand, awareness of relevant social activities can
accelerate social sustainability (Haugh and Talwar 2010).
Maloutas (2003) emphasises the need for creating aware-
ness of social sustainability as the lack of cognizance in
adopting social measures is impeding the movement in the
direction of social sustainability.
Lack of Competitive Pressure
A moderate level of competition among the corporations
may encourage them to behave in socially responsible
ways. On the other hand, high or low competitions tend to
make them socially less responsible (Campbell 2007). As
some organisations utilize their socially sustainable image
for overall strategic advantage, other organisations are
compelled to adopt socially sustainable practices. In a
global environment, competitive pressure plays a vital role
in the supply chain. In social sustainability, the companies
will have the resources and capabilities which cannot be
easily imitated by their competitors who, therefore, will be
forced to own and maintain such resources of their own,
helping the cause of long-term sustainability (Lamming
and Hampson 1996; Carter et al. 2000; Rao and Holt 2005).
Rao and Holt (2005) identify the linkages between sus-
tainability measures and competitive advantage and also
establish the relationship between sustainability and
financial performance of a firm.
Lack of Customer Requirements
The customers or consumers can exert a strong pressure on
the firms to adopt social sustainability measures through
CSR if their requirements necessitate such measures
(Aguilera et al. 2007; Dubey et al. 2015b). In fact, the
customer’s requirements with regard to social dimensions
may go a long way in achieving social sustainability. These
demands not only mandate the suppliers to adopt sustain-
able practices in the short-term but also guarantee long-
term sustainability in the supply chain. The growing
requirement of the development of a socially responsible
supplier base and its impact on the company image and
financial operations has been affirmed by several
researchers (Drumwright 1994; Sen and Bhattacharya
2001; Christmann 2004; Wilkes 2008; Carter and Dresner
2001; Klassen and Vachon 2003; Sarkis 2003; Zhu and
Sarkis 2006; Ehrgott et al. 2011).
Lack of Investor Pressure
The role of investor pressure in social sustainability
reporting has been brought out by many case studies. As
shown by these studies, privately owned companies do not
disclose as much social information as the state owned
organisations (Tagesson et al. 2009).
Lack of Pressure from Employee Unions
Employee unions are the members of the internal stake-
holder group, involved in pursuing the corporates to behave
in a socially responsible way through negotiations and
dialogue (Campbell 2007). Aguilera et al. (2007) affirm
that employee unions have an important role in compelling
the corporates to be more socially sustainable. They play a
role of catalyst in successfully bargaining for social mea-
sures (Hansson et al. 2003; Haugh and Talwar 2010; Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001).
Lack of Pressure from Regulatory Authorities (Government
Regulation)
Government regulations through law enactment and law
enforcement can bring in social change in the corporations
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
(Aguilera et al. 2007). The government, as part of the
external stakeholder group in the developing countries,
monitors the corporations in their social sustainability
measures (Green et al. 1996; Beamon 1999; Campbell
2007; Gonzalez et al. 2008; Raynolds et al. 2007). There is
a positive relationship between government pressure and
implementation of social sustainability measures (Ehrgott
et al. 2011).
Lack of Interest of Skilful Policy Entrepreneurs
As Drumwright (1994) affirms, socially responsible buying
happens because of two key understandings: skilful policy
entrepreneur who uses his resources to institute policies;
and the organisational setting in which these policies
operate (Buchholz 1991; Banerjee 2003). Further, Ehrgott
et al. (2011), in their research, mapped the social network
within an organisation to show how a handler at the lower
ranks effectively championed and drove to a safety related
supplier management project. Others have pointed out that
managers in sustainable supply chain tend to invest more
on human capital that will lead to sustainability (Pagell and
Wu 2009).
Lack of Social Concern
Organisations social concern can have a positive impact on
the social sustainability measures (Laufer 2003; Walker
and Preuss 2008). Organisations increasingly display their
social measures through many reporting standards carried
out to show the corporates social concern to the stake-
holders and shareholders of the organisation. Lack of social
concern may hinder social sustainability in the
corporations.
Lack of Pressure from Social Organisations
The NGOs and other social organisations that monitor the
corporations for socially responsible behaviour may tend to
influence social sustainability (Bartley 2003; Campbell
2007). Moreover, socially responsible corporate behaviour
tends to overlap with the extent to which the firms
belonging to the industrial and corporate systems are
amenable to dialogue. The NGOs, through boycotts, cam-
paigns and multi-party dialogues, can influence the cor-
porates to adopt socially responsible practices (Aguilera
et al. 2007). Walker and Preuss (2008), in their research on
sustainability, emphasise the importance of the social
groups pressure on corporate performance. In fact, the
presence of active social groups warrants the adoption of
social sustainability practices by the corporates.
Lack of Stakeholder Pressure
Internal stakeholders through their direct strategic deci-
sions, and external stakeholders exercising their collective
voice, can influence the acceptance of socially sustainable
practices in the corporations (Aguilera et al. 2007). On the
other hand, the media stakeholders can also influence the
organisations in their adoption of social sustainability cri-
teria (Jones 1995; Sharma and Vredenburg 1998; Post et al.
2002; Maignan and Ralston 2002; Laplume et al. 2008). An
inquiry conducted by Jones (2005) in 18 top corporations
revealed how companies were adopting social sustainabil-
ity measures pushed primarily by the stakeholder pressure,
in addition to their ratings in DJSI to be specifically
recognised for their name and report.
Validation of Barriers
Although the barriers to social sustainability mentioned
above are relevant and appropriate, they cannot be used in
India because the norms of social sustainability and their
adoption vary from country to country, as the social issues
evolve over a long period of time in a society. Hence,
validation is required for these barriers. For the purpose,
these 15 barriers were mailed to experts, including 13
academics with over a decade of teaching and research
experience at SCM, 6 researchers, and 11 supply chain
managers from different manufacturing organisations.
They gave feedback on the relevance of the barriers, after
which 10 barriers were identified as relevant to the Indian
manufacturing supply chain and 5 were dropped because of
poor relevance rating from the experts. These 5 barriers
are: lack of benchmarking; resistance to change; pressure
from international certifications; lack of direct incentives;
and financial constraints. The validation questionnaire is
enclosed in Appendix 1. The correlation matrix and
methodology for barrier selection are described in detail in
the methodology section.
