1. To obtain the degree awarded by ESADE in
MASTER OF RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
Master of Research in Management Sciences
Master Thesis / Academic Year 2015-2016
Global sustainable supply chains:
The role of configuration and governance
Student
Esteban Koberg
Tutor
Annachiara Longoni, PhD.
(The field in this table should be filled in by the student / participant.)
Barcelona, June 27th, 2016
Tutor Participant

2. 2
Table of contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3
Research background ...................................................................................................................... 7
Sustainability in global supply chains......................................................................................... 7
Supply chain configurations ....................................................................................................... 8
Governance mechanisms .......................................................................................................... 10
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Results........................................................................................................................................... 13
Descriptive analysis .................................................................................................................. 13
Research Question #1. Supply chain configurations ................................................................ 15
Open configuration ................................................................................................................... 18
Closed configuration................................................................................................................. 18
Third party configuration.......................................................................................................... 18
Transitional configuration......................................................................................................... 19
Research Question #2. Configurations and governance mechanisms ...................................... 19
Open configuration ................................................................................................................... 19
Closed configuration................................................................................................................. 20
Third party configuration.......................................................................................................... 20
Transitional configuration......................................................................................................... 20
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 21
Research Question #1. Supply chain configurations ................................................................ 21
Research Question #2. Configurations and governance mechanisms ...................................... 24
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26
References..................................................................................................................................... 29
Annex 1......................................................................................................................................... 34

3. 3
Abstract
Despite recent academic interest in exploring sustainability in multi-tier supply chains,
relatively little is known about the effects that different structural arrangements of supply chain
actors have on overall global supply chain sustainability. We reviewed the literature on global
sustainable supply chain management with the intent of addressing two research questions: i) What
configurations do firms use in order to accomplish sustainability in global supply chains? and ii)
Related to these configurations, what are the governance mechanisms employed in global supply
chains? Configuration refers to the structural arrangement of actors in the supply chain, and
governance refers to the mechanisms through which non-market coordination of a supply chain is
achieved. We considered four types of configuration: open, transitional, closed and third-party.
Extant literature has rarely discussed the effects that different structural arrangements of supply
chain actors have on supply chain sustainability. We found that different configurations are
considered as distance in global supply chains increases. Additionally, we considered two types of
governance mechanisms: hands-on and hands-off to explore the intersection of configuration and
governance. Extant literature in operations management has focused mainly on hands-on
governance mechanisms. We reviewed literature considering both mechanisms and analyzed the
interaction with configurations. We conclude our paper with a proposal of opportunities for future
research.
Introduction
Recent research in sustainable supply chain management supports the existence of a “supply
chain liability effect” by which consumers attribute responsibility for unsustainable supplier
behavior to the lead firm regardless of the number of tiers that exist between the lead firm and the
unsustainable supplier (Hartmann & Moeller, 2014). This was the case in 1996 when Nike was the
focus of intense activism over the presence of child labor in its global supply chain (Nadvi, 2008),
in 2007 when Mattel was forced to recall over $100 million worth of product due to the presence
of lead in paint used by one of its Chinese sub-suppliers and in 2015 when LG and Samsung were
targeted by Amnesty International (2016) over sub-suppliers sourcing cobalt mined by child
laborers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Achieving sustainability in global supply chains is a difficult endeavor in which firms have
achieved varying degrees of success. Part of the complexity comes from the concept of

4. 4
sustainability, frequently defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Brundtland, 1987 p. 8). This
definition has been criticized for being too vague to offer firms guidance (Hart, 1995). A different
way to conceptualize sustainabilityis the Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 1998). The Triple Bottom
Line posits that firms should measure performance along three dimensions: economic,
environmental and social. This definition is more grounded but continues to imply a high level of
complexity for firms, as they must balance performance along three dimensions which often seem
to contradict each other (Norman & MacDonald, 2004). Furthermore, complexity is increased
when organizations attempt to extend sustainability beyond firm boundaries (Wu & Pagell, 2011).
Extending sustainability initiatives through the supply chain requires that lead firms balance the
needs and priorities of multiple different actors. Additionally, global supply chains face challenges
associated with distance. Distance between different supply chain actors may be geographic,
cultural or organizational. Increasing distance along any of these three dimensions has
consequences for the interactions between supply chain actors (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). Thus,
firms attempting to extend sustainable behaviors to their suppliers face several challenges:
managing performance along multiple dimensions and translating performance along these
dimensions beyond organizational boundaries while balancing the competing needs of different
supply chain actors.
In this context, one of the key decisions lead firms make is whether to reach out to lower-
tier suppliers directly. Traditionally, buying firms establish direct contact only with first-tier
suppliers (Carter & Rogers, 2008). However, as the chain liability effect mentioned above
illustrates, managing sustainabilityin global supply chains increasinglyimplies going beyond first-
tier suppliers, especially when considering that there is evidence for sub-suppliers causing the most
serious negative environmental and social outcomes (Plambeck, 2012). Extant research in
sustainable supply chain management, however, has predominantly focused on examining the
buyer-first tier supplier dyad (Tachizawa & Wong, 2014). Relatively little is known about the
effects that different structural arrangements of supply chain actors, such as buyer-supplier-
supplier or buyer-NGO-supplier triads, have on overall global supply chain sustainability. We refer
to the structural arrangement of supply chain actors as supply chain configuration. Recently,
scholars have proposed that lead firms may deploy four distinct configurations: open, transitional,
closed and third-party (Mena, Humphries, & Choi, 2013; Tachizawa & Wong, 2014; Vermeulen,

5. 5
2015). Accordingly, we consider these four configurations in our review of sustainability in global
supply chains.
Besides deploying different configurations, firms also employ various governance
mechanisms to manage relationships with global suppliers in the context of sustainable supply
chain management. IKEA, which has over 1.500 suppliers located in 55 different countries,
manages supplier sustainability through IWAY, a supplier development program established and
managed by IKEA (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009). Nespresso uses “Nespresso AAA
Sustainable Quality Program”, a multi-stakeholder initiative operating in 5 different countries
developed and managed in conjunction with the NGO Rainforest Alliance (Alvarez, Pilbeam, &
Wilding, 2010). Differently, firms including Apple, Pepsi and HP work with Chinese-based NGO
Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) for monitoring the environmental performance
of suppliers located in China. (Lee, Plambeck, & Yatsko, 2012). Other firms rely on third party
certifications, which can be managed by global standards organizations and include certifications
such as ISO14001 and SA8000 or by industry-specific organizations such as the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) or GlobalGAP (Ciliberti, Groot, Haan, & Pontrandolfo, 2009;
Reinecke, Manning, & von Hagen, 2012). Accordingly, we follow Humphrey and Schmitz in
defining governance as “the inter-firm relationships and institutional mechanisms through which
non-market coordination of activities in the supply chain is achieved. A chain without governance
would just be a string of market relations” (2001, p. 5). Regarding specific governance
mechanisms, we follow Gimenez and Sierra (2013) in differentiating between hands-on and hands-
off governance. A hands-on approach to governance assumes that the lead firm chooses to invest
time and resources to increase the performance of suppliers, while a hands-off approach is based
on third-party standards and does not require that the lead firm invest time and resources on
managing its suppliers.
The relevance of both types of governance mechanisms to achieve sustainability along
supply chains has been recognized by operations management, global value chain and
development/bottom of the pyramid scholars. Operations management scholars (e.g. Gimenez &
Sierra, 2013; Rao & Holt, 2005) have focused on hands-on approaches to governance. Differently,
global value chain (e.g Gereffi, Humphrey, & Sturgeon, 2005; Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001) and

