Good Review Paper

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ()
1 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

2
3
4 Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management
5
6
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup
7
8
9
10
11
12
What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review
13 and conceptual model development
14
15Q1 Mieko Igarashi n, Luitzen de Boer, Annik Magerholm Fet
16
17 Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Sentralbygg I, Alfred Getz veg 3,
Trondheim N-7491, Norway
18
19
20
21 art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
22
Article history: This paper examines the existing literature on green supplier selection. In total, 60 articles are reviewed,
23
Received 15 June 2012 all published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2011. The articles are analyzed in terms of
24 Received in revised form several general variables such as type of research and theoretical viewpoint, as well as more specic
25 11 June 2013
variables such as the supply chain position considered, stages of the supplier selection process studied,
26 Accepted 13 June 2013
and the perspective taken on environmental criteria. The main ndings are threefold. First, analytical
27 research, focusing on developing normative decision models for the nal stage in green supplier
28 Keywords: selection is clearly most dominant, employing a wide range of techniques. Second, empirical research is
29 Supplier selection less prominent and generally lacks a clear theoretical background. Third, very little conceptual research
Supplier evaluation
30 has been done linking green supplier selection to an organization's strategy. Research on green supplier
Literature review
31 selection is highly fragmented and in danger of overemphasizing the technical aspects of supplier
Green purchasing
32 Conceptual model selection. Based on this review of the articles, a conceptual model of green supplier selection is
33 presented, aimed at integrating the different dimensions of green supplier selection and identifying
directions for future research.
34
& 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
35
36
37
38
1. Introduction criteria such as price, quality and delivery (Weber et al., 1991;
39
Dowlatshahi, 2000). Green purchasing, however, requires the
40
Over the last two decades, environmental considerations have inclusion of environmental criteria in supplier selection, which
41
become a signicant issue in purchasing (Deans, 1999; Min and leads us to the concept of green supplier selection (GSS) (Lamming
42
Galle, 1997; Preuss, 2005). Today, both the public and private and Hampson, 1996; Noci, 1997). By green we refer to the
43
sector face increasing pressure to consider the environmental environmental aspects within the sustainability concept. It should
44
aspects in their purchasing policies from a growing number of be noted that the environmental aspect is often mentioned as one
45
government regulations, stakeholders and NGOs. This considera- of the three aspects of sustainability, the others being social and
46
tion of the environmental aspects is recognized as green purchas- economic aspects (Elkington, 1998).
47
ing or green procurement. As a result of green purchasing, Selecting a supplier can be regarded as an important decision,
48
companies and industries, which provide environmentally friendly not only in the sense of providing the purchasing organisation
49
products and services, can receive more recognition for their with the right materials, products or solutions at a competitive
50
efforts. More rms are then likely to be motivated to design, cost level, but also in the sense of improving its environmental
51
produce and provide environmentally friendly products and ser- performance, e.g., through avoiding hazardous materials or con-
52
vices. Thus, the green market expands, and green purchasing is sidering alternative solutions that require less materials and/or
53
regarded as a contribution to sustainable development. The rst energy. A rm's environmental efforts will not likely succeed
54
green purchasing initiatives appeared during the 1980s and 1990s without integrating the company's environmental goals with its
55
(Dowlatshahi, 2000). purchasing activities (Walton et al., 1998). However, GSS is often
56
Green purchasing has signicant implications for the rms far from straightforward. There are multiple environmental
57
implementing it, especially when it comes to the criteria used criteria one could include, and the operationalization of these
58
in supplier selection. Until the early 1990s, purchasing policies, criteria into meaningful, practical and measurable variables often
59
supplier selection and evaluation processes were dominated by poses challenges, both for purchasers and suppliers (Jabbour and
60
Jabbour, 2009; Lloyd, 1994).
61
The existing literature on supplier selection is quite extensive,
62
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 735 93177; fax: +47 735 91901. and much attention has been paid to what kind of mathematical
63
E-mail addresses: mieko.igarashi@iot.ntnu.no, mek_apr@me.com (M. Igarashi). models can be used for supporting decision-making (De Boer et al.,
64
65 1478-4092/$ - see front matter & 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
66 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2013.06.001
Please cite this article as: Igarashi, M., et al., What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual
model development. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2013.06.001i
2 M. Igarashi et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ()
1 2001; Wu and Barnes, 2011) and what kind of criteria are used in and reclamation of purchased materials without adversely
2 supplier selection (Stamm and Golhar, 1993; Weber et al., 1991). affecting performance requirements of such material (Min
3 Neither the review of decision models for supplier selection by De and Galle, 2001, p. 1223).
4 Boer et al. (2001) nor a follow up study by Wu and Barnes (2011)
Another denition, using a term environmental purchasing,
5 explicitly addresses green supplier selection. Furthermore, pre-
also emphasizes the efcient use of materials and reduction of
6 vious studies by Weber et al. (1991) and Stamm and Golhar (1993)
overall consumption:
7 do not report any environmental criteria. There is, therefore,
8 a clear need to assess and review the literature on GSS. Providing environmental purchasing can be dened as purchasing's
9 a comprehensive review on GSS is the rst major contribution involvement in supply chain management activities in order
10 of this paper. In addition, based on the review, we develop a to facilitate recycling, reuse and resource reduction (Carter and
11 conceptual model of GSS, aimed at integrating its key dimensions. Carter, 1998, p. 660).
12 This is the second important contribution of the paper.
13 Noteworthy literature reviews addressing the environment or Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) have pointed out that a weakness of
14 sustainability in related but broader elds, have been recently the Carters' denition is that it provides a view of environmental
15 published; Giunipero et al. (2012), Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby issues solely from a purchasing perspective, and, furthermore, that
16 (2012), and Miemczyk et al. (2012) in purchasing and supply manage- it does not capture the holistic and synergistic impacts that intra-
17 ment, Carter and Easton (2011) and Seuring and Mller (2008) in and inter-organizational practices have on the natural environ-
18 supply chain management. They look at the broader eld, excluding ment. They offer an extended denition as follows:
19 both the studies of mathematically conceptualized models and the environmental purchasing for an individual rm is the set of
20 public sectors (with the exception of Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby in purchasing policies held, actions taken, and relationships
21 the latter case). In contrast, this review includes literature on GSS formed in response to concerns associated with the natural
22 comprehensively, focusing more specically on the selection process environment. These concerns relate to the acquisition of raw
23 rather than the purchasing function or supply chain management in materials, including supplier selection, evaluation and devel-
24 general. Furthermore, it should be clearly noted that this paper does opment; suppliers' operations; in-bound distribution; packa-
25 not focus on decision models for GSS per se, but includes all the ging; recycling; reuse; resource reduction; and nal disposal of
26 literature which discusses environmental aspects in supplier selection. the rm's products (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001, p. 69).
27 In this sense, the scope of this review is broader than the reviews by
28 De Boer et al. (2001) and Wu and Barnes (2011) who focused We will follow the denition by Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) since
29 specically on decision models. this denition recognizes the potential environmental impact
30 This paper aims to answer the following questions: What caused in the relationship between suppliers and purchasers,
31 characterizes the existing studies on green supplier selection?, and, in addition, explicitly mentions the involvement of supplier
32 What are the unaddressed or overlooked areas within green selection and evaluation in green purchasing.
33 supplier selection research? and What could be the future
34 directions of research into green supplier selection? This paper 2.2. Denition of the supplier selection process
35 provides an overview of the existing articles on GSS, demonstrates
36 useful categorizations for analyzing these articles, and proposes a Supplier selection is usually referred to as one activity, yet
37 conceptual model that can be used for researchers and practi- comprises several tasks (Cousins et al., 2008; De Boer et al., 2001;
38 tioners in the eld of GSS. Thus, we aim to assist both researchers Van Weele, 2010), as illustrated in Fig. 1. It typically starts with the
39 and practitioners. process of identifying needs. Then, purchasers agree on measure-
40 The organization of the paper is as follows. First, we provide ment criteria for potential suppliers, and a call for tenders is
41 denitions of three key terms. Second, the methodology for the communicated to potential suppliers. A selection is made after
42 literature review is presented, as well as the framework for reviewing the information submitted by candidate suppliers. This
43 analyzing the articles. Then, we present the analysis of the articles usually takes several rounds, and the nal choice is made from a
44 found. Next, based on the analysis of those articles, a conceptual number of qualied suppliers. In addition, it may also include a
45 model for GSS is suggested. The paper ends with a conclusion post-selection evaluation of the supplier's performance (Morton,
46 regarding the characteristics of the literature on GSS, unaddressed 2002). The information obtained from a post-selection evaluation
47 aspects, potential further research, and implications for research- may be stored and made available for later use and improvement.
48 ers, practitioners and policy-makers. The evaluation of supplier performance is sometimes also referred
49 to as monitoring suppliers (Zhu and Geng, 2001) or application
50 feedback (Wu and Barnes, 2011). By including post-selection
51 2. Denition of key terms evaluation in our model of supplier selection, we extend previous
52 models of the supplier selection process (De Boer et al., 2001;
53 2.1. Denition of green purchasing Wu and Barnes, 2011) without changing their core structure.
54
55 The concept of green purchasing has obtained a place in the 2.3. Viewpoints on environmental criteria
56 eld of supply chain management and various denitions of green
57 purchasing have been developed. One of them is: It is generally recognized that a wide range of environmental
58 criteria are used to measure environmental impact. They are applied in
59 green purchasing is an environmentally-conscious purchasing the supplier selection process, in addition to the conventional criteria
60 practice that reduces sources of waste and promotes recycling such as price, quality, and delivery. Environmental criteria are
61
62 Identifying needs Formulation Call for Qualifi Final Evaluation of supplier
63 and specifications of criteria tenders cation selection performance
64
feedback
65
66 Fig. 1. Supplier selection process (Cousins et al., 2008; De Boer et al., 2001; Van Weele, 2010).
M. Igarashi et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management () 3
1 commonly structured in relation to either the product or service being