On the basis of the literature review and the expert panel
relevance ratings, we identified 10 barriers. The expert jury
was applied twice, first to determine the relevance of the
social sustainability barriers, and then to develop pair-wise
interrelationship among the roadblocks. Interviews were
conducted with 30 expert members. Before conducting the
interviews, these experts were emailed a questionnaire with
a write-up on social sustainability and demand for identi-
fication of social sustainability barriers. They were asked to
rate the relevance of the enablers on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 to 5, with 1 signifying ‘‘not at all relevant’’
and 5 ‘‘extremely relevant’’. The replies received through
mails were tabulated. As mentioned above, the participants
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
in the survey were from the ranks of academics,
researchers, and middle and high level corporate executives
in supply chain functions and operations, as well as
research associates from manufacturing industries across
North India. The reliability test using Cronbach’s coeffi-
cient (a) was calculated to determine the inner consistency
of the answers. The value of awas 0.754. The descriptive
statistics showing the mean score and standard deviation
for the barriers have been presented in Table 1. Then,
Pearson’s bivariate, two-tailed correlation test was used to
ascertain whether there was any multi co-linearity. The
measures for multi co-linearity were over 0.9 (Hair et al.
1995). The results (Table 2) indicate that all the 10
enablers were highly correlated to each other, with no
significant evidence of multi co-linearity. We used SPSS
20.0 version software to get the correlation test results.
Methodology
To identify the impediments to social sustainability in
manufacturing supply chains, the interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) technique was used. The ISM technique is
used to transform unclear, poorly articulated mental models
of systems into visible, well-defined models (Sage 1977;
Warfield 1982). ISM is very useful in the earlier phase of a
research in which a set of directly or indirectly related
variables have to be identified to form a hierarchical
structure, depicting the interrelationships which would
bring in more useful insights in a complex decision making
environment. Further, Sushil (2012) advocated that ISM
technique is very handy in identifying the structure within
the system. Though, there were other techniques, such as
Delphi, they are time consuming, as they involve a larger
Table 2 Correlation coefficient for social sustainability barriers
Social sustainability barriers 10 9 87654321
Lack of awareness of social sustainability 0.144 0.222 0.318 0.218 -0.156 0.215 0.134 -0.06 -0.18
Lack of pressure from employee unions 0.22 0.293 0.287 0.397 0.509 0.367 0.144 0.306
Lack of investor pressure -0.064 0.079 -0.1 -0.09 0.039 0.037 0.004
Lack of customers’ requirements 0.181 0.704 0.277 0.358 0.106 0.357
Lack of social concerns 0.418 0.331 0.647 0.696 0.397
Lack of pressure from regulatory agencies (government
regulation)
0.254 0.213 0.199 0.546
Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur 0.383 0.321 0.549
Lack of social organizations pressure 0.302 0.173
Lack of competitive pressure 0.298
Lack of stakeholder pressure
Source SPSS analysis
Table 1 Ranking the social sustainability barriers
Social sustainability barriers Mean Ranking Std. dev
Lack of awareness of social sustainability 3.26 1 0.903
Lack of pressure from employee unions 3.22 2 1.013
Lack of investor pressure 3.15 3 0.949
Lack of customer’s requirements 3.15 4 1.099
Lack of social concerns 3.11 5 0.974
Lack of pressure from regulatory authorities (government regulation) 3.04 6 1.018
Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur 2.93 7 0.958
Lack of social organizations pressure 2.78 8 0.974
Lack of competitive pressure 2.78 9 1.121
Lack of stakeholder pressure 1.96 10 1.126
Source SPSS analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
panel and wider information collection exercises. On the
other hand, in a complex decision making problem, ISM
comes very handy with a short time frame requirement. For
instance, the vendor selection process; ISM technique was
used to identify various vendor selection elements (Mandal
and Deshmukh 1994). Similarly, Grzybowska (2012) in his
research on sustainability identifies many sustainability
enablers using the ISM methodology. Further, a research
on environment sustainability used ISM methodology to
identify sustainability variables under risk and uncertainty
conditions (Mangla et al. 2014). Moreover, the methodol-
ogy has been used for many similar researches. For
instance, Barve and Muduli (2013) used it to study barriers
to environmental sustainability in the Indian mining
industry. Kumar et al. (2013) identified many enablers
using it, for IT implementation in the supply chain of the
Indian sugar industry. Further, Dubey and Ali (2014) used
ISM method to identify flexible manufacturing systems
dimensions and their relationship in India. Jayalakshmi and
Pramod (2015) adopted ISM method to identify and anal-
yse the flexible control systems for industry. Similarly,
Mani et al. (2015d) determined various social sustainability
enablers in manufacturing industries using ISM method.
Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) have used ISM method to
identify and model the barriers associated to green sus-
tainability adoption in Indian manufacturing Industries.
Hence, the ISM method is appropriate for the analysis of
social sustainability barriers in manufacturing supply
chains. The application of ISM-MICMAC analysis by
various researchers under different domains was listed in
Table 3.
ISM Method and Analysis
The barriers identified by the above mentioned process
were used for further analysis by applying interpretive
structural modelling. The presence of 10 different barriers
to social sustainability in the supply chain made identifying
and prioritizing their relationships a complex process.
Therefore, ISM was used as the communicative tool to
represent the contextual relationships among the variables
(Diabat and Govindan 2011; Sushil 2012). Though there
are other techniques, like Delphi and SEM, to be used in
these kinds of situations, they make the process even more
complex as collection and picking up such huge data
becomes rather cumbersome. While ISM is used to produce
a new mannequin to determine the relationships, SEM is
used to test an already developed model for statistical
validity (Talib et al. 2011). Further, the findings of ISM are
authoritative, as the opinions of experts are used to model
the relationships among the variables. Moreover, the con-
textual relationships are structured based on their impor-
tance and precedence. The technique has been explained
stepwise below (Fig. 1) (Warfield 1982; Jharkharia and
Shankar 2004; Faisal et al. 2006).
