Sustainable Supply Chain Management - Article Example

Critical Review of Article Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State Date Critical Review of Article The past two decades have witnessed increased focus on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). SSCM is described as the design, regulation, and coordination of supply chains to be truly sustainable where the minimum standard is maintaining economic feasibility, while causing no harm to environmental or social systems (Pagell, & Shevchenko 2014, p.45). The topic of SSCM incorporates a huge field of research that encompasses supply chain management in the context of social or environmental performance. Nonetheless, research and focus towards SSCM is still rare as most scholars choose to research on individual sustainability backgrounds. This does not mean that research in SSCM is non-existent, but has not received increased focus (Carter, CR & Easton 2011, p. 46). The following paper aims at critically reviewing the article ‘Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management should have no Future’ by Pagell, & Shevchenko (2014). The article maintains that progress in SSCM research amplifies the chances of supply chains being more sustainable, but does not offer a solution on how to develop truly sustainable supply chains. Pagell, & Shevchenko (2014, p. 44) argue that truly SSCM can only be achieved when researcher no longer consider SSCM as a distinct field of supply chain management. SSCM has played a big role in transforming the business environment worldwide. Over the past two decades, companies have engaged in SSCM with increased focus on considering social and environmental factors in their operations and strategies (Carter, CR & Easton 2011, p. 46). While it may be argues that progress has been made, it is still debatable on the extent of the impact this has had in terms of charting the future of SSCM. Pagell & Shevchenko (2014, p. 46) clearly outline this as they indicate how research has focused on SSCM as a different entity of supply chain management. The main idea behind this can be traced with the introduction of sustainability into the business world at the beginning of the twentieth century. Although the article does not put this into context, it is considerably important to factor the emergence of sustainability. Sustainability only emerged through singular or separate strategies and initiatives aimed at meeting customer demands while still being competitive (Carter, CR & Easton 2011, p. 48). Nonetheless, sustainability was not absorbed in to the business world as a major competitive advantage. This is because the sole role of a business remains making profits in regards to their shareholder (Seuring, 2011, p. 466). Even as businesses today attempt to chip in on environmental and social issues the sole idea of putting up the business remains that of making profits for shareholders. This has in turn conflicted with societies demand for responsible demands from companies. Nevertheless, the idea of sustainability has already grown far enough to be established as a critical factor in the business community. However, SSCM has only recently emerged as companies have always focused on creating efficiency between their partners for increased competitiveness and business value. Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) fail to recognize the idea of traditional supply chain management TSCM. This is a significant point in illustrating the divide in research between SSCM and supply chain management. Seuring & Müller (2008, p. 456) argue that TSCM centers on balancing the benefits between multiple stakeholder, to enhance the operating competence throughout stakeholders, and increase the profitability of activities and processes. Nonetheless, SSCM focuses on a narrower path from TSCM by putting into context environmental and social concerns as well as economic viability into first priority (Seuring & Müller 2008, p. 456). Focusing on TSCM can offer different perspective into understanding what we do not know about SSCM. As illustrated Pagell & Shevchenko (2014, p. 46) believe that current research in SSCM has not taken a significant approach in understanding what true SSCM is. Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) believe that one of the main impediments to future research opportunities of creating true SSCM is focusing research on synergies from traditional business models. Nonetheless, research on synergies has offered increased insights into future opportunities for true SSCM. Although Pagell & Shevchenko (2014, p. 49) do offer credit for the research on the complexity of stakeholders within the SSCM, they overlook its impact in the future of SSCM. Researchers have focused on numerous co-relations that have hindered the future of SSCM which also translate to slow or not yet developed applicable initiatives or solutions (Seuring & Müller 2008, p. 458; Zaabi, Dhaheri & Diabat 2013, p. 897). In Zaabi, Dhaheri & Diabat (2013, p. 897) research, SSCM barrier were identified as the main critical barrier for companies seeking to move from TSCM to SSCM. One of these challenges is in that the public or society is not focused on developing sustainability. Moreover, the public and companies lack increased eco-literacy in terms of understanding environmental management, laws, best practices, and regulations that add up as barriers in SSCM implementation (Seuring & Müller 2008, p. 458). Maintaining supplier relationships is also challenging based on the demanding requirements from SSCM to make positive impacts. With the concentration of TSCM in many companies, only new entrants in the business community have a better chance of adopting SSCM effectively. Researchers have also illustrated increased challenges in terms of knowledge, capital, and technologies between businesses and their suppliers (Zaabi, Dhaheri & Diabat 2013, p. 900). The above research insights into SSCM barriers in terms of synergies prove that research has significantly identified vital foundations for future research. Nonetheless, this research is still minimal and at the infancy stage (Carter, CR & Easton 2011, p. 47). What Pagell & Shevchenko (2014, p. 50) suggest in terms of seeking new multidisciplinary and participatory research is still relevant, but the industry or current situation does not put it in first priority. What the article attempts to do is refute the impact the progress of SSCM research has offered. To illustrate how Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) have given little credit to research in SSCM, it is only significant to consider an example of a multidisciplinary and participatory study that is offering