2 purchased or to the supplier producing or providing them (Pettersen Database 10selected journals
3 and Larsen, 2011; Fet et al., 2011). -Science Direct
-Scopus -J of PSM
4 In this study, we apply the classications product-related (-Eur J PSM)
-ProQuest
5 criteria and organization-related criteria as the main point of -J Bus Log
6 departure, thereby following the established terminology, most -Manag Sci
-Decision SC
7 notably in the public sector and EU-policy documents. -SCM: Int J
8 Structured -J Oper Res
key words -Eur J Oper
9 search -J Oper Mgm
10 3. Methodology between -Env Sci Tec
1991-2011
11 -J Envir Mgm
12 According to Webster and Watson (2002) the importance of a
13 literature review lies in creating a rm foundation for advancing
14 knowledge and facilitating theory development. Certain areas of Key words
15 research may be closed and new areas may be discovered. total 1481 search
16 between
To provide a comprehensive review of GSS, we clearly and 1991-2011
17 precisely dene the literature to be targeted.
18 A three-stage process was used for our review, modied from
19 methods employed by Traneld et al. (2003) and Seuring and
20 relevant
Mller (2008): relevant 12
irrelevant
21 192
1289
22 1. Material collection: the material to be collected is dened and
23 delimited. exclude duplications
24 2. Category selection: general aspects, e.g., publication year,
25 research type, etc., and specic aspects of the material to be
26 relevant
assessed are selected. 48 + 12
27 3. Material classication and evaluation: the material is analyzed
28 according to the categories dened in stage 2.
Fig. 2. Material collection method ow.
29
30
Stages 1 and 2 are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, respec-
31 Since GSS is a decision-making process in green purchasing,
tively. Stage 3 is described in Section 4.
32 we also searched by multiple word phrases such as green
33 purchasing AND decision making in the title and abstract.
34 3.1. Material collection Purchasing and procurement were used interchangeably.
35 Although the difference between the terms purchasing and
36 In order to extract articles which deal with GSS, a structured procurement is discussed by researchers, there are no common
37 keyword search was conducted in two resources: three databases differentiations (Cousins et al., 2008; Van Weele, 2010). While
38 and 10 selected journals. The two-pronged search method is some say procurement is the more strategic of the two and
39 depicted in Fig. 2. purchasing covers the day-to-day activity, others say the reverse
40 The left side in Fig. 2 shows the search in three major (Cousins et al., 2008). We followed the usual custom of using
41 databases, Science Direct (which contains 2500 peer-reviewed purchasing and procurement interchangeably, and used both
42 journals), Scopus (which contains 18,000 peer-reviewed journals), for searching articles. Green was again replaced by environ-
43 and ProQuest ABI-Inform database (which is widely recognized in mental and sustainable again. Hence, we had six combinations
44 the Economics and Business Administration area, and contains of words instead of just green purchasing.
45 3000 periodicals). In the search ow illustrated on the right side in Fig. 2, we
46 Regarding key words, we used various alternatives of green searched in 10 selected journals in the areas of general manage-
47 supplier selection from the purchasing literature. Green was ment, purchasing management and environmental management.
48 replaced by either environmental or by sustainable. We rea- All these journals have received an Impact Factor rating higher
49 soned that environmental often has the same meaning as green than 1.0 by Thomas Reuters in the recent past. We also used a
50 in the sense of a reduced impact on nature, sustainable embraces journal list which was reviewed by Weber et al. (1991) as a
51 the three aspects: economic, environmental and social, and is thus reference. We searched these journals separately because some
52 a broader term. Vendor, contractor and partner were used of them were not included in the databases for all of the years
53 interchangeably with supplier. For the concept selection, the where articles could be published. The 10 selected journals were:
54 alternatives were choice, evaluation, assessment and quali- Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (before 1995,
55 cation. In total, we had 60 combinations of key words which were European Journal of Purchasing and Supply management), Journal
56 used for searching the entire texts in articles. Examples of our of Business Logistics, Management Science, Decision Sciences,
57 search terms included green vendor selection, environmental Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Journal of
58 supplier evaluation or sustainable supplier assessment. We also the Operational Research Society, European Journal of Operation
59 searched by multiple keywords, such as green AND supplier Research, Journal of Operations Management, Environmental
60 selection, environmentn AND supplier evaluation, or sustai- Science & Technology, and Journal of Environmental Management.
61 nabln AND supplier assessment in the title and abstract. As This systematic search should ensure that we accumulated a
62 commonly known, n indicates a wild card search. We used n for relatively complete census of the relevant literature (Webster and
63 environmental and sustainable, because these words also Watson, 2002).
64 appear in forms such as environmentally friendly, environmen- The search was restricted to articles published in scholarly and
65 tal soundness, sustainability or sustainably depending on their peer reviewed journals, written in English and published between
66 grammatical usage. 1991 and 2011. In 1991, Weber et al. (1991) published their seminal
1 article on supplier selection criteria, where they reported no which uses deductive methods to arrive at conclusions, is further
2 environmental criteria among supplier selection articles until classied into three sub-groups: analytical conceptual research,
3 1990. Hence, 1991 seemed to be a logical starting point for analytical mathematical research, and analytical statistical research.
4 mapping any publications on green supplier selection. Analytical conceptual research includes the development of concepts
5 We obtained a total of approximately 1500 articles as initial and conceptual modelling. Analytical mathematical research is used
6 candidates from our database search. After judging whether each to develop new mathematical relationships between variables, and
7 article dealt with a specic issue related to green supplier selec- to study how the models behave. Analytical statistical research
8 tion or evaluation by its title, abstract or text, a total of 192 articles integrates logical/mathematical models from analytical research
9 were chosen. If an article did not mention the green aspects in and statistical models from empirical research into a single theory.
10 supplier selection, the article was excluded even though it con- The models are developed for future empirical statistical tests.
11 tained key search words such as environment and/or supplier Empirical research is classied into three sub-groups: empirical
12 selection. After eliminating the duplicates, 48 articles were experimental research, empirical statistical research, and empiri-
13 chosen as literature to be reviewed from the database search. cal case study. Empirical experimental research involves examin-
14 The duplications resulted from the fact that the same article ing relationships between variables by manipulating these in a
15 appeared for different key word searches. 12 additional articles controlled setting to determine the exact effect on specic depen-
16 were retrieved from the 10 journals described above. In total, we dent variables. In empirical statistical research, quantitative
17 obtained 60 articles for a full paper review. empirical data from a large number of organizations are analysed.
18 Empirical case studies seek to develop insightful relationships
19 3.2. Category selection between variables through in-depth observations of real world
20 processes, usually within a limited number of organizations.
21 We used the following general classication categories for the
22 review of the relevant literature: year of publication, research type,
23 and theoretical perspective. In addition to these general categories, 3.2.3. Theoretical perspective
24 we developed a more specic classication scheme for reviewing For each article, we look at the presence of specic theories.
25 the articles on GSS, based on the supply chain position and the Given the topic, one could assume that theories such as transac-
26 stage in the supplier selection process. The different perspectives tion cost economics, agency theory, and resource-based view are
27 on environmental criteria were also key categories for classica- used in the papers on GSS. On the other hand, a recent review on
28 tion. The classication categories are listed in Table 1, and a further the topic of purchasing and supply chain management (Chicksand
29 explanation of each category is given in the following sub-sections. et al., 2012) suggests that much of the research in this eld lacks a
30 theoretical basis.
31 3.2.1. Year of publication
32 As explained in Section 3.1, the search was limited to the period 3.2.4. Supply chain context
33 from 1991 to 2011. Each of the 60 articles was classied according First, our denition of supply chain context includes three
34 to its year of publication. elements: the supply chain position, the power balance between
35 buyers and suppliers, and the inter-organizational perspective
36 3.2.2. Research type taken in the study.
37 The classication of the articles in terms of research type is The relative position in the supply chain considered by each
38 based on Wacker (1998). He divides theory-building research into article is an important characteristic in our review. Depending on
39 two groups: analytical and empirical research. Analytical research, which position the focal supply chain actor has, the environmental
40
41 Table 1
42 Classication categories in the review.
43
Categories Attributes, notes
44
45 Year of publication 19912011
46 research type Analytical (conceptual, mathematical, statistical)
47 Empirical (experimental, statistical, case study)
48
49 Theoretical perspective Theory addressed in an article
Supply chain context A rst tier supplier or a sub-system provider as a supplier and an end-product manufacturer, a construction company,
50
Supply chain position a service provider as a purchaser, or more upstream relation
51 An end-product manufacturer, a construction company, a service provider as a supplier and an end-user (a government agency,
52 a municipality or a private sector user) as a purchaser
53
54 Power balance Whether an article addresses relative power balance between the focal buyer and its suppliers
55
56 Perspective Only the buyer's perspective is taken into account or both the buyer's and the supplier's perspectives are taken into account
57
Supplier selection process Identifying needs and specications
58
Formulation of criteria
59 Call for tenders
60 Qualication
61 Final selection
Evaluation of supplier performance
62
63
Environmental criteria Product-related criteria
64 Organization-related criteria
65
66
1 End user, e.g.

Manufacturer,
2 Upstream first tier Government agency,
Constructor, Consumer
supplier supplier Municipality,
3 Service provider etc.
Private sector user
4
5
6 Classification 1 Classification 1 Classification 1 Classification 2
7
8
Classification 3 (both Classification1 and Classification 2)
9
10 Fig. 3. Classications of possible supply chain positions in the review.
11
12
13 impact of supplier selection may be different, especially from a life 14
14 cycle perspective, and furthermore, external pressure on environ- 12
15 mental issues varies. Detecting a supply chain position for all
16 articles will enable us to derive implications for future research. 10
17 Supplier selections occur in different supply chain positions 8
18 involving different adjacent actors. We use three classications:
6
19 (1) The buyer is an end-product manufacturer, a construction
20 company, a service provider or a more upstream organization such 4
21 as a parts manufacturer or a sub-system provider. (2) The buyer is 2
22 an end-user such as a government agency, a municipality or a
0
23 private sector user (excluding the personal consumer). (3) The
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
24 positions in classication 1 and 2 are considered simultaneously in
25 the paper. The classications are displayed in Fig. 3. For each
Fig. 4. Number of publications on GSS.
26 article we identied whether the research focused on specic
27 positions in the supply chain, and if so, what these positions were.
28 Where a description was not clear enough to detect the supply article such as research type, theoretical perspective, supply chain
29 chain position, or no descriptions were given, we classied the position, supplier selection process, and environmental criteria.
30 supply chain position of the paper as not specied. The articles are numbered from 1 to 60, making it easier to refer to
31 The second element of supply chain context concerns the them later.
32 relative power of the buyer over suppliers and vice versa. We will Concerning the reliability of the material selection and data
33 assess whether or not the papers address this issue. analysis, the rst author selected most of the research material,
34 Regarding the last element of supply chain context in supplier but all three authors jointly determined the classication cate-
35 selection, we will assess whether a study takes the perspective of gories. In cases where the classication of an article was not
36 only one side (e.g., the buyer's perspective), or both sides, i.e., obvious, it was discussed jointly by the rst and second authors.
37 including both the buyer's and supplier's perspective. For the purpose of transparency, a table which presents the
38 classication results of all the articles is attached as Appendix A,
39 3.2.5. Supplier selection process so that other researchers may verify our analysis.
40 In Section 2.2, we presented a general supplier selection
41 process model (see Fig. 1). The different stages in a supplier 4.1. Year of publication
42 selection process have their specic features (see De Boer et al.,
43 2001) and therefore it is important to consider which stage(s) is or As shown in Fig. 4, no article on GSS is found until the early
44 are covered in each article on GSS. For each article we assessed 1990s. The rst article discussing GSS was published in 1994. After
45 which of the following stages were addressed: identifying the this, publications on GSS were infrequent, until 2001. The rst
46 needs and specications, formulating and weighing the criteria, study we identied as addressing the environmental aspects in
47 the call for tenders, the qualication of suitable suppliers, the nal supplier selection was done by Lloyd (1994). He explores what
48 selection, and the evaluation of supplier performance. methods should be used for evaluating suppliers' environmental
49 performances. A study by Lamming and Hampson (1996) followed,
50 3.2.6. Environmental criteria which Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011) identify as the rst study
51 As described in Section 2.3, we examined the articles' descrip- addressing environmental criteria in purchasing. The study com-
52 tion and/or discussion of environmental criteria from a product prehensively identies the environmental issues in supply man-
53 level and an organizational level perspective. Therefore, each agement practices. Since 2001, articles on GSS have been
54 article was classied as focusing on product-related environmental published constantly, and in the last three years the number of
55 criteria or organization-related environmental criteria, focusing on publications has grown substantially.
56 both, or not specifying any types. In addition, we also recorded the
57 concrete environmental criteria within these two main categories. 4.2. Research type
58 To our knowledge, this characteristic of environmental criteria has
59 never been examined in previous studies. We follow the classication of research type suggested by
60 Wacker (1998) as described in Section 3.2.2. As illustrated in
61 Fig. 5, analytical mathematical research is dominant, and accounts
62 4. Results for 26 articles (43%) of the literature on GSS. Analytical conceptual
63 research was used in 11 articles (18%). We did not identify any
64 We analyzed 60 articles which were identied by the method single analytical statistical study. Empirical research accounts for
65 described in Section 3. An overview of the articles reviewed is 23 studies (39%), and 13 articles (22%) out of these 23 take a
66 shown in Appendix A. It presents the basic attributes for each statistical approach. Most of them employ the questionnaire
1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 environmental performances, such as environmental conscious-

