Content uploaded by Francisco Sperotto Flores
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Sperotto Flores on Dec 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
85 JOSCM | Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management | FGV EAESP
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
ARTICLES
Submitted 20.12.2016. Approved 25.09.2017.
Evaluated by double blind review process.
Scientific Editors: Ernesto Gonzalez and Charbel Jabbour
DOI: http://dx.doi/10.12660/joscmv10n2p85-99
THE INFLUENCE OF TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ON
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
ABSTRACT
This paper takes a triple bottom line perspective to analyze how the international
operations literature integrates economic, social, and environmental issues. Addi-
tionally, it shows the main drivers of and barriers to the adoption of triple bottom
line practices by companies in an international context. We conducted a literature
review in English language journals which publish research of production and op-
erations management and sustainability, resulting in a nal sample of 29 papers.
Results show that social and legal pressure for companies to adopt a responsible
behavior prompts an isomorphic process that leads them to conduct their opera-
tions on behalf of triple bottom line goals. Behavioral dierences between spin-os
in various countries caused institutions to create mechanisms that can press and
change private standards through regulation and enforcement. There is room for
progress in studies that seek to analyze the company’s relationships in its interna-
tional experience and its multi-institutional relations.
KEYWORDS | Triple bottom line, international operations management, sustainable
operations, legal and social pressure, literature review.
Francisco Sperotto Flores
francisco.ores@iarroupilha.edu.br
Director of Research, Extension and Production at Instituto Federal Farroupilha – Santo Augusto – RS, Brazil
Iuri Gavronski
igavronski@unisinos.br
Professor at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Centro de Ciências Econômicas – São Leopoldo – RS, Brazil
Vinicius Nardi
nardiadvocacia@gmail.com
PhD Student at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – São Leopoldo – RS, Brazil
Roselei Haag
roseleihaag@gmail.com
PhD Student at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – São Leopoldo – RS, Brazil
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
86 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
INTRODUCTION
In the 20th century, a series of environmental and
social events raised awareness about the influence
of business activities on social inequalities and envi-
ronmental change. e media continuously stressed
the impacts of every human endeavor by informing
consumers and governments about their purchase
practices, making society increasingly aware of sus-
tainable issues.
e risk of irreversible damage to ecological systems,
as well the exposition of exploitative labor practices
in global supply chains, have put governments and
companies under pressure to establish new environ-
mental and labor regulations (Gavronski, 2012). To
secure their business interests and protect the com-
mon good in the long-term, companies introduce a
broad spectrum of management systems and tech-
nologies that can reduce environmental impacts and
improve social performance (Wagner, 2015).
e greater attention that businesses have been
paying to sustainability has led to an increase in
the number of publications on the topic in the busi-
ness and economics literature since the 1990’s. In a
search on Web of Science about “sustainability,” we
identified more than 7,000 articles published since
1994 and more than 70,000 citations. According to
Carter and Rogers (2008), the most used definition
of sustainability in this context is the one presented
by the Brundtland Commission: “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (Wced, 1987, p. 8). is definition ex-
presses the concern with issues such as understand-
ing the environmental impact of economic activity
and meeting basic human needs. However, they pro-
vide little guidance regarding how to identify pres-
ent and future needs and operationalize sustainabil-
ity (Carter & Rogers, 2008; Hart, 1995; Meehan &
Bryde, 2011).
To operationalize sustainability, John Elkington
presents, in his book Cannibals with Forks: e Triple
Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business, the concept of
triple bottom line (3BL). e idea assumes that a
business is sustainable when it balances economic,
environmental and social goals, i.e., when its orga-
nizational activities can positively affect the natural
environment and society and simultaneously result
in economic benefits and competitive advantage
(Carter & Rogers, 2008; Norman & MacDonald,
2004). is approach makes the implementation
of sustainability complex, but prevents companies
from focusing on a single issue, like economic per-
formance, noting that businesses’ long-term success
depends on their ability to make decisions consid-
ering the impacts of economic, environmental and
social aspects (Ferrer, 2008).
e assumption that companies should measure
performance considering local communities plays
a vital role in fostering sustainability, which is ac-
knowledged over global manufacturing networks
(Golini, Longoni, & Cagliano, 2014). International
operations management can affect these companies’
financial performance and image around the world.
ey need to adjust their productive activities to the
demands for sustainable operations in each target
market by means of human rights, labor standards
and environmental practices in a global context.
us, integrating ecological and social issues and
their financial objectives becomes one of their big-
gest challenges (Seuring & Müller, 2008).
However, the corporate response has been neither
strategic nor operational, but, rather, a cosmetic one,
with philanthropic initiatives typically described in
terms of money spent or voluntary work activities.
ey hardly ever consider the impact of productive
activities on local communities or the natural envi-
ronment (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Despite the increasing managerial and research in-
terest in reaching a balance between the economic,
environmental, and social goals of business activi-
ties, and the existing systems to operationalize sus-
tainability in an international operations context,
in-depth analyses of this research field are still to be
conducted. ere are a few literature reviews about
sustainability issues in international operations
management studies. However, Pisani et al. (2017)
and Egri and Ralston (Egri & Ralston, 2008) ques-
tioned the international nature of these studies.
ere is a lack of attention concerning operations in
a transnational scenario, particularly in developing
countries and regions. Moreover, these studies fail
to balance 3BL goals, focusing instead on environ-
mental and economic aspects (Khalid et al., 2015)
academics are applying theory to explain these proj-
ects. e need for integrating the BoP population
into value-adding activities is widely acknowledged,
but this is not yet reflected in supply chain manage-
ment (SCM, evidencing the gap between the concept
of 3BL and its implementation in international op-
erations studies.
87ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
is paper aims to analyze how the international op-
erations literature integrates Elkington’s 3BL dimen-
sions, and identify the main drivers and barriers to
companies adopt 3BL practices in an international
context. We conducted a literature review in English
language journals which publish research of produc-
tion and operations management and sustainability
since 1997, resulting in a final sample of 29 papers.
e study filtered only publications that balance so-
cial, environmental and economic aspects in an in-
ternational operations scenario, disregarding papers
that do not integrate all 3BL dimensions or with anal-
yses performed only in a local scenario. e structure
of this paper is as follows. First, we present the theo-
retical background. Next, we introduce the research
method. en, we expound the main findings of our
literature review, i.e., the necessary social pressure
and isomorphic change to integrate 3BL aspects into
an international operations context, an analysis of
the legislation and political demands related to this
integration process; we also identify and examine the
methodological approaches of the research included
in our study. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of
our findings and suggest opportunities of research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Traditionally, operations management is defined as
the area that deals with the input, processing, and
output of firm resources, i.e., the designing and man-
agement of processes, services, products and supply
chains in order to produce goods and services. e
literature of operations management provides tools
to improve business processes and organization
structures so as to create the highest possible value
at the lowest possible cost (Kleindorfer, Singhal, &
Wassenhove, 2005).
In the last two decades, the business environment
changed considerably. Businesses became more and
more internationalized, while concerns with envi-
ronmental and social issues have increasingly in-
fluenced operations management. e perception
that the current production model compromises the
planet’s sustainable future has gained prominence in
the public debate. e focus of Operations Manage-
ment thus shifts from competition between firms
to competition between supply chains. Companies
need to improve their ability to establish close, long-
term relationships with suppliers and other strategic
partners to create value and achieve a competitive
advantage in a context of global competition (Ander-
sen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009).
Global supply chains need to manage cultural differ-
ences between suppliers across the globe, provide re-
sources required by low-income suppliers in emerging
markets, and respond to pressure by consumers and
lawmakers in developed nations for better environ-
mental and labor practices. Stakeholders’ concerns
become more and more relevant in lawmaking agen-
das, forcing politicians and governments to enhance
labor and environmental policy’s effectiveness (Hop-
kins et al., 2009). In addition, they indicate that a
new attitude is necessary on the part of manufactures
about the financial and social benefits of environmen-
tal improvements in productive processes (Abdala &
Barbieri, 2014; Nelson, Marsillac, & Rao, 2012).
e new challenges in the business environment
caused some articles to propose ways of operation-
alizing the concept of sustainability in international
operations management. Although there are several
approaches, the main concept in use in this task is
the 3BL approach (Seuring & Müller, 2008).
e idea of 3BL emerged from the perception that fi-
nancial sustainability is not a sufficient condition to
business sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002),
and that the responsibilities of companies involve
more than producing profitable goods and services
(Hubbard, 2009). “e idea behind the 3BL paradigm
is that a corporation’s ultimate success or health can
and should be measured not just by the traditional fi-
nancial bottom line, but also by its social/ethical and
environmental performance” (Norman & MacDon-
ald, 2004, p. 243). Environmental performance refers
to certain resources a firm can use in its operations,
while social performance reflects the firm’s impact on
the communities it operates in (Hubbard, 2009).
We consider 3BL a balance between the economic,
ecological and social aspects of the company’s ac-
tivities. Carter and Rogers (2008) say that firms
which can balance their social, environmental and
economic performance are able to engage in activi-
ties that positively influence the natural environ-
ment and society while creating long-term eco-
nomic benefits and competitive advantages for the
firm. However, Tang and Zhou (2012) pointed out
that such balance can only be achieved in the long
run when the company sustains the economic, en-
vironmental and social flows for their entire supply
chain, considering the needs of low-income suppli-
ers in emerging markets, the supply chain’s global
markets, consumers in developed countries and the
natural environment.
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
88 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
e most problematic aspect of achieving this bal-
ance is designing a set of performance measures that
can accurately reflect the organization’s progress to-
wards 3BL in a cross-national scenario (Ferrer, 2008).
e multiple dimensions of performance implicit in
the management of sustainable global supply chains
increase the complexity of sustainability-oriented
decisions. Here, stakeholders may play a role in man-
agement decision-making, in issues such as supplier
selection or development. us, sustainable decisions
become dependent on the relationship between stake-
holders and the companies or supply chains (Sarkis &
Dhavale, 2015). e contemporary context of global
supply chains make it necessary for both theorists
and practitioners to observe other elements than the
financial aspect. erefore, the 3BL approach can pro-
vide a complete view of the phenomenon.
METHODS
We conducted a literature review that was limited
to papers published in English in academic journals
concerning the relationship between the Elkington’s
3BL dimensions and international operations man-
agement. is method allows researchers to consoli-
date and evaluate the state of the art in a given topic,
identifying research gaps and generating new inter-
pretations of current knowledge (Seuring & Gold,
2012; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).
Our search was limited to 1997, year of publication
of Ellington’s book. We conducted the entire data
collection process in the Web of Science database
as it indexes many renowned journals in the field of
business and management. e Social Science Cita-
tion Index and the Science Citation Index, which in-
tegrate the Web of Science database, are recognized
as three of the most important indexes in the field
of business and management. e following search
argument was applied: ((triple bottom line) or (en-
vironmental performance; social performance; eco-
nomic performance)).
e selection and analysis of articles was conducted
in three steps. 1) In the initial sample, we screened
for articles published in journals that are outlets for
research of production and operations management
and sustainability which were previously identified
in works by Petersen, Aase, and Heiser (2011) Min
and Kim (2012), Fry and Donohue (2013) and Linton
(2013). 2) Later, article titles, keywords, and abstracts
were analyzed, and the papers out of the scope of this
review were removed. 3) We conducted a critical read-
ing, analysis, and evaluation of each paper to check
its methodological approach, unit of analysis, focus,
findings, as well as the 3BL dimensions analyzed
and whether the article emphasized a cross-national
context. For the present study, we selected the pub-
lications with highest qualification, relevance, and
importance to ensure the most adequate theoretical
contextualization and consistent findings. Figure 1
summarizes the article search and selection strategy
we adopted for the literature review.
