Implementing Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review on Required Purchasing and Supply Management Competences

Abstract

Implementing social and environmental dimensions in global supply chains remains a major challenge in practice. While processes and actions needed to implement sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) have been subject to more research in the last years, the question who implements these in practice is much less understood. Purchasing & Supply Management (PSM) stands out as a function with particular influence on the global supply base. Thus, there is a central connection between SSCM implementation and PSM as a function. While the organizational level has usually been in focus of research on sustainability issues in PSM, it is ultimately the individual buyer who implements specific processes and performs specific actions. Therefore, this chapter seeks to shed light on the relationship between SSCM implementation requirements and PSM competences needed on an individual buyer level. Based on a literature review, the current coverage of PSM competences in relation to SSCM is presented in order to discuss further avenues for research.

Full text

1
Implementing sustainable supply chain management – a literature review on required
purchasing and supply management competences
Heike Schulze a, b and Lydia Bals c, d, *
a Research Assistant, University of Applied Sciences Mainz, Lucy-Hillebrand-Str. 2, 55128 Mainz, Germany,
heike.schulze@hs-mainz.de
b Doctoral Student, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, SE10AA, United Kingdom,
schulzeh@lsbu.ac.uk
c Professor of Supply Chain and Operations Management, University of Applied Sciences Mainz, Lucy-
Hillebrand-Str. 2, 55128 Mainz, Germany, +49(0)6131 628-3293, lydia.bals@hs-mainz.de
d Visiting Professor, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), lb.smg@cbs.dk
* Corresponding author: +49(0)61316283293
Please cite as:
Schulze, H., and Bals, L. (2017): Implementing sustainable supply chain management – a
literature review on required purchasing and supply management competences. In:
Brandenburg. M./Hahn, G./Rebs, T. (Eds .), Social and Environmental Dimensions of
Organizations and Supply Chains – Tradeoffs and Synergies, Greening of Industry Networks
Studies, Springer .
Abstract
Implementing social and environmental dimensions in global supply chains remains a major
challenge in practice. While processes and actions needed to implement sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) have been subject to more research in the last years, the question
who implements these in practice is much less understood. Purchasing & Supply Management
(PSM) stands out as a function with particular influence on the global supply base. Thus, there
is a central connection between SSCM implementation and PSM as a function. While the
organizational level has usually been in focus of research on sustainability issues in PSM, it is
ultimately the individual buyer who implements specific processes and performs specific
actions. Therefore, this chapter seeks to shed light on the relationship between SSCM
implementation requirements and PSM competences needed on an individual buyer level.
Based on a literature review, the current coverage of PSM competences in relation to SSCM is
presented in order to discuss further avenues for research.
1. Introduction
The current global business environment holds many social and environmental challenges.
Existing or expected scarcity of resources like water or fossil fuels as well as increasing
ecological damage is triggering social and ecological conflicts and fostering the discussion on
how to ensure appropriate living conditions globally on a long-term base (BMU 2012; ERD
2012). In turn, businesses are increasingly feeling the impact of political frameworks and
growing reporting requirements and legal regulations on their day-to-day operations. The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015 with the
agreement on new global Sustainable Development Goals (UN General Assembly 2015), and
the commitment of the United Nations community to the Paris Agreement and its efforts to
combat climate change explicitly postulate the responsibility of businesses to support the social

2
and ecological goals (UN 2015). These political frameworks not only focus on the level of a
focal firm, but clearly state a companies’ responsibility to promote ecological and social
standards within its entire supply chain. Also, since 2016, the European Union Directive on
non-financial Information Disclosure (European Parliament and Council, 2014) for example
requires companies with more than 500 employees to report annually on environmental and
social matters, also with regard to their business relationships. Therefore, transparency within
supply chain networks will increasingly be required for businesses to fulfill their regulatory
requirements as well as their stakeholder expectations.
When considering which functions influence the implementation of environmental and social
aspects in supply chains, purchasing and supply management (PSM) stands out as an area with
particular influence on the external supply base of the firm. More than half of the total turnover
of a modern industrial firm in Europe is directly transferred to suppliers (Laios and Moschuris
2001). This has even been estimated as high as 60-80% more recently (e.g. Monczka et al.
2010; Van Weele 2010). The PSM function manages the firm’s supplier relationships.
Moreover, the bulk of supplies now is no longer of domestic origin, but international. As this
network economy with a low depth of production and high reliance on international suppliers
is a recent phenomenon that has emerged in the last two decades (Van Weele and Van Raaij
2014), firms are still struggling to find effective and efficient ways to manage it.
In this overall context, purchasing organizations are additionally faced with the requirement to
manage sustainability aspects and risks within their supply chains. The scope of sustainability
management in PSM can be defined as “ […] the consideration of environmental, social, ethical
and economic issues in the management of the organization’s external resources in such a way
that the supply of all goods, services, capabilities and knowledge that are necessary for running,
maintaining and managing the organization’s primary and support activities provide value not
only to the organization but also to society and the economy” (Miemczyk et al. 2012, 489).
Purchasing organizations will be even more challenged in the near future due to the above
mentioned scarcity of resources, stakeholder expectations and growing legal regulations. This
was also emphasized in 2012 in the work by Schneider and Wallenburg (2012, 243), in their
article directly headlined with the question “Implementing sustainable sourcing – Does
purchasing need to change?”, in which stakeholder management capabilities in PSM were
emphasized as essential to address sustainability objectives.
Despite the growing importance of both social and ecological aspects on supply chain
management, companies still tend to handle sustainability issues with a risk-oriented approach
or even on an ad-hoc base when issues occur (Harms et al. 2013). While SSCM has been defined
to include a triple bottom line perspective (TBL; economic, environmental and social,
Elkington 1998) as: “[…] the management of material, information and capital flows as well as
cooperation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three
dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, into account
which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements.” (Seuring and Müller 2008,
1700), the coverage of the economic and environmental aspects prevails over coverage of the
social and/or multi-dimensional (Hutchins and Sutherland 2008; Müller and Stölzle 2015;
Yawar and Seuring Forthcoming).
Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) seems to remain predominantly focused on
how to manage currently unsustainable supply chains in a more compliant matter, rather than
how to establish an innovative SSCM approach (Pagell and Shevchenko 2014). Consequently,
it has been suggested to “[…] move the field from studying how to manage unsustainable