2 ness, the use of hazardous substances, manufacturing processes, or
3 conceptual waste management, without addressing conventional criteria such
analytical
4 as cost, quality, and the ability to deliver on time (Awasthi et al.,

mathematical
5 2010; Deng and Xu, 2010; Hsu and Hu, 2009; Lu et al., 2007; Tseng,
6 2010; Tuzkaya et al., 2009). The majority of the articles, however,
statistical
7 aim to develop techniques for adding environmental criteria to the
8 statistical conventional ones in supplier selection. The remaining articles
9 study how to mathematically model the three dimensions of
empirical
10 case study sustainability: economic, environmental, and social issues

11 (Bai and Sarkis, 2010; Bykzkan and ifi, 2011; Dou and
12 experimental Sarkis, 2010; Kuo et al., 2010).
13
14 Fig. 5. Research type of the literature on GSS.
4.2.3. Empirical statistical research
15
The majority in this category examine the actual practices of
16 survey method or database investigation for data collection.
green purchasing in the private and/or public sector. Three articles
17 The remaining 10 articles (17%) rely on case studies which
focus on the private sector (Min and Galle, 1997, 2001; Nawrocka,
18 typically use interviews as the main method for data collection.
2008) and they conducted survey questionnaires and interviews,
19 In the sections below, we describe the main results of the
respectively. Four articles are identied in the public sector
20 papers found under the different categories of research type.
(Nissinen et al., 2009; Parikka-Alhola, 2008; Sporrong and
21 It should be noted that in most papers GSS is the main topic.
Brchner, 2009; Zhu and Geng, 2001). These studies consider the
22 However, some papers (Foerstl et al., 2010; Gavronski et al., 2011;
status quo, problems and drivers on GSS in different purchasing
23 Koplin et al., 2007; Paulraj, 2011; Tarantini et al., 2011) report
situations and in different countries. Both the public and private
24 ndings on GSS as part of another main topic.
sector are examined in three articles (Holt, 2004; Michelsen and
25
De Boer, 2009; Varns et al., 2009).
26
4.2.1. Analytical conceptual research Two articles discuss green supply management from the
27
Most of the analytical research focuses on how' to incorporate the resource-based view (Barney, 1991). They argue that internal
28
environmental aspect in supplier selection (Chen, 2005; Humphreys resources, such as green process management (Gavronski et al.,
29
et al., 2003a; Humphreys et al., 2003b; Noci, 1997; Shaik and Abdul- 2011) and strategic purchasing (Paulraj, 2011), are positively
30
Kader, 2011). Noci (1997) and Humphreys et al. (2003a, b), as well as related to green supply management, in which green supplier
31
Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011) present different frameworks for selection is one of its components.
32
choosing environmental criteria, and suggest certain approaches for In summary, the dominant subject in empirical statistical
33
including the green concept in the practical assessment of suppliers. research is describing current practices of green purchasing in
34
The environmental criteria are dealt with as a stand-alone issue by the private and/or public sectors.
35
Noci and Humphreys et al., and only Shaik and Abdul-Kader address
36
the environmental aspect as needed to be integrated into other
37 4.2.4. Empirical case study
aspects. The framework suggested by Chen (2005) has two stages.
38 The outstanding feature in this category is the actual extent
The rst stage considers the environmental management system
39 to which environmental requirements are used in the supplier
certication, such as ISO14001, as the minimum requirement, while
40 selection process by rms in different countries (Deans, 1999;
the second stage screens the suppliers by requirements other than the
41 Jabbour and Jabbour, 2009; Vanalle et al., 2011; Wolf and Seuring,
environmental ones.
42 2010). While some researchers nd that environmental require-
Other subjects in the category of analytical conceptual research
43 ments were not well incorporated in the supplier selection process
vary. First, the Ishikawa diagram, originally a tool for quality
44 (Jabbour and Jabbour, 2009; Wolf and Seuring, 2010), Vanalle et al.
management, is suggested by Enarsson (1998) as an applicable
45 (2011) nd that data about the environmental aspects were
tool in considering environmental aspects. Second, the question of
46 required as concrete selection criteria. Deans (1999) observes the
how environmental criteria should be identied is a focal point in
47 effectiveness of guidelines which contained concrete environmen-
two articles (Lloyd, 1994; Huang and Keskar, 2007). Both studies
48 tal requirements. In the case of purchasing paper products by both
argue that a set of environmental criteria should be selectively
49 the private and public sectors, environmental criteria are identi-
congured based on a rm's business strategy. Third, Lamming
50 ed, but it is still unclear how the environmental criteria are
and Hampson (1996) and Preuss (2002) discuss the role of GSS in
51 balanced with other criteria (Polonsky et al., 1998).
supply chain management. The last subject is the focus on life
52 Other articles cover different subjects in various contexts. The
cycle assessment (LCA). The study by Baitz et al. (2005) implies
53 topics are: a conceptual framework for incorporating sustainability
that LCA-based information could effectively be used in the early
54 into supply management, which is developed based on the case of
decision-making stage in purchasing.
55 an automotive rm in Germany (Koplin et al., 2007), the green
In summary, there are different approaches of integrating
56 public procurement of computers in the US (Li and Geiser, 2005),
environmental aspects in supplier selection. In addition, there
57 the impact of supplier evaluation on a rm's environmental
are discussions on the role of GSS in supply chain management
58 initiative (Walton et al., 1998), using LCA information in supplier
as well.
59 selection in the public procurement of building materials
60 (Tarantini et al., 2011), and supplier management in terms of
61 4.2.2. Analytical mathematical research sustainability risk assessment in the chemical industry (Foerstl
62 These articles deal with tools or techniques on how to process et al., 2010).
63 the various types of data and information for the nal decision. In short, the papers using empirical case study vary consider-
64 The tools and techniques employed vary among the articles. ably in terms of focus. Some examine the current practice of green
65 In addition, the viewpoint taken on the environmental aspects purchasing, while others identify facilitators, or address useful
66 varies as well. Some discuss how to evaluate a supplier's tools or models for GSS.
1 4.3. Theoretical perspective selecting and weighting the criteria, and stage (4) Final selection
2 are most often discussed, in 30 and 37 studies respectively. The
3 We found a clear use of specic theories such as the resource- fact that most of the studies which look at the nal selection also
4 based view (Gavronski et al., 2011; Paulraj, 2011), the dynamic consider how to assign weights to criteria explains why these
5 capabilities view (Foerstl et al., 2010) and Porter's market-based frequencies are similar. We nd no studies that deal with stage (0)
6 view (Preuss, 2002). These are the only apparent theories we could Identifying needs and specication. It may be because this stage
7 identify in the reviewed articles. In the remaining articles, no clear is situated far ahead of the actual selection process. Stage (2) Call
8 theoretical perspective could be detected. It is surprising that for tenders and (3) Qualication are focused on in six (10%) and
9 stakeholder theory, which turned out to be the most prevalent eight articles (13%), respectively. This percentage of the qualica-
10 theory in the literature on green supply chain management (Carter tion stage is similar to what Wu and Barnes (2011) present. They
11 and Easton, 2011), is not referred to in any of the articles. Given the investigated the literature on general supplier selection models
12 study by Carter and Easton (2011), one would perhaps also expect and identied 14% of the articles addressing qualication. Stage (5)
13 the use of transaction cost economics, but we found no articles Evaluation, i.e., the evaluation of the supplier's and the product's
14 using this theory either. Neither did we nd articles using other performance after delivery, is focused on in eight articles. Given
15 possibly relevant theories, such as agency theory or population that valuable information from this process is directed back to the
16 theory (Sarkis et al., 2011). This nding supports Seuring and previous processes, one would perhaps have expected more
17 Mller (2008), who conducted a literature review on sustainable attention to this stage in the literature. And lastly, six articles do
18 supply chain management and found that a theoretical back- not dene clearly which stages of the supplier selection process
19 ground was often missing. are considered.
20 In summary, the nal selection stage has the most attention in
21 the GSS literature, while the early stages and post-selection stages
4.4. Supply chain context
22 are almost neglected.
23
Our study shows that 33 of the articles discuss GSS in the
24
context of having an end-product manufacturer, a construction
25 4.6. Environmental criteria
company, a service provider, or a more upstream organization as a
26
purchaser (classication 1). The dominant case is an end-product
27 Taken together, the analysed articles mention many environ-
manufacturer as a purchaser. Eight articles focus on supplier
28 mental criteria, but the classication of the criteria into different
selection, with a public or private sector user as the purchaser
29 groups varies among the studies. Several researchers introduce
(classication 2). Only two articles consider both the supply chain
30 their own classications and present various concrete environ-
positions above (Baitz et al., 2005; Holt, 2004) (classication 3). It
31 mental criteria in each classication. Lloyd (1994) classies envir-
should be noted that one quarter of the articles do not specically
32 onmental criteria into two main groups: environmental criteria
indicate the supply chain position.
33 related to products, and criteria related to the supplier. Enarsson
Even though the supply chain position is detected in 43 of the
34 (1998), Chen (2005), Handeld et al. (2002), Huang and Keskar
articles, discussion of the issue of power balance is rare. A survey by
35 (2007), and Parrika-Alhola (2008) use similar ways of classifying Q2
Holt (2004) discovered that smaller rms had signicantly lower
36 environmental criteria. Another method of classication is
inuence on their suppliers than large rms. Min and Galle (2001)
37 employed by Humphreys et al. (2003a, b), who distinguish
argue that large rms are likely to mandate their suppliers' environ-
38 between quantitative criteria and qualitative criteria, still the
mental commitment due to their greater bargaining power.
39 distinction between product-related and organization-related cri-
Discussion of both the purchasers' and suppliers' sides is
40 teria prevails in the literature on GSS.
identied in three articles (Holt, 2004; Michelsen and De Boer,
41 According to this distinction, more than half of the articles
2009; Wolf and Seuring, 2010). They reveal the discrepancies
42 consider both product-related and organization-related criteria.
between purchasers and suppliers. Perception differences are
43 Ten articles mention only organization-related criteria, while three
uncovered by Michelsen and De Boer (2009), regarding the
44 articles only use product-related criteria. Six articles state the term
frequency and importance of environmental requirements formu-
45 environmental criteria without further specifying them. Seven
lated by the purchasers, and by Holt (2004) regarding the rejection
46 articles do not specically mention environmental criteria. Thus,
of bids for environmental reasons.
47 78% of the articles mention either product-related or organization-
In short, the latter two elements of supply chain context are, in
48 related criteria or both. Nonetheless, it is not clear whether
most cases, not a main discussion point in the GSS literature.
49 authors are aware of this distinction.
50 When we look at concrete environmental criteria presented in
51 4.5. Supplier selection process empirical studies, we observe that organization-related criteria
52 typically include a certication of the environmental management
53 Fig. 6 shows which stages of the supplier selection process the system, an environmental policy, compliance to regulations, and
54 articles discuss. Stage (1) Formulation of criteria, including an evaluation of the second tier suppliers' environmental perfor-
55 mances. Typical product-related criteria include reduced use of
56 0 10 20 30 40 toxic substances, recyclability, environmental labelling, and the
57 0. Identifying needs & specification recycling of packaging. When it comes to the environmental
58 1. Formulation of criteria criteria suggested in the analytical studies, staff training for raising
59 2. Call for tenders the awareness of environmental consideration and green market
60 3. Qualification share are distinct organization-related criteria. The use of green
61 4. Final selection technology and reduced use of resources are distinct product-
62 5. Evaluation of supplier related criteria. Interestingly, they are not seen in the empirical
63 not specified studies. Environmental criteria which are concerned with waste
64 Fig. 6. Focus of the literature on stages in the supplier selection process. *The
management are common in both empirical and analytical studies.
65 numbering labels of stages correspond to the numbers of supplier selection process In short, most articles cover both product-related and
66 column in Appendix A. organization-related criteria, yet empirical and analytical studies
1 clearly seem to focus on different sets of criteria within these In a similar vein, but almost ten years earlier, Preuss (2002) argued
2 classications. that (p. 313): greener supply requiresabove all, a greater role