Figure 1: Paper search and selection strategy.
Figure 1: Paper search and selection strategy.
Figure 2: Country of the institution the author is affiliated to.
Web of Knowledge
initial search
n=447
Journal qualification
analysis
Excluded papers
n = 234
Paper title, keywords and
abstract analysis
n = 213
Papers excluded for:
•Being Duplicate;
•Failure to integrate
all 3BL dimensions;
•Analysis conducted
in a local context.
Excluded papers
n = 184
Reviewed papers
n = 29
RESULTS
In this section, we summarize the literature that in-
tegrates 3BL dimensions into an international opera-
tions context. First, we present a profile of the final
sample of articles, summarized in Exhibit 1, which
provides information about the journals, year of publi-
cation, authors, the articles published in each journal,
and the 2016 Journal Citation Report (JCR) Impact
Factor. Second, we introduce the main drivers of and
barriers to the adoption of triple bottom line practices
by companies in an international context. en, we
examine the necessary social pressure and isomorphic
change to integrate 3BL aspects into an internation-
al operations context, followed by an analysis of the
legislation and political demands related to this inte-
gration process. Finally, we identify and examine the
methodological approaches of the research included
in our study. is analysis shows that the functional-
ist paradigm has provided the dominant framework
in research about the interaction between economic,
social and environmental performance in the context
89ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
of international operations. It provides us with a clear
picture of the level of analyses and the goals of these
studies. Subsequently to this analysis, Exhibit 2 sum-
marizes the main findings of the articles examined in
the literature review.
Sample Profile
In our sample, 15 journals published the 29 papers
identified. We found a concentration of works in
relatively few journals, four of which accounting for
51.72% of all articles on 3BL and international op-
erations in our sample. All articles were published af-
ter 2000. From 2010 onwards, we found an increase
in the number of articles about 3BL in the interna-
tional operations literature. e JCR Impact factor
of these journal varies from 1.188 (IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management) to 7.268 (Man-
agement Information Systems Quarterly).
Figure 2 shows the country of the institutions authors
are affiliated to. A total of 78 researchers in our sam-
ple have 16 articles with 3 or more sponsors. Carter
published 3 articles, the highest number as there are
no dominant authors in the field yet. e researchers
work at institutions in 16 countries, with England
and United States accounting for 40% of them.
Figure 2: Country of the institution the author is aliated to.
We also analyzed articles’ methodological approach
and unit of analysis, which are shown in Exhibit 1.
More than half of the studies were empirical and used
statistical analysis or case studies. As for the unit of
analysis, 93.1% of our sample analyze a firm or a sup-
ply chain. From a value chain perspective, Fearne,
Martinez, and Dent (2012) present a literature review
about the implications of the dimensions of sustain-
ability to the analysis of value chain, while Giunipero,
Hooker, and Denslow (2012) analyzed the drivers of
and barriers to sustainable operations from a pur-
chase and supply management perspective.
Exhibit 1: Journals and articles published about international operations management related to the Triple Bottom Line
Journals Papers JCR Impact
Factor 2016
Business Strategy and the
Environment
Birkin, F., Cashman, A., Koh, S. C. L., & Liu, Z.(2009); Meehan & Bryde
(2011); Al-Najjar & Anmiadou (2012).
3.076
Ecological Economics Gerbens-Leenes, Moll, Schoot Uiterkamp (2003); Foran, B., Lenzen, M.,
Dey, C., & Bilek, M. (2005); Erol, Sencer & Sari (2011).
2.965
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
90 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
IEEE Transactions on Engi-
neering Management
Azevedo, Carvalho, Duarte & Cruz-Machado (2012) 1.188
International Journal of
Operations & Production
Management
Giovanni (2012). 3.339
International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logis-
tics Management
Carter & Rogers (2008); Carter & Easton (2011). 2.577
Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G.(2005); Frías-Aceituno,
J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2013); Govindan,
Khodaverdi & Jafarian (2013).
5.715
Journal of Operations Man-
agement
Wu & Pagell (2011) 5.207
Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management
Schneider & Wallenburg (2012); Giunipero, Hooker & Denslow (2012). 3.240
Journal of Supply Chain
Management
Tate, Ellram & Kircho (2010); Reuter, Foerstl & Blome (2010). 5.789
Management Decision Goyal (2013) 1.396
Management Information
Systems Quarterly
Melville (2010) 7.268
Operations Research Chen & Delmas (2012) 1.779
R & D Management Paramanathan, S., Farrukh, C., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2004) 2.444
Supply Chain Management –
An International Journal
Hamprecht et al. (2005); Vasileiou & Morris (2006); Andersen & Skjoett-
Larsen (2009); Fearne, Martinez, & Dent (2012); Gualandris, Golini &
Kalchschmidt (2014); Ortas, Moneva & Álvarez (2014).
4.072
Transportation Research Part
E – Logistics and Transporta-
tion Review
Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000) 2.974
Source: e authors’ own elaboration from the literature review.
Social Pressure and Isomorphic Change
towards Integrating Triple Bottom Line
Aspects
Friedman (1970) proposed that while the social and
environmental issues are important, they are incom-
patible with the corporate goal of generating profit.
e emergence of an economic order based on tech-
nical and economic conditions of production creat-
ed conditions for structural change to become less
and less associated to competition or the need for
efficiency, and more and more the result of isomor-
phic processes that arise from the structures of or-
ganizational fields (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Once
structured within an organizational field, bounded
rationality drives firms to start reflecting on the
successful cases of other companies, which leads
them to adopt similar management and production
practices. ese successful practices become insti-
tutionalized in the field as a way of legitimizing or-
ganizational processes, even if they do not improve
organizational performance. us, organizational
structures seek to adapt to environmental condi-
tions to gain legitimacy in the organizational field,
competing not only for resources and customers, but
also for political power and institutional legitimacy.