6. 6
bottom of the pyramid/development scholars (e.g. Raynolds, Murray, & Taylor, 2004; Turcotte,
Reinecke, & Den Hond, 2014) have focused on hands-off approaches to governance.
Previous reviews of the SSCM literature have mainly focused on hands-on approaches to
governance such as supplier assessment, codes of conduct and supplier training (e.g. Carter &
Rogers, 2008; Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012). Additionally, previous reviews of the SSCM
literature predominantly take a buyer-supplier perspective (e.g. Kleindorfer, Singhal, & Van
Wassenhove, 2005; Seuring & Muller, 2008). More recently Tachizawa and Wong (2014)
extended previous reviews by considering multi-tier supply chains and considering more complex
governance mechanisms. We build on and extend these previous studies by explicitly focusing on
global supply chains and their characteristics. We believe that in such a setting more complex
configurations of multi-tier supply chains and governance mechanisms may be adopted.
Additionally, given the complexity of both triple bottom line outcomes and global supply chains,
we consider the impacts on different sustainability dimensions and at different stages of the supply
chain.
Therefore, the aim of this literature review is to explore the intersection between
sustainability, supply chain configurations and governance mechanisms in the context of global
supply chains. Specifically, we seek to address the following questions:
1. What configurations do firms use in order to accomplish sustainability in global supply
chains?
2. Related to these configurations, what are the governance mechanisms employed in global
supply chains?
This study provides three main contributions: First, we focus on global supply chains,
attempting to determine which configurations and governance mechanisms are adopted to affect
outcomes in different sustainability dimensions and in different stages of the supply chain. The
global dimension is relevant because increased distance between buyers and suppliers has been
associated with increased presence of socially responsible behaviors by suppliers (Awaysheh &
Klassen, 2010). Secondly, in line with the focus on global supply chains, a complex set of
governance mechanisms is considered including both hands-on and hands-off approaches –as
mentioned above, this latter governance mechanism has mainly been considered by global value
chains and development/bottom of the pyramid scholars. Finally, this study investigates possible

7. 7
combinations of configurations and governance mechanisms. To the best of our knowledge, the
explicit combination of these two constructs has not been considered by prior research.
This paper is structured as follows. The first section contains the research background, where
the key constructs of global supply chain sustainability, configurations and governance
mechanisms are reviewed. In the next section the methods are described. After this, the results of
the literature review are presented and interpreted in the context of global supply chains. The paper
ends with a discussion of limitations and avenues for future research.
Research background
Sustainability in global supply chains
As a sub-field of management studies, supply chain management has not been immune to
the overall push for sustainability that civil society increasingly demands of business (Linton,
Klassen, & Jayaraman, 2007; Seuring & Muller, 2008). Sustainable supply chain management is
the area of supply chain management that seeks to address sustainability concerns by incorporating
social and environmental goals in addition to the traditional economic goals (Kleindorfer et al.,
2005). Therefore, sustainable supply chain management can be defined as the management of
material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies in the supply
chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development (economic,
environmental and social) into account which are derived from customer and stakeholder
requirements (Seuring & Muller, 2008).
In this context, global supply chains represent a central setting to study sustainability
deployment. Global supply chains are characterized by considering multiple countries for selecting
suppliers and locating production facilities (Vidal & Goetschalckx, 1997). Suppliers are usually
located in developing economies, where labor and environmental laws are lax and enforcement is
dubious. In these cases, there is a considerable power asymmetry between suppliers -located in
developing economies- and buyers -firms that operate on a global scale and are located in
developed economies (Gereffi, Humphrey, & Sturgeon, 2005). Furthermore, it has been suggested
that sub-suppliers, usually located in developing economies, are responsible for a majority of
serious negative environmental and social outcomes (Plambeck, 2012). Availability of resources
has been identified as an enabler of sustainable supply chain management (Gimenez & Tachizawa,

8. 8
2012) and in global supply chains, sub-suppliers are less likely to have the resources required for
addressing sustainability concerns beyond the economic dimension.
Global supply chains are also characterized by greater distance between supply chain actors
(e.g. between buyers and suppliers). Distance has also been shown to affect supply chain
sustainability (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010; Busse, Schleper, Niu, & Wagner, 2016; Grimm,
Hofstetter, & Sarkis, 2014). We follow Klassen and Awaysheh (2010) in considering distance
along the geographical, organizational and cultural dimensions. As geographical distance
increases, it is likely that interaction between the lead firm and its suppliers become less frequent.
Less frequent interactions may imply that managing supplier sustainability performance becomes
more complex, and lead firms tend to rely more on hands-off governance mechanisms for
managing supplier sustainability. Organizational distance refers to the number of tiers that exist
between the lead firm and the focal supplier. As the number of tiers increases, interaction becomes
more complex, given the increased amount of relations that need to be managed. Cultural distance
refers to the difference that exists between the culture of the lead firm home country and the
supplier’s home country. Sustainability expectations are frequently framed by the cultural context
in which firms are located (Manning, Boons, von Hagen, & Reinecke, 2012), and as cultural
distance increases sustainability expectations are more likely to diverge. Consequently, as cultural
distance increases, managing sustainability becomes more complex. In the following sections we
review the literature on the two constructs characterizing global supply chains and that inform our
review: configurations and governance mechanisms.
Supply chain configurations
One of the key decisions lead firms make when managing global supply chain sustainability
is whether to establish direct contact with actors beyond first-tier suppliers. Choosing to establish
direct contact with other actors, such as sub-suppliers or NGOs, entails different a supply chain
configuration. Consequently, configurations differ depending on the actors with whom the lead
firm establishes direct relationships. There is support for the idea that supply chain configuration
affects outcomes at the supply chain level. In a study considering 452 firms from 21 different
countries, Caniato, Golini and Kalchschmidt (2013) found that supply chain configuration affects
performance. Parmigiani, Klassen and Russo (2011) proposed that supply chain configuration
affects the development of social and environmental capabilities for focal firms. For the purposes

9. 9
of this study, supply chain configuration refers to the structural arrangement of global supply chain
actors.
Much of the research into the configuration of supply chains has focused on analyzing buyer-
supplier or supplier-supplier dyads (Choi & Wu, 2009; Rossetti & Choi, 2005). This approach has
the benefits of reducing complexity, which in turn has offered researchers the possibility of
generating propositions regarding the nature of the relationship between two firms. The drawback
to this approach is that studying dyads does not allow for considering the impact that a third party,
such as a second supplier, may have on the nature of the dyadic (e.g. buyer-supplier) relationship.
Recognizing this limitation, scholars have recently begun to use the triad as the unit of analysis
when investigating the configuration of supply chains (Choi & Wu, 2009; Li & Choi, 2009;
Tsinopoulos & Mena, 2015; Wu, Choi, & Rungtusanatham, 2010). According to Wu and Choi,
the triad is “the fundamental building block of a network” (2009, p. 10). Research into triads has
analyzed buyer-supplier-supplier relationships (Bastl, Johnson, & Choi, 2013; Choi & Wu, 2009)
as well as buyer-supplier-third party relationships (Tachizawa & Wong, 2014). Global supply
chains, composed of multiple tiers of actors located in different countries are an ideal context for
conducting research into sustainable multi-tier supply chains.
Mena et al (2013) proposed three theoretical configurations for multi-tier supply chains. The
first configuration, termed “open”, represents the traditional supply chain. In this configuration,
the buyer has no direct contact with sub-suppliers. The second configuration is termed “closed”.
In this type of configuration, the buyer has formal links and direct contact with sub-suppliers. This
configuration implies that the buyer has regular contact with its sub-suppliers and is able to manage
the relationship through formal or informal means. The third configuration is termed “transitional”,
and is located in between the open and closed configurations. In a transitional configuration, the
link between the buyer and sub-supplier is in the process of being formed. In addition to the three
configurations proposed by Mena et al. (2013), Tachizawa and Wong (2014) propose the existence
of a “third-party approach”. When taking this approach, the buying firm collaborates or delegates
some degree of responsibility for sub-supplier management to other organizations such as NGOs
or standards institutions. The existence of this approach is supported by Vermeulen (2015), who
argues that lead firms increasingly collaborate with third parties in both creating and participating
in private standards. Therefore, we follow Tachizawa and Wong (2014) and consider that this

10. 10
represents a unique configuration, where new actors, such as NGOs, must be considered in the
configuration structure of the supply chain. Each configuration is represented graphically in Figure
1.
Figure 1: Supply chain configurations.
Governance mechanisms
Besides multiple configurations, lead firms may also employ different governance
mechanisms when managing global supply chain sustainability. The impact of governance
mechanisms on supply chain sustainability has been studied by both operations management
scholars (e.g. Gimenez & Sierra, 2013; Vermeulen & Seuring, 2009), global value chain scholars
(e.g. Gereffi et al., 2005; Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001) and bottom of the pyramid/development
scholars (e.g Minten, Randrianarison, & Swinnen, 2009; Raynolds et al., 2004). We take the global
value chain1
perspective that has focused on the role of authority and power in supply chain
governance (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001). A key feature of this approach to governance
mechanisms is that governance is a characteristic of the lead firm: it is the lead firm that dictates
how the supply chain is governed. Because we are concerned with global supply chains
characterized by power asymmetries, this perspective is relevant for this review. Consequently,
1 Global value chains are very similar to global supply chains. The difference lies in the elements on which scholars
have focused their attention. Supply chain management scholars are preoccupied with the flow of materials, capital
and information through the supply chain. Value chain scholars are focused on the flow of value through the supply
chain, and the ways different actors in the chain appropriate value.