3 in corporate strategy making. Koplin et al. (2007) also argue that
4 the successful integration of environmental and social aspects in
5 5. Analysis and discussions the purchasing processes requires rms to align these with their
6 corporate strategies and policies. Aligning green supplier selection
7 In this section, we will rst present the key ndings that with the organization's overall strategy requires that the general
8 resulted from our analyses across the categories presented in the concept of green is made more concrete for the purpose of
9 previous section, in order to identify how GSS has developed applying it in supplier selection. Thus, effective GSS starts by
10 during the past two decades and which characteristics are dening what green really means in a given organization, and,
11 discernible. Then, based on the analyses, as well as the results based on that, meaningful green supplier selection criteria can be
12 from Section 4, we will explain how we identify what could be the formulated. Aligning supplier selection with an organization's overall
13 key useful dimensions of GSS. green strategy and deriving meaningful green selection criteria is
14 put forward as the rst key dimension of a conceptual model
15 5.1. Analysis of the publication distribution of GSS.
16 The second key-dimension which we put forward deals with
17 GSS has only recently begun to emerge as a more recognizable the role of decision-making tools and models in GSS. As mentioned
18 body of knowledge. It is still an immature eld. As seen in Fig. 4, before, and referred to in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.1, the review
19 few studies existed at the beginning of the 21st century. Since showed that many papers focus on mathematical techniques for
20 then, more and more studies have sought to incorporate environ- aiding purchasers in the actual assessment and weighing of
21 mental aspects in the supplier selection process. The spike in 2010 environmental criteria. The fact that most GSS research falls in
22 and 2011 in Fig. 4 can, to some extent, be explained by multiple this category does not necessarily mean that all of this research is
23 publications by the same authors: article no. 2 and 3 (Bai and demand-driven. Still, as Preuss (2002) argues (p. 313): Environ-
24 Sarkis), no.5 and 6 (Bykzkan), no. 7 and 8 (Che), no.28 and 29 mental questions are more complex than traditional sourcing
25 (Kuo) and no.50, 51 and 52 (Tseng). While this particular increase issues in that their time scale is longer and the interaction
26 on research activity on GSS can be said to have taken place in a between individual variables more complex. Consequently,
27 somewhat narrow area, the articles are original in terms of addressing environmental issues in the manufacturing supply
28 methods used and their contribution. chain can be hampered by problems inherent in the decision-
29 Next, we analyze the trend in terms of the research type making process. It seems reasonable to assume that the inclusion
30 employed. Table 2 presents the development in publications by of environmental criteria does not make supplier selection easier,
31 research type. We can observe an increase in research output over and that some tools assisting decision-making are necessary in
32 the past few years caused by the apparent popularity of applying practice or should be at least considered, hence we include this
33 analytical mathematical research to GSS, especially mathematical issue as a key-dimension of a conceptual model or GSS.
34 modelling. This popularity of mathematical modelling in GSS The third key dimension we suggest consists of considering GSS
35 research seems out of sync with the arguments of Huang and as a series of interrelated decisions and information processing
36 Keskar (2007). They consider supplier selection in general, not activities rather than a single, isolated choice. Referring to the
37 limited to GSS, and argue that while strategic thinking can provide general process model of supplier selection, see Fig. 1, the
38 qualitative solutions, a mathematically optimal solution has no literature review resulted in a set of GSS papers, which, taken
39 meaning if it does not match a rm's business strategy. There is a together, address almost all of the stages in supplier selection,
40 need to integrate strategic thinking with quantitative optimiza- from the early stages such as formulating criteria and qualifying
41 tion. Furthermore, articles dealing with the mathematical model- potential suppliers, to the nal stage of selecting the ultimate bid.
42 ling are usually extended applications of models which have Clearly, most, and perhaps too much, attention has been paid to
43 already been developed for conventional supplier selection. There- models for the nal selection stage, but the importance of the
44 fore, the relative contribution of such analytical mathematical early stages is clearly addressed as well. Deng and Xu (2010), for
45 studies to the development of the GSS eld is limited. example, emphasise the need to rst screen the set of potential
46 suppliers in order to eliminate those whose environmental stances
47 5.2. Identifying the key dimensions of GSS may conict with the buying rm's own stance. Others, such as
48 Huang and Keskar (2007), focus specically on dening an appro-
49 Although relatively few in number, several authors (see Section priate set of green supplier selection criteria, deeply grounded in a
50 4.2.1) stress the importance of aligning green supplier selection rm's strategy. Therefore, the results of the literature review
51 with the wider (green) strategy of the organization or corporation. suggest that greening supplier selection may or perhaps should
52 Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011) state that (p. 54): the selection of concern all stages in the process. Specic environmental criteria
53 the best supplier must be driven by a manufacturer's (OEM) green are suggested and addressed in both the analytical and empirical
54 supply chain strategy, which is a high-level management decision. GSS research, but where in the process should they be concretized
55
56
57 Table 2
Development in the GSS research by research type.
58
59 Research type 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
60
61 Analytical Conceptual 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Research Mathematical 1 1 1 1 1 4 11 6
62
Statistical
63
64 Empirical Statistical 1 2 1 2 5 2
Research Case study 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
65 Experiment
66
1 and communicated toward suppliers? We argue that effective GSS requirements to the supplier that is perceived to be best in class
2 requires a rather deliberate design of the selection process in when it comes to environmental performance, both internally and
3 which the need and possibilities for greening are considered in further upstream in the supply chain.
4 each stage, and which secures coherence throughout the entire Finally, regarding perceptual discrepancies (c), while the exist-
5 process. ing GSS papers typically view GSS as an internal activity carried
6 The fourth and nal dimension we suggest concerns the out by the rm's purchaser, several papers report on the discre-
7 importance of considering the wider supply chain context in which pancies between a supplier's perception of environmental require-
8 GSS takes place. Following our literature review we distinguish ments and the purchaser's perception of those requirements (Holt,
9 between three aspects of supply chain context: (a) the position of 2004; Michelsen and De Boer, 2009; Wolf and Seuring, 2010).
10 the focal organization in the supply chain (b) the power, vis--vis Green supplier selection criteria do not necessarily play the role
11 suppliers, that can be exerted by the focal organization under- they are assigned to on paper. As illustrated in one of the inter-
12 taking the selection, and (c) inter-organizational issues of supplier views carried out by Nawrocka (2008): .in most cases the
13 selection. i.e., the degree of perceptual discrepancies between the environmental criteria are paid lip service in the selection process,
14 focal organization and the suppliers regarding the meaning, it is the money that decides' as one of the respondents phrased it
15 importance and use of green criteria. Whilst few of the reviewed (p. 356). If green criteria are not really taken seriously by the
16 GSS articles specically address the issue of supply chain context buying rm, it is doubtful if the suppliers will understand their
17 as such, there are several, clear references to one or more of the signicance, as is also suggested by Michelsen and De Boer (2009).
18 three aspects above, and we argue that they are important for If the green dimension in supplier selection is to make a real
19 effective GSS. difference, the buying rm should consider which criteria it really
20 Several papers point to the relevance of the supply chain can commit to and use convincingly in relation to the suppliers.
21 position (a) when considering the effectiveness of GSS. Nawrocka This requires insight into how the suppliers view the buying rm's
22 (2008) refers to Hall (2001), who concludes that green incentives GSS practice.
23 for rms are different depending on the specic position in the Summarizing, based on the literature review we have identied
24 supply chain. It seems, pressure from nal customers and users four key dimensions of GSS.
25 diminishes as one moves further up the supply chain (Nawrocka,
26 2008). This is in line with Preuss (2005) who argues that depend- Aligning supplier selection with an organization's overall green
27 ing on where an organization is positioned in the supply chain, the strategy
28 external pressure (from public opinion, governments and NGOs) The role of decision-making tools and models in GSS
29 to take environmental aspects into account may differ. As a result, GSS as a series of interrelated decisions and information
30 the content, weight and impact of green criteria, as well as the processing activities
31 ease of changing these criteria, are likely to differ throughout the The wider supply chain context in which GSS takes place
32 supply chain.
33 Power also matters (b), when it comes to forcing a supplier to
34 improve its environmental performance and creating the so-called 6. Development of a conceptual model of GSS
35 green multiplier effect in the supply chain (Preuss, 2002). Based on
36 an extensive study of small rms, Nawrocka (2008) concludes Using the dimensions arrived at in the previous section,
37 that: another factor that affects the possibilities for companies a conceptual model of GSS is suggested (see Fig. 7). The purpose
38 to develop green supply chain programs.is their level of inu- of the model is threefold. First, it acts as a qualitative synthesis of
39 ence (p.357). Although power is a multifaceted concept, it seems the results of the past 20 years of research on GSS, by identifying,
40 likely that larger buying rms can exert more power upstream in and combining important aspects of GSS into one model. Second,
41 the supply chain (Holt, 2004; Min and Galle, 2001) and hence, they the model can be used by researchers as a tool for identifying
42 should be able to include more (ambitious) green criteria in their fruitful directions for further research and a framework for
43 selection process than smaller, less powerful rms. Less powerful possible reviews of GSS literature in the future. Third, purchasers,
44 rms, however, may still be able to adjust their environmental consultants and policy-makers may consider it as a tool for
45
46
47 Supply chain context
48 The wider supply chain context in
49 which supplier selection takes place
-The position in the supply chain
50 -The power balance
51 -The perceptual discrepancies
(inter-organizational issue)
52
53
54 C
55 Alignment
56 Aligning supplier selection with
an organizations overall green F
57 E
strategy
58 -Identification of concrete
concept of green
59 -Formulation of meaningful
60 green criteria
A
61 B
Process Tools
62
GSS as a series of interrelated The role of decision-making
63 decisions and information tools and models in GSS
D
64 processing activities
65
66 Fig. 7. Conceptual model of GSS.
1 assessing and developing the GSS practice. We shall return to the perspective when trying to consider the consequences of choosing
2 latter two purposes in the nal section of the paper. First, in this one supplier over another. Furthermore, despite the lack of
3 section, the model is worked out in more detail, both in terms of consensus on the usefulness of decision support systems and
4 the individual dimensions and their interrelationships. models in general, recent research by Kaufmann et al. (2012)
5 suggests a clear and positive relationship between a highly
6 6.1. Aligning supplier selection with an organization's overall green analytical approach to supplier selection and the quality of the
7 strategy decision outcome, measured in terms of nancial and non-
8 nancial supplier performance. The results of Kaufmann et al.
9 The rst dimension deals with the need to develop an under- (2012) are in line with the conclusions of earlier work in this area
10 standing of what green means in relation to an organization's by De Boer and Van der Wegen (2003).
11 overall strategy, and consequently, which aspects should be Still, as the literature review in this paper also pointed out,
12 considered important in the context of the organization's purchas- there are vast amounts of models to choose from, and, again
13 ing function, in particular when it comes to selecting suppliers. referring to De Boer and Van der Wegen (2003), different supplier
14 Without such an understanding, the list of possible environmental selection situations will probably require different decision mod-
15 criteria to include and use in a decision model may become els. What constitutes an appropriate set of decision models for GSS
16 endless and the green dimension of the selection may lose its in a particular organization is therefore not obvious and needs to
17 signicance. In addition, without making the implications of be seen in relation to the other dimensions in the conceptual
18 green sufciently understood for supplier selection, it will be model of GSS.
19 difcult for purchasers to effectively and convincingly commu-