Azevedo et al. (2012) illustrate the case of automo-
tive industry, where sustainable standards were
deployed across most companies in the industry
and required by suppliers. Social pressures for in-
ternational companies to engage in social and en-
vironmental responsibility initiatives resulted in
an isomorphic process. ese companies have come
91ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
to mirror business processes of other firms already
engaged in initiatives – mimetic isomorphism –, to
do what is professionally correct – normative iso-
morphism – or to comply with rules imposed by
external forces – coercive isomorphism. Although
the necessary investments to adapt operations to
3BL goals, as well as structural inertia, can be bar-
riers to the adoption of sustainable strategies, iso-
morphism within the organizational field generates
business opportunities that can create incentives
for companies to adapt their production processes
to integrate their economic goals to social and envi-
ronmental aspects.
e literature provides different measurement and
analysis models for evaluating companies’ response
to social pressures. Chen and Delmas (2012) identify
critical flaws in traditional paradigms, and develop a
new framework to measure eco-inefficiency from a
firm-based perspective. From a supply chain perspec-
tive, Gerbens-Leenes, Moll and Schoot Uiterkamp
(2003) design a method to measure environmental
sustainability for food production systems. Foran et
al. (2005) propose a framework based on input-output
analysis to integrate sustainable chain management
and reporting activities. ey present a standardized
system of national accounts that facilitates listing en-
vironmental effects in a global scenario. Labuschagne
et al. (2005) present an operations sustainability eval-
uation model for the manufacturing sector. Carter
and Rogers (2008) propose a framework to integrate
supply chain management and 3BL, while Erol, Senc-
er, and Sari (2011) present a multi-criteria framework
to evaluate and compare companies’ performance in
terms of sustainable supply chain. Govindan, Kho-
daverdi, and Jafarian (2013) propose a multi-criteria
model for selecting suppliers in supply chains based
on the 3BL approach.
Despite the attempts to evaluate sustainability from
a 3BL perspective, these models emphasize the firm’s
financial aspects. is flaw is reflected on supply chain
behaviors that seek to minimize the impacts of social
and environmental events on their economic goals,
thus leaving aside social and ecological concerns,
which causes politicians and lawmakers to propose
new regulatory standards to induce companies to
adopt management practices aligned to 3BL goals.
Legal and Political Demands for Integrat-
ing Triple Bottom Line into Operations
Management
Because of the concerns with the environmental and
social impacts of business activities, sustainability
becomes more and more relevant in the lawmaking
agendas of most governments, forcing politicians
and governments to enhance the effectiveness of
correlate policies (Hopkins et al., 2009).
Even in extremely liberal contexts, the state estab-
lishes general premises to organize and direct collec-
tive development actions. e culture of each society
affects the adoption of sustainability policies by or-
ganizations and vice-versa. Social systems and stan-
dards express this culture, thus changing the inter-
nal and external conduct of the organization (Crilly,
2011; D. Matten & Moon, 2008) and making the
state a key player in developing behavioral patterns.
Firms adopt sustainable management practices as
a response to an increasingly challenging regula-
tory environment. us, lawmaking becomes the
sustainability-related issue with the greatest impact
on businesses, due to the legal costs of escalating
penalties and fines (Giunipero, Hooker, & Denslow,
2012). In line with institutional theory, Campbel
(2006) argues that companies are most likely to act
in a responsible way when they operate in an insti-
tutional context with coercive and normative pres-
sure. is approach considers that a well-developed
legal system exists to protect stakeholders interests,
while recognizing that normative institutions can
vary across countries, affecting corporate behavior
in different ways.
Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013) compare the common
law and civil law systems in the various countries, as
well as the efficiency and effectiveness of the mecha-
nisms used to enforce the recommendations and
regulations in effect. Civil law is a more stakeholder-
oriented system than common law in that it regards
firms as autonomous economic entities formed by a
coalition of stakeholders.
Influenced by this stakeholder coalition, companies
in civil law countries – and countries where law and
order indicators are high – are more likely to disclose
information on their environmental management
practices. However, the presence of many approach-
es to sustainability means that managers have differ-
ent perceptions of what sustainability is, which leads
companies to emphasize distinct aspects of social,
environmental and economic responsibility, depend-
ing on their size and geographical location (Carter &
Rogers, 2008; Tate, Ellram, & Kirchoff, 2010).
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
92 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
e regulatory environment is not the only inducer
of sustainable behaviors. In terms of politics, com-
panies are also subject to pressure by the society
they operate in. is pressure derives from the
company’s heavy presence in certain locations –
sometimes replacing the state itself – and its desire
to legitimize its actions. ere are power relations
through which organizations can create a domina-
tion and dependence environment which, on the
one hand, makes way for their social integration,
and on the other, forces them to adopt practices
of popular interest that are not always profitable
to the organization (Dirk Matten & Crane, 2005;
Scherer & Palazzo, 2007).
In their analysis of a sample of Italian and Ameri-
can multinational companies, Giovanni (2012) and
Hooker and Denslow (2012), describe the main diffi-
culties to adopt sustainable practices. e main bar-
riers cocern the resources available for investments
in the environmental area, as well as companies’
emphasis on different facets of the 3BL dimensions,
both upstream and downstream the supply chain, ac-
cording to industry, size, and geographic location. On
the other hand, compliance with legal requirements,
institutional pressure, and initiatives by executives
to improve organizational performance are the main
driving forces behind the development of sustainable
operations and the disclosure of social and environ-
mental impacts.