11. 11
we follow global value chain scholars to define global supply chain governance as “the inter-firm
relationships and institutional mechanisms through which non-market coordination of activities in
the supply chain is achieved. A chain without governance would just be a string of market
relations” (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001, p. 5).
Additionally, we follow Giménez and Sierra (2013) in differentiating specific mechanisms
associated to supply chain governance. Hands-on governance mechanisms require that the lead
firm invest time and resources on managing its relationships with suppliers. One example of this
type of governance mechanism is Nestlé India’s supplier development program. Through this
program, Nestlé trains suppliers, provides technical assistance on safety and quality issues, and
supports suppliers’ management systems and products. Conversely, hands-off governance is based
on third-party standards and does not require that the lead firm invest time and resources on
managing its suppliers. Firms that rely on third party standards and certifications such as Fair
Trade, Forest Stewardship Council or GlobalGAP to select and manage their supply base are
employing hands-off approaches. Table 1 provides examples of both approaches to supply chain
governance.
Hands-on Paper Hands-off Paper
Supplier development
programs.
Andersen & Skjoett-
Larsen, 2009; Alvarez et
al., 2010
Voluntary management
standards (e.g. ISO14001,
SA8000).
Gonzalez, Sarkis, &
Adenso-Diaz, 2008;
Castka & Balzarova,
2008
Voluntary codes of
conduct.
Awaysheh & Klassen,
2010; Mamic, 2005
Third-party industry-
specific certifications (e.g.
FSC).
Raynolds et al., 2004;
Manning, Boons, von
Hagen, & Reinecke, 2012
Private firm standards
(e.g. Starbucks CAFÉ
program).
Macdonald, 2007a;
Burch, Dixon, &
Lawrence, 2013
Third-party multi-industry
certifications (e.g. ETI,
FLA).
Mueller, dos Santos, &
Seuring, 2009; Maertens
& Swinnen, 2009
Multi-stake holder
initiatives (e.g.
Roundtable for
Sustainable Palm Oil).
Von Geibler, 2013
Supplier selection,
assessment and
monitoring.
Tate, Ellram, & Kirchoff,
2010; Wolf, 2011

12. 12
Table 1: Examples of governance mechanisms for managing supply chain sustainability.
Method
This section describes the process of searching for and selecting papers that are included as
part of this literature review. Following Webster and Watson (2002), the review process was
concept-centric instead of journal or author-centric. In line with our research questions, our search
was constrained to articles that consider global supply chains. The first phase of the review process
was to identify the search engines and key words that inform the search for articles. The search
was performed on multiple databases including: Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect, JSTOR
Archival Journals, PLos, Proquest, ScienceDirect, Emerald Journals (Emerald Group Publishing),
Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Business Source Premier, Dialnet Plus, Science Citation
Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and Google Scholar. The search strings used for conducting
the search for articles included the following keywords:
1. Keywords related to “global supply chain”, “global value chain”.
2. Keywords related to “sustainable supply chain”, “supply chain sustainability”, “green
supply chain”.
3. Keywords related to “supply chain governance”, “supply chain configuration”.
Besides individual searches, combining these key words into a Boolean search string yielded
a result of 1.789 articles published in peer reviewed journals. The resulting articles were then
filtered according to publication date and journal in which they had been published. Specifically,
only journal articles meeting the following criteria were considered for further review:
1. Impact factor (as reported by ISI in 2014) greater than 1.
2. ABS ranking greater than 2.
3. Publication date after 20002
.
The next step in the process was to review the abstracts of the subset of articles. The search
was further constrained such that only articles with a management focus which addressed either
supply chain sustainability, supply chain configurations and/or supply chain governance
mechanisms in the context of global supply chains were considered relevant for further review.
2 The cut-off date was established based on the publication dates of seminal articles on supply chain configuration
(Choi & Hong, 2002) and global supply chain governance (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001).

13. 13
This first subset of articles was reviewed in depth by the author. The next step of the process was
to work backwards, using citations from the articles identified as relevant in step 1 to determine
additional papers for review. All articles identified as relevant in this stage were obtained, and
again filtered using the abstract. Criteria for filtering was the same as in step 1. The last step of the
process was to work forwards using the Google Scholar database to identify articles that cite key
articles identified in steps 1 and 2. The resulting article subset was again reviewed for relevance
according to the criteria established above. In total, 90 articles were considered in the final dataset.
During a subsequent discussion with expert sustainable supply chain scholars, 21 articles were
excluded from the analysis phase because they considered only the economic dimension of
sustainability.
Therefore, the final article set is composed of 69 articles which deal with sustainability in
global supply chains. Each of these 69 articles was then analyzed and coded both in terms of
research design and research content, as well as other the relevant aspects considered in this
research. Figure 2 provides a summary of the search and analysis process.
Figure 2: Article search and analysis process.
Results
Descriptive analysis
The 69 papers were analyzed according to multiple categories. The first categorization is
by publication date. All articles were published between 2001 and 2016, with 51% of the articles
published after 2010. The trend in publication dates is consistent with previous reviews that have
noted increasing interest in sustainable supply chain management (Seuring & Muller, 2008). The
second categorization is by research design, where 27 articles (39%) employ qualitative methods,
20 articles (29%) are conceptual and 13 articles are quantitative (19%). Additionally, 8 articles
(12%) are literature reviews and 1 article is a meta-analysis. Table 2 summarizes the results in
Step 1
• Use keywords to search for
relevant articles in journalsthat
meet the criterion.
• Filter the articles using
abstracts: do they fit the research
questions?
• Review of completepaper.
Step 2
• Work backwards using citations
from the articles identified as
relevant in stage 1 to determine
additional articles for review.
• Filter articles by abstracts: do
they fit the research questions?
• Review of completepaper.
Step 3
• Work forwards using databases
such as Web of Science and
Google Scholarto identify
articles that cite key articles
identified in steps 1 and 2.
• Filter articles by abstracts: do
they provide new information?
• Review of completepaper.

14. 14
terms of research design. The prevalence of qualitative work is consistent with a young field which
is still in the intermediate stage of development (Eisenhardt, 1989; Linton et al., 2007).
RESEARCH DESIGN # OF ARTICLES % OF TOTAL
Conceptual 20 29%
Literature review 8 12%
Meta-analysis 1 1%
Qualitative 27 39%
Quantitative 13 19%
TOTAL 69 100%
Table 2: Research design.
Articles are distributed across journals focused specifically on the field of operations
management and journals with a broader management focus. The main journals from which
articles were selected for the review are presented in Table 3.
JOURNAL # OF ARTICLES % OF TOTAL
Journal of Business Ethics 8 12%
Journal of Supply Chain Management 6 9%
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 6 9%
Journal of Operations Management 5 7%
Journal of Cleaner Production 4 6%
Business Strategy and the Environment 3 4%
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 3 4%
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management
2 3%
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management
2 3%
Journal of Business Logistics 2 3%
Production and Operations Management 2 3%
World Development 2 3%
Table 3: Main journals that inform the review.
Articles were also categorized by sustainability dimension studied. The results are
summarized in Table 4 below. The environmental dimension was the focus of 12% of articles and
16% of articles were focused on the social dimension. The majority of articles (48%) reviewed
considered all three dimensions of sustainability. A number of articles also considered

15. 15
combinations such as economic and environmental (9%), environmental and social (13%) and
economic and social (9%).
SUSTAINABILITY DIMENSION # OF ARTICLES % OF TOTAL
Environmental 8 12%
Social 11 16%
Economic and environmental 6 9%
Economic and social 2 3%
Environmental and social 9 13%
Triple bottom line3 33 48%
TOTAL 69 100%
Table 4: Sustainability dimension.
A final descriptive categorization was performed according to the unit of analysis,
described in Table 5 below. The supply chain was the most prevalent unit of analysis (43%),
followed by the buyer (35%). The supplier was the least frequent unit of analysis (19%). A
minority of articles (3%) considered different units of analysis; namely Mares’ (2010) review of
CSR instruments focused on each specific instrument and Lee et al. (2012) where the unit of
analysis was an NGO.
UNIT OF ANALYSIS # OF ARTICLES % OF TOTAL
Buyer 24 35%
Supplier 13 19%
Supply chain 30 43%
Other 2 3%
TOTAL 69 100%
Table 5: Unit of analysis.
Research Question #1. Supply chain configurations
To answer to our first research question related to understanding which configurations are
deployed to achieve sustainability in global supply chains, all articles were classified according to
the four supply chain configurations described in the research context and presented above in
Figure 1. Then, we analyzed if there was any difference in terms of configurations investigated by
the literature in terms of i) geographic, organizational and cultural distance, ii) sustainability
dimensions (i.e., environmental sustainability, social sustainability and triple bottom line) and iii)
3 Considers the economic, social and environmental dimensions.