3
supply chains in a more sustainable manner, to managing truly sustainable supply chains.”
(Pagell and Shevchenko 2014, 45)
Together with the aspect of how truly sustainable supply chains might be characterized, also
the understanding of sustainability itself has been recently shifting to a new paradigm: From a
triple bottom line approach that equally emphasizes economic, social and environmental
aspects (Elkington 1998) to new prioritizations such as an Ecologically Dominant logic
(Montabon et al. 2016). According to the Ecologically Dominant logic, environmental and
social interest supersede economic interests and managers should first check environmental,
then social and finally economic viability of a decision. As these authors suggest: “[…] we
offer an alternative logic, which we call Ecologically Dominant (ED), that we argue can lead
to truly sustainable supply chains.” (Montabon et al. 2016, 11f.)
While overall the performance implications of sustainable supply chains (e.g. Hart 1995;
Campbell 2007; Halme and Niskanen 2001) and other aspects such as the ecological
performance of supply chains (e.g. Sundarakani et al. 2010; Mallidis et al. 2012, 2014) or
sustainability implications of certain raw materials like the so called “conflict minerals” (OECD
2016; Hofmann et al. 2015) have been discussed in the literature, the aspect of how to
successfully implement SSCM in practice remains largely unaddressed. In their study on
dynamic capabilities needed to perform sustainable global supplier management, Reuter et al.
(2010, 52) proposed that “PSM’s capability to respond to alternating stimuli from globally
dispersed stakeholders determines the effectiveness of SGSM [Sustainable Global Supplier
Management] to mitigate sustainability related risks in global sourcing.” Although this
statement is made with an organizational-level analysis in mind, the same competence
requirements can be inferred for the individual level.
While, sustainability in supply chains is indicated as a major challenge faced by organizations,
currently to our knowledge there is only little research dealing explicitly with individual
competences that are relevant for buyers to design and execute sustainable supply chain
relationships and networks. Employee competences in general do play an important role in
SCM and logistics (Hohenstein et al. 2014; Ellinger and Ellinger 2014; Fisher et al. 2010). Also,
previous research has already emphasized the role of human resources in PSM (e.g. Knight et
al. 2014; Giunipero et al. 2006; Giunipero and Pearcy 2000). However, while such research has
mainly concentrated on the organizational level, the individual level capabilities of employees
for implementing sustainability are more recently coming into focus, which has also been
coined the micro-foundations of CSR (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Tate and Bals, Forthcoming).
Therefore, this research focuses on individual level factors of PSM personnel to act successfully
in the interplay of targets and actors in SSCM. It strives for answers to the following research
question: “Which PSM knowledge and competences described in literature can promote a
professional and successful management of social and environmental targets in supply chains?”
2. The role of PSM and buyers in SSCM
When referring to PSM and SCM, we herein follow the so-called unionist perspective (Spina
et al. 2013; Larson and Halldorsson 2002), in which PSM is a subset of SCM in terms of a
discipline. Turning towards the scope of SCM and SSCM, this then entails implementing triple
bottom line criteria both upstream and downstream. Generally speaking, the tasks of
implementing sustainability along this scope may then be organizationally allocated to various
functions such as SCM, PSM, Logistics, Quality and/or a central staff department for

4
sustainability. The latter may have the role to initiate, design and communicate SSCM, but
implementation occurs at the operational level. While the authors certainly acknowledge that
how these responsibilities are allocated in practice specifically depends on the individual
company setup, within this domain, PSM’s focus usually lies on the upstream supplier network.
This typical denomination of responsibilities is shown in Fig. 2.1.
Fig. 2.1: Typical scopes of various functions’ domains, adapted from: Van Weele 2002, 207
and Chopra and Meindl 2013, 15
Turning towards the operational execution, the upstream part of SSCM relates to PSM: PSM
has an important role in avoiding reputational damage and image loss of a company by
preventing sustainability issues in the supply chain (e.g. Reuter et al. 2010; Carter and Jennings
2004; Handfield et al. 2002). The format and framework of the business relationship to
suppliers fundamentally impacts the implementation of SSCM. PSM coordinates this
relationship based on more traditional performance indicators like cost quality and delivery
(Tsoulfas and Pappis 2006). In addition, PSM is increasingly required to contribute to SSCM
and eventually to the sustainability strategy of a company by including environmental and
social aspects into the design of supplier relationships (e.g. Carter and Rogers 2008).
2.1. PSM’s processes in the context of SSCM
Considering the scope of SSCM and delimiting it from the scope of sustainable PSM, Fig. 2.2
provides an overview of previous’ research understanding of SSCM tasks, specifically for
bringing environmental and social sustainability into supply chains. It is striking how many of
the responsible supply chain actions outlined in it directly correspond to working with suppliers.

5
Fig. 2.2: Framework for environmental and social supply chain sustainability actions, own
illustration, adapted from: Marshall et al. 2015, 674; Yawar and Seuring Forthcoming
From the upstream supplier network perspective, it becomes apparent that two activities
depicted in Fig. 2.2 directly fall into PSM’s scope: Environmental/social supply chain
monitoring and environmental/social supply chain management systems (Marshall et al. 2015).
Additionally, specifically for managing social issues in the supply chain, Yawar and Seuring
(Forthcoming) have highlighted that both the management of the external and internal
stakeholder network is important. Although they do not discuss who/which function should
perform these actions, they clearly define three responsible supply chain actions: 1.
Communication strategies (e.g. reporting), 2) Compliance strategies (e.g. codes of conduct,
auditing, monitoring), 3) Supplier Development Strategies. The tasks of both Marshall et al.
(2015) as well as Yawar and Seuring (Forthcoming) have been combined in Fig. 2.2. Herein,
particularly the second and third can be readily linked to PSM. For implementation of SSCM
via PSM these activities underline an extended view over the supply chain entities to be
monitored as well as that the internal company network of stakeholders. In line with this,
research on sustainable sourcing has been mainly utilizing stakeholder theory as its theoretical
foundation (Johnsen et al. 2016), which will be discussed further below.
Regarding the operational responsibilities of PSM, these in general terms comprise the
management of external inputs – materials, services, capabilities and knowledge – that are
required for building, running and maintaining the focal firm’s processes (Van Weele 2010)
while simultaneously managing the external and internal stakeholder network with an extended
upstream supply network understanding. When turning towards how to depict its processes in

6
brevity, Fig. 2.3 provides an overview of the overall procure-to-pay process, divided into the
strategic sourcing part (source-to-contract) and the transactional processing part (purchase-to-
pay).
Fig. 2.3: The Procure-to-Pay Purchasing Process, own illustration, adapted from Van Weele
2014; Monczka et al. 2010
Apart from the top and bottom processes, the middle of Fig. 2.3 depicts PSM department
activities and processes, which are not necessarily related to any specific requisition or purchase
order. The most direct linkages to the sustainability actions previously mentioned are through
“Supplier Relationship Management” and “Sustainability/Compliance” activities which
directly refer to the Environmental/social supply chain monitoring”/“Supplier Development
Strategies” and “Compliance Strategies” mentioned in Fig. 2.2. There are also other interfaces:
“Environmental/social supply chain monitoring” can also be regarded as connected to
“implementation” in the source-to-contract process, when it comes to contract management and
reporting/measurement. This aspect is also relevant for “data and systems”, as high-quality
monitoring data is a prerequisite for needed transparency and serves as basis for corrective
actions.
What is interesting to note is that the SSCM actions shown in Fig. 2.2 above did not yet
specifically address earlier parts of the source-to-contract process, though they hold potential
to promote sustainability both through the internal and external stakeholder network: Internally,
in “demand management”, because PSM has an opportunity to ensure specifications also reflect
sustainability standards during the demand clarification process. Externally in “tender
analysis”, as during the tender phase sustainability criteria can be brought in, and also in
“negotiation”, as this could provide an opportunity for joint exchange about finding ways to
commonly avoid waste, increase output etc. as part of the dialogue towards a final contractual
agreement
1
. Also, measures like supplier communication on sustainability standards and
expectations as well as capability building like supplier trainings are not addressed in Fig. 2.2.
1
In line with that, both “supplier selection and evaluation” as well as “supplier development”
have been discussed in previous research as key processes to achieve sustainable global supplier
management (Reuter et al. 2010, 54f.).
Spend & Demand
Analysis
Source-to-contract
Demand Mgmt.
Category Strategy
Tender Analysis
Negotiation
Implementation
Contract Mgmt.
Reporting/
Measurement
Requisition & Approval
Purchase-to-pay
Ordering Order Confirmation/
Claim Management Invoice/ Payment
Data & Systems
Supplier
Relationship
Management
Performance
Management
Human Resource
Management/
Training
Sustainability/
Compliance