A Functionalist Perspective on the Triple
Bottom Line Literature
e functionalist paradigm has provided the domi-
nant framework in research about the interaction
between economic, social, and environmental per-
formance in the context of international opera-
tions. Despite the greater importance given to so-
cial and environmental practices, the main concern
of companies is related to market and economic fac-
tors (Vasileiou & Morris, 2006). Fearne, Martinez,
and Dent (2012) show that most businesses are
focused on economic sustainability, and pay little
attention to the social and environmental conse-
quences of their production processes. ey ignore
the competitive advantages achieved by develop-
ing practices that can mitigate the environmental
impact of production activities and improve stake-
holders’ well-being.
In their analysis of the chemical industry, Reuter et
al. (2010) describe how the purchasing and supply
management function can integrate sustainability
aspects into its global supplier management pro-
cess. eir findings show that first movers obtain
advantages through an early evaluation of suppliers,
resulting in accumulation of sustainability-related
capabilities compared to competitors and their pro-
duction practices. e structure of sustainable global
supplier management processes does not depend on
perceived stakeholder pressure or the sustainability
content covered by global supplier management.
Wu and Pagell (2011) examine the supply chains
of eight leading companies in terms of sustainable
business practices in the United States to determine
how these companies balance profitability and en-
vironmental sustainability in a context of uncer-
tainty. e authors found that managers often lack
sufficient information in making environmental de-
cisions. Factors such as uncertainty about environ-
mental outcomes and future regulations are among
the causes of uncertain decisions, driving companies
to adopt operating principles and technical stan-
dards to mitigate such information uncertainty.
To avoid these information asymmetries, informa-
tion and technology must be disseminated through-
out the supply chain to create control mechanisms
that can foster responsible practices (Hamprecht,
Corsten, Noll, & Meier, 2005; Paramanathan, Far-
rukh, Phaal, & Probert, 2004). Andersen and Skjoett-
Larsen (2009) suggest that incentives for suppliers
to act responsibly include employee training, expe-
rience sharing, the training of key personnel, long-
term contracts and larger purchase orders. However,
little is known about the drivers of and barriers to
the adoption of sustainable practices by firms or how
they can effectively extend their control over suppli-
ers’ 3BL practices (Giunipero et al., 2012).
e articles that take a firm-based perspective ana-
lyze the relationship between sustainable practices
and firm performance (Carter, Kale, & Grimm,
2000; Goyal, Rahman, & Kazmi, 2013), the process
of implementing sustainable sourcing (Schneider &
Wallenburg, 2012), and the role of informational
systems in improving sustainable performance (Mel-
ville, 2010). Other papers evaluate the influence of
sustainable practices on firm stock value (Al-Najjar
& Anfimiadou, 2012), the drivers of and barriers to
sustainable practices (Birkin, Cashman, Koh, & Liu,
2009), and the impact of legal systems on the prepa-
ration and publication of integrated sustainability
reports (Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013).
93ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
Studies that examine the influence of social and en-
vironmental practices on firm operations’ financial
performance demonstrate that environmentally and
socially efficient firms have better financial perfor-
mances and higher market values than those lacking
environmental practices (Al-Najjar & Anfimiadou,
2012; Carter et al., 2000), although results can vary
according to industry and local cultural and economic
conditions (Goyal et al., 2013; Ortas, Moneva, & Ál-
varez, 2014). ese distinct contexts can drive com-
panies to develop integrated sustainability reports in
order to get a coherent overview of the available infor-
mation about strategy, governance, performance and
future perspectives, thus reflecting the economic, cul-
tural and social differences between the markets they
operate in (Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013).
Gualandris, Golini, and Kalchschmidt (2014) show
that although global sourcing primarily aims to re-
duce globalization’s negative impacts, global com-
panies get no direct benefit from sustainable supply
management. However, they can achieve high levels
of sustainability performance. Firms that look for
opportunities outside their own region may leverage
their learning curve and thus obtain more benefits
from a sustainable supply chain. When the degree of
environmental regulatory complexity increases, the
first mover in pollution prevention has a competi-
tive advantage due to the learning curve generated,
which helps companies acquire/develop rare and
valuable resources/capabilities.
In their analysis of how the food industry monitors
suppliers’ 3BL performance, Hamprecht et al. (2005)
argue that adopting a business-to-business perspec-
tive can facilitate the control over the supply chain.
Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009) analyze how a
Swedish company implements and manages sustain-
able practices at their suppliers, showing that com-
pany size, image, and reputation are key factors to
successfully implementing a sustainable supply chain.
In order to evaluate the influence of social and envi-
ronmental aspects of the economic performance of
companies, a series of articles seek to identify and
understand the financial barriers to companies’ in-
vestments in sustainability programs. Birkin et al.
(2009) analyzed sustainable practices in China from
the perspective of local firms, while Tate, Ellram, and
Kirchoff (2010) analyzed the corporate communica-
tion of 100 socially and environmentally responsible
global companies to determine how supply chain
strategies can influence 3BL.
Exhibit 2: Articles on Operations Management related to Triple Bottom Line
Article Method Unit of analysis Research Findings
Carter et al. (2000) Empirical Firm Environmental purchasing activities have a positive impact on
rm performance.
Gerbens-Leenes, Moll,
Schoot Uiterkamp
(2003)
Analytical Supply Chain Companies have direct responsibility for the eects of their
operations and share responsibility for chain-related eects.
Environmental reporting is still poorly developed, evaluating
environmental eects at a local level. Reports using widely
accepted standards are not available, resulting in conicting
information that fails to address sustainability in a cross-
national context.
Paramanathan et al.
(2004)
Conceptual Supply Chain Eective technology management and strategy require
companies to adopt a perspective of future developments in
the business environment to facilitate long-term planning.
Labuschagne et. al.
(2005)
Empirical Firm The indicators proposed to measure corporate sustainability
at a global level are ineective to cover 3BL aspects at the
operational level. For example, the existing indicators do not
include most social issues aected by operations managers’
decisions.
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
94 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
Article Method Unit of analysis Research Findings
Hamprecht et al.
(2005)
Case Study Firm Controlling the sustainability of suppliers means controlling
the supply chain’s economic, social and environmental
performance. However, little is known about how companies
can eciently extend their existing supply chain control to
cover these aspects.
