Corporate Finance Unit 7 Activity

The purpose of this scholarly activity is to analyze fundamental aspects of corporate finance management in multinational corporations. You will research a multinational corporation to focus on for the assignment, provide a brief overview, examine supply chains and working capital management, analyze financial management of the corporation, and make recommendations for financial decisions. Include the following components in your case study:

1. Select a multinational corporation (MNC):

2. Ensure there is sufficient data for analysis based on requirements listed below. Provide a brief overview of the MNC:

• In the introduction of your case study, describe the MNC, its business, products/services, and key markets.
• Highlight its operations in different countries.
• Discuss recent stock distributions through dividends or repurchases.

3. Analyze supply chains and working capital management (Choose 2 from below):

• Describe the company’s supply chain management strategy.
• Analyze the financing policies used by the MNC for its current assets.
• Evaluate the company’s cash conversion cycle.
• Discuss the company’s cash management techniques.
• Analyze the goals of the company’s inventory management.

4. Examine multinational financial management (Choose 2 from below):

• Enumerate reasons why the MNC decided to go global.
• Illustrate any significant transactions the MNC has had between countries with different currencies.
• Discuss challenges the MNC faces with floating exchange rates and its management strategies.
• Analyze the relationships the MNC has with inflation, interest rates, and exchange rates.

5. Make recommendations:

• Based on your analysis, provide two to three recommendations for the MNC’s future financial decisions in the context of global operations.
• Explain how the MNC can use planning techniques to forecast operations.
• Examine internal controls the MNC can use to ensure its operations run smoothly and ethically in the global marketplace.

6. Provide a conclusion:

• Briefly summarize the key findings of your analysis.

Compile your analysis and recommendations into a comprehensive report, ensuring it is well-structured and professionally presented. The report should range from four to five pages. You are required to use at least four sources, at least two of which must come from the CSU Online Library. Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, including in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed.

1
SAMPLE FORMAL ESSAY
Page numbers are placed in the
upper right corner of every
page. This is done by going to
“Insert,” “Page Number,” “Top of
Page,” and then selecting “Plain
Number 3.”
The title page includes the title of
the assignment in bold font, the
student’s name, the name of the
university, the course name, the
instructor’s name, and the date
the assignment is due. There is
an extra double space after the
title of the paper.
Three Keys to Success
Joshua A. Learner
Columbia Southern University
LSS 1300: Learning Strategies for Success
Dr. John Doe
July 10, 2020
Paper Format
✓ 1 inch margins
✓ Double spacing
✓ Paragraphs indented .5 inch (usually default Tab)
Suggested fonts:
✓ Sans serif fonts such as 11 pt. Calibri and Arial, or 10 pt. Lucida Sans Unicode
✓ Serif fonts such as 12 pt. Times New Roman, 11 pt. Georgia, or 10 pt. Computer
Modern. This example paper is written in Times New Roman, size 12. The same font
and font size should be used throughout the entire paper.
✓ This Formatting Formal Assignments tutorial will help you format your paper
✓ The CSU Citation Guide will also help with paper format and APA
Three Keys to Success
2
The title at the top of this page
needs to be the same as the title
on the title page. It is bold.
Being successful in the classroom and the working world requires more than just pure
luck. Those who achieve success tend to understand that they must work hard, and they often
excel at incorporating various skills into their daily routines. Three skills that are essential for
ensuring success include organization, time management, and communication, and these are
abilities that most people can learn and master.
Organization is a skill that enhances efficiency. Being organized helps individuals
maintain order in their lives and allows them to focus on tasks instead of being distracted by
chaos. Being organized can also improve productivity. Having an area that is clear of clutter and
where necessary items are conveniently placed improves study time because everything is easily
accessible, and this allows the individual to focus on the task at hand. A messy or cluttered work
space not only makes it difficult to focus, but it can also be stressful. To help eliminate stress,
Scott (2019) recommends that individuals organize their physical space. She also suggests that
being proactive about anticipating stressors can help one be prepared to preemptively manage
them before they occur. That may mean spending a few hours tidying up a work area, making a
to-do list, or ensuring that children are fed and entertained before studying to ensure that the
study time will be productive. In addition to being organized, success also depends on one’s
ability to effectively manage his or her time.
This is a transition sentence. It tells
the reader what the next topic is.
Time management is the practice of intentionally assigning time to various tasks (Mind
Tools, n.d.). Using time wisely allows individuals to accomplish their goals promptly, which can
When paraphrasing information,
be vital if changes
or corrections are necessary after the task has been completed. Procrastinating
in-text citations will include the
author’s name and the year the
until the last minute
leaves
little to no time to make necessary revisions, which can lead to subpar
source
was published.
work and lower grades, and it can also create unnecessary stress and anxiety. Procrastination is
3
not the only time stealer, however. Staying busy with non-essential tasks can make an individual
less productive as well. Tourangbam (2011) notes that “Nothing is easier than being busy, and
few things are more difficult than being efficient and effective” (p. 2). It is important to use time
wisely and effectively. Prioritizing tasks and scheduling events allow individuals to maximize
Direct quotations include the author’s
productivity (Hamilton, 2013). When timename,
is scheduled
and work isand
ordered,
year of publication,
page orthe most important
paragraph number.
tasks get completed first, which leaves room for unexpected occurrences like technological
issues and unscheduled meetings. Effective time management is a constantly evolving skill that
requires discipline and, at times, self-denial, because one must decide to forgo his or her desires
to do what needs to be done to ensure success. Time management is undoubtedly a very
important aspect of success, but success also depends on one’s ability to communicate well.
Communication involves conveying information in a clear and concise manner, and it is
important for people to communicate clearly whether they are presenting information verbally or
writing a research paper. Some of the various methods used to communicate in the modern age
include telephone conversations, email, and chat messaging (Hamilton, 2013). Phone
conversations must be professional, and it is important to be mindful of the tone of voice used
when communicating on the telephone. Ellis (2009) notes that since body language is nonexistent in phone conversations, first impressions are based on the pace of speech and the
warmth and tone of the voice. Written communication is also void of visual cues, so proper
etiquette must be used when communicating online or through email (Hamilton, 2013).
Additionally, written communication must be clear and grammatically correct so that others can
understand what is being communicated. The ability to clearly transmit key thoughts and ideas
to others is imperative.
4
Although there are many skills that contribute to success, three that have proven to be
essential for success in educational endeavors, the professional world, and everyday life are
organization, time management, and communication. Individuals who can master these skills
will have a set of competencies and abilities they can use throughout their lives to help them
achieve their goals and become successful.
References
5
The word “References” is bold
and is centered at the top of the
reference page.
Ellis, R. (2009). Communication skills: Stepladders to success for the professional (2 nd ed.).
Intellect Limited.
Mind Tools. (n.d.). What is time management?
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_00.htm
Scott, E. (2019). How to get organized to manage stress. Very Well Minded.
https://www.verywellmind.com/tips-on-getting-organized-3145158
Tourangbam, D. K. (2011). Time management. Vij Books Private Limited.
This is an example of a reference list.
This list is arranged alphabetically by
author name. All in-text citations
must have a corresponding entry on
the reference page.
Note: An essay that will be copied and pasted
into Blackboard will include the references below
the essay; however, essays that will be uploaded
as a Word document will have a separate
reference page like the one shown here.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
2023, VOL. 61, NO. 14, 4918–4933
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1946194
Transdisciplinary perspective on sustainable multi-tier supply chains: a triple
bottom line inspired framework and future research directions
P. K. Senyo
a and Ellis L. C. Osabutey
b
a Department of Decision Analytics and Risk, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; b Roehampton
Business School, University of Roehampton, London, UK
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Global sourcing and increased interdependencies between organisations have created more complex multi-tier supply chains. While these supply chains have been instrumental in keeping the world
moving, they equally pose sustainability issues. In the extant literature, there is a growing number of
studies on sustainable multi-tier supply chains. However, there has been limited effort to take stock
of existing research to set an agenda for future studies. To address this gap, this study reviews 64
articles through the lens of the triple bottom line theory. Based on the findings, the study develops
a framework for sustainable multi-tier supply chains and provides direction for future research.
Received 27 February 2021
Accepted 13 June 2021
1. Introduction
As a result of the globalisation of supply chains,
there is increasing interest in how business operations impact society (Sarkis, Santibanez Gonzalez, and
Lenny Koh 2019; Orji, Kusi-Sarpong, and Gupta 2020).
To gain competitive advantage, international companies
have globally dispersed supply chains. This means that
organisations have multiple stakeholders across countries. As a result, such organisations are faced with a
more complex social responsibility with respect to the
effects of their activities on society and the environment. Global organisations are therefore inevitably under
pressure to ensure that their activities are sustainable
(Kusi-Sarpong, Gupta, and Sarkis 2019). Consequently,
sustainable supply chain management is receiving considerable attention across industries, media, governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), customers and academia (Jia, Gong, and Brown 2019). Most
organisations are pressured to re-examine their products and processes to ensure that there are no adverse
effects on the environment whilst at the same time safeguarding the social aspects of sustainability such as health
and safety and community programmes (Huq, Pawar,
and Rogers 2016; Gong et al. 2018). Earlier conventions expected first-tier suppliers to bear the brunt of
the responsibility of ensuring and maintaining sustainable supply chains (Giunipero, Hooker, and Denslow
2012; Walker and Jones 2012). However, within multi-tier
CONTACT P. K. Senyo
p.k.senyo@soton.ac.uk
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
KEYWORDS
Multi-tier supply chain;
sustainability; triple bottom
line theory; research agenda;
sustainability framework
supply chains it is difficult to monitor all activities across
the supply chain.
Multi-tier supply chains are increasingly international,
complex, and challenging for suppliers and focal companies (Mena, Humphries, and Choi 2013). Internal
and external stakeholders currently require organisations
to take responsibility as well as act towards mitigating
unsustainable practices and misconduct in their supply chains (Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019).