20 nicate the criteria to the suppliers. 6.3. GSS as a series of interrelated decisions and information
21 Such alignment, however necessary, will not be easy to achieve processing activities
22 quickly. In terms of Simon's (1964) model of an organization as a
23 complex, loosely coupled network of decision-making processes, Given that an organization has developed an initial under-
24 the challenge of supplier selection is to nd or develop green standing of what green means in the context of supplier selection,
25 supplier selection criteria that will contribute to achieving the the question of how and to what extent this understanding should
26 rm's overall green objectives without simultaneously making the be applied in the various stages of the supplier selection process
27 rm violate other fundamental goals, such as prot or quality. This remains. Formulating criteria is the key stage in aligning supplier
28 implies a gradual process of incorporating green as a constraint selection with the green strategy of the rm. As the literature
29 at various levels in the organization, both strategic and opera- review revealed, green supplier selection criteria may be directed
30 tional, such that feasible solutions can be found at each level in more specically to the supplier as an organization or to the
31 relation to all the relevant constraints at that level, not only the product or service purchased from the supplier. Organization-
32 green one. This is in line with Carter and Rogers' (2008) more related criteria will be most important in the stage of qualifying
33 general argument in relation to sustainable supply chain manage- suitable suppliers while product-related criteria are typically
34 ment (SSCM) that: environmental dimensions of SSCM.must dominant in the nal stage of the selection process when con-
35 be undertaken with a clear and explicit recognition of the sidering the proposals from the qualied suppliers (Fet et al., 2011;
36 economic goals of the rm (p.389). In other words, effective and Parikka-Alhola, 2008). Both types of criteria may be relevant when
37 aligned GSS criteria are criteria that both contribute to the overall evaluating the performance of the chosen supplier during the
38 green objectives of the rm and enable the selection of suppliers delivery and use of the product or service supplied. It seems
39 that satisfy other constraints as well. Adopting this perspective, it important to make sure that the various green criteria applied in
40 becomes clear that not necessarily any given green criterion can be the different phases, taken together, constitute a coherent
41 used or makes sense. set aligned with the overall green strategy. This may not be easy
42 It also implies that effective GSS is more than just adding one or or self evident. For example, the rm may be under pressure to
43 another green criterion to the established criteria in a supplier accept or use a specic requirement regarding the amount of
44 selection process. Just as the established criteria are not chosen hazardous materials that may be in a product it purchases. The
45 randomly, but have a particular function (namely to ensure that question, then, is if that requirement, which is product-related in
46 the higher level ambitions of the rm, for example in terms of cost nature, should only be applied in the nal stage of selection as an
47 level, market share, and worker satisfaction, etc., are achieved), the order winner (Hill, 1989) or if a matching organization-related
48 green criteria cannot be chosen randomly either if they are to be criterion should be developed as an order qualier (Hill, 1989)
49 effective. that identies suppliers which actively look for alternative less
50 Given the fundamental importance of this dimension, it is hazardous materials.
51 positioned centrally in the model, with clear implications for the Another complicating factor, which is not unusual for purchas-
52 other three dimensions. We shall rst discuss the three other ing processes in general, is that multiple people representing
53 dimensions in the model before returning to the interrelationships different functions are involved in the various stages of the
54 between all of the dimensions. selection process. Purchasers may be typically involved in the
55 later stages when choosing among tenders and proposals, whereas
56 6.2. The role of decision-making tools and models in GSS Quality Control or Environmental Management representatives
57 may focus more on the formal qualication of suppliers, or on
58 Once the strategic meaning of green' has been identied and measuring the performance of the suppliers (post selection).
59 made more concrete for supplier selection, tools for supporting Effective GSS involves becoming aware of the fragmented nature
60 green supplier selection processes should be considered, leading of the supplier selection process and aiming at achieving coher-
61 to the second dimension in our model. The need for some form of ence throughout all the stages of the process.
62 decision support seems reasonable, given that consideration of
63 environmental aspects further complicates supplier selection in 6.4. The wider supply chain context in which GSS takes place
64 the sense that more criteria must be evaluated and possibly traded
65 off against each other. In addition, as pointed out earlier in The fourth dimension in the conceptual model concerns the
66 the paper, GSS will typically involve applying a longer time need to consider GSS in a wider context. Clearly, in terms of their
1 position in the supply chain, most organizations are both supplier be more precise if more is known about the particular issues at
2 and customer, and thereby play a role in passing through environ- stake (relationship C in Fig. 7).
3 mental requirements throughout the supply chain. Research While the above descriptions of the relationships A, B and C
4 suggests that this process is not without challenges (Nawrocka, consider how the central alignment dimension inuences the
5 2008; Preuss, 2002). We argue that effective GSS must include an other three peripheral dimensions, we suggest that, next, based on
6 assessment of the wider organizational and inter-organizational actual experiences of the rm with implementing GSS, important
7 context. In that way, the focal organization can become aware of insights may be fed back to the central dimension of alignment.
8 its limitations and possibilities when it comes to greening the For example, as a result of applying certain decision tools for GSS
9 supplier selection process. Is the purchasing organization aware of in various stages of the supplier selection process, the insights
10 the power balance in the supply chain? Do suppliers understand obtained about the effectiveness of the GSS practice may lead to a
11 and accept the green criteria put forward by the purchasing bottom-up driven process of reconsidering or adjusting the green
12 organization, and just as important, do the suppliers understand strategy of the rm and the ways purchasing can best contribute
13 why the purchasing organization uses these criteria, i.e., do they to that strategy. Furthermore, an important nding by Walker
14 understand the connection (alignment) between the green selec- et al. (2008) in their analysis of drivers and barriers of environ-
15 tion criteria and the overall green strategy of the purchasing mental supply chain management concerns the strength of exter-
16 organization? How much pressure can or should the purchasing nal drivers on a rm's overall green strategy and initiatives.
17 organization exert on the different suppliers to adapt to demands Mapping the wider supply chain context of GSS is therefore not
18 for more sustainability? Walker et al. (2008) nd that suppliers only driven by the initial results of aligning supplier selection with
19 not necessarily wish to share environmental information. But also, the overall green strategy (relationship C) but is also likely to
20 does the purchasing organization really understand the supplier's provide valuable insights in return, e.g. about external opportu-
21 strategic view on green, and how the supplier has aligned its nities or barriers that may serve as input to the alignment process.
22 functional strategies with this view? Is the purchasing organiza- There are also important relationships between the three
23 tion aware of possible supplier initiatives, for example voluntary peripheral dimensions in the conceptual model, which we shall
24 and industry-specic certication (Walker et al., 2008)? The address here. Similar to the relationships A, B and C, these
25 answers to these questions are likely to have implications for relationships are bidirectional rather than one directional.
26 one or more of the rst three dimensions. A clear relationship exists between the tools and process
27 dimensions. As we know from earlier, more general reviews of
28 6.5. Interrelationships among the four key dimensions the supplier selection literature (De Boer et al., 2001; Wu and
29 Barnes, 2011), the different stages in the process require different
30 An important feature of the conceptual model is the recogni- types of decision support. For example, supplier qualication is
31 tion of the interrelationships between the four key dimensions. typically about screening a larger set of potential suppliers for a
32 We argue that changes in, or decisions regarding one particular smaller set of qualied suppliers. This sorting process is technically
33 dimension, are likely to have consequences for the other three different from the ranking process typically found in the nal
34 dimensions. By explicitly considering these relationships, both selection stage. Therefore, depending on the particular stage in the
35 researchers and practitioners can achieve a more comprehensive selection process under consideration, different decision-making
36 and holistic approach to GSS. We shall address relationships tools may be relevant. Conversely, when considering the adoption
37 between these dimensions below. of a particular decision-making tool, it is important to consider
38 First of all, and as pointed out in Section 6.1, the central dimension which stage(s) in the selection process is(are) covered by this
39 of the model, the alignment of supplier selection with the overall particular tool (relationship D in Fig. 7).
40 green strategy of the organization', by denition has important The process dimension should also be seen in relation to supply
41 implications for all three other dimensions. The outcome of the chain context dimension. From the literature review we learned
42 alignment process is an understanding of what green means for that the supplier may not necessarily understand and acknowl-
43 the organization, and, more specically, is a basic set of green criteria edge the way the purchasing organization uses the information
44 for supplier selection that is relevant for the organization. provided by them in the supplier selection process. Therefore,
45 Choosing and using decision-making tools in GSS, as discussed from the perspective of the purchaser, it is important to consider
46 in Section 6.2, requires the specication of relevant green criteria more specically if suppliers receive enough, and appropriate
47 and information about the decision-maker's preferences. Without information in each of the stages of GSS, and how the gaps
48 knowing the results of the alignment process, i.e., what the between the perceptions of suppliers and purchasers can be
49 relevant green criteria are, there will not be a clear basis for using reduced in each stage (relationship E in Fig. 7).
50 a decision-model. Decision-making tools are only abstractions; In a similar way, the choice for a particular decision-making
51 they rst become valuable when the decision-maker feeds them tool and the supply chain context are related. Certain decision-
52 with data and preference information (relationship A in Fig. 7). making tools may require more detailed information and a higher
53 The basic set of green criteria that results from the alignment degree of openness and collaboration from the suppliers. The lack
54 process will also provide the starting point for nding out in more of information sharing with suppliers is pointed out by Nawrocka
55 detail which of the green criteria apply to the suppliers and which (2008), Wolf and Seuring (2009) and Walker et al. (2008), as a
56 apply to the products and services purchased. In other words, the possible barrier to green supply management. The willingness of
57 design of the selection process in terms of the various stages as suppliers to share information with the purchasing organization,
58 discussed in Section 6.3 is also dependent on the results of the or to spend resources on providing the information in the form
59 alignment process (relationship B in Fig. 7). requested by the purchasing organization, may depend on the
60 The results of the alignment process are also likely to inuence power balance in the supply chain. Highly advanced decision-
61 the assessment of the wider supply chain context as described in making tools requiring the gathering of specic data throughout
62 Section 6.4. Once a clearer picture exists of which basic green the upstream supply chain may not be very suitable unless the
63 criteria the organization wishes to focus on, it will also become purchasing organization is powerful enough to persuade suppliers
64 clearer which parts of the business environment are most relevant, to accept the use of this model (relationship F in Fig. 7).
65 i.e., which suppliers and other relevant actors in the supply chain. Lastly, similar to the logic of the Supply Wheel Model devel-
66 The assessment of the power balance in a supply chain is likely to oped by Cousins et al. (2008), we argue that effective GSS requires
1 an appropriate balancing of the efforts dedicated to each of the stage is not addressed in any of the GSS studies reviewed. Formulat-
2 dimensions. Overemphasizing certain dimensions, for example by ing criteria is seldom mentioned, the focus in most cases is on
3 writing elaborate green strategy documents without considering weighing criteria. Also, the stage of qualication receives relatively
4 the appropriate decision tools for executing green supplier selec- little attention. These early stages in the supplier selection process