Foran et. al. (2005) Analytical Supply Chain The lack of data integration and an internationally accepted
environmental accountability system make it dicult to
quantify the eects on the production chains when they
source from a wide range of countries.
Vasileiou & Morris
(2006)
Empirical Supply Chain The dominant concern in supply chains are economic
and market factors related to maintaining a competitive
advantage. However, social and environmental factors are
beginning to gain greater relevance.
Carter & Rogers (2008) Literature
review
Supply Chain Dierent approaches to sustainability cause managers to
have discrepant viewpoints on what sustainability is
Birkin et al. (2009) Empirical Firm Despite the lack of development in sustainable practices,
small and medium Chinese companies have become
increasingly concerned with improving environmental and
socially responsible actions.
Andersen & Skjoett-
Larsen (2009)
Case study Supply Chain Multinational corporations are responsible for environmental
and social practices in the entire organization, including
their suppliers and the entire supply chain. Information
and technology need to be disseminated throughout the
supply chain. Therefore, the company needs to create control
mechanisms for responsible practices in the supply chain.
Melville (2010) Analytical Firm Information systems are an important but misunderstood
instrument of organizational environmental sustainability as
they enable new practices and processes that support the
formation of beliefs and actions and the assessment of results.
Tate, Ellram & Kircho
(2010)
Analytical Supply Chain Companies emphasize dierent facets of social,
environmental, and economic responsibility upstream and
downstream in supply chains, based on industry, size and
geographic location.
Reuter, Foerstl & Blome
(2010)
Case Study Supply Chain Sustainable global supplier management capabilities are a
source of competitive advantage.
These capabilities are path-dependent and particularly
valuable when organizations are receptive to external
stakeholder pressure. Early movers reap competitive benets
to a notable extend because of resource accumulation and
learning processes over time.
95ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
Article Method Unit of analysis Research Findings
Wu & Pagell (2011) Case Study Supply Chain Environmental decisions have a profound impact on a wide
range of supply chain issues and organizations’ ability to
compete.
The paper found a sequence of decisions that, over
time, enabled organizations to create economically and
environmentally viable supply chains. The set of decisions
provides managers with a template to examine their strategic
options and create sustainable business models.
Meehan & Bryde
(2011)
Empirical Supply Chain Structural inertia creates barriers to adopting responsible
purchasing. Supplier engagement strategies could solve
this problem by shifting from enforcement and compliance
actions to developmental and collaborative actions with
suppliers.
Erol, Sencer & Sari
(2011)
Empirical Supply Chain The paper proposes a multi-criteria model to evaluate and
compare supply chains’ sustainability performance.
Carter & Easton (2011) Literature
Review
Supply Chain The eld of sustainable supply chain management has
evolved from a perspective of standalone research in social
and environmental areas to a corporate social responsibility
perspective, to the beginning of a convergence of
sustainability perspectives such as the triple bottom line and
the emergence of sustainable supply chain management as a
theoretical framework.
Al-Najjar & Anmiadou
(2012)
Empirical Firm Environmentally ecient rms have higher market values
than those lacking environmental strategies. Involvement in
environmental policies has a positive impact on rm value.
Giovanni (2012) Empirical Firm The environmental manager is a successful driver on triple
bottom line. This manager improves environmental and social
performance but contributes only indirectly to the economic
bottom line.
Schneider &
Wallenburg (2012)
Conceptual Firm Purchasing can recognize the status quo of sustainable
sourcing proles compared to other prole types, and can
further decide future goals for implementing sustainable
sourcing in the mid and long term. Previous research stresses
the importance of stakeholder management but does not
show the relevant stakeholders. To implement sustainable
sourcing, purchasing should cooperate with other business
functions such as marketing and sales.
Chen & Delmas (2012) Empirical Firm The paper found critical aws in the models of evaluation
of existing sustainable practices, showing that they can
present an eco-inecient company as eco-ecient. From
these failures, it proposes a model eco-ineciency in order to
correct these aws.
Fearne, Martinez &
Dent (2012)
Literature
Review
Value Chain Value chain has focused on economic sustainability and paid
little attention to the social and environmental consequences
of rm impacts, thus ignoring the competitive advantages of
improving environmental management and social welfare.
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
96 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
Article Method Unit of analysis Research Findings
Giunipero, Hooker &
Denslow (2012)
Empirical Purchasing
and supply
management
Top management initiatives and government regulations
normally drive purchasing and supply management
sustainability eorts while investments in sustainability and
economic uncertainty are a hindrance to these programs.
Frias-Aceituno et al.
(2013)
Exploratory Firm Companies in civil law countries and in countries with
high law and order indicators are more likely to disclose
information on their environmental management practices
Azevedo, Carvalho,
Duarte & Cruz-
Machado (2012)
Case Study Supply Chain The use of green purchasing guidelines, as well as
sourcing from environmentally responsible sources, can
reduce corruption risk, thus enabling synergies between
environmental and social standards and management
systems that can be used to monitor suppliers. This can
provide systems of early warning, timely recognition and
prevention of environmental and social irregularities in the
supply chain.
Goyal (2013) Literature
review
Firm Research in the eld of sustainability performance in relation
to rm performance analyzed this relationship in developed
countries. Results dier in various cultural and economic
contexts, and there is no universally accepted direction on
this relationship. Most studies use economic performance as a
proxy for rm performance.
Govindan, Khodaverdi
& Jafarian (2013)
Empirical Supply chain Proposes a multi-criteria approach to the selection of
suppliers in supply chains based on 3BL premises.