Generally, external stakeholders such as governments,
NGOs, customers and the media would not extricate
the activities of focal companies from their direct or
indirect sub-suppliers. They therefore place the responsibility at the doorstep of the focal companies for noncompliance (Hartmann and Moeller 2014). Hence, there
is increasing pressure on focal organisations to adopt a
stakeholder-driven sustainable multi-tier supplier management approach (Tachizawa and Wong 2014; Grimm,
Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2016; Wilhelm et al. 2016). This
means that focal organisations now need to adopt new
practices to improve supplier and sub-suppliers’ sustainability performance to maintain sustainable multi-tier
supplier management (Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis 2018). Sustainability refers to the long-term maintenance of systems according to environmental, economic and social
considerations (Sarkis, Santibanez Gonzalez, and Lenny
Koh 2019; Orji, Kusi-Sarpong, and Gupta 2020). Sustainable supply chains therefore need to perform well
Department of Decision Analytics and Risk, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton,
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or
built upon in any way.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
in social, environmental, and economic perspectives;
often referred to as the triple bottom line (Klassen and
Vereecke 2012).
Sustainable supply chain management, which is
defined as the coordination of an integrated set of activities involving the flow of materials, information, and
capital along a supply chain; which at the same time
takes into consideration economic, social and environmental development goals (Sauer and Seuring 2018).
It is therefore not surprising that economic, social and
environmental concerns are shaping the growing literature on sustainable supply chain management (Jabbour,
de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019). Some studies (e.g.
Tuni, Rentizelas, and Duffy 2018) have mostly focused
on environmental issues alone without integrating these
with the related social issues. For example, this field of
research has seen a prevalence of studies addressing the
environmental dimension of sustainability (Seuring and
Müller 2008; Tuni, Rentizelas, and Duffy 2018), while
examples of social issues in supply chain management
have scarcely been explored (Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour,
and Sarkis 2019). The few studies (e.g. Wilhelm et al.
2016; Darvish, Archetti, and Coelho 2019; Mejías et al.
2019) that have combined the environmental and social
issues have largely neglected the economic dimension.
However, the economic dimensions of sustainability are
intricately linked with social and environmental issues.
Therefore, addressing social, environmental and economic dimensions in isolation has the potential to create
gaps in the sustainable multi-tier supply chain management literature.
In addition, despite the recognition of departing from
sustainable first-tier supply chain management to a more
integrated sustainable multi-tier supply chain management (Mena, Humphries, and Choi 2013), there appears
to be a variation in the approaches adopted in studying
sustainable multi-tier supply chains. Also notable is the
view that the literature on sustainable multi-tier supply
chain management was initially dominated by conceptual
works with initial empirical research focusing on case
studies and qualitative approaches (Klassen and Vereecke
2012). In addition, quantitative studies in the field have
seen a recent upsurge. This means that the sustainable
multi-tier supply chain management literature has sufficiently evolved but remains fragmented. There is now
a need to examine the emerging themes as well as the
nuances resulting from the research approaches used to
study sustainable multi-tier supply chain management to
develop a holistic view.
Though there are some prior reviews, the focus has
been on modelling multi-tier supply chain (Jabbour, de
Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019), identifying quantitative methods for measuring environmental sustainability
4919
(Tuni, Rentizelas, and Duffy 2018), as well as developing
frameworks that synthesise approaches and contingency
variables to manage the sustainability of multi-tier supply
chains and sub-suppliers (Tachizawa and Wong 2014).
In addition, the extant reviews have largely focused on
social and environmental aspects of sustainability with
limited attention to more integrated social, environmental and economic perspectives. To a large extend, synthesising studies on economic sustainability of multi-tier
supply chains have been neglected. Moreover, existing
reviews have largely focused on the supply chain, production and operations domain without considering the
inter-disciplinary nature of sustainable multi-tier supply chain research. As a result, there are limited studies
that evaluate the emerging themes from prior sustainable multi-tier supply chain research to develop a holistic
framework that can reveal gaps for future research. This
calls for transdisciplinary review of on sustainable multitier supply chain. In line with this, the overarching aim
of this study is to critically review existing research on
sustainable multi-tier supply chain from a transdisciplinary perspective, identify emerging themes to propose
future research agenda. To address this aim, the following
research questions are proposed:
(1) What are the emerging themes from prior sustainable multi-tier supply chain research?
(2) How can sustainable multi-tier supply chains be
achieved?
(3) What gaps should future sustainable multi-tier supply chain research investigate?
In addressing these questions, the study makes the following four theoretical and practical contributions. First,
it advances our understanding of the major themes in
sustainable multi-tier supply chain research. As this study
is arguably the first to holistically examine themes from
a transdisciplinary perspective in sustainable multi-tier
supply chain research, it provides a strong foundation
for research and practice. Second, the study develops
a framework that offers a more nuanced view on how
sustainable multi-tier supply chains could be achieved.
Beyond, research advancement, the proposed framework
is a useful tool for practitioners for developing sustainable
multi-tier supply chains. Third, the study contributes to
the literature by unveiling some pertinent research gaps
to set an agenda for future research. Lastly, the study
extends the existing literature by explicating the relationship between the triple bottom line conundrum, sustainability realisation process, sustainability assessment
approaches, and sustainable multi-tier supply chains.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2
presents the background of multi-tier supply chain and
4920
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
sustainability literature. Section 3 presents the method
while Section 4 teases out the themes from the systematic literature review and outlines the findings. Section
5 discusses the findings, develops a resulting sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework, sets an agenda
for future research, as well as presents theoretical and
practical implications.
2. Background: multi-tier supply chain and
sustainability
The need for international networks of value chains and
the development of global supply chains have resulted
in the understanding that organisations can no longer
operate or compete as stand-alone entities (Lambert and
Enz 2017). Supply chains comprise various tiers including the focal company/organisation, its suppliers, and the
suppliers of those suppliers, as well as customers and
their customers or end users (Kusi-Sarpong, Gupta, and
Sarkis 2019). Invariably, supply chains encompass multiple stakeholders and therefore supply chain management
requires comprehensive interlinkages and management
of complex relationships (Lambert and Enz 2017; Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019). Focal companies are often held responsible for any environmental or
social infractions by other stakeholders along their supply chains with a disproportionate impact on the focal
company’s value and reputation (Huq, Pawar, and Rogers
2016; Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis 2018; Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019). To be considered sustainable in
the supply chain context, companies must perform well
in all three dimensions of the triple bottom line, focusing
explicitly on social, environmental, and economic issues
(Klassen and Vereecke 2012). However, for this performance to be sustainable it needs to involve all the tiers
along the supply chain.
The triple bottom line is a useful framework used
to examine long-term sustainability (Wilhelm, Blome,
Bhakoo, et al. 2016). Rising external pressures to apply
the triple bottom line to the supply chains have often
focused on the first-tier supplier as the company to
disseminate the standards required to achieve sustainable multi-tier supply chain management (Wilhelm et al.
2016; Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2018). The current
sustainable multi-tier supply chain management literature primarily concentrates on the relationship between
a focal company, often the end product producer, and its
direct suppliers (Walker and Jones 2012; Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2016) resulting in the neglect of some
important supplier networks such as lower-level tiers.
As raw materials are largely sourced from the lower-tier
members of multi-tier supply chains, where sustainability
violations are more likely, it is important for research to
examine all tiers along the supply chain. In addition, these
lower-tier members of the supply chain are often located
in developing countries characterised by weak regulatory
regimes and high levels of corruption (Senyo, Effah, and
Addae 2016). Consequently, sustainability breaches such
as worker exploitation, input adulteration and environmental degradation are often ignored or poorly monitored. However, sustainable multi-tier supply chain management requires a systematic examination of all tiers of
the supply chain.
In addition, literature specifically exploring the triple
bottom line issues that look beyond the first-tier level
suppliers to evaluate the multi-tier supply chain is relatively limited (Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis 2018). Such an
approach to the field that seeks to integrate and synchronise all the network of relationships across the supply
chain to attain sustainability is relatively scarce (Koh,
Orzes, and Jia 2019). Despite the notable challenges in
harmonising such supply chains the nuances of applying the triple bottom line to sustainable multi-tier supply chain management have been under-researched. This
systematic review seeks to extricate this phenomenon.
In using the triple bottom line, economic dimensions and benefits of sustainable multi-tier supply chain
management can be highlighted. Encapsulating Porter’s
shared value, sustainability goes beyond the related costs
and constraints, or sometimes charitable activities, to
serve as a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer 2006). In essence,
firms can do good and do well and therefore sustainability
can result in increasing innovation, efficiency, reputation and market value of all suppliers along the multitier supply chain (Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis
2019). Although multi-tier supply chains are better characterised as networks with vertical and horizontal linkages among actors (Wilhelm, Blome, Bhakoo, et al. 2016)
the innovations, efficiencies and reputation gains can create shared value along the multi-tier supply chain. Thus,
examining the economic dimensions of multi-tier supply chains is important because it helps to articulate both
financial and non-financial benefits that could accrue
to organisations when sustainability is achieved. Beyond
this, investigating economic dimensions of sustainability
provides avenue for organisations to evaluate the benefits
and gains made from their investments. By highlighting
research on the economic dimensions of sustainability, it
can encourage other organisations within multi-tier supply chains to look at both financial and non-financial
benefits of investing in sustainability initiatives.
Despite the contributions of existing reviews (e.g.
Tuni, Rentizelas, and Duffy 2018; Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, and Sarkis 2019; Yang, Jia, and Xu 2019), there
is still a need for a thorough discussion of the social,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
4921
Figure 1. Literature review approach (Adapted from Senyo, Liu, and Effah 2019).
environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable
multi-tier supply chains. This work addresses this knowledge gap by adopting the triple bottom line theory to
review sustainable multi-tier supply chain research. In
addition, this review also seeks to incorporate studies that
combine elements of environmental, social and economic
issues as well as those that treat them independently. This
review also synthesises conceptual and empirical studies to build an integrated, transdisciplinary perspective
of sustainable multi-tier supply chain management using
the triple bottom line as the underpinning theory. In
doing so, this review identifies key gaps in the literature to
set an agenda for future research on sustainable multi-tier
supply chain management.
3. Research method
Given that the aim of this research is to unravel the link
between multi-tier supply chain and sustainability from
a transdisciplinary perspective, we adopted a systematic
literature review. We adopted this approach for the following three reasons. First, a systematic review enables
wider literature coverage because it ensures all major
literature sources are considered (Senyo, Addae, and
Boateng 2018). Second, this approach leads to adequate
extraction of meaning and association between studies.
Lastly, it ensures a thorough and transparent analysis
of prior studies. We followed Senyo, Liu, and Effah’s
(2019) five-stage approach to ensure a holistic coverage
and thorough review process. We selected this approach
to achieve a balance between systematicity and transparency. As presented in Figure 1, the literature review
process went through these five stages: (1) defining the
review’ scope, (2) literature search, (3) literature refinement and selection, (4) literature analysis, and (5) presentation of findings.