(1) The variables relevant to the problem are identified.
In this case, social sustainability barriers were
identified through literature review and expert
interviews.
(2) The contextual relationships among the barriers with
respect to the pairs of barriers to be tested are
established.
Table 3 Application of ISM—MICMAC analysis in sustainability related research under various domains
Author Domain
Luthra et al. (2011) This study investigates the barriers to green supply chain management practices in Indian Automobile industry
Mangla et al. (2012) This study identifies the various drivers and outcome factors and analyzes the interactions between them for a
product recovery system
Nath et al. (2013) Analysis of enablers for the adoption of environmentally friendly products
Jia et al. (2014) This study analyses the SSCM practices in the Indian mining industry
Moduli et al. (2013) This study identifies the barrier to green supply chain management practices in Indian mining industries
Mangla et al. (2014) Analysis of performance of environmentally sustainable supply chains under risks and uncertainty conditions
Dubey and Ali (2014) Analysis of flexible manufacturing system(FMS) dimensions and their interrelationship
Ware et al. (2014) This study used ISM for identifying flexible supplier selection framework
Jayalakshmi and Pramod
(2015)
This study identifies enablers and their relationships for flexible control systems for the industry
Mani et al. (2015d) Analysis of enablers for social sustainability adoption in Indian manufacturing industry
Source Author created
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
(3) The self-interaction matrix for the barriers is struc-
tured and pair-wise relationships between the systems
are developed.
(4) The reachability matrix from SSIM is developed and
checked for transitivity. Transitivity is based on the
assumption that, if variable A is related to B, and B is
related to C, then A must be related to C, along with
partitioning the reach ability matrix into different
levels.
(5) Based on the reachability matrix, a digraph is drawn
and the transitivity links are removed.
(6) Next, the digraph is converted into an ISM based
model by replacing the variable nodes into
statements.
(7) Finally, the model is reviewed for inconsistencies and
the necessary changes are implemented.
Formation of Structural Self Interaction Matrix
(SSIM)
The ISM methodology necessitated brainstorming and
expert interviews for finding the contextual relationships
among the social sustainability barriers. Therefore, the
expert panel was used once again to suggest pair-wise
relationships among the barriers. After summarising the
answers from this panel, a self-interaction matrix was
arrived at, as shown in Table 4. These relationships were
identified by using four symbols (V, A, X, O) by com-
paring the barriers i and j respectively. V suggests that the
barrier i supports the barrier j; A shows that the barrier j
supports the barrier i; X shows that the barrier i and j
support each other; and O denotes that both barrier i and j
are not related to each other. The value of i is numbered
from 1 to 10, as mentioned in Table 4.
Reachability Matrix
After arriving at a pair wise comparison of barriers through
SSIM (Table 4), the barriers were then converted into an
initial reachability matrix in a binary form, i.e. 0’s and 1’s,
by applying the following rules (Jharkharia and Shankar
2004; Sahoo et al. 2011). These results are mentioned in
Table 5.
If (i, j) entry in SSIM is V, then the initial reachability
matrix (i, j) entry =1 and (j, i) entry becomes 0.
If (i, j) entry in SSIM is A, then the initial reachability
matrix (i, j) entry =0 and (j, i) entry becomes 1.
If (i, j) entry in SSIM is X, then the initial reach ability
matrix (i, j) entry =1 and (j, i) entry becomes 1.
If (i, j) entry in SSIM is O, then the initial reachability
matrix (i, j) entry =0 and (j, i) entry becomes 0.
Based on these rules, the initial reachability matrix
arrived at is shown in Table 5.
The next step was to find out the transitivity link among
the variables. Transitivity in ISM is considered to be a
association between the variables. For example, if A is in
relation with B, and B is in relation with C, then A must be
related to C. Founded on these concepts, * in Table 6
indicates the transitivity relationships among the barriers.
From Table 5, by applying transitivity, we incorporated the
necessary changes in their contextual relationships
(Table 6). After arriving at the final reachability matrix, the
driving power of the barriers was calculated by adding the
rows horizontally, and the addition of each barrier was
estimated by adding columns vertically (Table 7).
Level Partitions
The reachability set (R) and antecedent set (C) were
obtained from the final reachability matrix (Warfield 1982)
Table 4 Pair wise relationship between barriers
S. no Social sustainability barriers 10 987654321
1 Lack of awareness of social sustainability A A A A XOAAA
2 Lack of pressure from employee unions V O V V VOOV
3 Lack of investor pressure A A A V V O A
4 Lack of customers’ requirements V V O X V O
5 Lack of social concerns O O A A V
6 Lack of pressure from regulatory authorities (government regulation) A A A A
7 Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur V V V
8 Lack of social organizations pressure A O
9 Lack of competitive pressure O
10 Lack of stakeholder pressure
Source ISM analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
for all the identified barriers. The reachability set R con-
sists of the barrier itself as well as others it might help to
overcome. On the other hand, the antecedent set (R) con-
sists of the barrier itself as well as other barriers which
might help in overcoming it. Then, the intersection of these
bands (R \C) was derived for all the barriers from the
iteration method, as indicated in Table 5. The barriers for
which the reachability and intersection sets were the same
Table 5 Initial reachability matrix
S. no Social sustainability barriers 1 2345678910
1 Lack of awareness of social sustainability 1 000010000
2 Lack of pressure from employee unions 1 110011101
3 Lack of investor pressure 1 010011000
4 Lack of customers’ requirements 1 011011011
5 Lack of social concerns 0 000110000
6 Lack of pressure from regulatory authorities (government regulation) 1 000010000
7 Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur 1 001111111
8 Lack of social organizations pressure 1 010110100
9 Lack of competitive pressure 1 010010010
10 Lack of stakeholder pressure 1 010010101
Source ISM analysis
Table 6 Final reachability matrix
S. no Social sustainability barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Lack of awareness of social sustainability 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 Lack of pressure from employee unions 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1 1 1* 1
3 Lack of investor pressure 1 0 1 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1* 1*
4 Lack of customers’ requirements 1 0 1 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 1
5 Lack of social concerns 1* 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
6 Lack of pressure from regulatory agencies (government regulation) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
7 Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur 1 0 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 Lack of social organizations pressure 1 0 1 0 1 1 1* 1 0 0
9 Lack of competitive pressure 1 0 1 0 0 1 1* 0 1 0
10 Lack of stakeholder pressure 1 0 1 0 1* 1 1* 1 0 1
Source ISM analysis
* denotes transitivity
Table 7 Calculation of driving power and dependence for final reachability matrix
S. no Social sustainability barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D.P
1 Lack of awareness of social sustainability 1 0 0 0 0 10000 2
2 Lack of pressure from employee unions 1 1 1 1 1 11111 10
3 Lack of investor pressure 1 0 1 1 1 11111 9
4 Lack of customers’ requirements 1 0 1 1 1 11111 9
5 Lack of social concerns 1 0 0 0 1 10000 3
6 Lack of pressure from regulatory authorities (government regulation) 1 0 0 0 0 10000 2
7 Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur 1 0 1 1 1 11111 9
8 Lack of social organizations pressure 1 0 1 0 1 11100 6
9 Lack of competitive pressure 1 0 1 0 0 11010 5
10 Lack of stakeholder pressure 1 0 1 0 1 11101 7
Dependence 10 1 7 4 7 10 7 6 5 5 62/62
Source ISM analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
occupied the top layer in the ISM hierarchy. The top level
barriers in the hierarchy do not help any other barrier reach
above their own layer. Once the top level was identified,
the barriers in it were discarded from the list. After iden-
tifying each barrier level, they were singled out once more.