Gualandris, Golini &
Kalchschmidt (2014)
Empirical Supply chain Global companies do not reap any environmental or social
benet directly from supply management. When the degree
of environmental regulatory complexity increases, the rst
mover in pollution prevention has a competitive advantage
due to the learning curve generated, which helps companies
acquire rare and valuable resources/capabilities
Ortas, Moneva &
Álvarez (2014)
Empirical Supply chain A wide diversity of patterns of relationship between
sustainable supply chain performance and economic
performance emerges when dierent geographical regions
and industries are considered. The relationship between these
constructs can be altered by the economic scenario.
Source: e authors’ own elaboration from the literature review
Conclusions and Directions for Further
Research
is article aims to present a literature review in
order to analyze how the literature on internation-
al operations treats Elkington’s 3BL dimensions.
We identify the main drivers of and barriers to the
adoption of 3BL practices by companies in an inter-
national context, and analyze how the demand for
integrating 3BL goals has influenced participants’
global supply chains with regard to management and
relationships.
When Elkington (1997) proposed the concept of
3BL, he sought a way to harmonize the economic,
environmental and social goals of business activities,
recognizing that while these affect the environment
and society, they can also generate economic ben-
efits and competitive advantages. Despite assuming
a balance between the economic, social and environ-
97ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
mental aspects, studies on operations management
with this approach to production chain sustain-
ability often take a functionalist perspective. ese
studies are interested in providing rational explana-
tions to social phenomena, so as to understand so-
ciety in a way that can generate applied knowledge.
ey are intersted in “win-win” relationships that
can maximize returns to shareholders, and consider
investments in sustainability as an actual bilateral
bonus relationship (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). In
so doing, even while they propose many social and
environmental management reports, they seek to
evaluate the influence of social and ecological as-
pects of firms’ financial performance, putting aside
the impact of productive processes on local commu-
nities and the environment.
Models that propose to evaluate sustainability from
a 3BL perspective take into account different aspects
of the construct, which prevents the emergence of
a universally accepted standard and results in con-
flicting information that hinders 3BL analysis in a
transnational context. Moreover, these models fo-
cus on local contexts, i.e., they reflect the concerns
of developed countries about the social and environ-
mental issues, while disregarding cultural, social and
ecological trade-offs, as well as developing countries’
demands about the social an environmental impacts
of global supply chains. is disregard for local com-
munities and the different concepts of what sus-
tainability is hampers the operationalization of the
construct, thus leading to the proposition of social
and environmental responsibility programs with
assumptions that favor the company’s financial as-
pects. In the context of international operations,
as the components of production chains are spread
over different countries with distinct economic, en-
vironmental and social demands, it is imperative to
propose operational standards that can balance these
differences while enabling the analysis of the impact
of productive activities on the environment and so-
ciety in a global context. Further studies could focus
on finding ways to balance 3BL goals in an operation-
al context, as well as differences between countries,
enabling the development of an internationally ac-
cepted standard.
Given the risk of ecological damage and exploitative
labor practices in global supply chains, sustainabil-
ity gains prominence on the public debate, forcing
companies to improve their labor and environ-
mental practices and putting governments under
pressure to establish new environmental and labor
regulations, as well as improve the effectiveness of
existing policies. However, the focus on financial as-
pects of international operations pushes the social
and ecological aspects to the background, creating
incentives for opportunistic behavior. Companies
can allocate offshore activities where environmen-
tal and social regulations are not enforced, thus
threatening the environment and, particularly in
developing countries, local communities’ ability to
improve their standards of living and benefit from
the growth of economic activity. Research efforts
directed to comparing different institutional en-
vironments also deserve further attention. Iden-
tifying behavior differences between spin-offs in
countries with different legal environments is an
initiative that can generate developments from the
perspective of institutional theory. ere are also
efforts that can drive institutions to press compa-
nies into changing their standards through regula-
tion and enforcement. ere is room for progress
in studies that seek to analyze companies’ relation-
ships in their international experience and multi-
institutional relations.
Finally, companies’ domestic issues deserve at-
tention in future research. Several features can be
identified as enabling the adoption of sustainable
behaviors by organizations, but others still need
further analysis. Social pressure is recognized as
capable of inducing companies towards certain
conducts due to its power to legitimize corpo-
rate behaviors. is legitimacy, however, is to be
achieved after a relationship has been developed
between businesses and society. During this con-
struction, can different levels of relationship cause
different forms of sustainable behavior on the part
of companies? Is their degree of integration into
the community a factor that can shape their be-
havior? Such questions are challenges to advances
in the field.
REFERENCES
Al-Najjar, B., & Anfimiadou, A. (2012). Environmental poli-
cies and firm value. Business Strategy and the Environment,
21(1), 49-59. doi:10.1002/bse.713
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate so-
cial responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 75-86.
doi:10.1108/13598540910941948
Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz-Machado, V.
(2012). Influence of green and lean upstream supply chain
management practices on business sustainability. IEEE
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
98 AUTHORS | Francisco Sperotto Flores | Iuri Gavronski | Vinicius Nardi | Roselei Haag
Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 753-765.
doi:10.1109/TEM.2012.2189108
Birkin, F., Cashman, A., Koh, S. C. L., & Liu, Z. (2009). New
sustainable business models in China. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18(February 2007), 64-77.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and or-
ganisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox
of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Sci-
entist, 49(7), 925-938. doi:10.1177/0002764205285172
Carter, C. R., & Easton, P. L. (2011). Sustainable sup-
ply chain management: Evolution and future direc-
tions. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 41(1), 46-62. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09600031111101420
Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Environmental
purchasing and firm performance: An empirical investiga-
tion. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transpor-
tation Review, 36, 219-228.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of
sustainable supply chain management: Moving to-
ward new theory. International Journal of Physical Dis-
tribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387.
doi:10.1108/09600030810882816
Chen, C.-M., & Delmas, M. a. (2012). Measuring eco-inefficien-
cy: A new frontier approach. Operations Research, 60(5),
1064-1079. doi:10.1287/opre.1120.1094
Crilly, D. (2011). Predicting stakeholder orientation in the mul-
tinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies¸42(5), 694-717. doi:10.1057/
jibs.2010.57
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). e iron cage revisited: In-
stitutional isomorphism and collective rationality in orga-
nizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for
corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment, 11, 130-141.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2008). Corporate responsibility: A
review of international management research from 1998
to 2007. Journal of International Management, 14(4), 319–
339. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.003
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: e triple bottom line
of 21st Century Business. UK: Capstone.