3.1. Stage 1: Definition of review’s scope
We defined the review’s scope to include only full-text
peer-reviewed journal and conference articles because
these sources cover high-quality contributions (Webster
and Watson 2002). Consequently, we defined our exclusion criteria to cover books, book reviews, perspectives,
technical articles, editorials, dissertations, publications
without full text and articles not in English. Next, we
defined the search protocol in terms of search keywords
and databases. As the aim of this study was to conduct
a transdisciplinary review, we decided to ensure we capture articles from research areas beyond supply chain
such as business ethics, corporate social responsibility,
and information systems. In line with this aim, we also
4922
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
did not impose any timeline on the articles to be included
in the study. Based on an initial scanning of the extant
literature, we defined the keyword as ‘multi-tier supply
chain’ and ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainab*’ to capture variants. Also, our initial scanning of the extant literature
shows that Scopus and Web of Science databases host
majority of studies on multi-tier supply chain and sustainability. Therefore, we selected these two databases as
our article sources.
3.2. Stage 2: Literature search
Based on the defined keywords, we performed an independent search in Scopus and Web of Science databases.
Using the advanced search functions in these databases,
we performed the search on the title, abstract and keywords to ensure only relevant articles were returned. We
iteratively searched the two databases until our search did
not return any new articles. In all, the Scopus database
search returned 79 while the Web of Science resulted in
63 articles. We exported the search results into a master
Excel file for refinement and selection.
3.3. Stage 3: Literature refinement and selection
We began the literature refinement by first comparing the
Scopus and Web of Science search results for duplicates
since these two databases usually index the same articles. As presented in Figure 2, we found and removed
56 duplicate articles. Next, we applied our inclusion and
exclusion criteria and discarded 22 articles from the literature corpus. For instance, articles that listed sustainability or multi-tier supply chain as keywords without further
discussion in the main article and studies that use sustainability as an example without any strong connection
to the topic. Through the refinement processes, we ended
up with 64 articles as the final set for the review. These
studies are presented in the Appendix.
extracted on elements like author(s), title, publication
outlet, type (e.g. journal or conference proceedings) and
year, context of study as well as primary categorisation.
Following this, we conducted a more detailed analysis using grounded theory principles of open, axial and
selective coding (Corbin and Strauss 1990) to derived
themes in the literature corpus. We iteratively derived
open codes by thoroughly reading each article and generating codes on aspects of sustainability on which the
study focuses (i.e. social, economic, environmental, any
two or all aspects), findings, and limitations. We then
conducted axial coding by iteratively mapping and integrating the initial open codes for conceptual similarity
(Corbin and Strauss 1990). Finally, we iteratively analysed
the axial codes to generate selective codes as high-order
aggregate dimensions as foundation for our sustainable
multi-tier supply chain framework.
3.5. Stage 5: Presentation of findings
We present the findings as the last stage of our literature review approach. The findings are presented on (1)
themes in sustainable multi-tier supply chain studies, (2)
sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework, and (3)
agenda for research and practice.
4. Findings
From the analysis, we find that prior studies on multi-tier
supply chain have increasingly been discussing sustainability issues. While a majority of studies tend to discuss
the three main elements of sustainability, namely environmental, social and economic individually, there are
few that have focused on two or all the elements. We
identified four main themes as streams of research on
sustainable multi-tier supply chains to address the first
research question on themes that have been investigated
in prior sustainable multi-tier supply chain research. We
discuss these research themes in the ensuing subsections.
3.4. Stage 4: Analysis of literature corpus
We began by first analysing the literature corpus by
reading and coding each article. Next, we extracted
descriptive statistics on the articles based on codes
Figure 2. Literature selection and refinement.
4.1. Sustainability assessment approaches
Studies in this theme focus on developing approaches
to assess sustainability of multi-tier supply chains. These
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
approaches range from methods, models, and frameworks all aimed at assessing sustainability of multi-tier
supply chains. Three main insights emerged from our
analysis of this theme. First, we observed that there are
approaches for assessing each element of sustainability
in multi-tier supply chains. For instance, to assess environmental sustainability in multi-tier supply chains, Tuni
and Rentizelas (2019) developed an eco-intensity-based
method to quantitatively assess the environmental performance of extended supply chains. Using secondary
data from four supply chains, the study assesses the
method’s applicability. Similarly, Ciardiello, Genovese,
and Simpson (2020) developed a game-theory-based
framework for assessing pollution responsibility across
multi-tier supply chains. The framework also draws on
principles of upstream, downstream and local responsibility to derive rules that ensure fairness, efficiency and
transparency. In terms of social sustainability assessment,
Mejías et al. (2019) developed a multi-criteria decisionmaking approach to determine companies achieving
best performances. To validate the approach, sustainability reports of four fashion companies were examined and the findings reveal that training and developing
capacity-building teams, long-term planning processes
and traceability systems can improve supply chain
performance.
Second, we observe that sustainability assessment
approaches have not holistically addressed all three elements of the triple bottom line. Though some studies
attempt to provide assessment approaches for more than
one element, focus has been on either social and environmental or economic and environmental assessments.
For instance, Heydari, Govindan, and Aslani (2019) also
developed a model for environmental and economic sustainability in three-tier dual-channel green supply chains.
The findings show that the proposed model provides
profitability to all members of the supply chain by simultaneously increasing the green credentials of products as
well as achieving price reductions. In the same vein, Tuni,
Rentizelas, and Chinese (2020) developed a performance
assessment method to achieve a balance between environmental and economic sustainability. It is envisaged
that, by balancing environment and economic issues,
tensions can be addressed in multi-tier supply chains.
Even for the few studies that attempted to cover all elements of the triple bottom line, it is often evident that
each element is not clearly explicated and the findings
and analysis lacked sufficient depth. For instance, Jia,
Gong, and Brown (2019) developed a framework on sustainable supply chain and point to the role of supply
chain leadership, learning as well as multi-tier supply
chain governance and structure. In spite of the framework’s contribution to sustainable multi-tier supply chain
4923
research, it is unclear how social, environmental and
economic issues are accounted for.
Lastly, we observed that sustainable multi-tier supply chain assessment approaches have not been widely
validated and, in some cases, not empirically tested. However, some studies have validated their approaches based
on primary and secondary data through case studies,
interviews, and surveys (e.g. Sauer and Seuring 2018;
Tuni, Rentizelas, and Duffy 2018; Mejías et al. 2019).
Nonetheless, some of these assessment approaches have
only been validated in one industry (e.g. Mejías et al.
2019). This narrow validation makes it difficult to determine applicability of the approaches beyond their initial domains. With the exception of these few studies,
majority of the assessment approaches lack critical and
in-depth evaluation. For instance, Sauer and Seuring’s
(2018) three-dimension framework for environmental
assessment of multi-tier supply chain only provides interesting insights on how demand and supply uncertainty
as well as suppliers’ direct pressure for sustainability lead
to compliance. Notwithstanding, the framework has not
been thoroughly validated empirically. Given that multitier supply chains are complex and characterised by many
uncertainties, it will be prudent to validate some of these
assessment approaches to demonstrate their efficiency.
Such an approach will allow more practical use as well
as extend our understanding of multi-tier supply chains.
4.2. Digital technology application for
sustainability
This theme covers studies that focus on the use of
technology to address sustainability issues in multi-tier
supply chains. As multi-tier supply chains transcend
geographical boundaries, it is sometimes difficult for
firms to ensure other partners within the chain are adhering to sustainability issues (Bai et al. 2019). This issue is
compounded by demands from customers for companies
to disclose their supply chain sustainability information
(Hartmann and Moeller 2014; Wilhelm et al. 2016). Prior
studies acknowledge that sub-suppliers’ conformity to
sustainability in multi-tier supply chains are difficult to
ensure as supply chains expand into multi-tiers. While
some organisation within the supply chain strive for sustainability, others do not (Orji, Kusi-Sarpong, and Gupta
2020). Thus, digital technology has been touted as a solution to address lapses in multi-tier supply chains. From
our analysis, two main insights emerged on the application of technology for sustainable multi-tier supply
chains.
The first group of studies advocates for the application of emerging technologies such as blockchain, internet of things (IoT), social media, big data and artificial
4924
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
intelligence. These studies posit that the application of
these technologies can provide companies with platforms to achieve traceability to ensure other partners
are complying with sustainability requirements (Orji,
Kusi-Sarpong, and Gupta 2020). A classic example is the
call for blockchain technology application in the recording of data at all levels of multi-tier supply chains into
immutable blocks that are difficult to alter to achieve
traceability and transparency. Other examples point to
the use of IoT sensors to ensure food products are not
tampered with before they reach the final consumer.
Despite the potentials of these technologies, research
on their application is largely conceptual. For instance,
Venkatesh et al. (2020) developed a conceptual system
architecture for the application of emerging technologies
such as blockchain, IoT and big data analytics in multitier supply chains to achieve effective and efficient social
sustainability. Similarly, Miehle et al. (2019) developed a
proof of concepts for the tokenisation of vehicle parts in
a permissioned blockchain used to process parts ownership data in an immutable block to enable traceability of
defects in recall of vehicles built with parts from multiple
suppliers.
While the first group of studies advocates specific use
of emerging technologies to achieve sustainable multitier supply chains, studies in the second group highlight
the benefits of using technology in general. These studies point to how digital technologies could enable better
information flow, better collaboration, as well as efficient
production and replenishing planning in multi-tier supply chains (Hernández et al. 2014). As multi-tier supply
chains stretch across different geographical boundaries
and involves complex relations and numerous organisations, it is envisaged that using digital technology
could streamline processes through accurate information
sharing and better collaboration (Kembro, Näslund, and
Olhager 2017). For instance, it is evidenced that the application of collaborative digital technologies could reduce
waste as more accurate production planning could be
achieved through information systems integration across
the supply chain, thereby contributing to environmental, social and economic sustainability. Similarly, studies
have also argued that the application of digital technologies can enable information sharing and reduce information asymmetry across multi-tier supply chains to
ensure compliance and transparency in sustainability
issues (Kanyoma, Agbola, and Oloruntoba 2018). For
instance, White and Mohdzain (2005) demonstrate the
role of information systems in achieving integration in
multi-tier supply chain through the use of technological standards. Thus, apart from emerging technologies,
generic digital technologies remain beneficial for sustainable multi-tier supply chains. Therefore, organisations
could improve sustainable multi-tier supply chains by
augmenting existing technologies to incorporate emerging digital technologies such as blockchain, IoT, big data
and artificial intelligence. Such technologies have the
potential of enhancing the achievement of the triple bottom line.