new insights into the future of true SSCM. In Dai & Blackhurst, (2012, p. 5474) study, the four-phase Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP and Quality Function Deployment QFD model is applied to determine supplier assessment from a sustainable approach. AHP and QFD encompass four phases that offer increased research insights including; connecting customer needs to business sustainability strategy, shaping the sustainable buying competitive precedence, advancing sustainable supplier evaluation benchmarks, and assessing suppliers (Dai & Blackhurst 2012, p. 5476). AHP has been found to reconcile inconsistencies of difference in managerial decisions and views, with a better trade-offs. Moreover, this model enables managers make decision based on a justifiable rationale that ensures participatory concerns where each stakeholder in the SSCM is considered (Dai & Blackhurst 2012, p. 5481). It follows four phases where each phase considers all the possible requirements, strategies, assessment criteria, and those to be assessed in the supply chain to develop a concrete strategy for ensuring economic, social, and environmental gains. The first phase considers what customers require in terms of sustainability such as low prices, increased responsibility, and innovative products (Dai & Blackhurst 2012, p. 5480). Moreover, the second phase assesses the purchasing competitive precedence’s that require the company to align its needs to that of the consumer in terms of choosing a supplier. The last phase also considers how suppliers can be identified based on their sustainability alignment. The study by Dai & Blackhurst, (2012, p. 5490) contributes in both theory and methodology. It offers researchers a new tool and theory of empiricism to put into context issues such the cost or impact of a whole good or service to the environment and society. This study illustrates significant insights into how researchers conducting increased new and innovative way of measuring and assessing suppliers. Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) article does not even offer ways forward in terms of assessing suppliers. Even with the intention of developing a future for research, the article has not covered a comprehensive literature review to understand the numerous breakthroughs and perspectives in SSCM. The ability presented in the discussed study above go beyond to prove that SSCM is a complex model that requires specific considerations in terms of ensuring significant results that can be applied in practice. The suggested solutions by Pagell & Shevchenko (2014, p. 50) cover a significant area of measuring impacts in SSCM from an all-stakeholder perspective. Moreover, Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) continue to illustrate that multidisciplinary and participatory research approach in measuring the impact of products and services at different chain levels has a positive outcome in enabling a greater range to capture the entire supply chain. It is unfortunate that the author fails to consider the probable implications or contributions such extensive or new models of research would have on SSCM application in practice. The main idea behind the current research is to offer increased insight to how SSCM can be applied in practice with increased enhancement. With already identified complex relationships, it is thus not feasible to take research a step higher while current insights are not yet in practice. Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) should recognize the current research and use it to illustrate how it can be integrated with innovative ideas in research to develop a foundation of a true SSCM. Therefore, the authors omit some crucial relationships and complexities that have already been identified and require increased time and research to enable businesses catch up with what researcher recommend in terms of practice. Although the gap and inconsistency in SSCM research are valid, it does not mean they require a huge step or diversion in approach to achieve true SSCM, but a coordinated and integrated research from the previous, current, and future research to enable true SSCM. Nonetheless, Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) have overrated or exaggerated the need to focus on innovative ideas in research to achieve true sustainability. In conclusion, Pagell & Shevchenko (2014) article presents a critical and significant point in illustrating why current SSCM research needs to change for the attainment of true SSCM. The article is informative, engaging, and convincing. Nonetheless, it oversteps numerous factors that may illustrate the article as exaggerated. This is because the authors do not offer enough credit to current research that has shaped the foundation of SSCM research. Though not extensive, it represents the first steps towards what the article proposes. The whole business community requires increased time to understand and adopt the accelerated research on SSCM that just emerged in two centuries with practical insights appearing in the last two decades. Historically, supply chains did not consider the issues of sustainability, which was considered in the business and customer or product segments. This has seen companies adopt sustainability strategies away from supply chains. However, now that SSCM is as important as sustainability in any other part of the organization, businesses will need more time to adopt SSCM effectively. References Carter, CR & Easton, P L 2011, 'Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions' 2011, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 46-62. Dai, J, & Blackhurst, J 2012, 'A four-phase AHP–QFD approach for supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective', International Journal Of Production Research, vol. 50, no. 19, pp. 5474-5490. Pagell, M, & Shevchenko, A 2014, 'Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have no Future', Journal Of Supply Chain Management, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 44-55. Seuring, S 2011, 'Supply chain management for sustainable products - insights from research applying mixed methodologies', Business Strategy & The Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 471-484. Seuring, S, & Müller, M 2008, 'Core issues in sustainable supply chain management – a Delphi study', Business Strategy & The Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), vol. 17, no.8, pp. 455-466. Zaabi, S, Dhaheri, N, & Diabat, A 2013, 'Analysis of interaction between the barriers for the implementation of sustainable supply chain management', International Journal Of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 68, no. 1-4, pp. 895-905. Read More