16. 16
in terms of unit of analysis (i.e., buyer perspective, supplier perspective and supply chain
perspective).
The most prevalent configuration in the analyzed papers is the open configuration, which
appears 46 times across the 69 articles, followed by the third-party configuration, which appears
22 times. The closed configuration appears 11 times across the reviewed literature, while the
transitional configuration appears twice. The total number of configuration mentions (81) is greater
than the number of articles reviewed (69) because several articles consider more than one type of
configuration. For example, Matos & Hall’s (2007) study of life cycle assessment within global
supply chains considers two cases; one case presents a closed configuration and the other case
presents a third-party configuration. Another article that considers multiple configurations is
MacCarthy and Jayarathne’s analysis of the global supply networks of a major retailer and a
supermarket (2012). The retailer’s supply chain presents a closed configuration and the
supermarket’s supply chain presents an open configuration.
To determine if the literature presents any trends regarding the types of configurations
considered, we analyzed the distribution of configurations identified over time. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 6 below. We found that the open configuration has been
consistently considered throughout the reviewed period. Interestingly, we also found that mentions
of the closed configuration, which considers buyer – supplier – sub-supplier triads, are trending
upward, with 73% of mentions occurring in articles published after 2010. This is consistent with
Mena, Humphries and Choi’s finding that previous supply chain literature had mainly considered
“constructs grounded in a dyadic logic” (2013, p. 59) and that research considering triads and
broader network structures presents an opportunity for advancing the field. Regarding the third
party configuration, which considers buyer – third-party – supplier triads, we found that mentions
grow steadily between 2004 and 2010, and drop slightly after this period. Taken together, these
results indicate that literature increasingly considers more complex configurations deployed in
global supply chains to achieve sustainability.
YEAR OPEN CLOSED THIRD-PARTY TRANSITION TOTAL
2001 1 1 0 0 2
2002 0 0 0 0 0
2003 1 1 0 0 2
2004 0 0 1 0 1

17. 17
2005 4 0 0 0 4
2006 0 0 0 0 0
2007 1 1 2 0 4
2008 5 0 3 0 8
2009 5 0 5 1 11
2010 1 1 5 0 7
2011 5 1 0 0 6
2012 8 2 3 0 13
2013 6 2 1 1 10
2014 7 2 2 0 11
2015 1 0 0 0 1
2016 1 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 46 11 22 2 81
Table 6: Configurations over time.
We then analyzed the frequency with which literature has considered combinations of
configurations and i) distance, ii) sustainability dimensions and iii) sustainability scope. Following
Awaysheh and Klassen (2010), we considered geographic, organizational and cultural measures
of distance. In terms of sustainability dimension, we considered the social, environmental and
triple bottom line dimensions. Finally, we used the unit of analysis (i.e. buyer, supplier or supply
chain) to identify the scope of sustainability. Table 7 contains the combinations most frequently
considered by the reviewed literature4
.
4 Annex 1 provides tables with the distribution of papers across each dimension of analysis (configurations and
distance, configurations and sustainability dimension and configurations and sustainability scope).

18. 18
OPEN CLOSED THIRD-PARTY TRANSITIONAL
Geographic distancea Low High High Low
Organizational distanceb Low Low High Low
Cultural distancec Low High High Low
Sustainability dimension Triple bottom line Triple bottom line Triple bottom line Triple bottom line
Sustainability scope Supply chain Supply chain Supply chain Supply chain
a
Geographic distance refers to spatial distance between supply actors. Low distance means that actors are located on
the same continent. High distance means that actors are located on different continents.
b Organizational distance refers to the number of tiers that separate supply chain actors. Low distance means that actors
are separated by two or less tiers. High distance means that actors are separated by more than two tiers.
c Cultural distance refers to the differences that exist between the cultures of the supply chain actors’ home countries.
Following West & Graham (2004) we used native language as a proxy for cultural distance. Low cultural distance
means that supply chain actors are located in countries that share the same language. High distance means that supply
chain actors are located in countries with different languages.
Table 7: Configurations and distance, sustainability dimensions and sustainability scope.
Open configuration
The open configuration is considered most frequently in cases where geographical,
organizational and cultural distance are low. In terms of sustainability dimensions, the literature
has investigated the open configuration in relation to the social and environmental dimensions of
sustainability separately and most frequently relation to triple bottom line outcomes. Finally, in
terms of sustainability scope, the open configuration is considered frequently in relation to the
supply chain sustainability performance, and less frequently in relation to buyer and supplier
sustainability performance.
Closed configuration
The closed configuration is considered most frequently in cases where geographic and
cultural distance are high and organizational distance is low. In terms of sustainability dimensions,
the closed configuration has been considered most frequently in relation to triple bottom line
outcomes. In terms of sustainability scope, closed configurations have been considered most often
in relation to supply chain sustainability performance. A minority of articles considers closed
configurations in relation to buyer sustainability performance, and no articles consider closed
configurations in relation to supplier sustainability performance.
Third party configuration
The third party configuration is considered most frequently where geographic,
organizational and cultural distance are high. In terms of sustainability dimensions, the third party
configuration is considered in relation to social or environmental performance separately and more
often in relation to triple bottom line outcomes. In terms of sustainability scope, third party

19. 19
configurations have been considered most frequently in relation to supply chain sustainability
performance and in relation to buyer and supplier sustainability performance less frequently.
Transitional configuration
The transitional configuration was considered in only two of the reviewed articles. In both
cases, all three measures of distance were low. In terms of sustainability dimensions, one of the
articles considered the triple bottom line and one of the articles considered a combination of the
economic and environmental dimension. In terms of sustainability scope, both articles considered
the supply chain.
Research Question #2. Configurations and governance mechanisms
Our second research question addresses the combination of configurations and governance
mechanisms. We considered two types of governance mechanisms: hands-on governance, which
requires that the lead firm invest time and resources on managing its relationships with suppliers
and hands-off governance, which is based on third-party standards and certifications and does not
require that the lead firm invest time and resources on managing its suppliers.
The majority of articles reviewed considered a combination of hands-on and hands-off
governance (34), followed by articles that considered only hands-on mechanisms (31) and articles
that considered only hands-off mechanisms (16). Because our interest lies in understanding what
combinations of configurations and governance mechanisms have been considered in the
literature, we analyzed both configurations and governance mechanisms jointly. Table 8
summarizes our results.
OPEN CLOSED THIRD PARTY TRANSITIONAL TOTAL
Hands-on 19 8 2 2 31
Hands-off 3 0 13 0 16
Both mechanisms 24 3 7 0 34
TOTAL 46 11 22 2 81
Table 8: Configurations and governance mechanisms.
Open configuration
When an open configuration is considered, the associated governance mechanisms are
most frequently a combination of hands-on and hands-off mechanisms. When both hands-on and
hands-off mechanisms are considered, the literature suggests that supplier development
(Brockhaus, Kersten, & Knemeyer, 2013; MacCarthy & Jayarathne, 2012; Minten et al., 2009;