4.3. Sustainability strategies
Studies in this third theme focus on strategies to achieve
sustainability in multi-tier supply chains. From the analysis, we find a variety of collaborative strategies ranging
from forming strategic alliances, delegation, ‘jumping the
chain’ and top-down sustainability enforcement. Studies aligned with strategic alliance advocate that organisation should thoroughly evaluate the risks associated
with dealing with other companies in their supply chain
(Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann 2019). Though
numerous suppliers exist in multi-tier supply chains,
well-established brands tend to take more blame whenever there are issues with their supply chains as minor
suppliers are less visible from public scrutiny (Wilhelm,
Blome, Wieck, et al. 2016). Thus, proponents of strategic alliance strategy advocate the need to evaluate risks
between direct and delegated sourcing in multi-tier supply chains (Chen, Xu, and Zhou 2020).
Other studies aligned with the strategic alliance stream
of the literature also suggest a holistic assessment of
sub-suppliers in relation to compliance with sustainability issues. In this regard, Soundararajan and Brammer
(2018) for instance investigate how sub-supplier at the
first-tier level respond to sustainability issues imposed
on them by their intermediaries and the antecedents that
influence their responses. The findings show that the
manner in which intermediaries structure social sustainability requirement determine how sub-suppliers perceive procedure fairness and how to reciprocate. If social
sustainability requirements are labelled as opportunities
and involve engaging in practices that are considered fair,
sub-suppliers respond positively. Therefore, in strategic
alliances in multi-tier supply chains, lead organisation or
intermediaries need to strategically frame their sustainability requirements in a way that the project benefits all
parties.
Relatedly, other studies also highlight the strategy
of a buying firm, jumping the chain, to work directly
with lower-level stakeholders. As multi-tier supply chains
comprise numerous organisations, it is expected that
some actors might not comply with sustainability
requirements. Thus, studies have proposed ‘jumping the
chain’ as a strategy to address sustainability issues. This
strategy dictates that the buying firm jumps over noncompliant partners to work directly with lower-level
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
stakeholders so that they can control how sustainability issues are addressed. By this, top-tier firms can leave
risky sub-suppliers out of their supply chain to enable it
to become sustainability compliant. For instance, Young,
Fernandes, and Wood (2019) find that in mineral supply
chains, top-tiers firms utilise jumping the chain strategy to engage directly with actual physical suppliers as a
way to ensure transparency and compliance with sustainability due diligence. Although this strategy may appear
straightforward and simple, it is more complicated and
sometimes impossible given that some sub-suppliers are
powerful and may not be easily discarded in multi-tier
supply chains.
We also find that sustainability strategies in multi-tier
supply chains can be undertaken through open, closed,
and third-party strategies (Mena, Humphries, and Choi
2013; Wilhelm, Blome, Wieck, et al. 2016). Open strategies involve buying firms allowing suppliers to independently address sustainability issues because they operate in a highly regulated environment like Europe or
the United States (Wilhelm, Blome, Wieck, et al. 2016).
In contrast, closed strategies involve buying firms taking direct control and enforcing top-down sustainability
requirements across multi-tier supply chains. This strategy is proposed when supply chains include geographical locations with relaxed sustainability enforcement
regimes. Lastly, third-party strategies entail a buying firm
and its tier one supplier sharing sustainability responsibilities (Mena, Humphries, and Choi 2013). While
the buying firm may provide sustainability requirement,
implementation and enforcement across lower levels of
their supply chain are left to third parties. However, it is
important to note that deciding on any of these options
depend on factors such as supply chain complexity, sustainability management capabilities and the element of
sustainability in focus.
4.4. Multi-tier supply chain sustainability
management
Studies in this last theme frame discussions on issues
related to the overall management of sustainability
in multi-tier supply chains. While some studies focus
explicitly on sustainability issues, others focus on related
aspects that culminate to achieving efficiency and effectiveness in multi-tier supply chains. Topical among
the issues include multi-tier supply chain optimisation,
the role of agency and corporate sustainability standards. First, studies on corporate sustainability standard
investigate their effectiveness of managing sub-suppliers
through compliance (Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann 2019). These studies argue that more often, compliance with corporate sustainability has largely been
4925
on suppliers without thorough analysis at the upstream
sub-supplier levels (Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis 2018).
Thus, for effective multi-tier supply chain management,
corporate sustainability standards need to be investigated
at the sub-supplier level. In this regard, Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis (2016) investigated the management
of sub-suppliers compliance with corporate sustainability
standards, the findings show focal firm’s channel power,
perceived risks of sub-supplier and public attention to
sub-supplier as antecedents. Relatedly, Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis (2018) also highlight that critical success
factors of a focal firms’ corporate sustainability standards compliance by sub-supplier management include
involvement of direct supplier, the power of the focal
firm over direct suppliers and long-term committed relationships between direct and sub-suppliers. Thus, it is
important the corporate sustainability standards compliance are evaluated at all levels of multi-tier supply chains
instead of focusing solely at the supplier level.
Second, we find that sustainability management in
multi-tier supply chains can be achieved through agency
role. Though the responsibility of ensuring sustainability is sometimes laid at the forefront of focal firms, the
complex nature of multi-tier supply chains makes undertaking this task difficult (Gold and Awasthi 2015). Thus,
effective management of sustainability in multi-tier supply chains is sometime delegated to others such as firsttier suppliers under the agency-role (Mena, Humphries,
and Choi 2013). However, this form of management
is orchestrated as a double agency process. The role
includes disseminating standards and practices of the
focal firm to lower-tiers as well as ensuring compliance.
At the same time, these first-tier suppliers themselves
must comply with sustainability issues. To explain this
further, Wilhelm et al. (2016) draw on double agency
and institutional theories to explain the conditions under
which first-tier suppliers comply with primary and secondary agency roles in sustainable multi-tier supply
chain management. The findings show focal firms need to
incentivize each agency role separately as well as reduce
information asymmetries at the second-tier level. However, for double agency sustainability management to be
effective, focal firms must provide the needed resources,
clearly define aspects of sustainability that suppliers and
sub-suppliers across the supply chain need to focus on,
exert its power when required and align internal sustainability to its entire purchasing and supply operations.
Lastly, studies on multi-tier supply chain management through optimisation focus largely on risk mitigation. Generally, these studies rely on mathematical and
forecasting modelling as well as simulations to evaluate
how multi-tier supply chains will perform under certain conditions. For instance, these studies investigate
4926
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
Figure 3. Sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework.
sustainability issues such as agent-based reverse pricing
(Mujaj and Leukel 2007), value of information exchange
(Viswanathan, Widiarta, and Piplani 2007), scheduling systems (Holweg et al. 2005), inventory systems
modelling (Ekanayake, Joshi, and Thekdi 2016), riskcost optimisation for procurement planning (Mori et al.
2017), information sharing (Zhang and Zhang 2007).
While these studies are largely conceptual, their findings
provide interesting insights into the nuances of multi-tier
supply chain management.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this study, the overarching aim was to critically synthesize studies on multi-tier supply chains and sustainability
towards the development of a sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework as well as set agenda for futures
studies. Having analysed the literature and presented the
findings, we move on to discuss our framework, present
agenda for future research and discuss theoretical and
practical implications.
5.1. Sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework
To address the second research question on how to
achieve sustainable multi-tier supply chains, we draw
on the themes that emerged from our systematic literature review. Our analysis affirms the importance of the
triple bottom line theory in the assessment of sustainable
multi-tier supply chains and confirms that social, environmental and economic issues are more often addressed
separately by firms. Some of the literature shows emphasis on one or the other and there is substantial literature
that combines the social and environmental elements
with limited literature on in-depth analysis of all three.
Our analysis reveals that although these dimensions of
sustainability are distinct, they are interdependent and
that sustainable multi-tier supply chains require a strategic integration of social, environmental and economic
dimensions of all stakeholders across the multi-tier supply chain. In the context of multi-tier supply chains,
these three dimensions are more prominent as stakeholders such as customers, governments and society demand
transparent disclosure – creating a sustainability conundrum. However, there is limited knowledge on how to
achieve sustainable multi-tier supply chains that demonstrates adherence to the triple bottom line to the satisfaction of key stakeholders. Drawing on our findings, we
propose a framework for sustainable multi-tier supply
chains as presented in Figure 3.
The framework suggests that the sustainability conundrum marks the beginning of the process. Whilst it is
important to identify issues related to social, environment and economic sustainability, organisations need
to find ways to strategically integrate these to ensure
long-term profitability. For instance, social sustainability issues such as human rights, safe working conditions, diversity, ethical behaviour, and forced labour
(Hannibal and Kauppi 2019) need a lot of attention as
stakeholders such as customers, NGOs and the media
pay particular attention to these. Similarly, economic
and environmental sustainability issues such as pricing, profiteering, cost minimisation as well as emission,
energy consumption, land occupation and water consumption (Tuni, Rentizelas, and Chinese 2020) have
become issues that stakeholders now expect companies
to be accountable for. Following the identification of the
sustainability issues that encompass all elements of the
triple bottom line, the next step is the work towards
achieving the outcome of sustainable multi-tier supply
chains. Our findings reveal that digital technology applications through the use of emerging technologies such as
blockchain, IoT, artificial intelligence, platforms, and bigdata (Mubarik et al. 2021) analysis alongside the use of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
generic technologies for collaboration, information flow
and coordination are essential for the sustainability realisation process. Application of these technologies provides benefits such as corruption reduction, information
asymmetry and increased transparency (Senyo, Effah,
and Osabutey 2021). Through these benefits, multi-tier
supply chains can be effectively managed to achieve sustainability. In addition, the findings also highlight a number of strategies for multi-tier supply chain management.
These strategies include forming strategic alliances, delegation and top-down sustainability enforcement. Moreover, multi-tier supply chains can also adopt open, closed
and third-party strategies.
The last component of the framework shows the outcome of achieving a sustainable multi-tier supply chain
relies on combining the sustainability realisation process with assessment approaches. As multi-tier supply
chains are dynamic, new and emerging sustainability
issues need to be assessed and addressed continuously.