5 tion is unlikely to be effective. The same would be true for the inuence the effectiveness and quality of the stages later in the
6 opposite: spending a lot of resources on developing advanced process, and deserve more attention.
7 systems for evaluating green criteria in supplier tenders may prove Another weak area is related to the lack of recognition of where
8 difcult without having a sense of direction in terms of how in the supply chain the studies of GSS are positioned. Discussion of
9 suppliers are supposed to contribute to the overall strategy of the the inuence of the supply chain position considered in a GSS
10 organization. In addition, both the operational decision tools and study is generally lacking, and a quarter of the articles do not
11 the green strategy of the organization should match the position specify the position in the supply chain at all. The perspective
12 and role of the organization in the supply chain. of looking at supplier selection in a dyadic relationship is also
13 lacking. In addition, the public sector needs to be focused on as
14 well as the private sector. A greater sense of awareness of the
15 7. Conclusions, further research and implications supply chain context considered in a study and its inuence on
16 GSS could lead to a more substantial discussion and comparison
17 This paper has analyzed two decades of literature on GSS from among studies.
18 various viewpoints. We now return to the main questions to be In terms of the research types applied to GSS, the current
19 answered in the paper: What characterizes the existing studies on literature shows an unbalance in relation to the topics studied. The
20 green supplier selection?, What are the unaddressed or over- articles dealing with the topic of incorporation of environmental
21 looked areas within green supplier selection research? and What aspects are almost exclusively based on analytical research
22 could be the future directions of research into green supplier approaches and in clear need of empirical research, especially in
23 selection? We address each of these questions and elaborate on the form of case studies or eld experiments that could shed light
24 the implications for practitioners and policy-makers. on the practical effectiveness of the many decision models devel-
25 oped through analytical research. On the other hand, most of the
26 7.1. What characterizes the existing studies on green supplier studies dealing with the topic current practices of GSS are based
27 selection? on empirical research. In most of these studies, a theory-driven
28 conceptual framework is lacking, particularly when it comes to
29 We conclude that after many years with modest attention to linking GSS to an organization's strategy. To ll these gaps more
30 GSS, the volume of GSS research has grown strongly, especially analytical conceptual research is called for. This is in line with the
31 during the last three years. Analytical research focusing on the ndings in a literature review by Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby
32 nal stage in GSS is clearly most dominant. The articles in this (2012), which focuses on socially and environmentally responsible
33 category employ a wide range of methods and techniques from procurement.
34 Operations Research and bear a close resemblance to previously
35 suggested decision models for supplier selection more in general.
36 Empirical research is less prominent than analytical research and 7.3. What could be the future directions of research into GSS?
37 the private sector is more frequently targeted than the public
38 sector. Much of the empirical research lacks a clear theoretical Based on the previous sections, and building further on the
39 background. Another stream of GSS research is conceptual conceptual model of GSS developed in this paper, we address the
40 research, which mainly develops conceptual frameworks for nal question regarding directions of future research. Following
41 integrating environmental aspects in supplier selection. Overall, our conceptual model, based on our review of all the relevant
42 in terms of the research approach taken in the articles, GSS articles, we argue that ideally, GSS research should cover four
43 research seems fragmented and in danger of overemphasizing dimensions: (1) Alignmenta conceptual, strategic dimension,
44 the technical and operational aspects of supplier selection. aimed at providing a decision context and at securing alignment
45 In terms of the subjects addressed, two dominant foci are with the overall strategy, (2) Toolsa technical, operational
46 identied: the integration of environmental aspects into supplier dimension aimed at devising and choosing appropriate tools for
47 selection processes and the mapping and analysis of current GSS information processing and decision support, (3) Processan
48 practices. Recently, other topics, such as the use of information operational and processual dimension aimed at drawing appro-
49 from LCA, applying ideas from the resource-based view to green priate attention to the interrelated stages in a GSS process, and (4)
50 supply management, and GSS in the public sector, have emerged. Supply chain contexta supply chain positioning dimension,
51 Looking at the environmental criteria in supplier selection, the also of strategic importance, and necessary for considering how
52 distinction between product-related criteria and organization- to make effective green supplier selection decisions, given the
53 related criteria appears as a natural and useful way of classifying power structure in the chain.
54 them. However, it remains unclear how many authors use this The few, but valuable existing conceptual studies on Align-
55 distinction deliberately, as most articles do not address their ment must be extended and complemented with an empirical
56 viewpoints on this, but merely list the various kinds of concrete approach. Emerging topics identied in the literature review, such
57 environmental criteria. as the use of LCA based information and the resource-based
58 perspective, could contribute to such studies. Incorporating
59 7.2. What are the unaddressed or overlooked areas within green LCA-based information in and applying a life cycle perspective to
60 supplier selection research? management processes, i.e., life-cycle management (Seuring and
61 Mller, 2008), is likely to help an organization align its overall
62 This study uncovers a number of weak areas in the existing green strategy with its purchasing strategy. Given the nding from
63 literature on GSS. As described earlier, the literature on GSS pays a lot a study by Giunpero et al. (2012), that the involvement of top
64 of attention to the nal stage in the supplier selection process. This management is the most important driver for managing sustain-
65 nding is in line with the literature on supplier selection in general able supply, their specic role in the Alignment dimension is
66 (De Boer et al., 2001; Wu and Barnes, 2011). The needs-identication worth looking into as well.
1 Regarding the Process dimension, more research, both analy- establishing a focus on a limited number of key aspects will
2 tical and empirical, is required into the earlier stages of the GSS. contribute to more effective supplier selection decisions. Without
3 When it comes to Supply chain context, more specic studies of such a focus and an understanding of how green is related to an
4 upstream GSS positions would be valuable, as most of the existing organization's strategy and purpose, the green dimension in
5 studies are aimed at the downstream positions. In addition, the supplier selection may become a thin veneer on the outside of
6 impact of power and discrepancies between the buyer's and the the process, adding real value to neither the purchaser's nor the
7 supplier's perspectives on GSS need further attention. It would be supplier's decisions and actions.
8 useful to study several supply chain stages simultaneously, rather Given the identied key environmental aspects, a purchaser
9 than focusing on a specic stage. The Tools dimension has can start to translate these into specic criteria for the different
10 already received much research attention, but with an almost stages of the supplier selection process, and consider which
11 extreme focus on analytical research. Therefore, the main future decision model or decision support approach is most appropriate
12 research challenge regarding this dimension is to complement the for effectively incorporating the environmental criteria in the
13 analytical studies with more empirical work. decision. Still, as pointed out earlier in the paper, throughout this
14 We would also like to stress the need for what we call process, the purchaser should also consciously consider the supply
15 integrative research that explicitly covers two or more dimen- chain context (Walker et al., 2008). For example, depending on the
16 sions. Most of the existing research focuses on only one of the relative power of certain suppliers, the purchaser might need to
17 dimensions. Notable exceptions are Handeld et al. (2002) and adjust the criteria and/or decision models initially considered
18 Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011). Handeld et al. (2002) develop a (Preuss, 2001). Irrespective of the power balance, however, it is
19 framework for linking corporate strategy to green purchasing and important that purchasers clearly communicate the green criteria
20 address the use of decision models. Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011) towards the suppliers (Seuring and Mller, 2008). Again, focusing
21 also propose a strategic approach to GSS. Furthermore, they on a limited number of key aspects is likely to make this
22 illustrate the applicability of multiple attribute utility theory as a communication both easier and more concrete, and thereby more
23 decision support tool. Still, these studies only look at one relation- convincing for suppliers.
24 ship. Future research should be aimed at considering multiple The literature review has revealed that GSS is a complex,
25 relationships simultaneously. Such research is clearly lacking, and multidimensional problem which requires much of a purchaser.
26 is very important for gaining insight into how rms and organiza- Ideally, a purchaser should be able to understand strategic
27 tions deal with balancing the four dimensions in their GSS processes, recognise the strategic implications of environmental
28 practice, and how this practice could be made more effective. aspects, translate these implications into meaningful criteria for
29 We suspect that the effectiveness of GSS is related to how well supplier selection, obtain insight in the wider supply chain context
30 understood the consequences of decisions in one dimension relate and be able to work with models and methods for evaluating
31 to the others, and how well the four dimensions are balanced. environmental performance. This calls for developing appropriate
32 Finally, particular obstacles or notable aspects of GSS that are education and training programmes for purchasers (Bowen et al.,
33 pointed out in the existing studies, such as the unawareness of the 2001; Seuring and Mller, 2008). It is often unrealistic that all
34 potential economic benet of GSS for a purchaser, and the absence these skills and competencies can be acquired by one person;
35 of an environmental cost measure, are also valuable issues for therefore, purchasers, even more than before, must develop their
36 further research as well. role as facilitators of cross-functional teams in organizations
37 (Carter and Dresner, 2001; Trent, 1998).
38 Finally, the paper also has implications for policy-makers trying
39 7.4. Implications for practitioners and policy-makers to stimulate both the purchasers in the public sector and their
40 suppliers to adopt green purchasing. If one accepts the argument,
41 GSS might be seen by some as a minor extension of conven- according to the conceptual model developed in this paper, that
42 tional supplier selection, simply by adding a few environmental GSS must be grounded in an organization's specic strategy and
43 criteria. However, our study of the literature and the conceptual purpose, the effects of universal one size ts all solutions or
44 model resulting from it, suggest that such a casual add-on recommendations may be limited. Developing guidelines (e.g.,
45 approach is not likely to be very effective. There are many checklists with environmental criteria) for specic industry sectors
46 environmental criteria to choose from, and much time can be or products may be more effective but, policy-makers should still
47 spent by both purchasers and suppliers on trying to nd out what consider the need for local alignment. Stimulating awareness
48 the counterpart really means by green, and how the information among local (public) management and providing sufcient means
49 about green performance is or should be used in the supplier and resources for the training and education of purchasers, may
50 selection processes. perhaps be one of the most effective ways in which higher level
51 Our rst advice to purchasers, therefore, would be to invest policy-makers can contribute to the adaptation of green
52 some time in trying to identify which aspects of green as a purchasing.
53 concept are the most relevant for the organization on a strategic
54 level, both in terms of corporate strategy and purchasing strategy.
55 Many organizations are developing Environmental Management
56 Systems (EMS) in which they can effectively identify critical Acknowledgements
57 environmental aspects (Chen, 2005; Fet, 2002). The aspects
58 identied may differ from organization to organization. For We would like to thank Ottar Michelsen for invaluable com-
59 example, a paint factory may prioritize working towards eliminat- ments at the early stage of this article, and Christine Hassenstab
60 ing certain hazardous chemicals, construction companies might for assistance in the language. We also acknowledge the two
61 focus on developing energy-efcient buildings and a university anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments
62 may focus on reducing waste and its treatment. We believe that on earlier versions of this article.
63
64
65
66
1 Appendix A. Overview of the reviewed articles