20. 20
Yawar & Seuring, 2015) and private standards (Burch et al., 2013) are the prevalent hands-on
mechanisms employed by lead firms to manage chain sustainability. With less frequency, literature
has also considered open configurations in combination with only hands-on governance
mechanisms. When the focus is exclusively on hands-on governance mechanisms, the literature
suggests that codes of conduct are the prevalent instrument employed by lead firms for managing
sustainability (Mamic, 2005; Turker & Altuntas, 2014). A minority of the articles reviewed
consider only hands-off governance mechanisms in relation to open configurations.
Closed configuration
Moving to the articles that consider closed configurations, we find that hands-on
governance mechanisms are the most prevalent. In these articles, supplier development is the
prevailing mechanism for managing sustainability. This result is consistent with findings by
Tachizawa and Wong’s review of multi-tier supply chains (2014), which also finds that providing
assistance and training to suppliers is a feature of lead firms who establish direct contact with
suppliers beyond the first tier. No articles consider the closed configuration in combination with
hands-off governance mechanisms.
Third party configuration
Differently, hands-off governance mechanisms are most prevalent in articles that consider
third-party configurations. This result is expected, given that the rationale for lead firms to deploy
third-party configurations is to delegate supplier sustainability management responsibilities to
third-parties (Tachizawa & Wong, 2014). The third parties present in our review are NGOs such
as the Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade and IPE (Lee et al., 2012; Macdonald, 2007b; Vermeulen,
2015).
Transitional configuration
The transitional configuration is present in two articles. In both cases, the associated
governance mechanisms are hands-on. The presence of hands-on governance mechanisms implies
that the lead firms considered by these articles have chosen to invest time and resources in
managing their supplier’s sustainability performance. This is consistent with the notion that the
transitional configuration is an intermediate configuration deployed by lead firms that are seeking
to consolidate direct contact with sub-suppliers (Mena et al., 2013).
Table 9 presents a summary of the most prevalent configurations and the associated
sustainability dimensions, sustainability scope and governance mechanisms.

21. 21
OPEN CLOSED THIRD PARTY
Distance Lowa Highb Highc
Sustainability dimension Triple bottom line Triple bottom line Triple bottom line
Sustainability scope Supply chain Supply chain Supply chain
Governance mechanisms Combination Hands-on Hands-off
a Geographic distance = low; organizational distance = low; cultural distance = low.
b Geographic distance = high; organizational distance = low; cultural distance = high.
c Geographic distance = high; organizational distance = high; cultural distance = high.
Table 9: Configurations, distance, dimensions, scope and governance mechanisms.
Discussion
The aim of this literature review was to explore the intersection between sustainability,
supply chain configurations and governance mechanisms in the context of global supply chains.
Specifically, we sought to address two research questions:
1. What configurations do firms use in order to accomplish sustainability in global supply
chains?
2. Related to these configurations, what are the governance mechanisms employed in
global supply chains?
In this section we discuss the results of our literature review through the lens of global
supply chains.
Research Question #1. Supply chain configurations
Based on our review of the literature on global supply chains and sustainability, we show
that open, third-party, closed and transitional configurations have been considered more frequently
in relation to triple bottom line outcomes rather than in relation to specific environmental or social
sustainability performance. Specifically, we found that the most prevalent configuration is the
open configuration. The prevalence of open configurations is consistent with Mena et al.’s (2013)
proposal that deploying open configurations requires fewer management resources. Interestingly,
several articles where the open configuration is deployed consider a single dimension of
sustainability (economic or social) in combination with the economic dimension (Darnall, Jolley,
& Handfield, 2008; Golicic & Smith, 2013; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Rao & Holt, 2005). These articles
are focused on addressing the “does it pay to be green/social?” question, which lends further
support to our interpretation that open configurations and resource availability are associated. The
third-party configuration and the closed configuration are considered less frequently. The presence
of closed and third party configurations in cases where all dimensions of sustainability are

22. 22
managed is consistent with the “collaboration paradigm”, which posits that achieving competitive
advantage at the supply chain level requires strategic collaboration. Managing triple bottom line
goals requires even closer interaction between all actors involved, given the increased number of
dimensions of performance criteria (Gold, Seuring, & Beske, 2010). Additionally, we show that
there is a trend in the literature towards considering more complex configurations, as evidenced
by the increase in recent articles that consider closed configurations. This trend is consistent with
the increasing interest in exploring sustainability in multi-tier supply chains (Hartmann & Moeller,
2014; Tachizawa & Wong, 2014). Finally, the transitional configuration was considered by a
minority of articles. Therefore, we formulate the following proposition:
P1. In global supply chains lead firms deploy open, closed or third party configurations to
achieve triple bottom line outcomes.
Extending previous results, we show that a key aspect of global supply chains influencing
structural and configurational decisions in sustainability management is the distance between
actors. Our results build on and extend Tachizawa and Wong’s (2014) work at the global supply
chain level by showing that increased distance is associated with the likelihood of firms adopting
more complex approaches towards managing supplier sustainability. The reviewed literature
suggests that as geographic, organizational and cultural distance increase, lead firms deploy more
complex configurations (i.e. third-party and closed configurations) to manage sustainability
outcomes at the supply chain level. Busse et al. (2016) argue that effective joint communication
activities and cross-contextual understanding are a remedies for the challenges posed by increased
geographic and cultural distance. Closed configurations require that lead firms establish direct
contact with sub-suppliers. By establishing direct contact with sub-suppliers is likely that lead
firms deploying closed configurations enhance communication activities. Alternatively, deploying
third party configurations may foster cross-contextual understanding between the lead firm and
sub-suppliers by involving a third party that is familiar with the supplier’s contextual conditions.
Nespresso’s alliance with Central American branches of The Rainforest Alliance, for example,
aided the diffusion of sustainability initiatives to suppliers located in Central America (Alvarez et
al., 2010). Consistent with these interpretations, our results suggest that lead firms deploy more
complex configurations as a means of overcoming the challenges posed by increased geographic
and cultural distance. Therefore, we formulate the following proposition:

23. 23
P2. In global supply chains characterized by greater distance between actors, lead firms
more often deploy closed and third party configurations to manage supplier and sub-supplier
sustainability.
In terms of sustainability scope, the literature most frequently considers open, closed and
third party configurations in relation to outcomes at the supply chain level. The prevalence of open
configurations in relation to supply chain sustainability may indicate that lead firms leverage first-
tier suppliers in order to diffuse sustainability initiatives to sub-suppliers. This interpretation
supports the “double-agency” role of the first-tier suppliers, which posits that “first-tier suppliers
act as a bridge between lead firms and sub-suppliers in disseminating sustainabilitystandards along
multi-tier supply chains” (Wilhelm, Blome, Bhakoo, & Paulraj, 2016, p. 42).
Articles that consider a closed configuration when assessing sustainability at the supply
chain level are focused mainly on exploring how lead firms extend sustainability beyond tier-one
suppliers. Alvarez et al’s. (2010) study of Nespresso’s AAA Coffee sustainability initiative tracks
the evolution of the firm’s multi-stakeholder initiative and finds that inclusion of lower tier
suppliers was key to program success. This finding is echoed by Gold, Hahn and Seuring (Gold,
Hahn, & Seuring, 2013) in their study of lead firm implementation of sustainability initiatives in
bottom of the pyramid locations, where local actors and suppliers are also found to be key for
initiatives to succeed.
In a similar vein but considering a third party configuration, Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi
(2010) find that local collective institutions such as industry associations play an important role in
chain responses to sustainability pressures. Gereffi and Lee (2014) also find that the interaction of
lead firms with local actors is an important determinant in the success of sustainability initiatives.
The importance of local actors is consistent with Tachizawa and Wong (2014), who proposed that
firms employ third party approaches when distance is high and resource availability at the lead
firm is low. High distance implies high information asymmetry (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010;
Busse et al., 2016) and high search costs. The lead firm will therefore be in a better position to
manage all dimensions of supplier sustainability when successfully partnering with a local third
party. The presence of a local third partywill reduce the effects of increased distance, thus reducing
information asymmetry and the associated search costs.