Therefore, organisations need to constantly review their
triple bottom line responsibilities to assess their sustainability activities to ensure that they are paying sufficient
attention to address emerging issues. In addition, sustainability assessment approaches allow firms to also evaluate
the extent to which existing processes are working. Moreover, achieving a sustainable multi-tier supply chain is
not static but a dynamic and evolutionary process that
needs to respond to the changes in the business environment and the resulting expectations of key stakeholders.
Thus, there is a need for regular evaluation to identify and sometimes anticipate issues in order to address
them actively and proactively. Such assessments also
reveal non-performing supply chain members. Therefore, sustainability assessment approaches are crucial in
the pursuit of sustainable multi-tier supply chains. In the
event that a multi-tier supply chain becomes unsustainable, there is a need to use evaluation and feedback as a
basis for diagnostics and revisitation of the sustainability
conundrum in the first step of the framework.
5.2. Agenda for future research
While prior research on sustainable multi-tier supply
chain management provides useful insights, our review
reveals that there are notable gaps in the literature. We
address the third research question by formulating an
agenda for future research. We find five key gaps that
future research could explore: (1) investigating social,
environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability together, (2) effect of government regulation, (3)
perspectives of non-supply chain members, (4) emerging and developing economy perspectives, and (5) rigorous empirical validation of sustainability assessment
4927
approaches and the need for more interdisciplinary
lenses.
First, we call for future studies to consider investigating all three dimensions of the triple bottom line together.
In prior research, we note that the majority of the studies often focus on the elements of the triple bottom line
separately. The majority of studies that attempt to investigate more than one element often focus on two, mainly
the social and environmental components to the neglect
of the economic dimension. Even the very few studies
that could be argued as investigating all three dimensions
are not explicit about how each element is accounted
for. While we acknowledge that there could be resource
and scope challenges involved in investigating all three,
it is also important to note that they are interdependent
practically and theoretically.
Second, since multi-tier supply chain transcends geographical areas, regulation in different countries becomes
key to achieving sustainable multi-tier supply chains.
Prior research indicates that countries with strong regulations require open strategies to achieve sustainable
multi-tier supply chains (Mena, Humphries, and Choi
2013). Conversely, this strong regulation could sometimes be counter-intuitive to achieving sustainability.
However, from our analysis, it is evident that there is less
research on the role of government regulation in sustainable multi-tier supply chains. Therefore, future research
could provide more insights on the effect of government
regulation.
Third, future studies are encouraged to consider nonsupply chain member perspectives in sustainable multitier supply chain research. Majority of prior studies focus
on active or direct participants in the multi-tier supply chains without incorporating views of other indirect stakeholders whose power/interest can influence the
ability of the firm to achieve triple bottom line. This is
because sustainable multi-tier supply chains have rippling effects which transcends immediate and direct
stakeholders. Therefore, to examine the holistic effects
of sustainable multi-tier supply chains, it is important to
consider the views of non-supply chain members who
have high power/interest and influence.
Fourth, we call for more studies from emerging/developing economies perspectives. Our analysis
shows that prior research on multi-tier supply chain has
largely been conducted in the context of developed countries. Though there are few exceptions (e.g. Gong et al.
2018; Jia, Gong, and Brown 2019), majority of the studies
focus more on developed countries. Given that majority
of lower-levels tier of supply chains are located in emerging/developing economies, where institutions are weak
and the regulatory regimes poor (Osabutey and Croucher
2018), it is important to incorporate more developing/
4928
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
emerging economy perspectives and how they influence
the international dimensions of sustainable multi-tier
supply chain management.
Lastly, there is avenue for future research to rigorously
validate sustainable multi-tier supply chain assessment
related approaches. In previous research, a number of
approaches have been developed ranging from models,
frameworks and methods (e.g. Mejías et al. 2019; Tuni
and Rentizelas 2019; Ciardiello, Genovese, and Simpson 2020). However, the majority of these are conceptual. Some of the approaches use simulation or artificial
data which do not provide actual performance measures;
making it difficult to ascertain the performance of these
approaches. In other instances, some approaches are only
validated with data from a single industry (e.g. Mejías
et al. 2019). As multi-tier supply chains are complex,
dynamic and could vary from one industry to another,
it is important that developed approaches are rigorously validated in multiple sectors and countries. In the
same vein, more inter-disciplinary research will enrich
our understanding of multi-tier supply chains. In addition, interdisciplinary research can provide lenses that
can enhance strategic sustainable multi-tier supply chain
management.
5.3. Theoretical implications
This systematic literature review led to the development
of the sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework.
This framework theoretically contributes to our understanding of sustainable multi-tier supplier chains to provide a useful extension to the literature. In particular,
this review emphasises that in the sustainability realisation process adapting and using emerging digital technology applications can contribute to achieving triple
bottom line. This is because such digital technologies
improve transparency which is crucial for monitoring
and evaluating sustainability policies and practice across
all tiers of the supply chain. Our study is unique in the
way it addresses research gaps alongside developing a
sustainable multi-tier supply chain framework. Furthermore, our study confirms the transdisciplinary nature
of sustainable multi-tier supply chain management. So
far, research on sustainable multi-tier supply chains has
largely focused on domains or disciplines of supply chain
or production and operations management. However,
through this study, we have highlighted that sustainable multi-tier supply chain encompasses fields such as
business ethics and corporate social responsibility, information systems, and international business and strategy. Optimal sustainable multi-tier supply chains require
multi-disciplinary synergy of expertise from these auxiliary fields. In the same vein, our study has implications
for the application of the triple bottom line theory in
the systematic review of literature on multi-tier supply
chains. Thus far, our study is arguably the first to apply the
theoretical lens to review sustainable multi-tier supply
chain research. By doing so, our study differs from previous reviews. Our analysis reaffirms the importance of the
triple bottom line theory in the assessment of sustainable
multi-tier supply chains and suggests that social, environmental and economic issues should not be addressed
separately.
5.4. Practical implications
The study also offers a number of practical implications. First, our proposed framework is a useful tool
for multi-tier supply chain practitioners and organisations to pursue sustainability issues. More often, in practice, organisations focus largely on environmental, social
or economic sustainability issues separately. However,
our framework demonstrates that achieving sustainability requires addressing issues related to all the three
aspects as are they are interrelated. Second, the study provides insights on the need for constant horizon scanning
and sustainability assessment of multi-tier supply chains
because multi-tier supply chains are dynamic and continuously evolve. Our study proposes the use of sustainability assessment approaches to ensure multi-tier supply
chains respond to emerging expectations of stakeholders.
Given the nature, complexity and size of multi-tier supply
chains, it is important to automate sustainability assessment approaches to proactively assess, find and alert of
emerging issues. Lastly, this study highlights the role
of digital technology in realising sustainable multi-tier
supply chains. Generally, digital technologies are considered to provide supporting roles instead of spearheading sustainable multi-tier supply chain activities.
However, from our study, we highlight the importance
of digital technologies; especially emerging ones such
as artificial intelligence and blockchain for the management of sustainable multi-tier supply chains. With
this insight, practitioners should consider implementing digital technologies as the focal tool during the sustainability realisation processes if they want to derive
optimum benefits. At the same time, these technologies should align with the sustainability strategies of
organisations in multi-tier supply chains as deploying
these technologies in isolation will not yield the required
results.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
Notes on contributors
P. K. Senyo is a Senior Lecturer in
Information Systems at the Department
of Decision Analytics and Risk within
Southampton Business School. His research
focuses on how the use and adaptation
of new digital technologies impact individuals, organisations and society. PK’s
research has been published in leading
journals such as Technovation, Technological Forecasting &
Social Change, Information Technology & People, Government
Information Quarterly, International Journal of Information
Management among others as well as prestigious conferences
such as Academy of Management, and International Conference
on Information Systems.
Ellis L. C. Osabutey is a Reader (Associate Professor) in International Business,
Strategy and Technovation at Roehampton Business School, University of Roehampton. His research interests include
FDI and Technology Transfer; Innovation,
Technology and development; Institutional influences on International HRM/D
and Marketing. Ellis L.C. Osabutey has published articles in
journals such as Journal of World Business, Technovation, Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, International Business Review, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Information Technology and People among others.
ORCID
P. K. Senyo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7126-3826
Ellis L. C. Osabutey http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4788-5224
References
Akhavan, Roya Manuela, and Dimitar Zvezdov. 2019. “Addressing Sustainability Information Needs Along Supply Chains.”
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-02-2019-0034.
Bai, Chunguang, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Hadi Badri Ahmadi,
and Joseph Sarkis. 2019. “Social Sustainable Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Group Decision-Support Approach.”
International Journal of Production Research 57 (22): 7046–
7067. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042.
Bajaj, Sanjeevan. 2017. “In Support of the Circular Economy: an
Exercise in Stakeholder Mapping.” Matériaux & Techniques
105 (5-6): 512. doi:10.1051/mattech/2018018.
Bygballe, Lena E., Malena Ingemansson Havenvid, Will
Hughes, Fin Orstavik, and Tim Torvatn. 2015-07-09. “The
Significance of Diverse Economic Logics for Innovation
in the Construction Industry.” Procs 31st Annual ARCOM
Conference, 7–9 September 2015, edited by A. B. Raidén
and E. Aboagye-Nimo, 917–926. Lincoln: Association of
Researchers in Construction Management.
Chae, Sangho, Benn Lawson, Thomas J. Kull, and Thomas
Choi. 2019. “To Insource or Outsource the Sourcing? A
4929
Behavioral Investigation of the Multi-tier Sourcing Decision.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 39 (3): 385–405. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-04-2018-0231.
Chen, Jiguang, He Xu, and Pin Zhou. 2020. “Delegation vs.
Direct Sourcing Revisited: Contract Types Under Correlated
Supply Risks and Asymmetric Cost Information.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (22): 7005–7022.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1689307.
Ciardiello, Francesco, Andrea Genovese, and Andrew Simpson. 2020. “A Unified Cooperative Model for Environmental
Costs in Supply Chains: The Shapley Value for the Linear
Case.” Annals of Operations Research 290 (1–2): 421–437.
doi:10.1007/s10479-018-3028-3.