2
3
4 Research type Theoretical Supply chain Supplier Environmental
5 perspective position selection criteria
6 process
7
8 1. Awasthi et al. (2010) ana-math NS NS 1, 4 o, p
2. Bai and Sarkis (2010) ana-math NS NS 1, 4 o, p
9
10 3. Bai et al. (2010) ana-math NS NS 4, 5, o
4. Baitz et al. (2005) ana-conc NS 1,2 NS p
11
12 5. Bykzkan (2011) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o
6. Bykzkan and ifi (2011) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o
13
14 7. Che (2010) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
8. Che et al. (2010) ana-math NS 1 3, 4 o, p
15
16 9. Chen (2005) ana-conc NS NS 3 o, p
10. Deans (1999) emp-case NS 1 3, 4 o, p
17
18 11. Deng and Xu (2010) ana-math NS NS 3 NA
12. Dou and Sarkis (2010) ana-math NS NS 4 o, p
19
20 13. Enarsson (1998) ana-conc NS NS 4 or 5 o, p
21 14. Feyzioglu, Bykzkan (2010) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
22 15. Foerstl et al. (2010) emp-case DCV 1 5 NS
23 16. Gavronski et al. (2011) emp-stati RBV 1 4, 5 NS
24 17. Handeld et al. (2002) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
25 18. Holt (2004) emp-stati NS 1, 2 4, 5 o
26 19. Hsu and Hu (2009) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
27 20. Huang and Keskar (2007) ana-conc NS 1 1 o, p
28 21. Humphreys et al. (2006) ana-math NS NS 1, 4 o, p
29 22. Humphreys et al. (2003a) ana-conc NS NS 1, 4 o, p
30 23. Humphreys et al. (2003b) ana-conc NS NS 1, 4 o, p
31 24. Jabbour and Jabbour (2009) emp-case NS 1 1 o, p
32 25. Kannan et al. (2008) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o
33 26. Koplin et al. (2007) emp-case NS 1 NS NS
27. Kuo et al. (2011) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
34
35 28. Kuo and Lin (2011) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o
29. Kuo et al. (2010) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
36
37 30. Lamming and Hampson (1996) ana-conc NS NS 5 o
31. Lee et al. (2009) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
38
39 32. Li and Geiser (2005) emp-case NS 2 NS NS
33. Liu and Wu (2009) emp-stati NS 1 1 p
40
41 34. Lloyd (1994) ana-conc NS NS 1 o, p
35. Lu et al. (2007) ana-math NS NS 1, 4 o, p
42
43 36. Michelsen and De Boer (2009) emp-stati NS 2 2, 3, 4 NS
37. Min and Galle (1997) emp-stati NS 1 1 o, p
44
45 38. Min and Galle (2001) emp-stati NS 1 1 o, p
39. Nawrocka (2008) emp-stati NS 1 2 NS
46
47 40. Nissinen et al. (2009) emp-stati NS 2 2 o, p
41. Noci (1997) ana-conc NS NS 4 o, p
48
49 42. Parikka-Alhola (2008) emp-stati NS 2 2 o, p
43. Paulraj (2011) emp-stati RBV 1 4, 5 o
50
51 44. Polonsky et al. (1998) emp-case NS 2 NS NA
45. Preuss (2002) ana-conc PMV NS NS NA
52
53 46. Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2011) ana-conc NS 1 1, 4 o, p
54 47. Sporrong and Brchner (2009) emp-stati NS 2 2 NA
55 48. Tarantini et al. (2011) emp-case NS 2 1, 3 p
56 49. Tsai and Hung (2009) ana-math NS 1 4 o
57 50. Tseng (2010) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o
58 51. Tseng (2011) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
59 52. Tseng and Chiu (2010) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
60 53. Tuzkaya et al. (2009) ana-math NS 1 1, 4 o, p
61 54. Vanalle et al. (2011) emp-case NS 1 3,4,5 o, p
62 55. Varns et al. (2009) emp-stati NS 2 1, 2 o, p
63 56. Walton et al. (1998) emp-case NS 1 NS NA
64 57. Wolf and Seuring (2010) emp-case NS 2 1, 3,4 NA
65
66
1 58. Yeh and Chuang (2011) ana-math NS NS 4 o, p