7
In general, there might be potential to put PSM into a broader and more pro-active position with
regard to SSCM rather than solely focusing on control and compliance.
The importance of the external and internal stakeholder network for successful SSCM
implementation warrants to further elaborate on it. Fig. 2.4 below illustrates PSM’s
interconnectedness.
Fig. 2.4: PSM as the interface between the company internal and upstream supply chain actors,
own illustration, adapted from: Kummer et al. 2013; Schneider and Wallenburg 2012
As shown in Fig. 2.4, the internal network comprises all other functions for which PSM
procures materials, goods and services. Externally, Fig. 2.4 highlights that PSMs extends
beyond dealing with the tier 1 suppliers, spanning a network of n suppliers (here for illustration
just until tier 4). While PSM in the past might have dealt mostly with tier 1 suppliers, more
recently due to supply chain disruptions and scandals (such as the collapse of Rana Plaza in
Bangladesh in 2013, which exposed sub-contractors in the garment industry, or the
contamination of Mattel’s toys in 2007 that happened beyond their tier 1 suppliers) the necessity
to look beyond the closest tier and adopt a comprehensive network view has been reemphasized
(Wilhelm et al. 2016). Related to stakeholders and their connection to sustainability, Van Weele
and Van Raaij (2014, 61) suggested that “When we adopt this [external stakeholder]
perspective, suppliers should not only create value for the firm’s markets (customers), but also
help the buying firm in creating value for society (all stakeholders representing social and
environmental concerns) and for those who invested financial resources in the firm
(shareholders and investors).” Apart from the company-internal and supply chain-internal
stakeholders beyond the own firm such as suppliers, there is also a plethora of supply chain-
external stakeholders such as competitors, regulatory authorities and NGOs that have to be
taken into account in sustainable sourcing (Schneider and Wallenburg 2012). Towards creating
TBL shared value in such a network, all three dimensions – environmental, social and economic
– become represented as stakeholders (Bals and Tate 2016; Tate and Bals, Forthcoming).
Not surprisingly, previous research has therefore emphasized stakeholder management and
internal cooperation as capabilities of value in the context of sustainability, though further
Supply Chain Internal Stakeholders
Company Internal Stakeholders
Tier 4 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1
Suppliers
Order
Supply
Request
Provision
Increasingly a supply network view
increasing sustainability & risk issues
PSM
Interface and
cross-functional
coordination
Marketing
Sales
R&D
Production
Other internal customers
Supply Chain External Stakeholders
•Competitors
•Regulatory Authorities
•NGOs
•Other
Interaction

8
research on additional ones has been suggested (Schneider and Wallenburg 2012). This chapter
takes this as a starting point to create a literature-based overview of buyer capabilities required
for SSCM implementation.
3. Buyer competences for sustainability – The current state of research
The preceding sections elaborated on the increasing expectations towards the sustainability
performance of companies and their sustainable supply chain management, and how this affects
the role and responsibility of PSM as a department. It was already emphasized that buyers are
the ones who execute SSCM in PSM on the individual level. However, there is no complete
picture yet on the knowledge and competences they require to successfully perform the
respective activities. To help address this, the authors performed a systematic literature review
of current academic research to find and summarize the current state of research and build a
foundation for further research.
3.1. Definitions
When applying the terms “competence” and “knowledge”, this study refers to two main
concepts. First, “competence” is defined as a comprehensive combination of individual
knowledge, skills and abilities (e.g. Mirabile 1997; Barnes and Liao 2012). Second,
“knowledge” is further specified in the areas of explicit and tacit knowledge, relying on the
knowledge-based theory of the firm (Grant 1996). Explicit knowledge is defined as “knowing
about facts and theories […] and is revealed by its communication” (Grant 1996, 111). To give
an example, within this study buyer knowledge about international standards for labor
conditions or about environmental standards like ISO 14001 would be defined as explicit
knowledge. The application of this knowledge in specific situations when communicating with
a supplier to implement social or environmental standards is defined as tacit knowledge, the
“knowing how” (Grant 1996, 111). Competences linked to tacit knowledge are for example
interpersonal communication or conflict management. Taking additionally into consideration
the influence of “individual desire” on behavior (Von Rosenstiel 2011), the authors follow the
approach to differentiate tacit knowledge into two categories, which means to complement the
above mentioned “knowing how” with the cognitive dimension (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995;
Giunipero et al. 1999). The “cognitive dimension reflects our perspective of the world around
us as it exists and what it ought to be” (Giunipero et al. 1999, 44). This cognitive dimension of
tacit knowledge is revealed by individual motivations, beliefs or values.
These definitions and concepts build the foundation of the systematic literature review of this
study, and additionally provide the framework for the evaluation of the results. Concerning the
latter, the identified competences and knowledge will be discussed regarding their explicit
versus tacit properties.
3.2. Systematic literature review - Methodology
A systematic literature review usually is conducted as one of the first steps within a research
process. The aim of this method is to identify the current state of academic research and its key
scientific contributions with regard to a defined research question. The review adopts a
replicable, transparent and scientific process and follows certain steps that need to be clearly
defined and described (e.g. Tranfield et al. 2003). The first stage of a systematic literature
review defines the research question, the keywords for the search process, the selection of data
sources and the search concept. Next, selection and reading of the matching studies is done in
a second stage, followed by the final data evaluation and dissemination (Tranfield et al. 2003).