Erol, I., Sencer, S., & Sari, R. (2011). A new fuzzy multi-cri-
teria framework for measuring sustainability performance
of a supply chain. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1088-1100.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.001
Fearne, A., Martinez, M. G., & Dent, B. (2012). Dimensions
of sustainable value chains: Implications for value chain
analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Jour-
nal, 17(6), 575-581. doi:10.1108/13598541211269193
Ferrer, G. (2008). Sustainability: What does it mean for the op-
erations manager? Journal of Operations and Supply Chain
Management, 1(2), 1-16.
Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., & Bilek, M. (2005). Integrat-
ing sustainable chain management with triple bottom
line accounting. Ecological Economics, 52(2), 143-157.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.024
Frías-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I.
M. (2013). Is integrated reporting determined by a coun-
try’s legal system? An exploratory study. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 44, 45-55. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.006
Friedman, M. (1970). e social responsibility of business is to
increase its profi ts. New York Times Magazine, 17.
Gavronski, I. (2012). Resources and capabilities for sustainable
operations strategy. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain
Management, 5(Special Issue on Sustainability), 1-20.
doi:10.12660/joscmv1n1p1-20
Gerbens-Leenes, P., Moll, H., & Schoot Uiterkamp, a. J. (2003).
Design and development of a measuring method for en-
vironmental sustainability in food production systems.
Ecological Economics, 46(2), 231-248. doi:10.1016/S0921-
8009(03)00140-X
Giovanni, P. de. (2012). Do internal and external environmen-
tal management contribute to the triple bottom line? In-
ternational Journal of Operations & Production Management,
32(3), 265-290. doi:10.1108/01443571211212574
Giunipero, L. C., Hooker, R. E., & Denslow, D. (2012). Purchas-
ing and supply management sustainability: Drivers and
barriers. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
18(4), 258-269. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy
multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability perfor-
mance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345-354. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.04.014
Goyal, P. (2013). Corporate sustainability performance and
firm performance research: Literature review and future
research agenda. Management Decision, 51(2), 361-379.
doi:10.1108/00251741311301867
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., & Kazmi, A. A. (2013). Corporate sus-
tainability performance and firm performance research lit-
erature review and future research agenda. Management De-
cision, 51(2), 361-379. doi:10.1108/00251741311301867
Gualandris, J., Golini, R., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2014). Do sup-
ply management and global sourcing matter for firm sus-
tainability performance?: An international study. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 258-
274. doi:10.1108/SCM-11-2013-0430
Hamprecht, J., Corsten, D., Noll, M., & Meier, E. (2005). Con-
trolling the sustainability of food supply chains. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 7-10.
doi:10.1108/13598540510578315
Hopkins, M. S., Townend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves,
M., & Berns, M. (2009). e business of sustainability:
99ARTICLES |e Influence of Triple Bottom Line n International Operations Management
ISSN: 1984-3046
© JOSCM | São Paulo | V. 10 | n. 2 | July-December 2017 | 85-99
What it means to managers now. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 51(1), 20-26. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.
mit.edu/
Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance:
Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 191(December 2006), 177-191. doi:10.1002/
bse
Khalid, R. U., Seuring, S., Beske, P., Land, A., Yawar, S. A., &
Wagner, R. (2015). Putting sustainable supply chain man-
agement into base of the pyramid research. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 20(6), 681-696. /
doi.org:10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0214
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. Van.
(2005). Sustainable operations management. Production
and Operations Management, 14(4), 482-492.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005). As-
sessing the sustainability performances of industries. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373-385. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2003.10.007
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward
an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of
Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR:
A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding
of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458
Meehan, J., & Bryde, D. (2011). Sustainable procurement prac-
tice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(May 2010),
94-106.
Melville, N. (2010). Information systems innovation for envi-
ronmental sustainability. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 34(1), 1-21.
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom
of “triple bottom line.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2),
243-262.
Ortas, E., Moneva, J. M., & Álvarez, I. (2014). Sustainable sup-
ply chain and company performance. A global examina-
tion. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
19(3), 332-350. doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0444
Paramanathan, S., Farrukh, C., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2004).
Implementing industrial sustainability: e research issues
in technology management. R and D Management, 34(5),
527-537. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00360.x
Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How glob-
al is international CSR research? Insights and recommen-
dations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business,
(May), 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.003
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K. A. I., & Blome, C. (2010). Sustainable
global supplier management: e role of dynamic capabili-
ties in achieving competitive advantage. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 46(2), 45-63.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political concep-
tion of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen
from a habermasian perspective. Academy of Management
Review¸32(4), 1096-1120.
Schneider, L., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2012). Implementing sus-
tainable sourcing: Does purchasing need to change? Jour-
nal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(4), 243-257.
doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2012.03.002
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content analysis
based literature reviews in supply chain management. Sup-
ply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544-
555. doi:10.1108/13598541211258609
Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. O. N. F. (2010). Cor-
porate social responsibility reports: A thematic analysis re-
lated to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 46(1), 19-44.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a meth-
odology for developing evidence-informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14, 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Vasileiou, K., & Morris, J. (2006). e sustainability of the
supply chain for fresh potatoes in Britain. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 11(4), 317-327.
doi:10.1108/13598540610671761
Wagner, M. (2015). e link of environmental and economic
performance: Drivers and limitations of sustainability in-
tegration. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1306-1317.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.051
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-
making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal
of Operations Management, 29(6), 577-590. doi:10.1016/j.
jom.2010.10.001