These iteration procedures were continued until all the
layers were achieved, as shown in Table 8. The identified
barriers were then partitioned into five levels, as obtained
from the results. Here L1–L5 denote the levels from 1 to 5
of the multilevel hierarchy based on the ISM model, as
shown in Fig. 3. The numbers in the brackets denote the
barriers placed in their respective levels in ISM model.
Formation of Digraph
The structural model was derived from the final reacha-
bility matrix and the digraph (Fig. 2) was drawn after
removing the transitivity, as mentioned in the ISM
methodology. The digraph was finally converted into the
ISM model shown in Fig. 3. In this example, the top level
barriers are set at level 1, followed by the second level
barriers. Similarly, other barriers are positioned in the
hierarchical structure accordingly, until the bottom level
barriers are reached at the lowest position in the digraph.
Lack of awareness of social sustainability and lack of
government regulations are the barriers positioned at last,
with no driving power to drive any other barriers above
their own level. Lack of pressure from employee unions
(barrier 2), positioned at the bottom of the hierarchy is the
barrier with the highest driving power leading to stake-
holder pressure. Stakeholder pressure, in turn, drives bar-
riers such as customer requirements, investor pressure and
social organisation’s pressure. Lack of competitive pres-
sure and lack of social concern at the middle of the
Table 8 ISM analysis (iteration method)
Level Enabler Reachablity set (R) Antecedent sets (C) Intersection set (R\C)
I 1 1, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 1, 6
2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2 2
3 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
4 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 4, 7, 8
5 1, 5, 6 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 5
61,6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 1, 6
7 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
8 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 7, 8
9 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 3, 7, 9
10 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 3, 10
2 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 2 2
3 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
4 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 4, 7, 8
55 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 5
II 7 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10
8 3, 5, 7, 8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 7, 8
9 3,7,9 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 3, 7, 9
10 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 3, 7, 10
2 2,3,4,7,8,10 2 2
3 3,4,7,8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8
4 3,4,7,8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 4, 7, 8
III 7 3,4,7,8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 7, 8
8 3,7,8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 3, 7, 8
10 3, 7, 8, 10 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 3, 7, 10
22,10 2 2
IV 10 10 2, 10 10
V22 2 2
Source ISM analysis
Bold denotes similar values (level partitions)
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
diagraph lead to lack of awareness of social sustainability
and lack of government regulation.
MICMAC Analysis
The primary objective of MICMAC analysis is to analyse
the driving power and dependence of the variables (Barve
et al. 2007; Mandal and Deshmukh 1994). In this study, the
variables, i.e. the social sustainability barriers, are classi-
fied into four clusters (Fig. 4). The first consists of the
‘‘autonomous variables’’ which have weak driving power
and weak dependence. These variables are usually dis-
connected from the system because of their poor linkages.
In this, we find competitive pressure (SSB 9), and this is
relatively disconnected from the system due to its weak
power and dependence. The second cluster consists of
‘‘dependant variables’’ which have weak driving power but
strong dependence. In the second cluster, we find lack of
social concern (SSB 5), lack of awareness (SSB 1), and
lack of government regulations (SSB 6), with weak driving
power and strong dependence. They are located at the top
of the hierarchy and considered to be an important social
sustainability barrier (SSB). Their strong dependence
shows that they need all other SSBs to minimise the force
of these SSBs. Thus, the managements of the firms must
tackle these SSBs with high priority. Besides, the man-
agements should also realise the addition of these SSB in
the lower tier of the ISM. The third cluster has the ‘‘linkage
variables’’ that include lack of investor pressure (SSB 3),
lack of skilful policy entrepreneurs (SSB 7) and lack of
social and organisational pressure (SSB 8), all of which
have high driving power and strong dependence. These
variables are considered to be fluid due to the fact that any
changes in them will have an effect on the others and also
be fed back into themselves. These SSBs are unstable in
nature and may influence the organisation’s ability to adopt
social sustainability either in a positive or negative direc-
tion. These barriers play a vital role in establishing linkages
between two layers of the hierarchy. The fourth cluster
comprises ‘‘independent variables’’ having strong driving
force and weak dependence, and includes lack of pressure
from employee unions (SSB 2), lack of stakeholder pres-
sure (SSB 10) and lack of client requirements (SSB 4).
Fig. 1 ISM method and
analysis. Source ISM analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
These barriers are placed on the underside of the hierarchy,
being of considerable importance. Hence, the corporates
need to address these barriers very cautiously. These
independent barriers form the bottlenecks for the corporate
managers in implementing social sustainability in the
supply chain. The driving power and dependence of all
variables have been depicted in Table 6. The column total
of variable 1 is the dependence of that particular variable,
whereas the corresponding row total of that variable is
considered its driving ability. For instance, if the column
total is 10 and row total is 3, it is depicted as dependence-
10 and driving power-3 (10, 3) in Fig. 4.
