Abstract
This paper aims to provide necessary insights and information focused on SSCM concept, avenues of application and its impact on consumer’s purchasing behavior. It is advocated to investigate / survey consumers’ perceptions of a company’s green initiatives towards sustainability and the implications on their purchasing behavior. In it, the concept of sustainable supply chains by a few multinational firms is explored, their initiatives are highlighted, and ways to reduce the carbon footprint and the image of a company to improve customer satisfaction selected.
Key words: SSCM concept, consumer’s purchasing behavior, sustainability, sustainable supply chains.
Introduction
Since the concerning and widely shared IPCC Report’s release in October 2018, there appears to have been a renewed urgency in emphasizing the consequences existing production and consumption patterns have on the environment. People worldwide are thinking about their habits, but businesses are under more pressure from regulators, investors, and customers to reduce their influence. The well-known research company Nielsen designated 2018 as the year of the “Influential Sustainable Consumer,” with this trend expected to last into the next ten years (Shao et al., 2021). This indicates that both companies and customers are shifting to green practices.
For businesses, managing the supply chain is crucial to addressing the unsustainable practices that happen as part of their operational activities. Megatrends like globalization and outsourcing have caused supply chains to become more complicated, increasing the need to assess their environmental and social impacts. Academic studies frequently refer to this idea as sustainable supply chain management (Kot, 2018). Sustainable supply chain management, or SSCM, has gained ground in the last 20 years from the periphery of science to the center, as shown, among other things, by the sharp increase in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Even though there has been a lot of research on issues like the causes of and obstacles to SSCM and the practical strategies deployed, most of it still focuses on big, multinational corporations. This echoes a broader tendency to ignore how SSCM affects customer purchase behavior and what they consider green practices.
However, consumer behavior contributes significantly to the global economy regarding output and employment. Due to this, companies are constantly under pressure to retain and attract new customers. The fact that they are so completely ignored in academic study and public discourse is remarkable, especially given that their purchasing decisions pressure businesses to manage their supply chains sustainably (Toorajipour et al., 2021). When customers are researched in academia, the leading Customer satisfaction research focuses on consumers’ perceptions of their buying or purchasing experiences. It is a subset of marketing research, customer intelligence, and customer analytics. Rarely is the customer’s purchasing behavior considered to be the main factor influencing a company’s supply chain.
As a result, there is a glaring gap in the literature regarding how green initiatives adopted by businesses affect consumer purchasing behavior. Since many scholars have called for more research into SSCM in the context of customers, this gap has been openly acknowledged (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Customers’ views on green initiatives might naturally differ depending on the products. Perhaps, for this reason, several studies even state explicitly that their conclusions do not apply to specific organizations.
This study aims to fill this significant knowledge gap by experimentally examining SSCM from the viewpoint of customers while taking into account their particular preferences for green efforts that affect their purchasing behavior. Since customers are the primary stakeholders for businesses and their purchasing decisions are influenced by SSCM, they are selected as the research’s focal point (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). Additionally, all companies in the sector, regardless of size, must deal with health, safety, and quality regulations, which shows a propensity for the supply chain management.
Definition of Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Different authors have different definition of sustainable supply chain management but all of them arrive at green pratices. Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, argue in their article with the intriguing title “Implementing Sustainable Supply Chain Management” (2019) that the addition of sustainability to conventional supply chain management has been a positive development. Therefore, in real world, there would be no need for a separate discipline known as sustainable supply chain management. The authors argue that all SCM research should be viewed as SSCM research rather than the novelty. This will help create genuinely sustainable supply chains, not just a bit more tolerable.
Although history will likely be on the side of Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, the two disciplines will eventually converge. It is still easy to comprehend what sustainable supply chain management means, particularly, given its precise segmentation in the literature, for the period Saeed and Kersten (2019, p. 1137) define SSCM as “the management of material, information, and capital flows as well as cooperation among enterprises along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development.” The three dimensions considered by the authors are economic, environmental, and social factors derived from stakeholders and customer requirements (see Figure 1). Academics frequently use this definition, and with good cause. The first is that it outlines the TBL orientation (environmental, social, and economic), which sets SSCM apart from conventional supply chain management (Kot, 2018). This TBL has been widely adopted throughout both popular and academic literature and asserts that a firm’s success should be judged by its bottom line and social and environmental performance. Additionally, it is claimed that achieving success in all three areas will result in long-term financial gains, a competitive advantage, and a favorable effect on people and the environment. Through the help of the TBL framework, Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe (2019) conceptualized SSCM as existing at the point where the three spheres above meet in a Venn diagram, as seen in the picture below.
Second, the term focuses on collaboration between businesses along the supply chain. As the world becomes more globally interconnected and consumer demands for quality, responsiveness, and flexibility rise, cooperation is also a crucial component of traditional supply chain management (Kot, 2018). However, using SSCM, businesses frequently have to consider an even more extended portion of the supply chain than they would be based on economic considerations (Shao et al., 2021). Corporate crises have highlighted the necessity for a broader view of the supply chain when considering environmental and social/ethical components. For example, the Nike sweatshop controversy in the late 1990s led to the company’s ouster of bad working conditions at its suppliers’ facilities (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). Additionally, the public, media, and other stakeholders are inclined to hold businesses accountable for violations far from the primary supplier, providing more motivation (Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, 2019). Generally, the usefulness of incorporating it in the definition stems from the fact that other authors emphasize how crucial teamwork and strong relationships are to SSCM.