9
It is crucial for a systematic literature review to execute every step in a transparent manner and
to document the researcher’s decisions and actions to cope with the weakness of this research
method: It will always be a one-time screening of a pre-defined sample set in a selected
database, conducted by individuals with a certain research interest, cultural background,
language preference and other influencing factors.
To evaluate the state of research on competences and knowledge for sustainability within PSM,
the researchers defined the following strategy and core elements for the systematic literature
review:
 Overall research question: “Which competences and knowledge are required to
support sustainable buyer behavior?”
 Key word definition: Three main terms or term clusters were derived out of the
research question, i.e. “sustainability”, “competence and knowledge” and “purchasing
and supply management”. Synonyms to those keywords have been identified based on
literature, common linguistic usage and experience of the researchers. All keywords
were discussed with a panel of experts to ensure appropriate coverage of the review and
enhance the quality of the process and the results. After the first set of keywords was
identified, a test search run revealed a few of them to be too generic and to result in a
very high number of unrelated hits (e.g. social, value chain). These keywords were taken
out of the final set. The review was eventually conducted with a set of the following
keywords, shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Keywords and search terms
 Bibliographic sources: The Web of Science database was used in a first step, as it is
an established source of data in business and management and at the same time includes
articles from a broad range of academic disciplines (see e.g. Johnsen et al. 2016; Osagie
et al. 2016). In a second step, the search was duplicated in EBSCO host to verify and
complement the results in the EBSCO databases on business and education research.
 Search strategy: Various tests with the defined sets of keywords resulted in the
decision to conduct a block search strategy (see e.g. Casimir and Tobi 2011; Osagie et
al. 2016). A block search strategy allows to combine keywords with different search
areas. The keyword family determined to be the most important for the research project
was searched in the title of articles, the other keywords in the topic. This allowed to
further narrow the number of relevant findings, as some of the final keywords continue
to be generic and used in the context of multiple research areas (e.g. “capabil*”). The
keyword family around “competence and knowledge” was split up in two search
Keywords Search terms
Sustainability
Sustaina
* OR responsib
* OR ethic* OR green OR “corporate
social
responsib*” OR CSR OR “triple bottom line” OR
TBL
Competence
and knowledge
competenc
*, knowledge, skill*, capabil*, abilit*, know-how,
qualification,
attitud*, behavio?r, belief*, attribute,
“intellectual capital”,
maturity
Purchasing
and supply management
Purchas* OR Sourcing OR Procurement OR “Supply Chain
Management” OR Buy* OR “supply network”

10
approaches to cover the knowledge area as well as the area around attitudes and
characteristics.
The block search strategy helped to focus the search, nevertheless further refinement in
terms of the subject areas of the search results was needed (see Table 3.2), as a
significant portion of the initial results covered other research areas like consumer
behavior, economic development or medical sciences. In the end, due to the small
number of final articles that exactly met the research question, decision was taken not
to restrict either time given for the literature review, nor to restrict journals in scope for
the review.
Block search
Key word combination
Refinement criteria
Database and
search date
# of results
Search block 1:
Focus: competenc* OR knowledge OR
skill*+ capabil* OR abilit* OR know-how
OR qualification
Attributes: Sustaina* OR responsib* OR
ethic* OR green OR “corporate social
responsib*” OR CSR OR “triple bottom
line” OR TBL
Demarcation: Purchas* OR Sourcing OR
Procurement OR “Supply Chain
Management” OR Buy* OR “supply
network”
Languages: English and
German
Publication source
types: Academic
articles
Subject area: Exclude
research areas like
consumer behavior,
media sciences and
other
Web of Science,
September 27,
2016
352 results -
20 articles
selected
EBSCO Host;
September 29,
2016
563 results –
51 articles
selected
Search block 2:
Focus: attitud* OR behavio?r OR belief*
OR attribute OR “intellectual capital” OR
maturity
Attributes: Sustaina* OR responsib* OR
ethic* OR green OR “corporate social
responsib*” OR CSR OR “triple bottom
line” OR TBL
Demarcation: Purchas* OR Sourcing OR
Procurement OR “Supply Chain
Management” OR Buy* OR “supply
network”
Web of Science,
September 29,
2016
341 results -
11 selected
EBSCO Host,
October 3, 2016
862 results –
20 articles
selected
Table 3.2: Systematic literature review - Search approach, refinement and results
 Selection of articles: The selection process of articles was twofold. First, one
researcher screened the title, keywords and abstract of all articles that resulted out
of the search. Articles that were out of scope were delisted (e.g. sustainable food
supply, open source in information technology). Articles that covered one or more
keywords of the search in the title or abstract and seemed to refer to the research
question were selected. The total of 2118 articles that resulted out of the block search
as outlined in Fig. 2.1 resulted in a list of 102 papers. In a second step, the researcher

11
prioritized the papers according to their fit to the research question. Those that
covered all search terms of the block search were taken in the scope of this review,
resulting in a total of 35 articles. As even this reduced list of articles revealed that
only some of them explicitly fit to the research question, an evaluation scheme was
developed that allowed to group the articles in four research areas, based on the
search terms they met (shown in the next section as Fig. 3.1).
The selection of studies for research areas 1 to 4 was based on the following approach:
Research area R1: “Competences/Knowledge + Sustainability +PSM”: All articles that
met the research question precisely.
Research area R2: ”Competences/Knowledge + sustainability”: All articles that
matched with these keywords were taken into the scope of the review.
Research area R3 “Sustainability + Purchasing & Supply Management”: These
keywords yielded the highest number of results. Therefore, not all of them were selected
for the final review. Only articles that included hints in the abstract that they either
impact the research questions with their findings or looked promising for a later review
of their reference lists were selected for the final research set.
Research area R4 “Competences/Knowledge + PSM”: The articles that were selected
for further review gave an indication that they might give input on the individual
competence and knowledge area adaptable to the research question.
3.3. Overview of the current state of research
As outlined in the previous Sect. 3.2, the combinations of keywords could be conceptualized
into four research areas, which are shown below in Fig. 3.1.
Fig. 3.1: Keyword combinations and research areas identified
The systematic literature review delivered a broad range of studies with findings that impact a
sustainability competence and knowledge profile for buyers, but that are nevertheless focused
on the organizational level phenomena (see research area RA3 in Fig. 3.1). Other papers deal
with knowledge and competences generally in the context of PSM, very often related to
performance (research area RA4 in Fig. 3.1). Dedicated research on the breakdown of