Results and Discussion
Our findings offer number of insights into social sustain-
ability adoption problem in the supply chain of manufac-
turing industries. Further, the results also suggests that the
barriers to social sustainability in supply chains are of
paramount importance because of the fact that these barri-
ers, if addressed adequately, will heighten the visibility of
social sustainability in the supply chain. As the research on
social sustainability is still evolving, compared to other
dimensions of sustainability pertaining to supply chain, this
research will not only help the supply chain managers,
corporate strategists and policy makers to formulate their
social response activities but also provide first-hand infor-
mation on the barriers that have a greater driving power, so
that they can be addressed immediately. We have identified
10 crucial barriers related to social sustainability, and also
prioritized their importance based on their driving power
and dependence. Lack of pressure from employee unions
comes out as the strongest barrier with high driving power
and low dependence. This shows that, in the developing
countries, the union pressure still plays a role in corporate
governance. This could be because of the fact that social
issues are deeply related to the employees and their well-
being. These findings are in line with those of Campbell
(2007), who asserts that the pressure from employee unions
in the form of negotiations and discussions can influence
social sustainability in corporations. The emergence of lack
of union pressure with high driving power and low depen-
dence in the research reminds us of the importance of the
employee unions’ role in sustainability in the developing
16
95
3 74 8
10
2
Fig. 2 Digraph depicting different variable structures. Source ISM
Analysis
Lack of awareness on social
sustainability (1)
Lack of government regulations (6)
Lack of competitive pressure (9) Lack of social concern (5)
Lack of investor’s
pressure (3)
Lack of customer’s
requirements (4)
Lack interest from
skillful policy
entrepreneur (7)
Lack of pressure from
Social organizations (8)
Lack of stakeholder’s pressure (10)
Lack of pressure from employee union (2)
Level-1
Level-2
Level-3
Level-4
Level-5
Fig. 3 Multilevel hierarchy
structure through ISM model of
barriers. Source ISM analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
countries. Similar findings have emerged from various other
studies; establishing the linkage between the employee
union pressure and sustainability (Welford 2000; Maloni
and Brown 2006). This clearly establishes the corporate
dependence on the human capital. Since many of the social
dimensions are closely related to human beings, the
employee unions in the corporations need to enforce these
measures through negotiations and bargaining. The
employees’ pressure will then lead to other stakeholders’
pressure in the organisation. Pressure from the stakeholders
is at the second stage of the pecking order with considerable
driving power to influence the corporates. Further, we
acknowledge the findings of Campbell (2007) who avers
that the lack of the stakeholders’ pressure may also influ-
ence social sustainability. We also agree with the findings of
Aguilera et al. (2007) who map the outcome of the stake-
holders’ pressure with sustainability. The lack of awareness
of social sustainability and lack of government regulations
do not have much importance because of their weak driving
power and high dependence on other barriers. Customer
requirements, investors’ pressure and social organisations’
pressure are relatively more important with high driving
power and low dependence, as these are considered to be
linkage variables which influence the middle of the hier-
archy. These findings are in line with the framework
developed by Aguilera et al. (2007), in which they establish
various stakeholders and their role in ensuring social sus-
tainability practices by the corporates. Lack of social con-
cern and lack of competitive pressure can lead to lack of
awareness of social sustainability and regulatory compli-
ance. However, lack of awareness of social sustainability
does not have much driving power, as merely knowing
about social practices does not lead to the implementation
of social measures in the supply chain. The outcome of this
research suggest various impediments, that are essentially
to be known to the managers in the sustainability and supply
chain functions in the organisations to effectively address
the social sustainability problem. This research not only
helps in addressing the sustainability problems but also
helps the policy makers in formulating strategy on corporate
sustainability. Sushil (2015) emphasizes the need for flex-
ibility in strategy formulation for long term survival and
sustainability. Our findings, acknowledges this view by first
identifying various impediments to social sustainability
problem, in the supply chain; second: assists in flexible
ways of addressing social sustainability problem.
Research Implications
The following are the implications of this research.
•The most significant finding of this research is that the
lack of pressure from the employee unions and other
stakeholders has a high driving power, and therefore
needs to be addressed in the supply chain urgently.
This, in turn, can increase social sustainability of the
corporation.
•Another finding is that these barriers lead to other
barriers, such as lack of investor pressure, customer
requirements, skilful policy entrepreneurs, and social
organisations’ pressure. These barriers, in turn, lead to
competitive pressure and lack of social concerns.
Further, they also lead to lack of awareness of social
sustainability and lack of government regulations.
Thus, the ISM model presented here provides the
supply chain managers and the policy makers in the
organisations a more realistic representation and under-
standing of the problem of social sustainability.
Conclusion
It is important to note that, in the future, there will be more
competition among the supply chains instead of the
organisations (Christopher 1993). This research identifies
the major barriers to social sustainability in the supply
chains, such as lack of pressure from the employee unions
and other stakeholders. If these barriers are addressed
adequately, social sustainability in the supply chain of the
manufacturing industries will become a reality in the
developing countries. Hence, the corporates need to find
ways and means to configure their supply chain strategies
by means of incorporating ‘‘humanness’’ in their supply
chain, which will distinguish them from their existing and
potential competitors. Increasing concern for social
Fig. 4 Driving power and dependence diagram. Source ISM analysis
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
sustainability issues at both national and international
levels is putting pressure on the organisations to develop
schemes that will integrate social sustainability measures in
the supply chain. To be more competitive on the global
front, the companies need to understand the competitive
pressures and incorporate the human perspective in their
supply chain, thereby acquiring a strategic edge. In this
context, this research assumes even more importance, as it
addresses the important social sustainability barriers to the
supply chain and their contextual interdependencies in the
manufacturing industries.