24. 24
The transitional configuration was present in only two of the reviewed articles. This is
consistent with Mena et al. (2013), who suggest that in the context of sustainability, the transitional
configuration is an intermediate step between open and closed configurations. Thus, the
transitional configuration appears to be a transitory configuration. Lead firms that deploy
transitional configurations to manage supplier sustainability are likely to be attempting to establish
direct links to n-tier suppliers with the intent of influencing the environmental or social outcomes
of these n-tier suppliers. Therefore, the transitional configuration is likely to be deployed for short
periods of time because buyer will either i) succeed in establishing direct links with sub-suppliers
and create a closed configuration, or ii) fail in establishing direct links with sub-suppliers and
revert to an open configuration. Based on the analysis of configurations and sustainability scope
presented above, we formulate the following proposition:
P3. In global supply chains lead firms deploy open, closed or third party configurations to
manage sustainability at the supply chain level.
Research Question #2. Configurations and governance mechanisms
In order to address our second research question, we considered the intersection of
configurations and governance mechanisms used to manage sustainability in global supply chains.
In this section we discuss the most prevalent combinations of configurations and governance
mechanisms present in our review.
The reviewed literature suggests that lead firms most frequently deploy open
configurations to manage triple bottom line sustainability using a combination of hands-on and
hands-off governance mechanisms. Open configurations require less resources to manage that
closed configurations (Mena, Humphries, & Choi, 2007), and resource availability has been
identified as an enabler of sustainability (Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012). Therefore, firms that
deploy open configurations and manage all dimensions of sustainability may be engaging in a
trade-off: investing available resources in managing multiple dimensions of sustainability but
refraining from reaching out to sub-suppliers, which would increase the required resources
substantially.
Regarding more complex configurations, the results of our literature review suggest that
some lead firms deploy a combination of closed configurations and hands-on governance
mechanisms for managing all dimensions of sustainability. The use of hands-on governance

25. 25
mechanisms requires that these firms be willing and able to invest time and resources to manage
sustainability dimensions. Consistent with Tachizawa and Wong (2014), we suggest that closed
configurations combined with hands-on governance mechanisms may offset the negative effects
of increased distance. We also note that deploying this combination likely requires greater lead
firm resource availability. Consequently, lead firms must have both the resources and the
capabilities required to implement sustainability initiatives independently. This interpretation is
consistent with Simpson et al., who propose that third-party standards and certifications may fail
when firms “over-fit” standard requirements (2012, p. 89). When this is the case, the third-party
configuration ceases to be attractive for the lead firm, which may proceed independently; hence
the presence of closed configurations and hands-on governance mechanisms. Furthermore, we find
this combination most often in articles where the extent of sustainability initiatives is the supply
chain, which implies that these lead firms have moved beyond considering sustainability outcomes
of the buyer-supplier dyad. It is also worth noting that the closed configuration combined with
hands-on governance is considered most frequently in articles that consider all dimensions of
sustainability. This lends support to the notion that these articles feature lead firms that are leaders
in sustainability, as they are engaging in initiatives that address all three aspects of the triple bottom
line.
Differently, lead firms may deploy a combination of third-party and hands-off governance
mechanisms for managing all dimensions of supply chain sustainability. The lead firms considered
by articles in which this combination is present may not be as committed to sustainability as the
lead firms that deploy closed configurations or take hands-on approaches. Alternatively, these lead
firms could also lack the necessary resources to establish contact beyond tier-one suppliers. In that
sense, these lead firms could be followers, managing all sustainability dimensions but not willing
or able not invest time or resources to do so beyond tier-one suppliers, or lacking the capabilities
to do so. For management of supply chain sustainability, these firms prefer to delegate that
responsibility to a third party. This interpretation is also consistent with Simpson et al. (2012),
where these firms may be those whose capacities are well aligned with third-party standard
requirements.
Based on the results of our analysis of configurations and governance mechanisms, we
formulate the following propositions:

26. 26
P4. In global supply chains different combinations of configurations and hands-on and
hands-off governance mechanisms are used for achieving triple bottom line outcomes at the supply
chain level.
P4a. In global supply chains both hands-on and hands-off governance mechanisms are
used in combination with open configurations for achieving triple bottom line outcomes at the
supply chain level.
P4b. In global supply chains hands-on governance mechanisms are used in combination
with closed configurations for achieving triple bottom line outcomes at the supply chain level.
P4c. In global supply chains hands-off governance mechanisms are used in combination
with third party configurations for achieving triple bottom line outcomes at the supply chain level.
Conclusion
Given the variety of combinations of configurations and governance mechanisms available
to lead firms when addressing sustainability concerns in their global supply chains, this review of
the literature focused on exploring the role of each of these constructs. We considered global
supply chains characterized by geographic, organizational and cultural distance between supply
chain actors, and found that greater geographic, organizational and cultural distance is associated
with more complex configurations. We found that open, closed and third party configurations are
used to manage triple bottom line outcomes at the supply chain level. Differently, the transitional
configuration is temporarily deployed by lead firms as a middle step between open and closed
configurations. We also explored the intersection of configurations and governance mechanisms.
We found that different governance mechanisms are used in combination with open, closed and
third party configurations. Additionally, we developed a set of propositions which help explain the
relationship between configuration, distance, sustainability achievement, sustainability scope and
governance mechanisms.
Our review yields several implications for managers. Lead firms seeking to manage the
triple bottom line sustainability of their global supply chain may adopt open, closed or third-party
configurations. As geographic, organizational and cultural distance with suppliers increases
managers may need to deploy more complex configurations, such as the closed or third party
configuration, for managing sustainability at the supply chain level. Furthermore, our review

27. 27
highlights the importance of combining configurations and hands-on and hands-off governance
mechanisms. Lead firms can actively engage local actors and share the costs of implementing
sustainabilityinitiatives in order to gain buy-in from suppliers. A caution for managers considering
this course of action is that the success of hands-on initiatives seems to require a long-term
orientation, supported by high degrees of trust. A long-term orientation is frequently at odds with
economic pressures for cost reductions and efficiency. Therefore, successfully deploying closed
configurations requires top management support as well as adequate resource availability.
Furthermore, managers may consider that partnering with third parties such as NGOs lends
legitimacy to privately developed sustainability initiatives.
We propose a number of research avenues as a result of our review. First and foremost,
future empirical research can test the validity of our research propositions. Additionally, we
considered that lead firms deploy a single configuration to manage the supply chain for all
products. However, it is likely that lead firms deploy different configurations throughout their
supply chains to manage different products. Future research could consider a more dynamic model
which captures configurations that co-exist within the same supply chain, and the relationship
between configurations and specific products. Our research uncovered only two instances where
a transitional configuration was considered. While this was expected due to the nature of this
configuration, future research could explore how this configuration evolves, and if lead firms are
successful in using it as an intermediate step in moving towards closed configurations. Regarding
the closed configuration, we note that this configuration has not been considered by articles
assessing supplier sustainability. This presents an opportunity for future research to examine
supplier contingencies associated with this configuration. It is likely that there are supplier-specific
contingencies besides distance that affect the likelihood of lead firms deploying closed
configurations. Another avenue for research is related to the unit of analysis. A relative small
percentage of the papers in our review considered the supplier as the level of analysis. Thus far,
suppliers appear to have been treated mainly as a “black box”, which future research could further
explore. A final avenue for future research stems from noting that 52% of the articles that consider
the supply chain as the level of analysis are conceptual. The remaining articles are all, save for
one, qualitative. Future research in sustainable supply chains considering the supply chains as the
unit of analysis employing quantitative methods could be conducted. While measuring

28. 28
sustainability outcomes at the supply chain level is complex, authors have recently developed
instruments intended for this task (e.g. Varsei, Soosay, Fahimnia, & Sarkis, 2014).
This study has limitations that must be considered. First and foremost, the review was
based on a keyword search, which limits the results to combinations of key words. It is possible
that relevant articles were not captured by our keywords, and therefore not included as part of the
reviewed literature. A second limitation is that the selection of articles for review was carried out
by the researcher. Although the criteria for article selection was explicit, the final selection remains
subjective. Content analysis of papers was also carried out by the author. Although the content
analysis criteria were explicitly developed ex-ante and are grounded in extant research, validity
threats associated with a single coder remain. Furthermore, this study only considers published
articles in a subset of peer reviewed journals as sources of literature. Other sources of relevant
literature such as industry reports, PhD theses and non-english publications were not considered.
Nonetheless, and considering these limitations, we believe this review is thorough and contributes
towards advancing the field of sustainable supply chain management.