12
ecological or social aspects in purchasing to the individual buyer level though seems to be still
in its beginning (RA 1 in Fig. 3.1). Also, definitions of sustainability knowledge and
competences in a broader scope, be it in an organizational or educational context, seem to be
an evolving research area (see research area RA2, Fig. 3.1). As the later mentioned research
areas 1 and 2 showed the best alignment to the research question and therefore for the
development of a competence model for buyers with respect to sustainability, the following
evaluation focusses on those two fields of study.
3.3.1. Social and environmental knowledge and competences in PSM (Research Area 1,
Fig. 3.1)
Only a limited sample of papers precisely meets the research question of this paper, covering
each of the three term clusters with regards to sustainability, knowledge/competence and PSM.
The paper of Grandia (2016), for example, encompasses sustainable public procurement
behavior regarding environmental criteria, whereas others focus on selected aspects of
sustainability knowledge and competences in private PSM. Research identified in this area
mostly covers either one aspect of the triple bottom line, particularly the environmental pillar
(e.g. Bowen et al. 2001), or centers on sustainability knowledge specifically needed for certain
products (e.g. Börjeson et al. 2015) or certain complex situational requirements like decision
making and trade-offs with regard to conflicting interests (e.g. Wu and Pagell 2011; Eltantawy
2016). Interesting to note that these papers are mostly published over the last 5 years.
Studies found in this research area cover the organizational level as well as the individual level
of influence on behavior. Grandia (2016), for example, assumes that individual knowledge on
sustainability issues, combined with a commitment to change and believe in the benefits of
sustainability, promotes sustainable public procurement behavior which finally results in die
application of sustainable public procurement. Bowen et al. (2001) list a set of main
competences and resources. Some of them, “Liaison between purchasing and other functions”,
or “a collaborative partnering approach with suppliers” or “Detailed purchasing policies and
procedures” refer to the organizational level. Two impact factors that are mentioned in the study
explicitly relate to individual skill requirements: “An understanding of environmental issues
and how they affect supply” and “The technical skills of purchasing personnel” (Bowen et al.
2001, 176-178).
As this research is based on the knowledge-based theory of a firm (Grant 1996; see Sect. 3.1),
the authors’ intention is to derive knowledge and competence indicators out of the studies found
in the systematic review and to group the findings into tacit or explicit knowledge areas. All
papers that were identified to deal with buyer competences for sustainable PSM listed facets of
explicit knowledge in the meaning of “knowing about facts and theories […]” (Grant 1996,
111). Knowledge about environmental or social impacts of the products buyers purchase is one
clearly explicit knowledge area. As mentioned earlier, Bowen et al. define the “understanding
of environmental issues and how they affect supply” (Bowen et al. 2001, 177) as one of their
key capabilities for green supply. In the same manner, the study of Börjeson et al. (2015)
specifies the knowledge on product specifics regarding sustainability issues, like components
and their effect on health and safety or working conditions to manufacture or gain the product
as one determining requirement for responsible supply chain management of chemicals in the
textile industry, accompanied by knowledge on respective regulations and policies (Börjeson
et al. 2015). The paper of Eltantawy (2016) explores managers’ competences and resilience
needed to manage ambidexterity regarding sustainability in supply management. She describes
the “access to keystone vulnerabilities competency” as one fundamental knowledge area in this
context. It is specified as a capability to identify and manage operational and managerial aspects

13
that have the potential to perturb or strongly impact the system (Eltantawy 2016, 128), therefore
applying a risk management driven lens. The gathering and acquisition of knowledge on
sustainability aspects for the PSM department is also mentioned in some studies as a key
competence. For example, Bowen et al. (2001) outline the need to collect and integrate data for
green supply into PSM and relate this to the technical skills of purchasing personnel. This is
further supported by Grandia (2016) mentioning the knowledge for professional procurement
of services and goods as an impact factor for sustainable behavior. As a result, general
knowledge about procurement can be named as one explicit knowledge area that enables buyers
to purchase in a sustainable manner.
A significant number of papers cover the explicit as well as the tacit aspects of knowledge. As
mentioned earlier, tacit knowledge encompasses the “knowing how” (Grant 1996, 111) as well
as the dimension revealed by individual motivations, beliefs or values (e.g. Ginuipero et al.
1999). Eltantawy’s framework (2016) already mentioned earlier is a rich and comprehensive
source to derive buyer competences that are explicit as well as tacit. Based on the theoretical
framework of dynamic capabilities (e.g. Barney 1991), the model describes four competence
areas that lead to supply management resilience: “cultural competency”, “operational
competency”, “situational awareness” and “access to keystone vulnerabilities”, the latter
already described above being a rather explicit knowledge sector (Eltantawy 2016, 126).
Nevertheless, all of these competence areas have explicit as well as tacit knowledge aspects.
Cultural competence for example is described as the ability of a buyer to recognize changes in
his/her network regarding all triple-bottom-line dimensions and to adapt business processes
accordingly (Eltantawy 2016, 125). Communication skills, building trustful relationships or
being able to achieve compromises might be competences residing on the tacit side. Conversely,
explicit skills in this context can be data evaluation, knowledge on product specifics or
stakeholder mapping. Decision making especially in trade-off situations (e.g. Wu and Pagell
2011), is another competence that combines both explicit and tacit knowledge elements. Again,
information generation to prepare decisions can be mentioned as the explicit aspect of decision-
making. The tacit equivalent is more about commitment, standing as well as communication as
part of individual decision making in the context of sustainable purchasing and in the face of
conflicting goals or uncertainties (Wu and Pagell 2011).
Tacit knowledge and competences required for buyers in the sustainability context embrace a
wide variety, as already indicated in the preceding paragraphs. Networking and building as well
as maintaining far-reaching relationships (e.g. Börjeson et al. 2015), commitment to change
(e.g. Grandia 2016) or resilience are key tacit competence areas. Eltantawy (2016) defines two
types of resilience: “Supply Management engineering resilience describes the capacity to adapt
to turbulent change and underlies the buyer’s cultural and operative competences. Supply
Management ecological resilience determines the capacity to transform in the face of turbulent
change and unpredictability and underlies the buyer’s situational awareness and access to
keystone vulnerabilities competencies” (Eltantawy 2016, 130).
Especially the tacit knowledge areas that were identified in this preliminary evaluation of
current research correlate in some aspects with the notion of PSM being the interface to a broad
network of internal and external players (see Fig. 2.4). Consistent with the majority of the
studies (e.g. Eltantawy 2016; Wu and Pagell 2011), networking, relationship management,
communication or dealing with unclear situations seem to be competences that are crucial for
PSM personnel to fulfill this moderating role in a complex stakeholder network also with regard
to sustainability. However, it is not elaborated in more detail which specific aspects of the
networking competence are needed depending on the role and responsibility of a buyer related
to the steps in the purchasing process (see Fig. 2.3).

14
3.3.2. Competences and knowledge requirements for sustainability in general (Research
Area 2, Fig. 3.1)
Very few papers were found that matched with the keywords “knowledge”, “competences” and
“sustainability”, all of them having been published recently. They focus on competence profiles
of personnel in roles dedicated to corporate sustainability or in general management positions.
Osagie et al. (2016) or Wesselink et al. (2015), for example, studied individual competences
that support the implementation of corporate social sustainability (CSR) within companies,
based on a systematic literature review and interviews with CSR managers. They deduce lists
of specific CSR-related competences. Other studies like the one from Maletic et al. (2014),
elaborating on the relationship between sustainability practices and performance on the
organizational level, derive certain sustainability competences as being relevant impact factors.
Maletic et al. (2014) outline competences for sustainability exploitation as well as sustainability
exploration: “While sustainability exploitation is characterized by practices aimed at making
an organization more efficient through incremental improvements in processes and outputs
(products/services), sustainability exploration is concerned with challenging existing
sustainability solutions with innovative concepts and developing capabilities and competencies
for sustainability-related innovation.” (Maletic et al. 2014, 183).
Summing up some of these findings and applying the results to the notion of tacit and explicit
knowledge, the outcome is fairly comparable to the analysis of buyer specific sustainability
knowledge and competences. The explicit knowledge elements apply to the area of data and
information sources for procurement (e.g. Craig and Allen 2013), project management,
leadership and communication, reflecting a certain professionalism that is required in the job.
“Understanding CSR drivers, CSR standards, and CSR regulations” (Osagie et al. 2016),
“Managing CSR projects and programs” (Osagie et al. 2016), “Embracing diversity and
interdisciplinary” with labels like “facilitating dialogue” or “involving stakeholders”
(Wesselink et al. 2015, 504) are to be mentioned.
Certainly, some of those competences comprise at the same time explicit and tacit knowledge
aspects. Exemplary, “managing CSR projects and programs” does also incorporate tacit
knowledge areas like “build critical alliances” or “take action despite inconclusive evidence”
(Osagie et al. 2016, 241). Stakeholder orientation (e.g. Maletic et al. 2014, Wesselink et al.
2015) includes the more explicit knowledge of stakeholder mapping or communication tools,
as well as implicit knowledge regarding relationship management of conflict resolution.
Notably, literature delivers more competences and knowledge requirements that one would
certainly see on the tacit category, certainly emphasizing the individual beliefs or values.
Toward the latter “systems thinking” or “interpersonal competence – empathy and compassion”
(Wesselink et al. 2015, 504), self-reflection of “balancing personal ethical values and business
objectives” (Osagie et al. 2016) are suggested as being relevant competence areas.
3.3. Limitations of the systematic literature review
Although considerable effort was made to ensure that the review would be all-inclusive, it is
possible that some relevant research studies may have inadvertently been omitted, posing a
limitation. The restriction to articles written in German or English language and therefore the
focus on authors as well as journals that publish in these languages is certainly to be taken into
consideration. Also, some cultural and disciplinary bias of the researchers during the
information selection approach cannot be completely ruled out. However, the authors consider
that this review is an accurate representation of the body of research on sustainability in relation