Ciardiello, Francesco, Andrea Genovese, and Andrew Simpson. 2020. “A Unified Cooperative Model for Environmental
Costs in Supply Chains: The Shapley Value for the Linear
Case.” Annals of Operations Research 290 (1–2): 421–437.
doi:10.1007/s10479-018-3028-3.
Corbin, Juliet, and A. Strauss. 1990. “Grounded Theory
Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.”
Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593.
Coronado Mondragon, Adrian E., Ernesto Mastrocinque, and
Paul J. Hogg. 2016. “Technology Selection in the Absence of
Standardised Materials and Processes: a Survey in the UK
Composite Materials Supply Chain.” Production Planning
& Control 28 (2): 158–176. doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.125
2070.
Covaci, Florina Livia, and Pascale Zaraté. 2019. “Modelling
Decision Making in Digital Supply Chains: Insights from
the Petroleum Industry.” Kybernetes 49 (4): 1213–1228.
doi:10.1108/K-10-2018-0565.
Darvish, Maryam, Claudia Archetti, and Leandro C. Coelho.
2019. “Trade-Offs Between Environmental and Economic
Performance in Production and Inventory-Routing Problems.” International Journal of Production Economics 217:
269–280. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.020.
DeYong, Gregory D., and Hubert Pun. 2015. “Is Dishonesty
the Best Policy? Supplier Behaviour in a Multi-Tier Supply
Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 170:
1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.006.
Dou, Yijie, Qinghua Zhu, and Joseph Sarkis. 2018. “Green
Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management: An Enabler Investigation.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 24
(2): 95–107. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2017.07.001.
Ekanayake, Nadeera, Nilesh Joshi, and Shital A. Thekdi. 2016.
“Comparison of Single-Echelon vs. Multi-Echelon Inventory
Systems Using Multi-Objective Stochastic Modelling.” International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 23 (2):
255–280. doi:10.1504/IJLSM.2016.073971.
Evans, Richard David, James Xiaoyu Gao, Nick Martin,
and Clive Simmonds. 2018. “A New Paradigm for Virtual Knowledge Sharing in Product Development Based
on Emergent Social Software Platforms.” Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 232 (13): 2297–2308.
doi:10.1177/0954405417699018.
Ghadge, Abhijeet, Euan Kidd, Arnab Bhattacharjee, and Manoj
Kumar Tiwari. 2019. “Sustainable Procurement Performance of Large Enterprises across Supply Chain Tiers and
Geographic Regions.” International Journal of Production
Research 57 (3): 764–778. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.148
2431.
4930
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
Giunipero, Larry C., Robert E. Hooker, and Diane Denslow.
2012. “Purchasing 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.
Gold, S., and A. Awasthi. 2015. “Sustainable Global Supplier Selection Extended Towards Sustainability Risks from
(1+n)Th Tier Suppliers Using Fuzzy AHP Based Approach.”
IFAC-PapersOnLine 28 (3): 966–971. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.
2015.06.208.
Gong, Mengfeng, Yuan Gao, Lenny Koh, Charles Sutcliffe,
and John Cullen. 2019. “The Role of Customer Awareness
in Promoting Firm Sustainability and Sustainable Supply
Chain Management.” International Journal of Production
Economics 217: 88–96. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.033.
Gong, Yu, Fu Jia, Steve Brown, and Lenny Koh. 2018. “Supply Chain Learning of Sustainability in Multi-Tier Supply
Chains: A Resource Orchestration Perspective.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 38
(4): 1061–1090. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-05-2017-0306.
Grimm, Jörg H., Joerg S. Hofstetter, and Joseph Sarkis. 2016.
“Exploring Sub-Suppliers’ Compliance with Corporate Sustainability Standards.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112:
1971–1984. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.036.
Grimm, Jörg H., Joerg S. Hofstetter, and Joseph Sarkis. 2018.
“Interrelationships Amongst Factors for Sub-Supplier Corporate Sustainability Standards Compliance: An Exploratory
Field Study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 203: 240–259.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.074.
Hannibal, Claire, and Katri Kauppi. 2019. “Third Party Social
Sustainability Assessment: Is It a Multi-Tier Supply Chain
Solution?” International Journal of Production Economics
217: 78–87. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.030.
Hartmann, Julia, and Sabine Moeller. 2014. “Chain Liability in Multitier Supply Chains? Responsibility Attributions
for Unsustainable Supplier Behavior.” Journal of Operations Management 32 (5): 281–294. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.
01.005.
Hernández, Jorge E., Josefa Mula, Raúl Poler, and Andrew C.
Lyons. 2014. “Collaborative Planning in Multi-Tier Supply
Chains Supported by a Negotiation-Based Mechanism and
Multi-Agent System.” Group Decision and Negotiation 23 (2):
235–269. doi:10.1007/s10726-013-9358-2.
Heydari, Jafar, Kannan Govindan, and Amin Aslani. 2019.
“Pricing and Greening Decisions in a Three-Tier Dual Channel Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 217: 185–196. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.012.
Hofmann, Hannes, Martin C. Schleper, and Constantin
Blome. 2018. “Conflict Minerals and Supply Chain Due
Diligence: An Exploratory Study of Multi-tier Supply
Chains.” Journal of Business Ethics 147 (1): 115–141.
doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2963-z.
Holweg, Matthias, Stephen M. Disney, Peter Hines, and
Mohamed M. Naim. 2005. “Towards Responsive Vehicle
Supply: A Simulation-Based Investigation Into Automotive
Scheduling Systems.” Journal of Operations Management 23
(5): 507–530. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.009.
Huq, Fahian, Kulwant S. Pawar, and Helen Rogers. 2016.
“Supply Chain Configuration Conundrum: How Does the
Pharmaceutical Industry Mitigate Disturbance Factors?”
Production Planning and Control 27 (14): 1206–1220.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1193911.
Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa
Jabbour, and Joseph Sarkis. 2019. “Unlocking Effective
Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management for Sustainability
Through Quantitative Modeling: Lessons Learned and Discoveries to Be Made.” International Journal of Production
Economics 217: 11–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.029.
Jia, Fu, Yu Gong, and Steve Brown. 2019. “Multi-Tier Sustainable Supply Chain Management: The Role of Supply Chain
Leadership.” International Journal of Production Economics
217: 44–63. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.022.
Kalaitzi, Dimitra, Aristides Matopoulos, and Ben Clegg.
2019. “Managing Resource Dependencies in Electric Vehicle Supply Chains: a Multi-Tier Case Study.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 24 (2): 256–270.
doi:10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0116.
Kanyoma, Kizito Elijah, Frank Wogbe Agbola, and Richard
Oloruntoba. 2018. “An Evaluation of Supply Chain Integration Across Multi-Tier Supply Chains of ManufacturingBased SMEs in Malawi.” International Journal of Logistics
Management 29 (3): 1001–1024. doi:10.1108/IJLM-102017-0277.
Karaer, Özgen, Tim Kraft, and Pınar Yalçın. 2020. “Supplier
Development in a Multi-tier Supply Chain.” IISE Transactions 52 (4): 464–477. doi:10.1080/24725854.2019.1659523.
Kembro, Joakim, Dag Näslund, and Jan Olhager. 2017. “Information Sharing Across Multiple Supply Chain Tiers: A Delphi Study on Antecedents.” International Journal of Production Economics 193: 77–86. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.032.
Klassen, Robert D., and Ann Vereecke. 2012. “Social Issues
in Supply Chains: Capabilities Link Responsibility, Risk
(Opportunity), and Performance.” International Journal of
Production Economics 140 (1): 103–115. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.
2012.01.021.
Koh, Lenny, Guido Orzes, and Fu Jia. 2019. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0): Technologies Disruption on
Operations and Supply Chain Management.” International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 39 (6):
817–828. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2019-788.
Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov, Himanshu Gupta, and Joseph Sarkis.
2019. “A Supply Chain Sustainability Innovation Framework
and Evaluation Methodology.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (7): 1990–2008. doi:10.1080/00207543.
2018.1518607.
Lambert, Douglas M., and Matias G. Enz. 2017. “Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and Potential.” Industrial
Marketing Management 62: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.
2016.12.002.
Lechler, Sabrina, Angelo Canzaniello, and Evi Hartmann. 2019.
“Assessment Sharing Intra-Industry Strategic Alliances:
Effects on Sustainable Supplier Management Within MultiTier Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production
Economics 217: 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.005.
Lippert, Susan K., and Howard Forman. 2006. “A Supply
Chain Study of Technology Trust and Antecedents to Technology Internalization Consequences.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36 (4):
271–288. doi:10.1108/09600030610672046.
López, Cristina, and Rocío Ruiz-Benítez. 2020. “Multilayer
Analysis of Supply Chain Strategies’ Impact on Sustainability.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2):
100535. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2019.04.003.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
Lyons, Andrew C., and Azanizawati Ma’aram. 2013. “An Examination of Multi-Tier Supply Chain Strategy Alignment
in the Food Industry.” International Journal of Production
Research 52 (7): 1911–1925. doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.
787172.
McDermott, Vanessa, and Jan Hayes. 2018. “Risk Shifting
and Disorganization in Multi-Tier Contracting Chains: the
Implications for Public Safety.” Safety Science 106: 263–272.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.018.
Meinlschmidt, Jan, Martin C. Schleper, and Kai Foerstl. 2018.
“Tackling the Sustainability Iceberg: A Transaction Cost
Economics Approach to Lower Tier Sustainability Management.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 38 (10): 1888–1914. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-032017-0141.
Mejías, Ana M., Roberto Bellas, Juan E. Pardo, and Enrique
Paz. 2019. “Traceability Management Systems and Capacity Building as New Approaches for Improving Sustainability in the Fashion Multi-Tier Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 217: 143–158.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.022.
Mena, Carlos, Andrew Humphries, and Thomas Y. Choi. 2013.
“Toward a Theory of Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 49 (2): 58–77.
doi:10.1111/jscm.12003.
Miehle, Daniel, Dominic Henze, Andreas Seitz, Andre Luckow,
and Bernd Bruegge. 2019. “PartChain: A Decentralized
Traceability Application for Multi-Tier Supply Chain Networks in the Automotive Industry.” Proceedings – 2019
IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures, DAPPCON 2019, 140–145.
doi:10.1109/DAPPCON.2019.00027.
Mori, Masakatsu, Ryoji Kobayashi, Masaki Samejima, and
Norihisa Komoda. 2014. “Analysis of Risk Mitigation by
Decentralized Ordering in Multi-tier Supply Chain.” International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE) (pp.