Thirdly, customer and stakeholder requirements are mentioned explicitly in the definition as the source of a company’s sustainability goals. Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), shareholders, communities, the media, and employees are just a few examples of stakeholders. Stakeholders should be acknowledged as having legitimate requirements for the supply chain’s activities, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in all definitions of SSCM. Additionally, scholars agree that stakeholder pressure is a significant factor in adopting SSCM policies and practices. Scuotto, Garcia-Perez, Cillo, and Giacosa (2020) claim that stakeholders play a critical role in increasing corporate sustainability knowledge and influencing the acceptance of specific targets. Generally, stakeholders often have channels to convey their sustainability-related requirements, which might seem to make or break organizations, especially in the current political and cultural context and with the rise of social media.
Lastly, the definition expands on the fundamental components of conventional SCM. Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha (2021) highlight the top three characteristics of SCM as (1) flow focus, (2) coordination focus, and (3) stakeholder focus, all of which are mentioned explicitly in Saeed and Kersten’s definition. Another quality mentioned by Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha, performance focus, is also evident in the definition. In addition, including information and capital flows alongside material flows acknowledges the discipline’s expansion from its earlier predominance of material flows.
Additionally, the definition helps understand what SSCM is not for this interim report. By incorporating the Triple Bottom Line viewpoint, the authors clearly distinguish between SSCM and green supply chain management, which strongly emphasizes the environmental side of sustainability at the expense of the social. There has been some confusion and misunderstanding caused by the literature’s use of the terms “sustainable” and “environmental.” Still, there appears to be a tendency towards a more unifying equating sustainability with the triple bottom line (Toorajipour et al., 2021). Early on, research was also a propensity to stress environmental issues. Still, despite the TBL approaches higher level of complexity, it has been increasing adoption of it.
However, literature evaluations still strongly favor the environmental lens when comparing papers that only cover one or two dimensions. Even when both sides were mentioned, the emphasis was often on ecological rather than social behaviors (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). This may be because the social dimension is seen from a corporate perspective as more ambiguous. In contrast, the environment is seen as something that can be managed to produce discrete, observable, and measurable outcomes. Additionally, businesses may publish information on environmental benefits like C02 reductions more openly than they do about pay or working conditions, which can be seen as more delicate or problematic. Green and socially sustainable supply chain management overlap with SSCM in a significant way. Although they do not adhere to the triple bottom line perspective, they will be included in the scope of this interim report.
Development of the Discipline
SSCM is still a relatively new study area compared to other management and economics disciplines (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). It has only recently begun to receive more in-depth study. Since 2008, the area has witnessed an increase in articles, but significant research in sustainability and corporate social responsibility dates back to the 1970s and 1980s (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Understanding the strategic significance of supply chain activities for the company’s successful long-term economic performance and sustainability outcomes gave rise to SSCM. The reduction of waste, a key element of SCM, initially led to integrating environmental management with the enhancement of economic performance, or green SCM (Shao et al., 2021). The early 2000s marked the beginning of the field’s convergence from standalone notions of concerns like the environment and human rights to studying their interactions and other facets of social responsibility (Kot, 2018).
The area subsequently expanded to include a more holistic view of SCM and that above environmental-social-economic “triple bottom line” approach, despite initially being limited to specific SCM operations like purchasing and transportation. SSCM is closely related to corporate sustainability and could be viewed as coming under its purview (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). After the Brundtland Report, which summarized the findings of the World Commission on the Environment and Development’s work, the phrase became popular.
With almost half of the articles having no theoretical framing, SSCM has criticized its apparent lack of theoretical foundation. As opposed to believing that a more varied application of theory could bring fresh insights into the field, research tends to be speculative or rely on a few widely accepted ideas (Kot, 2018). Some academics have even considered descriptive analysis conceptually weak and immature due to its perceived overrepresentation (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). At the moment, so-called macro theories—which adopt a strategic and organizational viewpoint rather than an individual or behavioral one—dominate the area. According to Fraser, Müller, and Schwarzkopf (2020), this may be due to the field’s emergence from SCM, which likewise frequently adopts a macro perspective.
The resource-based view (RBV) and stakeholder theory are now the most often used theories in SSCM research. RBV examines how a corporation uses its valuable, uncommon, unique, and non-substitutable resources to gain a competitive advantage (Makhloufi, Laghouag, Meirun, and Belaid, 2021). This describes the specific sustainability-related skills that the firm’s supply chain possesses in the context of SSCM. The dynamics capabilities theory, widely used in the literature, is closely related to and builds on RBV. Dynamic capabilities are an organization’s ability to intentionally generate, extend, or adjust its resource base to outperform its rivals economically in shifting marketplaces (Duong and Ha, 2021). Instead of seeing the company as a collection of resources, the stakeholder theory sees it as a network of stakeholders whose participation in the firm’s decisions is essential to its long-term survival and success. The theory is normative in that it contends that the values of the organization and its managers, stakeholders’ expectations, and societal issues that will impact the firm’s ability to sell its products should all be compatible. While RBV and its related theories focus more on the performance outcomes of SSCM, stakeholder theory is often used to evaluate stakeholders’ pressures and duties towards them.