15
to PSM competences published during the specific time frame when the review was conducted.
The study gives a preliminary overview of PSM competences for SSCM provided in current
literature. It is meant to serve as an overview and starting point for future research suggestions.
The dedicated focus on social and environmental sustainability and the intentional exclusion of
the economic aspect of SSCM did narrow the outcome of the review to only two of the triple
bottom line aspects. Although some sources rely on surveys, future research should validate the
results by additional empirical data, taking into consideration the management of the extended
upstream supply chain.
4 Conclusions, outlook and opportunities for further research
4.1. Conclusions and outlook
This research started out with the research question “Which PSM knowledge and competences
described in literature can promote a professional and successful management of social and
environmental targets in supply chains?”
The analysis of current research did show that the influence of individuals on sustainable
performance of organizations or specifically of the PSM function is recognized in recent
studies. This includes the recognition that the impact of individuals is twofold, i.e. based on
knowledge and based on motivation. Also, there is evidence of explicit as well as tacit
knowledge areas in the context of sustainability, with even an emphasis on the tacit knowledge.
The deduction of knowledge areas to build competence profiles especially for sustainable
purchasing nevertheless seems to be an evolving research area.
In the comparison of studies on competences for buyers with those that evaluate on profiles for
CSR managers, there are indications of an intersection especially in the tacit knowledge area.
Further evaluation is needed on the precise definition and indicators for these knowledge areas,
referring to different buyer roles according to the PSM process (see Fig. 2.3).
In line with the presented reflection on the role of PSM in SSCM in the second section of this
chapter, the identified knowledge and competence areas emphasize some tacit areas such as
stakeholder management or decision making with regard to conflicting goals, but also others
more in the explicit area such as knowledge about components of products and their potential
environmental or social impacts.
Moreover, in comparison to the broader level CSR profiles, it is interesting to note that the
buyers’ position being the moderator within an internal and external stakeholder network seems
to require comparable competences and knowledge, like “interpersonal competence”
(Wesselink et al. 2015, 504) to a CSR manager when it comes to sustainable supply chain
management, especially on the tacit side.]It might be beneficial to evaluate how competences
like “foresight thinking” or “systems thinking” (Osagie et al. 2016) can be executed on the
buyer level. Vice versa, Osagie et al. (2016, 242).even apply the supply chain dimension to the
profile of a CSR manager: “The CSR professional must understand the role of supply chain and
how the company should work together with other actors in its supply chain to address common
CSR challenges.”
4.2. Future research suggestions

16
Looking toward future research suggestions, there are various avenues that can be put forward.
These center around 1) further broadening the coverage of competences, knowledge and values
required to implement SSCM via PSM (suggestions 1-4 in the following paragraphs), 2)
challenging current scopes of TBL sustainability in supply chains (suggestion 5), and 3) taking
a closer look at factors influencing the development and retention of required competences,
knowledge and values for achieving such goals (the final suggestion below).
First, the competence profile for the sustainable buyer should be further complement and
developed based on studies focusing on organizational capabilities of sustainability in PSM
(e.g. Klassen and Vereecke 2012) and studies dealing with general PSM knowledge and
competences (e.g. Giunipero and Pearcy 2000). The latter were indicated as research areas 3
and 4 in Fig. 3.1 and should be further analyzed regarding their relationship to sustainability.
Valuable input is also expected from research on PSM and sustainability training formats in
academic or professional education.
Second, as it was highlighted in section 2, there is an intrinsic connection between SSCM and
sustainable PSM. To further clarify how the PSM competences relate to what has to be done in
terms of responsible supply chain actions (Marshall et al. 2015; Yawar and Seuring
Forthcoming) warrants further research. The current divide between the two research areas
SSCM and sustainable PSM could be overcome by shedding more light on the question who
implements such sustainable supply chain actions in practice, and bringing PSM as a
department and ultimately the individual buyers, into focus.
Third, regardless of the exact departmental home of who is actually implementing responsible
supply chain management actions, further research should shed more light on individual
motivation, values and attitudes (e.g. Swaim et al. 2016). With a focus on sustainable PSM, the
question arises which individual motivation, values and attitudes promote sustainable buyer
behavior. This could provide implications for personnel selection processes within PSM as well
as for talent development. This might stimulate an inter-disciplinary research (education,
psychology, marketing/research on consumer behavior) and dialogue on competences and
further understanding of the influencing factors individual motivation, attitudes and values.
Fourth, a success factor for a sustainability competence profile for PSM is its adaptation to
different roles and functions covering the procure-to-pay process (see Fig. 2.3). As was
discussed in section 2, many aspects of SSCM are not necessarily connected to a specific
source-to-contract process, however they are integral part of an SSCM strategy of an
organization. So in general, there might be potential to put PSM into a more pro-active position
with regard to SSCM rather than focusing on control and compliance. How competences
covering the various responsible supply chain management actions and sustainable sourcing
can be allocated to specific job profiles within PSM holds a lot of practical interest. For this
purpose, future studies could analyze how companies particularly successful or particularly
unsuccessful in reaching SSCM targets have internally allocated such responsibilities to
individual job profiles, highlighting specific competences, knowledge and values. Related to
this, the question arises how the latter are ensured in the workforce, i.e. hired and/or trained,
and how in doing so companies cope with the point that so many of the identified aspects are
tacit. Also, the implications for academic curricula to prepare future talent to be able to perform
sustainability tasks need to be discussed.
Fifth, the mentioned new paradigms questioning the TBL approach (e.g. Montabon et al. 2016)
might initiate research on an even broader and changed set of knowledge and competences
needed for responsible supply chain actions and sustainable buyer behavior. Based on such a