2 59. Zhang et al. (2003) ana-math NS 1 4 NS
3 60. Zhu and Geng (2001) emp-stati NS 1 4, 5 o, p
4
5
6 Abbreviations and notes
7 Research type:
8
9 ana-conc: analytical conceptual,
10 ana-math: analytical mathematical,
11 emp-stati: empirical statistical,
12 emp-case: empirical case study,
13
14 Theoretical perspective:
15
16 DCV: dynamic capabilities view
17 RBV: resource-based view
18 PMV: Porter's market view
19 NS: not specied.
20
21 Supply chain position:
22
23 1: a rst tier supplier or a sub-system provider as a supplier and an end-product manufacturer, a construction company, a service provider
24 as a purchaser, or more upstream relation
25 2: an end-product manufacturer, a construction company, a service provider as a supplier and an end user (a government agency, a
26 municipality or a private sector user) as a purchaser
27 3: both cases above
28
29 NS: not specied
30 Supplier selection process:
31
32 0: Identifying needs and specications
33 1: Formulation of criteria
34 2: Call for tenders
35 3: Qualication
36 4: Final selection
37 5: Evaluation of supplier performance.
38
39 NS: Not specied
40 Environmental criteria:
41
42 p: product-related criteria,
43 o: organization-related criteria,
44 NS: not specied,
45 NA: not applicable.
46
47
48 References Bykzkan, G., ifi, G., 2011. A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for
49 sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in
Industry 62, 164174.
50 Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria approach for
Carter, C.R., Carter, J.R., 1998. Interorganizational determinants of environmental
51 evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industries. Decision
52 Production Economics 126, 370378.
Sciences 29, 659684.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey
53 Carter, C.R., Dresner, M., 2001. Purchasing's role in environmental management:
system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production cross-functional development of grounded theory. Journal of Supply Chain
54 Economics 124, 252264. Management 37, 1226.
55 Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Wei, X., 2010. Addressing key sustainable supply chain management Carter, C.R., Easton, P.L., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and
56 issues using rough set methodology. Management Research Review 33, 11131127. future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
57 Baitz, M., Kreissig, J., Makishi, C., 2005. Life cycle assessment of PVC in product Management 41, 4662.
optimisation and green procurement: fact-based decisions towards sustainale Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
58
solutions. Plastics, Rubber and Compostites: Macromolecular Engineering 34, ment: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution
59 9598. & Logistics Management 38, 360387.
60 Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Che, Z.H., 2010. Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and particle swarm optimisation
61 Management 17, 99120. for balanced and defective supply chain problems considering WEEE/RoHS direc-
62 Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Farukt, A.C., 2001. The role of supply tives. International Journal of Production Research 48, 33553381.
maangement capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Manage- Che, Z.H., Chiang, T.A., Tu, C., Chiang, C.J., 2010. A supplier selection model for
63
ment 10, 174189. product design changes. International Journal of Electronic Business Manage-
64 Bykzkan, G., 2011. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making ment 8, 2030.
65 approach for green supplier evaluation. International Journal of Production Chen, C.C., 2005. Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000.
66 Research, 118. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 927933.
1 Chicksand, D., Glyn, W., Walker, H., Radnor, Z., Johnston, R., 2012. Theoretical Koplin, J., Seuring, S., Mesterharm, M., 2007. Incorporating sustainability into
2 perspectives in purchasing and supply chain management: an analysis supply management in the automotive industrythe case of the Volkswagen
of the literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17, AG. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 10531062.
3 454472. Kuo, J.Y., Shia, B.C., Chen, Y.C., Ho, J.Y., 2011. Evaluating the green suppliers of the
4 Cousins, P., Lamming, R., Lawson, B., Squire, B., 2008. Strategic Supply Management: Printed Circuit Board base on the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and
5 Principles, Theories and Practice. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow. Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje. American Journal of
De Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P., 2001. A review of methods supporting Applied Sciences 8, 246253.
6 supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7, Kuo, R.J., Lin, Y.J., 2011. Supplier selection using analytic network process and
7 7589. data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Research,
8 De Boer, L., Van der Wegen, L.L.M., 2003. Practice and promise of formal supplier 112.
selection: a study of four empirical cases. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Kuo, R.J., Wang, Y.C., Tien, F.C., 2010. Integration of articial neural network and
9
Management 9, 109118. MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production 18,
10 Deans, I., 1999. An approach to the environmental management of purchasing in 11611170.
11 the utilities sector. Eco-Management and Auditing 6, 1117. Lamming, R., Hampson, J., 1996. The environment as a supply chain management
12 Deng, M., Xu, W., 2010. A conict measure model and its application to supplier issue. British Journal of Management 7, 4562.
evaluation under environmental uncertainty. International Journal of Environ- Lee, A.H.I., Kang, H.Y., Hsu, C.F., Hung, H.C., 2009. A green supplier selection model
13 ment and Pollution 42, 359370. for hightech industry. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 79177927.
14 Dou, Y., Sarkis, J., 2010. A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for a Li, L., Geiser, K., 2005. Environmentally responsible public procurement (ERPP) and
15 strategic offshoring decision. International Journal of Production Research 48, its implications for integrated product policy (IPP). Journal of Cleaner Produc-
567592. tion 13, 705715.
16 Dowlatshahi, S., 2000. Designerbuyersupplier interface: theory versus practice. Liu, M.S., Wu, S.D., 2009. Green supplier assessment: a case study of the re
17 International Journal of Production Economics 63, 111130. extinguisher industry. The Journal of American Academy of Business 14,
18 Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century 104111.
Business. New Society Publishers. Lloyd, M., 1994. How green are my suppliers? Buying environmental risk. Purchas-
19 Enarsson, L., 1998. Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment. ing & Supply Management Oct, 3639.
20 International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 28, Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to green
21 517. supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International
Fet, A.M., 2002. Environmental management tools and their applicationa review Journal of Production Research 45, 43174331.
22
with references to case studies. In: Conceicao, P., Gibson, D.V., Heitor, M.V., Michelsen, O., De Boer, L., 2009. Green procurement in Norway; a survey of
23 Sirilli, G., Veloso, F. (Eds.), Knowledge for Inclusive Development. Greenwood practices at the municipal and county level. Journal of Environmental Manage-
24 Publishing Group, Westport, CT, pp. 449464. ment 91, 160167.
25 Fet, A.M., Michelsen, O., De Boer, L., 2011. Green public procurement in practice Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T.E., Macquet, M., 2012. Sustainable purchasing and supply
the case of Norway. Society and Economy 33, 183198. management: a structured literature review of denitions and measures at the
26 Feyzioglu, O., Bykzkan, G., 2010. Evaluation of green suppliers considering dyad, chain and network levels. Supply Chain Management: An International
27 decision criteria dependencies. In: Ehrgott, M., Naujoks, B., Stewart, T.J., Journal 17, 478496.
28 Wallenius, J. (Eds.). Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy Min, H., Galle, W.P., 1997. Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications.
and Transportation Systems, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Journal of Supply Chain Management 33, 1017.
29 Systems 634, 145154. Min, H., Galle, W.P., 2001. Green purchasing practices of US rms. International
30 Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Managing supplier sustain- Journal of Operations & Production Management 21, 12221238.
31 ability risks in a dynamically changing environment: sustainable supplier Morton, B., 2002. Purchasing and green' issues. In: Day, M. (Ed.), Gower Handbook
management in the chemical industry. Journal of Purchasing and Supply of Purchasing Management, third ed. Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot,
32 Management 16, 118130. pp. 207222.
33 Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., Nascimento, L.F.M.D., 2011. A resource-based Nawrocka, D., 2008. Environmental supply chain management, ISO 14001 and
34 view of green supply management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics RoHS: how are small companies in the electronics sector managing? Corporate
and Transportation Review 47, 872885. Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 349360.
35
Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply manage- Nissinen, A., Parikka-Alhola, K., Rita, H., 2009. Environmental criteria in the public
36 ment sustainability: drivers and barriers. Journal of Purchasing and Supply purchases above the EU threshold values by three Nordic countries: 2003 and
37 Management 18, 258269. 2005. Ecological Economics 68, 18381849.
38 Hall, J., 2001. Environmental supply-chain innovation. Greener Management Noci, G., 1997. Designing green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a
International 35, 105119. suppliers environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing and
39 Handeld, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R., Melnyk, S.A., 2002. Applying environmental Supply Management 3, 103114.
40 criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the Analytical Parikka-Alhola, K., 2008. Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green
41 Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 141, 7087. public procurement. Ecological Economics 68, 472485.
Hill, T., 1989. Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Paulraj, A., 2011. Understanding the relationships between internal resources and
42 Hoejmose, S.U., Adrien-Kirby, A.J., 2012. Socially and environmentally responsible capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability.
43 procurement: a literature review and future research agenda of a managerial Journal of Supply Chain Management 47, 1937.
44 issue in the 21st century. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18, Pettersen, J., Larsen, H.N., 2011. Mye stk og lite ull: klima som innkjpskrav i
232242. offentlig sektor. MiSA, Trondheim.
45 Holt, D., 2004. Managing the interface between suppliers and organizations for Polonsky, M.J., Brooks, H., Henry, P., Achweizer, C., 1998. An exploratory examina-
46 environmental responsibilityan exploration of current practices in the UK. tion of environmentally responsible straight rebuy purchases in large Austra-
47 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11, 7184. lian organizations. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 13, 5469.
Hsu, C.W., Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier Preuss, L., 2001. In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener manufacturing. Journal of
48
selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, Business Ethics 34, 345359.
49 255264. Preuss, L., 2002. Green light for greener supply. Business Ethics: A European Review
50 Huang, S.H., Keskar, H., 2007. Comprehensive and congurable metrics for supplier 11, 308317.
51 selection. International Journal of Production Economics 105, 510523. Preuss, L., 2005. The Green Multiplier: A Study of Environmental Protection and the
Humphreys, P., McCloskey, A., McIvor, R., Maguire, L., Glackin, C., 2006. Employing Supply Chain. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
52 dynamic fuzzy membership functions to assess environmental performance in Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.H., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
53 the supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Research 44, chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics
54 23792419. 130, 115.
Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., Chan, F.T.S., 2003a. Using case-based reasoning to Seuring, S., Mller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
55 evaluate supplier environmental management performance. Expert Systems for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
56 with Applications 25, 141153. 16991710.
57 Humphreys, P., Wong, Y., Chan, F., 2003b. Integrating environmental criteria into Shaik, M., Abdul-Kader, W., 2011. Green supplier selection generic framework: a
the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 138, multi-attribute utility theory approach. International Journal of Sustainable
58 349356. Engineering 4, 3756.
59 Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2009. Are supplier selection criteria going green? Simon, H.A., 1964. On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science
60 Case studies of companies in Brazil. Industrial Management & Data Systems Quarterly 9, 122.
Engineering 109, 477495. Sporrong, J., Brchner, J., 2009. Public procurement incentives for sustainable
61
Kannan, G., Noorul, A., Sasikumar, P., Subramaniam, A., 2008. Analysis and selection design services: Swedish experiences. Architectural Engineering and Design
62 of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling and analytic Management 5, 2435.
63 hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and Decision Making Stamm, C.L., Golhar, D.Y., 1993. JIT purchasing: attribute classication and literature
64 9, 163182. review. Production Planning and Control 4, 273282.
Kaufmann, L., Kreft, S., Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., 2012. Rationality in supplier Tarantini, M., Loprieno, A.D., Porta, P.L., 2011. A life cycle approach to Green Public
65 selection decisions: the effect of the buyer's national task environment. Journal Procurement of building materials and elements: a case study on windows.
66 of Purchasing and Supply Management 18, 7691. Energy 36, 24732482.
1 Traneld, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing Wacker, J.G., 1998. A denition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-
2 evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations
British Journal of Management 14, 207222. Management 16, 361385.
3 Trent, R.J., 1998. Individual and collective team effort: a vital part of sourcing team Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
4 success. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34, supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private
5 4654. sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14, 6985.
Tsai, W.H., Hung, S.J., 2009. A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply Walton, S.V., Handeld, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The green supply chain: integrating
6 suppliers into environmental management processes. Journal of Supply Chain
chain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance evaluation
7 with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production Research 47, Management 34, 211.
8 49915017. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C., 1991. Vendor selection criteria and
methods. European Journal of Operational Research 50, 218.
9 Tseng, M.L., 2010. Using linguistic preferences and grey relational analysis to
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing
evaluate the environmental knowledge management capacity. Expert Systems
10 a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26, 1323.
with Applications 37, 7081.
11 Tseng, M.L., 2011. Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and
Wolf, C., Seuring, S., 2010. Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party
logistical services. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
12 incomplete information. Applied Soft Computing 11, 48944903.
Management 40, 84102.
13 Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F., 2010. Evaluating rm's green supply chain management in
Wu, C., Barnes, D., 2011. A literature review of decision-making models and
14Q3
linguistic preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production. in press, corrected proof
approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains. Journal of Purchasing
(at the time of our literature search). and Supply Management 17, 256274.
15 Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., Tuzkaya, U.R., 2009. Environmental performance
Yeh, W.C., Chuang, M.C., 2011. Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner
16 evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Systems with Applications 38,
17 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 6, 477490. 42444253.
Van Weele, A.J., 2010. Purchasing & Supply Chain Management: Analysis, Strategy, Zhang, H.C., Li, J., Merchant, M.E., 2003. Using fuzzy multi-agent decision-making in
18 Planning and Practice. Cengage Learning, Andover. environmentally conscious supplier management. CIRP AnnalsManufacturing
19 Vanalle, R.M., Lucato, W.C., Santos, L.B., 2011. Environmental requirements in the Technology 52, 385388.
20 automotive supply chainan evaluation of a rst tier company in the Brazilian Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2001. Integrating environmental issues into supplier selection and
21 auto industry. Procedia Environmental Sciences 10, Part A, 337343. management: a study of large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises in
Varns, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental consideration in procure- China. Greener Management International 35, 2740.
22 ment of construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in Zsidisin, G.A., Siferd, S.P., 2001. Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
23 green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of Cleaner development. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 7,
24 Production 17, 12141222. 6173.
25

Good Review Paper

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Good Review Paper

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ()

1 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

1 commonly structured in relation to either the product or service being

1 End user, e.g.

1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 environmental performances, such as environmental conscious-

4 as cost, quality, and the ability to deliver on time (Awasthi et al.,

10 case study sustainability: economic, environmental, and social issues

1 Appendix A. Overview of the reviewed articles

1 58. Yeh and Chuang (2011) ana-math NS NS 4 o, p

Anda mungkin juga menyukai