Given its position in the management sciences and its genesis in SCM, SSCM is typically regarded via an economic lens. This viewpoint is frequently demonstrated by the focus on ideas like competitive advantage and risk management, which either increase or protect the bottom line. According to Allen, Zhu, and Sarkis (2021), there is widespread agreement among SCM experts that businesses can gain a competitive edge through sustainability-focused S.C. operations. This is particularly clear in the resource-based and dynamic capabilities viewpoints. However, there is some disagreement over how the economic dimension is viewed. While Kot (2018) claims that responsibility frameworks do not explicitly consider financial performance, Hariharasudan, Kot, and Sangeetha (2021) disagree, believing that the field is skewed in favor of profit maximization and other advantageous business practices. Focusing on profitability may force researchers to miss innovative techniques. Therefore techniques with good economic and noneconomic impacts on chain performance will always be smaller than strategies that may improve some but not all triple bottom lines. The ultimate, if the implicit, determinant of SSCM performance, profit, appears to be a common theme in much of the literature.
Another critical aspect of the discipline’s growth has been its overt emphasis on massive enterprises. The term “corporate social responsibility,” which is sometimes used synonymously with “sustainable” in SSCM literature, already denotes a focus on larger firms (Langford, Nadvi, and Braun-Munzinger, 2022). The giant buyer firm has traditionally been the preferred unit of analysis. Even when corporations are not explicitly stated, expressions like “shareholders” and “top management” indicate the company’s size to the reader. This emphasis on large corporations has also resulted in a somewhat top-down approach to SSCM, emphasizing procedures like codes of conduct that are not often adopted by SMEs (Sembiring, Yurisditira, and Devany, 2020). As previously indicated, there have been many requests for a more excellent study on SSCM as there currently seems to be a lack of studies in the area (Kot, 2018).
Beyond the theory, Morais and Barbieri (2022) discover that most reviewed SSCM studies conclude that SSCM implementation is generally poor in practice. No supply chain that satisfies the requirements of being “really sustainable” exists today, claim Shao et al. (2021). According to a study by Duong and Ha (2021, p. 20), internal energy efficiency measures were the most widely adopted sustainability strategy. In contrast, SSCM was the least used strategy across corporations in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. This might be perceived as reflecting a significant portion of media coverage, where the sustainability accomplishments of major corporations like Tesco frequently seem to be limited to things like more energy-efficient lighting or renewable energy sources.
Conceptualizing SSCM
Kitsis and Chen created the conceptual Framework that would serve as the theoretical foundation for this report (2019). It serves as the foundation for classifying and examining the many SSCM techniques businesses might use in their supply chains. The authors claim that the Framework is meant to be more practical than theoretical. This is appropriate for this report because the empirical research aims to identify the specific techniques used by the case companies.
The framework looks at the firm’s strategic values, supply chain architecture, and operational procedures to conceive how sustainable performance might be accomplished using SCM. Firm orientation, continuity, collaboration, risk management, and proactivity are included in these Meta categories (see Figure 2). Additionally, each category’s goals are operationally implemented by specific practices included in each category (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). Except for stakeholder management and life cycle assessment, the authors acknowledge that the bulk of methods are not unique but instead use this to highlight how SSCM is a theoretical and practical expansion of SCM. Thus, many activities in SSCM may also be included in SCM but may be emphasized more strongly or naturally have different objectives.
Looking more closely at the Framework, strategic values and direction are essentially the company’s outlook and how it is incorporated into its strategy design. This is crucial since many activities alone will not produce the desired sustainable results; instead, they must be combined with a particular viewpoint. For instance, to improve sustainability performance, “Enhanced Communication” and “S.C. Partner Selection” must be in line with a sustainability plan (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). The Framework includes a triple bottom line and an SCM approach as prerequisites for implementing the following practices. The latter is probably included because it has been argued that efforts at sustainability will be facilitated by a supply chain that performs well in traditional operational measures.
The next component is structure, which entails consistency and cooperation. The second stage, as its name implies, is where the supply chain’s organization is built up, specifically how various partners collaborate. Inclusion of the continuity category means the underlying presumption that a consistent, long-lasting, trustworthy relationship that benefits all parties is essential to the sustainability performance of the focus firm (Gloet and Samson, 2020). This standard is demonstrated by behaviors including partner choosing, partner development, and long-term relationship building. Collaboration, closely related to continuity, falls under both the structural and operational (process) categories. It requires organizational, logistical, and technological structures to exist in the first place and ultimately be realized at the operational level. The characteristics of trust and longevity discussed in the continuity category are presupposed in collaboration, which is a step beyond cooperation. In essence, the association is where many of the supply chain’s sustainable outcomes are accomplished, as seen by procedures like improved communication and cooperative development, which promote information exchange and product creation.
Risk management and reactiveness are different categories within the processes. The inclusion of risk management is based on the idea that businesses using SSCM procedures and pursuing sustainability are more sensitive to unique hazards than those using SCM alone (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). One of the primary motivations for SSCM is frequently considered to reduce environmental and societal risk. Companies can employ standards and certifications more broadly to target a wider variety of stakeholders, as well as audits and corporate visits to monitor their specific suppliers selectively. One of the primary characteristics that distinguish SSCM from SCM is the challenging task of keeping track of environmental and social issues at the supplier and occasionally at the customer level. Lastly, proactivity is mentioned because it is assumed that businesses can be considered proactive just by using sustainability measures (Kot, 2018). This is connected to the notion that these businesses are “walking a new road” and, as a result, need to create new technology and operating procedures (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Businesses can learn and innovate by managing and working with their various stakeholders, ideally taking into account the entire life cycle of their product already at the layout stage.