1093–1098). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ISIE.2014.6864766.
Mori, Masakatsu, Ryoji Kobayashi, Masaki Samejima, and
Norihisa Komoda. 2014. “Cost-benefit Analysis of Decentralized Ordering on Multi-tier Supply Chain by Risk
Simulator.” Studies in Informatics and Control 23 (3).
doi:10.24846/sic.
Mori, Masakatsu, Ryoji Kobayashi, Masaki Samejima, and
Norihisa Komoda. 2017. “Risk-Cost Optimization for Procurement Planning in Multi-Tier Supply Chain by Pareto
Local Search with Relaxed Acceptance Criterion.” European Journal of Operational Research 261 (1): 88–96.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.028.
Mubarik, Muhammad Shujaat, Navaz Naghavi, Mobashar
Mubarik, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan,
Syed Imran Zaman, and Syed Hasnain Alam Kazmi. 2021.
“Resilience and Cleaner Production in Industry 4.0: Role of
Supply Chain Mapping and Visibility.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 292: 126058. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126
058.
Mujaj, Yll, and Joerg Leukel. 2007. “An Agent-Based Reverse
Pricing Model for Reducing Bullwhip Effect in Supply
Chains.” Association for Information Systems – 13th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2007: Reaching
New Heights 2: 1066–1082.
Mujaj, Yll, Joerg Leukel, and Stefan Kirn. 2007. “A Reverse
Pricing Model for Multi-Tier Supply Chains.” The 9th IEEE
4931
International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (pp.
331–340). IEEE. doi:10.1109/CEC-EEE.2007.14
Mula, Josefa, Andrew C. Lyons, Jorge E. Hernández, and Raúl
Poler. 2013. “An Integer Linear Programming Model to Support Customer-Driven Material Planning in Synchronised,
Multi-Tier Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production Research 52 (14): 4267–4278. doi:10.1080/00207543.
2013.878055.
Nishi, Tatsushi, and Okihiro Yoshida. 2016. “Optimization of
Multi-period Bilevel Supply Chains under Demand Uncertainty.” Procedia CIRP 41: 508–513. doi:10.1016/j.procir.
2015.12.112.
Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, and Himanshu
Gupta. 2020. “The Critical Success Factors of Using Social
Media for Supply Chain Social Sustainability in the Freight
Logistics Industry.” International Journal of Production
Research 58 (5): 1522–1539. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.
1660829.
Osabutey, Ellis L. C., and Richard Croucher. 2018. “Intermediate Institutions and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries: The Case of the Construction Industry in
Ghana.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 128:
154–163. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.014.
Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. 2006. “Strategy &
Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review 84
(12): 78–92. doi:10.1108/sd.2007.05623ead.006.
Quigley, John, and Lesley Walls. 2007. “Trading Reliability
Targets within a Supply Chain Using Shapley’s Value.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92 (10): 1448–1457.
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.09.019.
Samejima, Masaki. 2016. “A Simulation-Based Process of Consensus Building on Procurement Plan under Disruption
Risk in Multitier Supply Chain.” 2016 5th IIAI International
Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) (pp.
904-907). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IIAIAAI.2016.132.
Sancha, C., S.J. J. F. Mària, and C. Gimenez. 2019. “Managing
Sustainability in Lower-Tier Suppliers: How to Deal with the
Invisible Zone.” African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 10 (4): 458–474. doi:10.1108/AJEMS-09-20180266.
Sarkis, Joseph, Ernesto DR Santibanez Gonzalez, and S. C.
Lenny Koh. 2019. “Effective Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management for Sustainability.” International Journal of Production Economics 217: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.014.
Sauer, Philipp C., and Stefan Seuring. 2018. “A ThreeDimensional Framework for Multi-Tier Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain Management 23 (6):
560–572. doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2018-0233.
Sawik, Tadeusz. 2020. “A Two-Period Model for Selection of Resilient Multi-Tier Supply Portfolio.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (19): 6043–6060.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1665204.
Senyo, P. K., Erasmus Addae, and Richard Boateng. 2018.
“Cloud Computing Research: A Review of Research Themes,
Frameworks, Methods and Future Research Directions.”
International Journal of Information Management 38 (1):
128–139. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.007.
Senyo, P. K., John Effah, and Erasmus Addae. 2016. “Preliminary Insight Into Cloud Computing Adoption in a Developing Country.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management
29 (4): 505–524. doi:10.1108/09564230910978511.
4932
P. K. SENYO AND E. L. OSABUTEY
Senyo, P. K., John Effah, and Ellis L. C. Osabutey. 2021. “Digital Platformisation as Public Sector Transformation Strategy:
A Case of Ghana’s Paperless Port.” Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 162: 120387. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.
120387.
Senyo, P. K., Kecheng Liu, and John Effah. 2019. “Digital Business Ecosystem: Literature Review and a Framework for
Future Research.” International Journal of Information Management 47: 52–64. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.002.
Seuring, Stefan, and Martin Müller. 2008. “From a Literature
Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply
Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15):
1699–1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
Soundararajan, Vivek, and Stephen Brammer. 2018. “Developing Country Sub-Supplier Responses to Social Sustainability Requirements of Intermediaries: Exploring the Influence
of Framing on Fairness Perceptions and Reciprocity.” Journal of Operations Management 58–59 (March): 42–58.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2018.04.001.
Stekelorum, Rebecca, Issam Laguir, Jean-Marie Courrent, and
Anicia Jaegler. 2018. “Extending CSR in SMEs’ Upstream
Supply Chains: a Dynamic Capabilities Perspective.” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 19 (3): 233–251.
doi:10.1080/16258312.2018.1497922.
Tachizawa, Elcio M., and Chee Yew Wong. 2014. “Towards
a Theory of Multi-Tier Sustainable Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review.” Supply Chain Management 19:
643–653. doi:10.1108/SCM-02-2014-0070.
Tuni, Andrea, and Athanasios Rentizelas. 2019. “An Innovative
Eco-Intensity Based Method for Assessing Extended Supply
Chain Environmental Sustainability.” International Journal
of Production Economics 217: 126–142. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.
2018.08.028.
Tuni, Andrea, Athanasios Rentizelas, and Damiana Chinese. 2020. “An Integrative Approach to Assess Environmental and Economic Sustainability in Multi-Tier Supply Chains.” Production Planning and Control Taylor &
Francis: 31 (11–12): 861–882. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.
1695922.
Tuni, Andrea, Athanasios Rentizelas, and Alex Duffy. 2018.
“Environmental Performance Measurement for Green Supply Chains: A Systematic Analysis and Review of Quantitative Methods.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 48 (8): 765–793.
doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2017-0062.
Venkatesh, V. G., Kai Kang, Bill Wang, Ray Y. Zhong, and
Abraham Zhang. 2020. “System Architecture for Blockchain
Based Transparency of Supply Chain Social Sustainability.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63:
101896. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101896.
Viswanathan, S., Handik Widiarta, and Rajesh Piplani. 2007.
“Value of Information Exchange and Synchronization in
a Multi-Tier Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (21): 5057–5074. doi:10.1080/00207540
600930057.
Walker, Helen, and Neil Jones. 2012. “Sustainable Supply
Chain Management Across the UK Private Sector.” Supply
Chain Management 17 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1108/13598541211
212177.
Webster, Jane, and Richard T Watson. 2002. “Analyzing the Past
to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.” MIS
Quarterly 26 (2): xii–xxiii.
White, Andrew, and Zaher Mohdzain. 2005. “Moving Beyond
the Dyad: Multi-Tier Supply Chain Integration in the
Aerospace Industry.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), 914–920.
Wilhelm, Miriam, Constantin Blome, Vikram Bhakoo, and
Antony Paulraj. 2016. “Sustainability in Multi-Tier Supply
Chains: Understanding the Double Agency Role of the FirstTier Supplier.” Journal of Operations Management 41: 42–60.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.001.
Wilhelm, Miriam, Constantin Blome, Ellen Wieck, and
Cheng Yong Xiao. 2016. “Implementing Sustainability in
Multi-Tier Supply Chains: Strategies and Contingencies
in Managing Sub-Suppliers.” International Journal of Production Economics 182: 196–212. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.
006.
Yang, Yang, Fu Jia, and Zhiduan Xu. 2019. “Towards an Integrated Conceptual Model of Supply Chain Learning: An
Extended Resource-Based View.” Supply Chain Management
24 (2): 189–214. doi:10.1108/SCM-11-2017-0359.
Yoon, Jiho, Ram Narasimhan, and Myung Kyo Kim. 2018.
“Retailer’s Sourcing Strategy under Consumer Stockpiling in
Anticipation of Supply Disruptions.” International Journal of
Production Research 56 (10): 3615–3635. doi:10.1080/00207
543.2017.1401748.
Young, Steven B., Shannon Fernandes, and Michael O. Wood.
2019. “Jumping the Chain: How Downstream Manufacturers
Engage with Deep Suppliers of Conflict Minerals.” Resources
8 (1): 1–24. doi:10.3390/resources8010026.
Zhang, Cheng, and Chenghong Zhang. 2007. “Design and Simulation of Demand Information Sharing in a Supply Chain.”
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 15 (1): 32–46.
doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2006.09.011.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
4933
Appendix: List of studies reviewed
Publication outlet
Article
African Journal of Economic and Management Studies
Annals of Operations Research
European Journal of Operational Research
Group Decision and Negotiation
IISE Transactions
International Journal of Logistics Management
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
International Journal of Production Economics
International Journal of Production Research
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
Journal of Supply Chain Management
Kybernetes
Materiaux et Techniques
Journal of Engineering Manufacture
Production Planning and Control
Reliability Engineering and System Safety
Resources
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
Safety Science
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory
Studies in Informatics and Control
Supply Chain Forum
Supply Chain Management
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
Conference publications
Americas Conference on Information Systems
IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics
IFAC-Papers
Procedia CIRP
International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics
IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures
IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology
Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference
International Conference on Electronic Business
Study
Sancha, Mària, and Gimenez (2019)
Ciardiello, Genovese, and Simpson (2018)
Mori et al. (2017)
Hernández et al. (2014)
Karaer, Kraft, and Yalçın (2020)
Kanyoma, Agbola, and Oloruntoba (2018)
Ekanayake, Joshi, and Thekdi (2016)
Chae, Lawson, Kull, and Choi (2019); Gong et al. (2018); Meinlschmidt,
Schleper, and Foerst (2018)
Lippert and Forman (2006)
Darvish, Archetti, and Coelho (2019); Deyong and Pun (2015); Gong et al.