17
paradigm shift, to implement sustainability in purchasing organizations implies that “[t]he
switch in logics need not to change the practices that are conducted, but it will change how they
are done and how their effectiveness is measured” (Montabon et al. 2016, 21). Instead of
reducing harm, preventing harm before doing business is the new paradigm. The aspect of
measuring effectiveness raises the question how incentives are designed within organizations.
Moreover, that requires changed behavior and decision making from purchasing managers:
“The Ecologically Dominant logic also pushes managers to think about time differently”
(Montabon et al. 2016, 21), meaning that managers are required to make decisions with a long
time horizon to prevent harm. Consequently “[…] a change in logic, even if it is imposed from
the outside, would require changes in managerial cognitions in terms of how to manage supply
chains as well as changes in technology” (Montabon et al. 2016, 23). Towards such a more
proactive approach to SSCM, it has been suggested that companies should rather design their
value chains for sustainability versus retrofit them gradually to be less unsustainable (Bals and
Tate 2016). In line with PSM’s role discussed in this chapter, this could be something in which
the individual buyers play a pivotal role. Following the view that implementing TBL
sustainability requires individual competences along all three TBL dimensions, i.e. economic,
social and environmental capabilities (Tate and Bals, Forthcoming), which competences in
these three areas are required to enable PSM to successfully implement SSCM would be
particularly interesting.
Finally, a generally interesting area for future research are factors influencing the development
and retention of knowledge, competences and values required for successful implementation of
SSCM and sustainable sourcing. Herein, previous research has noted that organizations may
display different archetypes of sustainable sourcing profiles (Schneider and Wallenburg 2012).
The earlier mentioned paradigm shift by Montabon et al. (2016) actually implies that ideally
the target state would be the same for all companies, i.e. ensure environmental, then social, then
economic sustainability, to be checked in that sequence and to be achieved simultaneously. This
represents the ideal to overcome tensions between the three dimensions, which currently are
often still seen as trade-offs (Epstein et al. 2015), and mostly corresponds to the archetype
coined “All-round perfectionist” in Schneider and Wallenburg’s (2012) classification.
Nevertheless, the full array of archetypes of sustainable sourcing profiles
2
that they put forward,
holds a very interesting thought: Even if – ideally – all companies would target full completion
according to Montabon et al. (2016), their current organizational sustainable sourcing profile
surely reflects very different coverage and gaps of competences. As Schneider and Wallenburg
(2012) highlighted in their eight archetypes, there might be some that hardly cover any
dimension (the “minimalist”), such that mainly cover social (the “social activist”) or for
example mostly the economic and environmental dimensions (the “environmental economist”).
Taking the “environmental economist” as an example, competences in the environmental and
economic dimensions would be advanced, but competences for the social dimension would be
underdeveloped. It might well be argued that these archetypes mark the starting point for further
development of competences, knowledge and values. At the same time this is important to be
aware about as a contingency factor when doing data collection as just mentioned with regards
to the fifth aspect. Depending on the overall “archetype” that a company currently mostly
resembles, the competences, knowledge and values and the respective allocation to job profiles
would highly differ. Also, the question arises how the overall corporate sustainability profile
and the PSM archetype relate to and influence each other.
2
I.e. that there can be very differing configurations of how far companies address the three sustainability
dimensions.

18
Also to the point of such contingencies, the type of firm may influence these results: It is a
traditional commercial model, versus an NGO, versus a social business. As also highlighted in
the chapter by Tate and Bals (2017) the latter hold a lot of potential for research on SSCM and
looking at the individual level, especially when they actually follow triple bottom line
objectives (despite the “social” highlighted in their name). Further, other contingency factors
would be the size of firms as well as their geographic scope. Regarding the latter, much research
has centered on studying western companies and deriving prescriptions based on that versus we
might find other insights if we would actually more look at other settings, such as developing
countries, emerging markets or bottom of the pyramid settings (Touboulic and Ejodame 2016).
References
Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social
responsibility: A review and research agenda, J of Management 38(4):932–968
Bals L, Tate W (2016) The journey from triple bottom line (TBL) sustainable supply chains to
TBL shared value chain design. In: Bals L, Tate W (eds) Implementing Triple Bottom Line
Sustainability into Global Supply Chains, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, p 1–12
Barnes J, Liao Y (2012) The effect of individual, network, and collaborative competencies on
the supply chain management system. Int J of Production Economics 140(2):888–899
Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J of Management
17(1):99–120
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) (2012) Deutsches
Ressourceneffizienzprogramm (ProgRess). Programm zur nachhaltigen Nutzung und zum
Schutz der natürlichen Ressourcen, Berlin
Börjeson N, Gilek M, Karlsson M (2015) Knowledge challenges for responsible supply chain
management of chemicals in textiles - As experienced by procuring organisations. J of Cleaner
Production 107: 130–136
Bowen FE, Cousins PD, Lamming RC, Faruk AC (2001) The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Management 10(2): 174–189
Campbell JL (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 CR, Jennings MM (2004) The Role of Purchasing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Structural Equation Analysis. J of Business Logistics 25(1):145–186
Carter CR, Rogers DS (2008) A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving
toward new theory. Int J of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38(5):360–387
Casimir GJ, Tobi H (2011) Defining and using the concept of household: a systematic review.
Int J of Consumer Studies 35(5):498–506
Chopra S, Meindl P (2013) Supply Chain Management (fifth ed.). Pearson, Global Edition

19
Craig C, Allen MW (2013) Sustainability information sources: employee knowledge,
perceptions, and learning. J of Communication Management 17:292–307
Das A, Narasimhan R (2000) Purchasing competence and its relationship with manufacturing
performance. J of Supply Chain Management 36(1):17–28
Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC
Ellinger AE, Ellinger AD (2014) Leveraging human resource development expertise to improve
supply chain managers’ skills and competencies. European J of Training and Development
38(1/2):118–135
Eltantawy RA (2016) The role of supply management resilience in attaining ambidexterity: a
dynamic capabilities approach. J of Business and Industrial Marketing 31(1):123–134
Epstein MJ, Buhovac AR, Yuthas K (2015) Managing social, environmental and financial
performance simultaneously. Long Range Planning 48(1):35–45
ERD (European Report on Development) (2012) Confronting SCARCITY: Managing water,
energy and land for inclusive and sustainable growth
European Parliament and Council (2014) Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament
and Council. Official Journal of the European Union, 15.11.2014. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
Accessed 31 Jan 2016
Fisher SL, Graham ME, Vachon S, Vereecke A (2010) Guest editors’ note: Don't miss the boat:
Research on HRM and supply chains. Human Resource Management 49(5):813–828
Giunipero L, Dawley D, Anthony WP (1999) The impact of tacit knowledge on purchasing
decisions. J of supply chain Management 35(4):42–49
Giunipero L, Handfield R, Eltantawy R (2006) Supply management’s evolution: Key skill sets
for the supply manager of the future. J of Operations & Production Management 26(7):822–
844
Giunipero LC, Pearcy DH (2000) World‐class purchasing skills: an empirical investigation. J
of Supply Chain Management 36(3):4–13
Grandia J (2016) Finding the missing link: Examining the mediating role of sustainable public
procurement behavior. J of Cleaner Production 124:183–190
Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J
17(S2):109–122
Halme, M, Niskanen, J (2001) Does corporate environmental protection increase or decrease
shareholder value? The case of environmental investments. Business Strategy and the
Environment 10(4):200–214