While divided into five distinct categories, the conceptual model also has a lot of overlap and has some areas where it could be disputed. Companies are focusing on risk management in addition to continuity through careful partner selection and the establishment of long-term relationships. Along with collaboration, managing stakeholders was also highlighted in the proactivity category and is another risk management approach that aims to promote transparency and assurance in communication. Consequently, this prompts the question of whether risk management merits its category of activities or whether it might be better regarded as a form of motivator or mediating component in the model. Similar to how authors like Gloet and Samson (2020) view “innovation capability” and “entrepreneurship” as orientations in their conceptualizations of SSCM, proactivity may be deemed a strategic value or orientation rather than a category of practices. Stakeholder management may quickly come under the collaboration. Learning and innovation could be seen as “practices” that happen across all model areas, swiftly dissolving the need for the proactivity category. Furthermore, there is not always an apparent distinction between the categories of continuity and collaboration because both work to improve supply chain longevity and confidence. There are no drivers, pressures, or incentives governing the adoption of practices in a model that is just concerned with physician practices. The conceptual model will be utilized as a starting point for comprehending the many activities within SSCM and further developed to serve this study’s aims better, even if it is not flawless and many academics may have different perspectives.
Drivers
Although Saeed and Kersten’s (2019) conceptual model does not explicitly address the pressures or motivators for adopting SSCM practices, there is still a case for looking at them in the report. This is because there is a consensus in the literature that the drive to adopt SSCM originates from different internal and external sources. Rather than being created in a vacuum, a company’s strategic beliefs and orientation are the outcomes of various variables. Said factors, or sustainability motivators/drivers, are often split into internal and external motivators, with internal motivators further subdivided into normative and instrumental motivators (Karmaker et al., 2021). CSR is seen by instrumental rationality as a tactical tool for advancing the company’s economic goals, and the firm is seen as a vehicle for wealth creation. Corresponding drivers for SSCM could be risk management, efficiency improvements, or cost reduction (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). On the other hand, internal normative motivators result from the moral or ethical considerations of the company’s owners, management, or employees. They typically include value-based orientations like honesty or care for the welfare of the environment or community (Kitsis and Chen, 2019).
Pressures are coming from various sources, including governments, customers, NGOs, and competitors, which are strongly tied to external motivators in stakeholder theory and stakeholder management. Based on a taxonomy of institutional variables first proposed by Hoffmann, Malik, Abdallah, Orr, and Chaudhary (2019) created, a suitable classification for these motivators. Resource, regulatory, market, and social variables are used to classify external drivers (see Figure 3). In Figure 3, external motivators/drivers include customer demands, governmental regulations, competitive advantage, and pressure from civil society, like Greenpeace’s campaign against Nestle for importing unsustainable palm oil (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). However, not all academics would precisely agree with the taxonomy since Kitsis and Chen (2019) perceive investors and shareholders as an internal motivator, while Gloet and Samson (2020) see the competitive advantage as an essential internal motivator.
Hoffman, Malik, Abdallah, Orr, and Chaudhary used the idea of salience and stakeholder theory to further account for the fact that not all motivators are created equal in all situations. The three components of salience—legitimacy (validity of claims), urgency (degree of pressure), and power (degree of power/dominance)—define the criticality of sustainability demands and, consequently, the likelihood that they will result in sustainability actions. This is closely related to the conclusions of Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone (2021), who found that stakeholder pressure could lead to either simple awareness of sustainability, adoption of sustainability goals, or actual implementation of sustainability practices, and that different stakeholder types appear to have a distinct influence on SSCM decisions.
External, internal, instrumental, or normative motivators do not need to be mutually exclusive for the motivation to adopt SSCM policies to exist. For instance, managers reported that managerial sustainability values were a key component of SSCM introduction and implementation in a study of New Zealand companies conducted by Sajjad, Eweje, and Tappin (2019). Additionally, they acknowledged the significance of SSCM as a potent risk management strategy. There does not seem to be much agreement in the literature about how important or influential external versus internal motivators are, especially regarding performance outcomes. Even though Saeed and Kersten (2019) do point out in their literature review that more studies have focused on identifying external as opposed to internal factors. Some elements, especially internal normative ones like personal attitudes, can be challenging to research because they may not indeed transfer into tangible outcomes, which contributes to the difficulty of generalization (Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone, 2021). While the typical success indicators for SSCM outcomes, such as customer loyalty rates, are frequently drawn from more economic drivers, it is possible that they unintentionally disregard those drivers that are harder to quantify
Strategic Values
The first component in Saeed and Kersten’s conceptual model, strategic values, refers to the firm’s orientation or, to put it another way, the preconditions necessary for SSCM operations. As discussed in the preceding section, different motivators or motivations may cause sustainability awareness. Still, other circumstances are required to transform understanding into the acceptance of goals or implementing practices. For instance, government regulations, frequently cited as a significant impetus for SSCM practices, do not necessarily result in enhanced sustainability performance because firms may choose to act only in reaction (Zimon, Tyan, and Sroufe, 2020). However, the law can be a powerful accelerator for exceptional sustainability performance when combined with a TBL, proactive approach.