29. 29
References
Alvarez, G., Pilbeam, C., & Wilding, R. 2010. Nestlé Nespresso AAA sustainable quality program: an investigation
into the governance dynamics in a multi-stakeholder supply chain network. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 15(2): 165–182.
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. 2009. Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(2): 75–86.
Awaysheh, A., & Klassen, R. D. 2010. The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially
responsible practices. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 30(12): 1246–
1268.
Bastl, M., Johnson, M., & Choi, T. Y. 2013. Who’s Seeking Whom? Coalition Behavior of a Weaker Player in
Buyer-Supplier Relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1): 8–28.
Brockhaus, S., Kersten, W., & Knemeyer, A. M. 2013. Where do we go from here? Progressing sustainability
implementation efforts across supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2): 167–182.
Brundtland, G. 1987. Report of the World Commision on Environement and Development: Our Common Future.
Oxford Paperbacks, Report of: 400.
Burch, D., Dixon, J., & Lawrence, G. 2013. Introduction to symposium on the changing role of supermarkets in
global supply chains: From seedling to supermarket: Agri-food supply chains in transition. Agriculture and
Human Values, 30(2): 215–224.
Busse, C., Schleper, M., Niu, M., & Wagner, S. M. 2016. Supplier development for sustainability: contextual
barriers in global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
46(5): 442–468.
Caniato, F., Golini, R., & Kalchschmidt, M. 2013. The effect of global supply chain configuration on the
relationship between supply chain improvement programs and performance. International Journal of
Production Economics, 143(2): 285–293.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new
theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 38.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09600030810882816.
Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. 2008. ISO 26000 and supply chains-On the diffusion of the social responsibility
standard. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2): 274–286.
Choi, T. Y., & Hong, Y. 2002. Unveiling the structure of supply networks: Case studies in Honda, Acura, and
DaimlerChrysler. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5): 469–493.
Choi, T. Y., & Wu, Z. 2009. Triads in Supply Networks: Theorizing Buyer - Supplier - Supplier Relationships.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(1): 8–25.
Ciliberti, F., Groot, G. De, Haan, J. De, & Pontrandolfo, P. 2009. Codes to coordinate supply chains: SMEs’
experiences with SA8000. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(2): 117–127.
Darnall, N., Jolley, J., & Handfield, R. 2008. Environmental Management System and Green Supply Chain
Management : Complements for Sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(October 2006):
30–45.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4):

30. 30
532–550.
Elkington, J. 1998. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Conscientious
Commerce.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International
Political Economy, 12(1): 78–104.
Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. 2014. Economic and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains and Industrial Clusters: Why
Governance Matters. Journal of Business Ethics, (DECEMBER): 1–14.
Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. 2013. Sustainable Supply Chains: Governance Mechanisms to Greening Suppliers.
Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1): 189–203.
Gimenez, C., & Tachizawa, E. M. 2012. Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5): 531–543.
Gold, S., Hahn, R., & Seuring, S. 2013. Sustainable supply chain management in “Base of the Pyramid” food
projects-A path to triple bottom line approaches for multinationals? International Business Review, 22(5):
784–799.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a
literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt, 17(4): 230–245.
Golicic, S. L., & Smith, C. D. 2013. A Meta-Analysis of Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Practices and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2): 78–95.
Gonzalez, P., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Diaz, B. 2008. Environmental management system certification and its influence
on corporate practices: Evidence from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 28(11): 1021–1041.
Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. 2014. Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food
supply chains perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 152: 159–173.
Hart, S. L. 1995. a Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 986–1014.
Hartmann, J., & Moeller, S. 2014. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for
unsustainable supplier behavior. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5): 281–294.
Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. 2001. Governance in Global Value Chains Governance in Global Value Chains. IDS
Bulletin.
Kim, J., & Rhee, J. 2011. An empirical study on the impact of critical success factors on the balanced scorecard
performance in Korean green supply chain management enterprises. International Journal of Production
Research, 50(9): 2465–2483.
Kleindorfer, P., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. 2005. Sustainable Operations Management. Production and
Operations Management, 14(4): 482–492.
Lee, H., Plambeck, E., & Yatsko, P. 2012. Embracing Green in China...with an NGO Nudge. Supply Chain
Management Review, March/Apri: 38–45.
Li, M., & Choi, T. Y. 2009. Triads in services outsourcing: Bridge, bridge decay and bridge transfer*. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 45(3): 27–39.

31. 31
Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(6): 1075–1082.
Lund-Thomsen, P., & Nadvi, K. 2010. Global value chains, local collective action and corporate social
responsibility: A review of empirical evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(1): 1–13.
MacCarthy, B. L., & Jayarathne, P. 2012. Sustainable collaborative supply networks in the international clothing
industry: a comparative analysis of two retailers. Production Planning & Control, 23(4): 252–268.
Macdonald, K. 2007. Globalising justice within coffee supply chains? Fair Trade, Starbucks and the transformation
of supply chain governance. Third World Quarterly, 28(4): 793–812.
Maertens, M., & Swinnen, J. 2009. Trade, Standards, and Poverty: Evidence from Senegal. World Development,
37(1): 161–178.
Mamic, I. 2005. Managing global supply chain: The sports footwear, apparel and retail sectors. Journal of Business
Ethics, 59(1): 81–100.
Manning, S., Boons, F., von Hagen, O., & Reinecke, J. 2012. National contexts matter: The co-evolution of
sustainability standards in global value chains. Ecological Economics, 83: 197–209.
Mares, R. 2010. The Limits of Supply Chain Responsibility: A Critical Analysis of Corporate Responsibility
Instruments. Nordic Journal of International Law, 79(2): 193–244.
Matos, S., & Hall, J. 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: The case of life cycle
assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6): 1083–
1102.
Mena, C., Humphries, A., & Choi, T. Y. 2007. Toward a theory of multi-tier supply chain mangement, 49(2): 58–
77.
Mena, C., Humphries, A., & Choi, T. Y. 2013. Toward a theory of multi-tier supply chain management. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 49(2): 58–77.
Minten, B., Randrianarison, L., & Swinnen, J. 2009. Global Retail Chains and Poor Farmers: Evidence from
Madagascar. World Development, 37(11): 1728–1741.
Mueller, M., dos Santos, V. G., & Seuring, S. 2009. The contribution of environmental and social standards towards
ensuring legitimacy in supply chain governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4): 509–523.
Nadvi, K. 2008. Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains. Journal of
Economic Geography, 8(3): 323–343.
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. 2004. Getting to the bottom of the triple bottom line. Business Ethics Quarterly,
14(2): 234–262.
Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R., & Russo, M. V. 2011. Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of
supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3): 212–223.
Plambeck, E. L. 2012. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through operations and supply chain management.
Energy Economics, 34(SUPPL.1).
Rao, P., & Holt, D. 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(9): 898–916.

32. 32
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Taylor, P. L. 2004. Fair Trade coffee: Building producer capacity via global
networks. Journal of International Development, 16(8): 1109–1121.
Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & von Hagen, O. 2012. The Emergence of a Standards Market: Multiplicity of
Sustainability Standards in the Global Coffee Industry. Organization Studies, 33(5-6): 791–814.
Rossetti, C. L., & Choi, T. Y. 2005. On the dark side of strategic sourcing: Experiences from the aerospace industry.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1): 46–60.
Seuring, S., & Muller, M. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15): 1699–1710.
Simpson, D., Power, D., & Klassen, R. 2012. When One Size Does Not Fit All: A Problem of Fit Rather than
Failure for Voluntary Management Standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1): 85–95.
Tachizawa, E. M., & Wong, C. Y. 2014. Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: a systematic
literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5-6): 643–663.
Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility Reports : a Thematic Analysis
Related To Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, (January): 19–44.
This is what we die for: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global cobalt
trade. 2016. Amnesty International.
Tsinopoulos, C., & Mena, C. 2015. Supply chain integration configurations: process structure and product newness.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 35(10): 1437–1459.
Turcotte, M. F., Reinecke, J., & Den Hond, F. 2014. Explaining variation in the multiplicity of private social and
environmental regulation: A multi-case integration across the coffee, forestry and textile sectors. Business and
Politics, 16(1): 151–189.
Turker, D., & Altuntas, C. 2014. Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: An analysis of
corporate reports. European Management Journal, 32(5): 837–849.
Varsei, M., Soosay, C., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. 2014. Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with
multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3): 242–257.
Vermeulen, W. 2015. Self-governance for sustainable global supply chains: Can it deliver the impacts needed?
Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(2): 73–85.
Vermeulen, W., & Seuring, S. 2009. Sustainability Through the Mrket- the Impacts of Sustainable Supply Chain
Management: Introduction. Sustainable Development, 273(5): 269–273.
Vidal, C., & Goetschalckx, M. 1997. Strategic production-distribution models: A critical review with emphasis on
global supply chain models. European Journal of Operational Research.
Von Geibler, J. 2013. Market-based governance for sustainability in value chains: Conditions for successful standard
setting in the palm oil sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56: 39–53.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.
MISQ Quarterly, 26(2): xiii–xxiii.
West, J., & Graham, J. L. 2004. A Linguistic-based Measure of Cultural Distance and Its Relationship to Managerial
Values. Management International Review, 44(January): 239–271.