Limitations and Future Work
Though the model developed using ISM helps us identify
important barriers to social sustainability measures in
supply chains, it does not assess the quantum of impact of
each barrier on social sustainability. Recently, Total
interpretive structural modelling (TISM) and Fuzzy total
interpretive structural modelling (Fuzzy—TISM) tech-
niques have been gaining popularity in addressing limita-
tions of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) (Sushil
2012; Khatwani et al. 2015). Future research can be carried
out with more number of barriers through Fuzzy-TISM
technique to bring in close effect of each barrier to social
sustainability adoption in the supply chain.
Further, the model itself is based on the subjective
judgment of the experts and not validated statistically. We
have used ISM to develop the initial model, but such
models can also be developed using other techniques such
as Delphi and SEM. The developed ISM model can be
statistically validated by applying the structural equation
modelling technique, as they complement each other.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Please spare a few minutes of your valuable time in
answering the following questions in relation to social
sustainability barriers in the supply chain of Indian man-
ufacturing industries. Social sustainability in the supply
chain can be defined as ‘‘the corporate’s engagement in
addressing social issues such as equity, gender discrimi-
nation, wage, child and bonded labour, housing, water,
sanitation, ethics, education and philanthropy in all three
levels of the supply chain which includes suppliers, in
house operations, distributors and customers. The infor-
mation shared will be kept confidential and the information
will be used for academic purpose only.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Based on relevancy, rate the following from 1 to 5; 5 being “Highly relevant” to 1 being “not at all relevant”.
1. Not at all relevant …………………………………………………5. Highly relevant
Because of; Lack of awareness of social sustainability
Please rate from 1 to 5,
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Because of; Lack of competitive pressure
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Because of; Lack of customers' requirement
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Relevant
Because of; Lack of direct incentives
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Because of; Lack of finance (liquidity)
Please rate from 1-5
12345
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Lack of pressure from International certification bodies (ISO 26000, OSHAS 18001, ISO 14000)
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of Investors pressure
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Resistance to change
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of pressure from employee unions
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of pressure from regulatory authorities (Government regulation)
Please rate from 1-5
12345
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Please rate from1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of social concern
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of social organisations, pressure (NGO's etc all)
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of stakeholder pressure
Please rate from 1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Lack of benchmarking
Please rate from 1-5
12 3 45
Not at all relevant
Highly relevant
Name:
Company/Institution:
Lack of interest from skilful policy entrepreneur (Top management initiative/Top executive's initiative)
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
References
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007).
Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A
multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social respon-
sibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 14(2), 75–86.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012). Making connec-
tions: a review of supply chain management and sustainability
literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
17(5), 497–516.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier
selection with grey system and rough set methodologies.
International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1),
252–264.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustain-
able development and the reinvention of nature. Organization
Studies, 24(1), 143–180.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of
corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 26(3), 197–218.
Bartley, T. (2003). Certifying forests and factories: States, social
movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and
forest products fields. Politics and Society, 31(3), 433–464.
Barve, A., Kanda, A., & Shankar, R. (2007). Analysis of interaction
among the barriers of third party logistics. International Journal
of Agile Systems and Management, 2(1), 109–129.
Barve, A., & Muduli, K. (2013). Modelling the challenges of green
supply chain management practices in Indian mining industries.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(8),
1102–1122.
Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-
ment, 19(3), 275–292.
Boone, C., & Modarres, A. (2009). City and environment. Philadel-
phia: Temple University Press.
Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustain-
ability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and
Planning, Part B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014).
Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management:
Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational
Research, 233(2), 299–312.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the world commission on
environment and development: ‘‘Our common future’’. UN.
Buchholz, R. A. (1991). Corporate responsibility and the good
society: From economics to ecology. Business Horizons, 34(4),
19–31.
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially
responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),
946–967.
Carter, C. R. (2005). Purchasing social responsibility and firm
performance: The key mediating roles of organizational learning
and supplier performance. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(3), 177–194.
Carter, P. L., Carter, J. R., Monczka, R. M., Slaight, T. H., & Swan,
A. J. (2000). The future of purchasing and supply: A ten-year
forecast1. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(1), 14–26.
Carter, C. R., & Dresner, M. (2001). Purchasing’s role in environ-
mental management: Cross-functional development of grounded
theory. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 37(3), 12–27.
Carter, C. R., & Easton, P. L. (2011). Sustainable supply chain
management: evolution and future directions. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
41(1), 46–62.
Carter, C. R., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. (2007). The use of social
network analysis in logistics research. Journal of Business
Logistics, 28(1), 137.
Carter, C. R., & Jennings, M. M. (2002). Logistics social responsi-
bility: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Logistics,
23(1), 145–180.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable
supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage-
ment, 38(5), 360–387.
Chiu, R. L. (2002). Social equity in housing in the Hong Kong special
administrative region: A social sustainability perspective. Sus-
tainable Development, 10(3), 155–162.
Chiu, R. L. (2003). 12 Social sustainability, sustainable development
and housing development. In Housing and social change:East–
west perspectives (p. 221). London: Rutledge publisher.
Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural
environment: Determinants of global environmental policy.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760.
Christopher, M. (1993). Logistics and competitive strategy. European
Management Journal, 11(2), 258–261.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2008). Logistics social
responsibility: Standard adoption and practices in Italian com-
panies. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1),
88–106.
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and
evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 20(1), 92–117.
Crabtree, L. (2005). Sustainable housing development in urban
Australia: Exploring obstacles to and opportunities for ecocity
efforts. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 333–350.
Declaration, R. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and
development.
Diabat, A., & Govindan, K. (2011). An analysis of the drivers
affecting the implementation of green supply chain management.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 659–667.
Drumwright, M. E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational
buying: Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying
criterion. The Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–19.
Dubey, R., & Ali, S. S. (2014). Identification of flexible manufacturing
system dimensions and their interrelationship using total inter-
pretive structural modelling and fuzzy MICMAC analysis. Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(2), 131–143.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Childe, S. J. (2015a). The design of a
responsive sustainable supply chain network under uncertainty.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technol-
ogy, 80, 427–445.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Singh, S., & Singh, T. (2015b). Building
theory of sustainable manufacturing using total interpretive
structural modelling. International Journal of Systems Science:
Operations and Logistics, 2(4), 231–247.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for
corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment,
11(2), 130–141.
Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2011).