While most businesses today are likely aware of sustainability, the difference between “reactive” businesses and those who try to alter their supply chains is sustainability or TBL as a core value (Saeed and Kersten, 2019). Sustainability goals, practices, and cognitions are linked to SCM in this form of integration, according to Truong, Mazloomi, and Berrone (2021). Due to that, sustainability becomes an integral part of everyone’s job and a daily discourse rather than something that occurs in a distinct entity. In practice, this entails, among other things, creating written policies, providing personnel with sustainability training, managing performance, and offering appropriate incentives and rewards (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). Additionally, sustainability must be a fundamental, explicit component of the company’s strategy, not something added later or handled separately (Karmaker et al., 2021). Once the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, finding the motivation to move forward can be challenging if sustainability is only a business case (and not a value in and of itself). Top management involvement and support are essential to achieving TBL orientation. Management commitment to sustainability is significant in customer satisfaction when a single manager/owner controls the company’s resources and strategy.
An SCM orientation is the second strategic value mentioned in the conceptual model. This is not surprising, given that SSCM’s roots may be traced back to the initial identification of the importance of SCM operations in achieving long-term performance and addressing sustainability challenges through business capabilities (Kitsis and Chen, 2019). The goal is to include supply chain goals and thinking into all decisions, even those that do not immediately affect the supply chain, similar to the TBL perspective (Malik, Abdallah, Orr and Chaudhary, 2019). As previously mentioned, it has been asserted that efforts to achieve sustainability will be facilitated by a supply chain that performs well in conventional operational metrics (Gloet and Samson, 2020). In their 2018 analysis of the food business, Accorsi, Cholette, Manzini, and Tufano discovered a substantial correlation between SCM and sustainability performance. This is because several essential components of SCM, including waste reduction, resource efficiency, and process centricity, may be seen as complementing objectives for environmental sustainability in particular.
Additionally, the supply chain is mainly responsible for a product’s environmental and social effects; therefore, efficiently managing it is crucial. A strategic sourcing focus falls under an SCM orientation and is also discussed in the literature as a precursor. When a company has strong, strategically focused sourcing capabilities, it can find, assess, manage, and grow suppliers that are helpful to its long-term sustainability objectives (Gloet and Samson, 2020). The RBV and D.C. theories, which contend that the supply chain’s distinct talents may be used to achieve a competitive advantage and improve sustainability performance, are strongly related to the SCM/strategic sourcing viewpoint (Karmaker et al., 2021). In general, firm-specific competencies could be considered precursors to SSCM.
The final strategic value or orientation, also known as entrepreneurship, “enviropreneurship,” innovation, learning, or reactiveness, is another possible name. Although this component is commonly mentioned in the literature as an antecedent and is highly significant to customer happiness, it should be discussed even though it is not one of the strategic values in the conceptual model. Enviropreneurship is a term used to describe an entrepreneurial approach to sustainability in which businesses can address problems and possibilities with a high level of initiative, risk-taking, and invention (Gloet and Samson, 2020). Being proactive and imaginative has been related to improved sustainability performance, with businesses more inclined to look for novel solutions to sustainability problems.
Research Methodology
The technique for this study is introduced in the subsequent chapter. The chapter explains why a qualitative multiple case study was chosen, examines the research’s underlying epistemology, discusses the selected samples, and describes the data gathering and analysis techniques. Lastly, the level of the study is assessed. This chapter aims to give theoretical and practical arguments for the chosen method and an overview of the entire study design process.
Qualitative Study
The research’s qualitative aspect is one of its main components. The goal of qualitative research is to comprehend various phenomena from the perspectives of its participants and within the specific social and institutional environment of the study. Instead of focusing on what or how many questions, which are more common in quantitative research, how and why questions are sought rather than those in numerical form (Abdullah Kamal, 2019). It is unlikely that using a quantitative survey would provide the level of nuance needed to understand such a complex phenomenon. This is given that this research aims to provide necessary insights and information focused on the SSCM concept, avenues of application, and its impact on consumers’ purchasing behavior (Shepherd et al., 2021). Additionally, the goal is to explore, interpret, and comprehend rather than test an a priori hypothesis.
This study falls under the qualitative research category and makes use of a well-liked method called a case study, which is defined as an empirical investigation that analyses a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life setting (O’Sullivan et al., 2021). One factor in its popularity is its capacity to communicate complex and challenging business themes in an approachable, colorful, individual, and realistic manner. They can also help develop theories, frequently leading to original, testable hypotheses. The two types of case studies are intensive (single case study) and extensive (multiple case study). A single case study attempts to learn as much as possible about one or a few cases, while multiple tries to identify commonalities and trends among many examples (Yoosefi Lebni et al., 2020). With in-depth case studies, the examples are more of a tool or vehicle for exploring the phenomenon at hand than the main point of interest. Perhaps, for this reason, some people may view these cases as “thin” or abstract, especially when compared to dense examples. However, Marceda Bach et al. (2020) argue that several case studies should be used where resources allow them. This research also uses numerous case study approaches, which is thought to be the best way to examine similarities and differences within and between the cases and uncover customer behavior trends.
In addition, this case study may also be referred to as theory elaborating because it begins with the general SSCM theory and instead of formulating a priori claims. This is because it aims to comprehend the theory in a new setting, where it is thought to be malleable and open to challenge or reformulation. The research is well-suited to the phrase “reconciliation of the general with the particular,” which has been used to characterize theory development (Marceda Bach et al., 2020, p. 278). However, one of the main issues with this technique is that it is less likely to show emergence because the categories and notions are based on theory, and the empirical process is led by specific theoretical considerations (Marceda Bach et al., 2020). Given that the setting in issue is characterized by a lack of in-depth preliminary research and limited prior insights, the study could be somewhat exploratory. Furthermore, neither study—a large-scale survey focused primarily on connections with suppliers in developing nations—was tied to customer behavior.