20
Handfield RB, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA (2002) Applying environmental criteria to
supplier assessment: a study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process. European J
of Operational Research 141(1):70–87
Harms D, Hansen EG, Schaltegger S (2013) Strategies in sustainable supply chain
management: an empirical investigation of large German companies. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management 20(4):205–218
Hart SL (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review
20(4):986–1014
Hofmann H, Schleper MC, Blome C (2015) Conflict minerals and supply chain due diligence:
An exploratory study of multi-tier supply chains. J of Business Ethics (in print). doi:
10.1007/s10551-015-2963-z
Hohenstein NO, Feisel E, Hartmann E (2014) Human resource management issues in supply
chain management research: A systematic literature review from 1998 to 2014. Int J of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 44(6):434–463
Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and
their application to supply chain decisions. J of Cleaner Production 16(15):1688–1698
Johnsen TE, Miemczyk J, Howard M (2016) A systematic literature review of sustainable
purchasing and supply research: Theoretical perspectives and opportunities for IMP-based
research. Industrial Marketing Management
Klassen RD, Vereecke A (2012) Social issues in supply chains: Capabilities link responsibility,
risk (opportunity), and performance. Int J of Production Economics 140(1):103–115
Knight L, Tu Y-H, Preston J (2014) Integrating skills profiling and purchasing portfolio
management. An opportunity for building purchasing capability. Int J of Production Economics
147:271–283
Kummer S, Grün O, Jammernegg W (2009) Grundzüge der Beschaffung, Produktion und
Logistik, Pearson Deutschland GmbH
Laios LG, Moschuris SJ (2001) The influence of enterprise type on the purchasing decision
process. Int J of Operations & Production Management 21(3):351–372
Larson PD, Halldorsson A (2002) What is SCM? And, where is it? J of Supply Chain
Management 38(4):36–44
Maletic M, Maletic D, Dahlgaard J, Dahlgaard-Park S, Gomiscek B (2014) Sustainability
exploration and sustainability exploitation: From a literature review towards a conceptual
framework. J of Cleaner Production 79:182–194
Mallidis I, Dekker R, Vlachos D (2012) The impact of greening on supply chain network design
and cost: a case for a developing region. J of Transport Geography 22(1):118–128

21
Mallidis I, Vlachos D, Iakovou E, Dekker R (2014) Design and planning for green global supply
chains under periodic review replenishment policies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review 72(C):210–235
Marshall D, McCarthy L, Heavey C, McGrath P (2015) Environmental and social supply chain
management sustainability practices: construct development and measurement. Production
Planning & Control 26(8):673–690
Miemczyk J, Johnsen TE, Macquet M (2012) Sustainable purchasing and supply management:
a structured literature review of definitions and measures at the dyad, chain and network levels.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17(5):478-496.
Mirabile RJ (1997) Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training &
Development 51(8):73–78
Monczka RM, Handfield RB, Guinipero LC, Patterson JL, Waters D (2010) Purchasing &
supply chain management. Cengage Learning, London
Montabon FL, Pagell M, Wu, Z (2016) Making Sustainability Sustainable, J of Supply Chain
Management, 52(2): 1–34
Müller M, Stölzle W (2015) Socially responsible supply chains: A distinct avenue for future
research? In: Bogaschewsky R, Eßig M, Lasch R, Stölzle W (eds) Supply Management
Research, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, p 121–151
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
OECD (Organisation for economic co-operation and development) (2016) OECD due diligence
for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.
http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/mining.htm. Accessed 20 Oct 2016
Osagie ER, Wesselink R, Blok V, Lans T, Mulder M (2016) Individual competencies for
corporate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. J of Business Ethics
135(2):233–252
Pagell M, Shevchenko A (2014) Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future. J of Supply Chain Management 50(1):44–55
Reuter C, Foerstl K, Blome C (2010) Sustainable Global Supplire Management: The Role of
Dynamic Capabilities in Achieving Competitive Advantage. J of Supply Chain Management
46(2):45–63
Schneider L, Wallenburg CM (2012) Implementing sustainable sourcing—Does purchasing
need to change? J of Purchasing and Supply Management 18(4):243–257
Spina G, Caniato F, Luzzini D, Ronchi S (2013) Past, present and future trends of purchasing
and supply management: An extensive literature review. Industrial Marketing Management
42:1202–1212

22
Sundarakani B, De Souza R, Goh M, Wagner SM, Manikandan S (2010) Modeling carbon
footprints across the supply chain. Int J of Production Economics 128(1):43–50
Swaim JA, Maloni MJ, Henley A, Campbell S. (2016) Motivational influences on supply
manager environmental sustainability behavior. Supply Chain Management: An International J
21(3):305–320
Tate W, Bals L (Forthcoming) Achieving Shared Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Value Creation:
Toward a Social Resource-Based View (SRBV) of the Firm J of Business Ethics
Tate W, Bals L (2017). What Hybrid Business Models can Teach Sustainable Supply Chain
Management: The Role of Entrepreneurs’ Social Identity and Social Capabilities. In:
Brandenburg M, Hahn G, Rebs T (eds) Social and Environmental Dimensions of
Organizations and Supply Chains – Tradeoffs and Synergies, Greening of Industry Networks
Studies, Springer
Touboulic A, Ejodame E (2016) Are we really doing the “right thing”? From sustainability
imperialism in global supply chains to an inclusive emerging economy perspective. In: Bals L,
Tate W (eds) Implementing Triple Bottom Line Sustainability into Global Supply Chains,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, p 14–33
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British J of Management
14:207–222
Tsoulfas GT, Pappis CP (2006) Environmental principles applicable to supply chains design
and operation. J of Cleaner Production 14(18):1593–1602
UN General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Accessed 30 Mar 2016
UN (United Nations) (2015) UN Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first
session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015.
http://research.un.org/en/climate-change/introduction. Accessed 15 Feb 2016
Van Weele AJ (2010) Purchasing and supply chain management: Analysis, strategy, planning
and practice (fifth ed). Cengage Learning, London
Van Weele AJ (2002) Purchasing and Supply Chain Management – Analysis, Planning and
Practice. Thomson Learning, London
Van Weele AJ, Van Raaij EM (2014) The future of purchasing and supply management
research: About relevance and rigor. J of Supply Chain Management,50(1):56–72
Von Rosenstiel L (2011) Employee behavior in organizations. On the current state of research.
Management Revue 344–366
Wesselink R, Blok V, Van Leur S, Lans T, Dentoni D (2015) Individual competencies for
managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. J of Cleaner Production
106:497–506

23
Wilhelm MM, Blome C, Bhakoo V, Paulraj A (2016) Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains:
Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. J of Operations Management
41:42–60
Wu Z, Pagell M (2011) Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain
management. J of Operations Management 29(6):577–590
Yawar SA, Seuring S (Forthcoming) Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature
review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. J of Business Ethics: 1-23.