Social sustainability in selecting emerging economy suppliers.
Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 99–119.
Elkin, T., McLaren, D., & Hillman, M. (1991). Reviving the City:
towards sustainable urban development. London: Friends of the
Earth.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. In The triple bottom line of
21st century. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
Faisal, M. N., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2006). Supply chain risk
mitigation: modeling the enablers. Business Process Manage-
ment Journal, 12(4), 535–552.
Gonzalez, P., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2008). Environmental
management system certification and its influence on corporate
practices: Evidence from the automotive industry. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(11),
1021–1041.
Graafland, J. J. (2002). Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: The case
of C&A. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 282–294.
Green Peace. (2012). Toxic threads:A big fashion stitch up.
http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/Global/international/publi
cations/toxics/Water%202012/ToxicThreads01.pdf.
Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1996). Purchasing and environ-
mental management: interactions, policies and opportunities.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(3), 188–197.
Grzybowska, K. (2012). Sustainability in the supply chain: Analysing
the enablers. In Environmental issues in supply chain manage-
ment (pp. 25–40). Berlin: Springer.
Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1995).
Black (1995), Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hansson, J., Backlund, F., & Lycke, L. (2003). Managing commit-
ment: increasing the odds for successful implementation of
TQM, TPM or RCM. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 20(9), 993–1008.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859),
1243–1248.
Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed
sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 9(3), 384–396.
Hens, L. (2010). The challenge of the sustainable city. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 12(6), 875–876.
Hens, L., & Nath, B. (2005). The world summit on sustainable
development. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hobbs, G. (2000). What is social capital. A Brief Literature Overview.
Dar-Es-Salam: Economic and Social Research Foundation.
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of
measures of social sustainability and their application to supply
chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15),
1688–1698.
Jayalakshmi, B., & Pramod, V. R. (2015). Total interpretive structural
modeling (TISM) of the enablers of a flexible control system for
industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
16(1), 63–85.
Jharkharia, S., & Shankar, R. (2004). IT enablement of supply chains:
modeling the enablers. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 53(8), 700–712.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of
ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2),
404–437.
Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: Developing a
stakeholder model of brand equity. The Journal of Brand
Management, 13(1), 10–32.
Jia, P., Diabat, A., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2014). Analyzing the SSCM
practices in the mining and mineral industry by ISM approach.
Resources Policy. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.04.004i.
Ka
¨llstro
¨m, H. N., & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and
collaborative learning. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment, 34(4), 376–382.
Khatwani, G., Singh, S. P., Trivedi, A., & Chauhan, A. (2015). Fuzzy-
TISM: A fuzzy extension of TISM for group decision making.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(1), 97–112.
Klassen, R. D., & Vachon, S. (2003). Collaboration and evaluation in the
supply chain:The impact on plant-level environmental investment.
Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 336–352.
Kogg, B., & Mont, O. (2012). Environmental and social responsibility
in supply chains: The practise of choice and inter-organisational
management. Ecological Economics, 83, 154–163.
Krause, D. R., Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2009). Special topic
forum on sustainable supply chain management: Introduction
and reflections on the role of purchasing management*. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 18–25.
Kumar, R., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2013). e-Applications in
Indian agri-food supply chain: Relationship among enablers.
Global Business Review, 14(4), 711–727.
Kumar, D. T., Palaniappan, M., Kannan, D., & Shankar, K. M.
(2014). Analyzing the CSR issues behind the supplier selection
process using ISM approach. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 92, 268–278.
Lamming, R., & Hampson, J. (1996). The environment as a supply
chain management issue. British Journal of Management, 7(s1),
S45–S62.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory:
Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1152–1189.
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate green
washing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.
Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007). Sustainable
supply chains: an introduction. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 25(6), 1075–1082.
Lu, R. X., Lee, P. K., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). Socially responsible
supplier development: Construct development and measurement
validation. International Journal of Production Economics,
140(1), 160–167.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., & Haleem, A. (2011). Barriers to
implement green supply chain management in automobile
industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: An
Indian perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, 4(2), 231–257.
Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M., & Wynne, B. (1995).
Public perceptions and sustainability in Lancashire. Preston:
Lancashire County Council.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility
in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses self-presenta-
tions. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.
Maloni, M., & Brown, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in
the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of
Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–62.
Maloutas, T. (2003). Promoting social sustainability The case of
Athens. City, 7(2), 167–181.
Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using
interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 14(6), 52–59.
Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2014). Flexible decision
approach for analysing performance of sustainable supply chains
under risks/uncertainty. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 15(2), 113–130.
Mangla, S., Madaan, J., & Chan, F. T. (2012). Analysis of
performance focused variables for multi-objective flexible
decision modeling approach of product recovery systems. Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 77–86.
Mani, V., Agarwal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015d). Social sustainability in
the supply chain: Analysis of enablers. Management Research
Review, 38(9), 1016–1042.
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2014). Supplier selection using
social sustainability: AHP based approach in India. International
Strategic Management Review, 2(2), 98–112.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015a). Supply chain social
sustainability: A comparative case analysis in indian manufac-
turing industries. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Science, 189,
234–251.
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015b). Social sustainability
practices in the supply chain of indian manufacturing industries.
International Journal of Automation and Logistics (in print).
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., Sharma, V., & Kavitha, T. N. (2015c).
Socially sustainable business practices in Indian manufacturing
industries: A study of two companies. International Journal of
Logistical System and Applications (in print).
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., & Geng, Y.
(2013). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implement-
ing green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 47, 283–297.
Miao, Z., Cai, S., & Xu, D. (2012). Exploring the antecedents of
logistics social responsibility: A focus on Chinese firms.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 18–27.
Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1996). Chapter one sustainable
development and cities. In Sustainability, the environment and
urbanization (p. 23). London: Earth scan publications.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., & Geng, Y. (2013). Barriers to
green supply chain management in Indian mining industries: a
graph theoretic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47,
335–344.
Nath, V., Kumar, R., Agrawal, R., Gautam, A., & Sharma, V. (2013).
Consumer adoption of green products: Modeling the enablers.
Global Business Review, 14(3), 453–470.
OECD Insights. (2008). Linking economy,society and environment.
Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/
insights/sustainabledevelopmentlinkingeconomysocietyenviron
ment.htm.
Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. (2014). Why research in sustainable
supply chain management should have no future. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 44–55.
Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of
sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10
exemplars. Journal of supply chain management, 45(2), 37–56.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the
corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational
wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition:
Co-creating unique value with customers. USA: Harvard Busi-
ness School Publishing.
Preuss, L. (2001). In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener manufac-
turing. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 345–359.
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance? International Jour-
nal of Operations and Production Management, 25(9), 898–916.
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Heller, A. (2007). Regulating
sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of
third-party environmental and social certification initiatives.
Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), 147–163.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): an
oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4),
212–227.
Sachs, W. (1999). Sustainable development and the crisis of nature:
On the political anatomy of an oxymoron. In Living with nature
(pp. 23–42). doi:10.1093/019829509X.003.0002.
Sage, A. P. (1977). Interpretive structural modeling: Methodology for
large-scale systems (pp. 91–164). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sahoo, T., Banwet, D. K., & Momaya, K. (2011). Developing a
conceptual framework for strategic technology management
using ISM and MICMAC methodology a case of automotive
industry in India. Global Business Review, 12(1), 117–143.
Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4),
397–409.
Schlossberg, M., & Zimmerman, A. (2003). Developing statewide
indices of environmental, economic, and social sustainability: a
look at Oregon and the Oregon Benchmarks. Local Environment,
8(6), 641–660.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead
to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social respon-
sibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38, 225–243.
Seuring, S. (2004). Integrated chain management and supply chain
management comparative analysis and illustrative cases. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 12(8), 1059–1071.
Seuring, S. (2013). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable
supply chain management. Decision Support Systems, 54(4),
1513–1520.
Seuring, S., & Mu
¨ller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a
conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environ-
mental strategy and the development of competitively valuable
organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,
19(8), 729–753.
Spangenberg, J. H., Omann, I., & Hinterberger, F. (2002). Sustainable
growth criteria: Minimum benchmarks and scenarios for
employment and the environment. Ecological Economics,
42(3), 429–443.
Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles
into consumer purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 15(1), 32–37.
Sushil, S. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.
Sushil, S. (2014). Duality of enterprise and stakeholders on flexibility
front. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3),
179–180.
Sushil, S. (2015). Strategic Flexibility: The Evolving Paradigm of
Strategic Management. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 16(2), 113–114.
Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., & Collin, S. O. (2009). What
explains the extent and content of social and environmental
disclosures on corporate websites: a study of social and
environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
16(6), 352–364.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. N. (2011). Analysis of
interaction among the barriers to total quality management
implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(4), 563–587.
UNCTAD. (2013). The least developed countries report 2013.
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ldc2013_en.pdf.
United Nations. (2013). Sustainable development challenges. In
World economic and social survey 2013. http://sustainable
development.un.org/content/documents/2843WESS2013.pdf.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint:
Reducing human impact on the earth (no. 9). Canada: New
Society Publishers.
Waddock, S., & Bodwell, C. (2004). Managing responsibility: what
can be learned from the quality movement? California Manage-
ment Review, 47(1), 25–37.
Walker, H., & Preuss, L. (2008). Fostering sustainability through
sourcing from small businesses: public sector perspectives.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1600–1609.
Ware, N. R., Singh, S. P., & Banwet, D. K. (2014). Modeling flexible
supplier selection framework. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 15(3), 261–274.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
Warfield, J. N. (1982). Interpretive structural modeling. In Group
planning and problem-solving methods in engineering (pp.
155–201). New York: Wiley.
Welford, R. (2000). Corporate environmental management 3:
Towards sustainable development. London: Earthscan.
Whooley, N. (2004). Social responsibility in Europe. Retrieved
August 20, 2010, from
www.pwc.com/extweb/newcolth.nsf/0/
503508DDA107A61885256F35005C1E35?.
Wilkes, R. S. (2008). Low linolenic soybeans and beyond. Lipid
Technology, 20(12), 277–279.
World Bank. (2014). The more things change. TATA and enduring
abuses on India’s tea plantations. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/
human-rights-institute/files/tea_report_final_draft-smallpdf.pdf.
Yakovleva, N., Sarkis, J., & Sloan, T. (2012). Sustainable bench-
marking of supply chains: the case of the food industry.
International Journal of Production Research, 50(5),
1297–1317.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green
supply chain management in China: drivers and practices.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(5), 472–486.
Key Questions
(1) What is the role of employee unions in social sustainability
adoption?
(2) What are the linkages between employee unions and social
sustainability?
(3) How the employee unions can be strengthened in relation to
social sustainability?
V. Mani is a full time Research Scholar in the
Department of Management Studies, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology, Roorkee, and pursuing
research in the field of Supply Chain Management
and Operations. He has contributed many research
papers in referred journals by leading publishers
that include Elsevier, Emerald, Inderscience,
Springer and Indian Management (AIMA). Prior
to joining his PhD, he has served for over a decade in fortune 500
companies in various capacities. He also presented research articles in
International conferences conducted by Indian Institute of Manage-
ment, Bangalore (IIMB), Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
(IITR) in association with Society of Operations Management (SOM),
and Glogift society in association with Curtin University (Glowgift
2014-Singapore). His research titled ‘It is time to change the system’
published by Indian Management—Journal of AIMA has won the best
article of the year 2014.
Rajat Agrawal is currently an Assistant Professor
at the Department of Management Studies IIT-
Roorkee. His research areas include general
management and supply chain management. He
has contributed many research papers, book
chapters in top international publications and has
presented his research works at several national
and international conferences. He teaches courses
on supply chain management, operations management and quantita-
tive techniques to students of the Masters in Business Administration
program at IIT-Roorkee.
Vinay Sharma is currently an Associate Professor
at the Department of Management Studies IIT-
Roorkee. His research areas include marketing
management, rural marketing, advertising and
business strategy. He has contributed many
research papers, book chapters in top international
publications and has presented his research works
at several national and international conferences.
He teaches courses in marketing management, advertising and busi-
ness strategy to students of the Masters in Business Administration
program at IIT-Roorkee.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management
123