33. 33
Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. 2016. Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains:
Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. Journal of Operations Management,
41(April): 42–60.
Wolf, J. 2011. Sustainable Supply Chain Management Integration: A Qualitative Analysis of the German
Manufacturing Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2): 221–235.
Wu, Z., Choi, T. Y., & Rungtusanatham, M. J. 2010. Supplier-supplier relationships in buyer-supplier-supplier
triads: Implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2): 115–123.
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. 2011. Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal
of Operations Management, 29(6): 577–590.
Yawar, S. A., & Seuring, S. S. A. Y. 2015. Management of Social Issues in Supply Chains: A Literature Review
Exploring Social Issues, Actions and Performance Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, (JUNE): 12.

34. 34
Annex 1
OPEN CLOSED THIRD-PARTY TRANSITIONAL TOTAL
Environmental 6 0 2 0 8
Social 6 0 5 0 11
Economic and environmental 5 2 0 1 8
Economic and social 2 0 0 0 2
Environmental and social 7 1 3 0 11
Triple bottom line 20 8 12 1 41
TOTAL 46 11 22 2 81
Table 10: Distribution of configurations and sustainability dimensions.
OPEN CLOSED
THIRD
PARTY
TRANSITIONAL TOTAL
Buyer 17 2 6 1 26
Supplier 7 0 6 0 13
Supply chain 21 9 9 1 40
Other 1 0 1 0 2
TOTAL 46 11 22 2 81
Table 11: Distribution of configurations and sustainability scope.
OPEN CLOSED THIRD-PARTY TRANSITIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC DISTANCE
High 7 7 13 0
Low 9 2 1 2
TOTAL 16 9 14 2
ORGANIZATIONAL DISTANCE
High 4 3 7 0
Low 6 5 2 2
TOTAL 10 8 9 2
CULTURAL DISTANCE
High 6 6 12 0
Low 9 1 2 2
TOTAL 15 7 14 2
Table 12: Distribution of configurations and distance.

35. 35
# Author Year
Hands-
on
Hands-
off
Open Closed
Third-
party
Transition
Geo.
distance
Org.
distance
Cultural
distance
Sustainability:
Economic
Sustainability:
Social
Sustainability:
Environmental
Unit of
analysis
1 Humphrey &
Schmitz
2001 X X X X X X Supply chain
2 Klassen & Vachon 2003 X X X Low Low Low X Buyer
3 Guide, Harrison &
Van Wassenhove
2003 X X X X Supply chain
4 Raynolds, Murray
& Taylor
2004 X X High High X X X Supplier
5 Kleindorfer,
Singhal & Van
Wassenhove
2005 X X X X X X Other
6 Rao, Holt, Purba &
Holt
2005 X X X Low Low X X Buyer
7 Labuschagne, Brent
& van Erck
2005 X X X X X Buyer
8 Mamic 2005 X X High High X X X Supply chain
9 Macdonald 2007 X X X High High High X X X Supplier
10 Matos & Hall 2007 X X X X X High Low High X X X Buyer
11 Nadvi 2008 X X High High High X X Supplier
12 Hutchins &
Sutherland
2008 X X X Buyer
13 Gonzalez, Sarkis &
Adenso-Diaz
2008 X X Low Low Low X Buyer
14 Darnall, Jolley &
Handfield
2008 X X X X Buyer
15 Castka & Balzarova 2008 X X X X X Buyer
16 Seuring & Muller 2008 X X X X X Other
17 Carter & Rogers 2008 X X X X X Other
18 Keating, Quazi,
Kriz & Coltman
2008 X X X X X Buyer
19 Vermeulen &
Seuring
2009 X X X X X X X Supply chain
20 Pagell & Wu 2009 X X X X X X Supply chain
21 Minten,
Randrianarison &
Swinnen
2009 X X X High High High X Supplier
22 Maertens &
Swinnen
2009 X X X High High High X Supplier
23 Delmas & Montie 2009 X X High Low X Supplier
24 Mueller, dos
Santos, Gomes &
Seuring
2009 X X X X Other
25 Gold, Seuring &
Beske
2009 X X X X Other
26 Ciliberti, Groot,
Haan &
Pontrandolfo
2009 X X High High X Buyer
27 Andersen &
Skjoett-Larsen
2009 X X X Low Low X X X Buyer
28 Vurro, Russo &
Perrini
2009 X X X X X Supply chain
29 Tate, Ellram, &
Kirchoff
2010 X X X X X X Other
30 Reinecke 2010 X X X X X Supply chain
31 Lund-Thomsen &
Nadvi
2010 X X X High High X Supply chain
32 Awaysheh &
Klassen
2010 X X X High High High X Buyer
33 Mares 2010 X X X Other
34 Alvarez, Pilbeam &
Wilding
2010 X X X High High High X X X Supply chain
35 Wu & Pagell 2011 X X X X X Buyer

36. 36
36 Parmigiani, Klassen
& Russo
2011 X X X X Supply chain
37 Kim & Rhee 2011 X X Low Low X Buyer
38 Tate, Dooley &
Ellram
2011 X X X X Supplier
39 Wolf 2011 X X High High X X X Supply chain
40 Carter & Easton 2011 X X X X X Other
41 Gereffi & Lee 2012 X X X X X X Supply chain
42 MacCarthy &
Jayarathne
2012 X X X X High High High X X X Supply chain
43 Manning, Boons,
von Hagen &
Reinecke
2012 X X High High High X X X Supplier
44 Simpson, Power &
Klassen
2012 X X X X X Buyer
45 Lee, Plambeck &
Yatsko
2012 X X High High High X Other
46 Reinecke, Manning
& von Hagen
2012 X X X X Other
47 Wittstruck &
Teuteberg
2012 X X X X X Supply chain
48 De Marchi, Di
Maria & Micelli
2012 X X Low Low X Supplier
49 Zhu, Sarkis & Lai 2012 X X X Low Low Low X Buyer
50 Fearne, Garcia-
Martinez & Dent
2012 X X X X X Supply chain
51 Gimenez &
Tachizawa
2012 X X X X X Buyer
52 Linton 2012 X X High Low High X X X Buyer
53 Burch, Dixon &
Lawrence
2013 X X X X X X Other
54 Von Geibler 2013 X X High High High X X X Supply chain
55 Golicic & Smith 2013 X X X X Buyer
56 Mena, Humphries,
& Choi
2013 X X X X Low Low Low X X Supply chain
57 Gimenez & Sierra 2013 X X Low Low X X Buyer
58 Vermeulen 2013 X X X X X Supply chain
59 Brockhaus, Kersten
& Knemeyer
2013 X X X High High X X Supplier
60 Gold, Hahn &
Seuring
2013 X X High Low High X X X Supply chain
61 Pagell &
Shevchenko
2014 X X X X X X Supply chain
62 Tachizawa & Wong 2014 X X X X X X X Other
63 Turker & Altuntas 2014 X X X X High High X X X Supply chain
64 Gereffi & Lee 2014 X X X X X Supply chain
65 Donaghey,
Reinecke, Niforou
& Lawson
2014 X X X Supply chain
66 Hartmann &
Moeller
2014 X X X X Buyer
67 Huq, Stevenson &
Zorzini
2014 X X X Low Low Low X Supplier
68 Yawar & Seuring 2015 X X X X X Other
69 Wilhelm, Blome,
Bhakoo & Paulraj
2016 X X X Low Low Low X X Supplier
Table 13: Analyzed papers.