This report utilizes the critical realism paradigm regarding the research’s philosophical foundation. Since it acknowledges both the existence of an independent, objective reality and the social construction of knowledge about it, critical realism is frequently characterized as existing somewhere between positivism and social constructivism/interpretivism (Moon et al., 2019). The realist researchers acknowledge that specific so-called facts are only perceptions even though they strive to represent the world as precisely as possible. This paradigm is appropriate for this study since it rejects positivists’ too simplified views of causation. Still, interpretivism makes essential comparison challenging because it holds that it is impossible to know what is real. Practically speaking, the study explores the more socially created idea of incentives and the more objective realities like concrete policies and practices. Additionally, according to Moon et al. (2019), the supply chain can be effectively described as a network of generally clearly bounded yet complex phenomena, such as organizations, inter-organizational interactions, or nets of connected organizations.
Data Sampling
Customers from different countries across the world were selected to shed their opinions and inclinations when choosing a product. Since there are no empirical studies done with customer behavior as the main focus, there is a substantial research deficit. Additionally, the context of consumer behavior was chosen for several reasons. First, customers’ perspectives on sustainability is a “hot topic” that is constantly debated in the media and public forums. Second, as was already said, given the numerous health and safety concerns associated with eco-friendly products, customer behavior towards them typically calls for a strong SCM focus. Third and more practical is that customer behavior affects business profitability.
When choosing the participants for the study, the researcher considered the appropriate sampling method. Non-probability purposive sampling, where units of the population do not have equal chances of inclusion, is a common technique in qualitative research (Stratton, 2021). In essence, participants are chosen consciously, whether out of convenience, willingness, or following a concept of purpose, such as a particular trait or characteristics (Yoosefi Lebni et al., 2020). Participants can be chosen according to a replication logic that predicts either comparable results, known as a literal replication or opposing results (for known reasons), known as a theoretical replication.
Several factors played a role in this study’s participant selection, which was intended to adhere to the idea of purposive literal replication. The participants in this study are customers whose consumption is determined by green practices of the products. Additionally, the participants regularly purchase certain products depending on their user-friendly character. Further, each participant has articulated sustainable practices or showed explicit interest in sustainability. Since it would have been challenging and probably futile to interview people who had no interest in SSCM, literal replication was also chosen. Customers pursuing sustainable supply chain management should provide much deeper information regarding green practices.
Data Collection
Customers’ perspectives on green initiatives were obtained for the objectives of this report through a series of semi-structured interviews. Due to their suitability for “how” and “what” sorts of research inquiries, semi-structured interviews were regarded as the best interview technique (Ford, Spinazzola, van der Kolk, and Grasso, 2018). While keeping a conversational and easygoing tone, this interviewing technique seeks to be systematic and thorough. An interview guide is used to strike this balance, but the placement and wording of the questions and the intensity of probing can be customized for each interview (Husband, 2020). The adaptability of this approach is also thought to help explore more cutting-edge subjects, as is the case with SSCM in the customer context. However, one notable drawback of this approach is that it may make it difficult to make valid comparisons between interviews. This is because interviewees may be encouraged to explain in varying levels of detail, let alone the fact that questions may be interpreted differently. While this cannot be addressed, secondary data was employed to verify assertions and fill in any gaps brought on by time restraints via the websites, social media accounts, and other press materials. According to Butrina et al. (2020), triangulation is crucial for assuring validity, and that results are more accurate, diversified, and convincing when they are based on multiple sources of empirical data.
In actuality, 32 semi-structured interviews total were performed over roughly ten weeks. Thirty-two interviews were selected since they were thought to be a realistic goal and a sizeable enough sample to allow for the emergence of patterns. The interviewees were enlisted by being emailed directly and asking whether they would be willing to participate. In most cases, the interviewees were customers who regularly buy certain products and they keen on green initiative products.
Each interview had a maximum time limit of 60 minutes, although one interviewee had a 30-minute informed time limit. All interviews were taped and transcribed with the interviewee’s express consent for additional analysis. To avoid being unable to conduct in-person interviews due to distance, seven interviews were performed over Skype. All interviews were conducted using English because it is a common language. Overall, it was decided to alter quotes for clarity when it was seen necessary.
Data Analysis
In keeping with the technique utilized for data gathering, the deductive methodology employed for data analysis was similarly influenced and molded by the theoretical underpinnings of the project. The inferential analysis uses a “top-down,” “general-to-specific” strategy as opposed to inductive study, which is advantageous, for instance, when the goal is to test an existing theory in a new setting. Therefore, it is also appropriate for this research since SSCM in the context of customers is explored and understood using a general SSCM theory (Stratton, 2021). Deductive approaches have been criticized for being overly rigorous or constrictive. Still, they have also been praised for connecting to earlier work on the topic, sometimes lacking in case study research.
A within-case and cross-case analysis were performed as part of the thematic analysis, a standard data analysis method (Xu and Zammit, 2020). Thematic analysis is a technique for locating, examining, and summarizing patterns throughout the information. It is essentially a means to arrange and describe the data. Its versatility is one of its benefits; the researcher can use their discretion to decide what constitutes a theme. Using a pre-made theme coding system, labels or “codes” were created based on the SSCM practices in the updated conceptual model, using the deductive method (Husband, 2020). Following the verbatim transcription of the interviews, each case was classified by concentrating on the phrases, attitudes, and words that matched the specified labels. The main goal was to grasp each situation before comparing thoroughly. The method’s adaptability allowed for the inclusion of codes when new topics in the data appeared. There were a total of 100 codes and 600 quotes used.