(2019); Hannibal and Kauppi (2019); Heydari, Govindan, and Aslani
(2019); Jia, Gong, and Brown (2019); Kembro, Näslund, and Olhager
(2017); Lechler, Canzaniello, and Hartmann (2019); Mejías et al. (2019);
Sauer and Seuring (2018); Tuni and Rentizelas (2019); Wilhelm et al.
(2016)
Chen, Xu, and Zhou (2020); Ghadge et al. (2019); Lyons and Ma’Aram (2014);
Mula et al. (2014); Sawik (2020); Viswanathan, Widiarta, and Piplani
(2007); Yoon, Narasimhan, and Kim (2018)
Hofmann, Schleper, and Blome (2018)
Grimm, Hofstetter, and Sarkis (2016, 2018)
Holweg et al. (2005); Soundararajan and Brammer (2018); Wilhelm et al.
(2016)
Dou, Zhu, and Sarkis (2018); López and Ruiz-Benítez (2020)
Mena, Humphries, and Choi (2013)
Covaci and Zaraté (2019)
Bajaj (2017)
Evans et al. (2018)
Coronado Mondragon, Mastrocinque, and Hogg (2017); Hernández et al.
(2014); Tuni, Rentizelas, and Chinese (2020)
Quigley and Walls (2007)
Young, Fernandes, and Wood (2019)
Venkatesh et al. (2020)
McDermott and Hayes (2018)
Zhang and Zhang (2007)
Mori et al. (2014
Stekelorum et al. (2018)
Kalaitzi, Matopoulos, and Clegg (2019); Sauer and Seuring (2018)
Akhavan and Zvezdov (2019)
Mujaj and Leukel (2007)
Mori et al. (2014)
Gold and Awasthi (2015)
Nishi and Yoshida (2016)
Samejima (2016)
Miehle et al. (2019)
Mujaj, Leukel, and Kirn (2007)
Bygballe et al. (2015)
White and Mohdzain (2005)
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
r Academy of Management Perspectives
2024, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2022.0001
CREATING VALUE THROUGH SUPPLY CHAIN
ORCHESTRATION AS A BUSINESS MODEL
SHARDUL S. PHADNIS
Asia School of Business
Supply chains are widely studied as carriers of value, but their potential to create value
remains underappreciated. This study conceptualizes supply chain orchestration as a
business model that allows a firm to create value in a supply chain with high market
uncertainty by matching demand and supply more effectively than the present norm,
and without relying on product innovation. Building on contingency theory, this study
theorizes supply chain orchestration and articulates three defining qualities of its activity system. Next, it describes the evolution of this business model: its creation requires
architectural market knowledge; however, sustained belief in the architectural market
knowledge, ironically, can hinder its adaptation to changes in the firm’s environment
and lead to its abandonment. The study, I hope, will promote management practice and
research at the largely untapped intersection of business models and strategic supply
chain management to foster novel value creation by orchestrating supply chains.
specific business strategy facilitate value creation by
delivering the firm’s products, such as the vaccines
engineered by a pharmaceutical firm. However, it has
not fully explained how a firm can create value solely
by synchronizing a product’s demand and supply
without the benefit of ingenious product innovation.
Yet, several cases of value creation through demand–
supply synchronization exist.
Consider an internet-of-things (IoT) solution that
helped decrease waste-collection services in an Israeli
municipality by 30% while decreasing instances
of overflowing bins (Nordsense, 2022). This was
achieved through dynamic, targeted routing of garbage
trucks (i.e., supply of waste-collection capacity)—
instead of following fixed routes—to the bins nearing
their storage capacity (i.e., demand for waste collection) based on real-time fill-level data collected from
IoT sensors fitted to the bins. This is one example
of a blooming smart waste-management market
that is expected to be valued at $6.3 billion by 2030
(Statista, 2022). IoT solutions are increasingly used
to create value by detecting current, local demand
and synchronizing it with supply precisely and economically for numerous goods and services. The
solutions involve consumer goods such as HP printer
cartridges ordered automatically for guaranteed ink
availability at lower cost (Yahoo Finance, 2015),
medical items such as blood products delivered faster while reducing wastage (Haier, 2020), precision
farming inputs for higher crop yields at lower water
and fertilizer usage (CropX, 2021), and others.
The vital urgency of distributing COVID-19 vaccines, engineered by bioscientists in record time, to
wide-ranging locales—from cities with world-class
cold-chain distribution infrastructures to remote villages lacking paved roads or electricity—highlighted
the lifesaving role of supply chains. The Russia–
Ukraine war reiterated the criticality of supply chains
for global energy and food supplies. I argue that this
laudatory view of supply chains as purveyors of lifesaving miracles and essentials is severely constrained.
It fails to reveal the immense potential of supply chains
to create value even in mundane settings, without
awe-inspiring innovative products, by matching local,
contemporary demand and supply more effectively.
The literature on strategic supply chain management
(SCM) has explained value creation and capture by
facilitating the flow of goods among firms. Judicious
management of operational activities in procurement,
transportation, and warehousing assures the availability of critical materials (Kraljic, 1983), bolsters corporate strategy (Mentzer et al., 2001), and enhances
customer satisfaction (Bowersox, 1990). This literature
has demonstrated that supply chain activities serving a
I thank Inga-Lena Darkow, Charlie Fine, Nitin Joglekar, Ambra Mazzelli, Paul Schoemaker, and reviewers
at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2020
for helpful feedback on this manuscript’s earlier drafts.
I am grateful to Siri Terjesen and two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful critiques and suggestions,
which have improved this manuscript.
Accepted by Siri Terjesen
1
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2
Academy of Management Perspectives
Such enhanced demand–supply synchronization
was also proposed to address the scarcity of personal
protective equipment (PPE) early in the COVID-19
pandemic in the United States (He, Bala, Anupindi, &
Ranney, 2021). This involved collecting PPE requirements data from healthcare facilities nationwide,
incentivizing manufacturers to report supply data
periodically, and using predictive modeling to
project demand–supply gaps over time to make
demand-fulfillment decisions. Such value creation
also predates the IoT. A foremost example is Zara’s
fast-fashion business model. Its organizational practices facilitate the detection of tacit fashion trends
and their conversion into garments for rapid production and store delivery to exploit fleeting trends
(Ghemawat & Nueno, 2006). Zara continued to create
value in this way after launching Zara.com in 2010
and adapting its demand–supply synchronization
for the integrated store–online retail model (Moreno,
2021). Another example is Li & Fung, once the
world’s largest consumer goods supply chain manager. Li & Fung produces garments through its network of Asian suppliers and rapidly delivers them to
its Western brands’ stores. Its chairman, Victor Fung,
described this value-creation mechanism as follows
(as cited in Magretta, 1998a: 108):
Say we get an order from a European retailer to produce 10,000 garments. [ … ] For this customer we
might decide to buy yarn from a Korean producer but
have it woven and dyed in Taiwan. So we pick the
yarn and ship it to Taiwan. The Japanese have the
best zippers and buttons, but they manufacture them
mostly in China. Okay, so we go to YKK, a big Japanese zipper manufacturer, and we order the right zippers from their Chinese plants. Then we determine
that, because of quotas and labor conditions, the best
place to make the garments is Thailand. So we
ship everything there. And because the customer
needs quick delivery, we may divide the order
across five factories in Thailand. Effectively, we
are customizing the value chain to best meet the
customer’s needs. Five weeks after we have received the order, 10,000 garments arrive on the
shelves in Europe, all looking like they came from
one factory, with colors, for example, perfectly
matched. Just think about the logistics and the
coordination.
Li & Fung neither designed garments nor operated
the factories producing them. Instead, it translated
fashion sketches of European and U.S. brands into
product designs that could be manufactured expeditiously and economically. It orchestrated all production and distribution activities to get the garments
February
made in a network of thousands of low-cost factories
in Asia to match the ephemeral fashion trends in the
West. Customers found value in Li & Fung’s services
because the firm secured the desired products on
time without owning or managing production at
numerous small factories in regions far afield from
their head offices. The brands’ “evaluations of the
benefits they expect to receive … indicated by [their]
willingness to pay” attest to the value creation by
Li & Fung (Priem, Butler, & Li, 2013: 473).
Why did Li & Fung’s activities—buying yarn from
a Korean producer, getting it shipped to Taiwan for
weaving into the fabric, arranging the fabric’s shipment to multiple factories in Thailand, and planning
and overseeing all production and transportation to
ensure timely completion of garments through dozens of facilities in numerous countries—create value
for its customers? Sourcing, production, transportation, and planning occur in all supply chains and
allow firms to capture the value created by their products (Croxton, Garc
ıa-Dastugue, Lambert, & Rogers,
2001). What distinguished Li & Fung is that its value
to its customers was not just in the product but in the
outcome of its activities: quick, cost-effective, guaranteed production of a large batch of garments without having to own factories or manage suppliers.
Similar value is created by precisely matching local,
contemporary demand with (constrained) supply in
varied settings, such as waste collection, consumer
goods replenishment, medical product delivery, precision farming, or PPE distribution.
To understand value creation through a set of
operational activities in supply chains, I adopt the
business model lens, used in the strategic management literature to examine the design and management of interdependencies by entrepreneurial firms
to create value (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Massa, Tucci, &
Afuah, 2017; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). I describe
how Li & Fung’s orchestration of the supplier network (Fung, Fung, & Wind, 2007) epitomizes a business model as a firm-centric, boundary-spanning
activity system (Zott et al., 2011). Furthermore, I
argue that this business model is not idiosyncratic;
it is one instance of a general value-creation mechanism observable in various industries. Therefore,
this activity system deserves to be studied in its own
right.
Early studies examined business models appropriating value from technological innovations (Amit &
Zott, 2001; Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Wirtz,
Pistoia, Ullrich, & G€
ottel, 2016; Zott & Amit, 2008).
The business model construct has also been used to
explain value creation by a system of activities in the
2024
absence of technical innovation. The emerging activity system perspective emphasizes the importance of
holistic arrangements of organizational activities in
value creation (Zott & Amit, 2010). Lanzolla and
Markides (2021) recently argued that studying interdependencies in a firm’s activities…