Finally, a cross-case analysis was performed, which involved comparing the examples to find commonalities and differences and determine the importance of the themes. The coded data were combined and arranged on an Excel sheet using a mind map to show which practices or other topics were most frequently cited. Throughout the research, the data were contrasted with the literature to look for patterns supporting and refuting the findings. This way, cross-case synthesis, and pattern matching were merged in the data analysis.
Research Evaluation
Three classic criteria for evaluating study quality are reliability, validity, and generalizability. However, Xu & Goodacre (2018) acknowledge that there is debate in the literature regarding the extent to which validity and reliability are derived from quantitative research. This can be used to evaluate interviews or observation accounts because they are still the most widely used benchmarks appropriate for the critical realist paradigm.
Reliability is known as the range of a measuring method’s reproducibility, or the degree to which results are not dependent on chance events and are repeatable by another researcher. In this study, the social desirability bias happens when participants respond to questions based on what they believe to be “right” or socially acceptable, forming the study’s variables that could potentially affect dependability. This is especially difficult in this situation since inquiries into sustainable practices can raise various moral, ethical, and legal issues that may cause participants to react cautiously (Fried et al., 2018). It was emphasized throughout the interviews that the goal was to learn what the customers considered sustainable and how it affected their purchasing behavior, not to assess how sustainable the customers were to reduce bias. Furthermore, it was clear that there was no right or wrong way to respond to the inquiries.
The study’s ability to represent or explain what happened accurately and with support from evidence is measured by the second evaluation criterion, called validity. There are three ways to examine validity: construct, inductive, and external. Construct validity analyses how well a study accomplishes what it set out to measure and considers whether the measurements have been shown to reflect the phenomenon being examined. It might be argued that the constructs utilized are valid because the conceptual framework, which served as the foundation for the interview guide and subsequent analysis, was created using previously published, highly acknowledged research on SSCM. Since the goal of this study was not to establish causal linkages, the second sub-category, internal validity, is not relevant to this research. Thirdly, external validity examines if results may be applied to a broader environment and are fundamentally similar to generalizability (Xu & Goodacre, 2018). There has also been debate over the significance of generalizability in research. It has been argued that significant theoretical advances can be made with or without generalizability. While some studies may be generalizable, this is not a requirement or a recommendation. The sample in the study was expanded to worldwide customers to increase the generalizability of the findings.
Utilizing additional techniques, such as analytical induction, triangulation, and member checking will increase the study’s validity. Even though this study used triangulation to refine further and confirm the findings, one of its drawbacks was that small enterprises create less information than significant corporations. Since the survey lacked access to sustainability reports or other supporting documents, it was forced to rely on the companies’ websites and social media platforms (Xu & Goodacre, 2018). However, a benefit of the small size was that the interviewee’s opinions might be more likely to reflect the reality of the organization, improving reliability precisely. By developing a rigorous interview guide, recording all the interviews, and transcribing them as quickly as possible, the validity was also increased by further triangulating with the application of theories to comprehend better and interpret the case.
References
Abdullah Kamal, S. (2019) ‘Research paradigm and the philosophical foundations of a qualitative study’, People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), pp.1386-1394.
Accorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R. and Tufano, A. (2018) ‘A hierarchical data architecture for sustainable food supply chain management and planning’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, pp.1039-1054.
Allen, S., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2021) ‘Expanding conceptual boundaries of the sustainable supply chain management and circular economy nexus’, Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 2, p.100011.
Butrina, P., Le Vine, S., Henao, A., Sperling, J. and Young, S. (2020) ‘Municipal adaptation to changing curbside demands: Exploratory findings from semi-structured interviews with Ten U.S. Cities’, Transport Policy, 92, pp.1-7.
Dănescu, T., Bogdan Matei, R. and Constantinescu, L. (2021) ‘Evolutionary benchmarks in sustainability reporting. Incursion from the Brundtland report to the sustainable development goals’, Acta Marisiensis. Seria Oeconomica, 15(2), pp.19-30.
Duong, N. and Ha, Q. (2021) ‘The links between supply chain risk management practices, supply chain integration and supply chain performance in Southern Vietnam: A moderation effect of supply chain social sustainability’, Cogent Business & AMP; Management, 8(1).
Ford, J., Spinazzola, J., van der Kolk, B. and Grasso, D. (2018) ‘Toward an empirically based developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for children’, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 79(5).
Fraser, I., Müller, M. and Schwarzkopf, J. (2020) ‘Transparency for multi-tier sustainable supply chain management: A case study of a multi-tier transparency approach for SSCM in the automotive industry’, Sustainability, 12(5), p.1814.
Fried, E., Eidhof, M., Palic, S., Costantini, G., Huisman-van Dijk, H., Bockting, C., Engelhard, I., Armour, C., Nielsen, A. and Karstoft, K. (2018) ‘Replicability and generalizability of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) networks: A cross-cultural multisite study of PTSD symptoms in four trauma patient samples’, Clinical Psychological Science, 6(3), pp.335-351.
Gloet, M. and Samson, D. (2020) ‘Knowledge and innovation management to support supply chain innovation and sustainability practices’, Information Systems Management, 39(1), pp.3-18.
Hariharasudan, A., Kot, S. and Sangeetha, J. (2021) ‘The decades of research on SCM and its advancements: Comprehensive framework’, Acta logistica, 8(4), pp.455-477.
Husband, G. (2020) ‘Ethical data collection and recognizing the impact of semi-structured interviews on research respondents’, Education Sciences, 10(8), p.206.
Karmaker, C., Ahmed, T., Ahmed, S., Ali, S., Moktadir, M. and Kabir, G. (2021) ‘Improving supply chain sustainability in the context of COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy: Exploring drivers using an integrated model’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp.411-427.
Kitsis, A. and Chen, I., (2019) ‘Do motives matter? Examining the relationships between motives, SSCM practices and TBL performance’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(3), pp.325-341.
Kot, S., (2018) ‘Sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enterprises’, Sustainability, 10(4), p.1143.
Langford, N., Nadvi, K. and Braun-Munzinger, C. (2022) ‘The shaping of ‘Southern’ sustainability standards in a value chain world: comparative evidence from China and India’, Review of International Political Economy, pp.1-26.
Makhloufi, L., Laghouag, A., Meirun, T. and Belaid, F. (2021) ‘Impact of green entrepreneurship orientation on environmental performance: The natural resource‐based view and environmental policy perspective’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), pp.425-444.
Malik, M., Abdallah, S., Orr, S. and Chaudhary, U., (2019) ‘The differences in agent effects on sustainable supply chain management: an activity theory construction’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(5), pp.637-658.
Marceda Bach, T., da Silva, W., Mendonça Souza, A., Kudlawicz-Franco, C. and da Veiga, C. (2020) ‘Online customer behavior: Perceptions regarding the types of risks incurred through online purchases’ Palgrave Communications, 6(1).
Moon, K., Blackman, D., Adams, V., Colvin, R., Davila, F., Evans, M., Januchowski-Hartley, S., Bennett, N., Dickinson, H., Sandbrook, C., Sherren, K., St. John, F., van Kerkhoff, L. and Wyborn, C. (2019) ‘Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods’ Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(3), pp.294-302.
Morais, D. and Barbieri, J. (2022) ‘Supply chain social sustainability: Unveiling focal firm’s archetypes under the lens of stakeholder and contingency theory’, Sustainability, 14(3), p.1185.
O’Sullivan, K., Clark, S., McGrane, A., Rock, N., Burke, L., Boyle, N., Joksimovic, N. and Marshall, K. (2021) ‘A qualitative study of child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), p.1062.
Saeed, M. and Kersten, W. (2019) ‘Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Identification and classification’, Sustainability, 11(4), p.1137.
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G. and Tappin, D. (2019) ‘Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), pp.592-604.
Scuotto, V., Garcia-Perez, A., Cillo, V. and Giacosa, E. (2020) ‘Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy’, Journal of Business Research, 119, pp.131-141.
Sembiring, N., Yurisditira, R. and Devany, J. (2020) ‘Analysis of drivers and barriers: The implementation of sustainability supply chain management (SSCM) in P.T. ABC’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 851(1), p.012047.
Shao, X., Liu, W., Li, Y., Chaudhry, H. and Yue, X. (2021) ‘Multistage implementation framework for smart supply chain management under industry 4.0’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, p.120354.
Shepherd, R., Lorente, L., Vignoli, M., Nielsen, K. and Peiró, J. (2021) ‘Challenges influencing the safety of migrant workers in the construction industry: A qualitative study in Italy, Spain, and the U.K’, Safety Science, 142, p.105388.
Stratton, S. (2021) ‘Population research: Convenience sampling strategies’ Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), pp.373-374.
Toorajipour, R., Sohrabpour, V., Nazarpour, A., Oghazi, P. and Fischl, M. (2021) ‘Artificial intelligence in supply chain management: A systematic literature review’, Journal of Business Research, 122, pp.502-517.
Truong, Y., Mazloomi, H. and Berrone, P., (2021) ‘Understanding the impact of symbolic and substantive environmental actions on organizational reputation’, Industrial Marketing Management, 92, pp.307-320.
Xu, W. and Zammit, K. (2020) ‘Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, p.160940692091881.
Xu, Y. and Goodacre, R. (2018) ‘On splitting training and validation set: A comparative study of cross-validation, bootstrap and systematic sampling for estimating the generalization performance of supervised learning’, Journal of Analysis and Testing, 2(3), pp.249-262.
Yoosefi Lebni, J., Mohammadi Gharehghani, M., Soofizad, G., Khosravi, B., Ziapour, A. and Irandoost, S. (2020) ‘Challenges and opportunities confronting female-headed households in Iran: A qualitative study’, BMC Women’s Health, 20(1).
Zimon, D., Tyan, J. and Sroufe, R. (2019) ‘Implementing sustainable supply chain management: Reactive, cooperative, and dynamic models’, Sustainability, 11(24), p.7227.
Zimon, D., Tyan, J. and Sroufe, R. (2020) ‘Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with unsustainable development goals’, International Journal for Quality Research, 14(1), pp.219-236.
Research Plan
I plan to achieve remaining milestones of my plan I will apply theoretical, practical and review principles of writing a scientific paper. In milestones stages, I will refer to theoretical calculations, reinforcing the material found with an experiment or experience. I will also perform an analysis of previous stages of work related to a specific issue being considered at the milestone stage.