Search results

This paper aims to introduce a supply chain strategy for supply chain sustainability performance and explain why it is different to normal business/operations strategy.

A survey of supply chain managers and detailed case studies of three successful supply chain sustainability organisations identified four components of a supply chain sustainability strategy, the mechanisms behind them and how they interacted.

Sustainability leadership, supply chain member involvement in organisational sustainability initiatives, supply chain member involvement in supply chain sustainability strategy planning and technical competency were identified as the four components of a sustainable supply chain strategy. Sustainability leadership legitimises the objectives and involvement of the staff in supply chain-oriented sustainability initiatives and planning. Technical competency provides the capability and language necessary for the development of a supply chain sustainability strategy. This is different to business/operations strategy, however, parallels to other forms of strategy constructs support its ability to achieve performance improvement.

The research is based on data from developed countries; the findings may be different for emerging economies. Potential hypotheses for future research are suggested.

The supply chain sustainability strategy will enable organisations to improve the sustainability of their supply chains. Its application is described in the paper.

The paper develops a strategy framework different to the approach taken in business/operational strategy. It indicates how the sustainability performance of supply chains external to the organisation is increased through their interconnectedness with the organisation.

This study explores the scope, materiality and extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure – as benchmarked against the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI-G4) – of the top 10 logistics firms operating in Australia. It also investigates the relationships between the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these firms and their actual financial performance.

The authors adopted an inductive case study approach for an in-depth investigation of the relationships among concepts. A content analysis of the firms' sustainability reports was performed to determine their pattern and extent of sustainability disclosure against the GRI framework. A disclosure–performance analysis (DPA) matrix was employed to relate the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these 10 firms with their actual financial performance (i.e. return on assets [ROA] and total revenue growth).

This study found that the extent of sustainability reporting was relatively high on the labour practices and decent work subgroup, followed by the environmental dimension of the GRI-G4 framework. However, it was relatively low on the society, human rights and product responsibility subgroups of the GRI framework. The DPA revealed that “Leaders” (firms with higher sustainability disclosure levels) achieved significantly higher ROA. However, “Opportunists” (firms with lower sustainability disclosure levels) achieved higher levels of financial returns (i.e. ROA and total revenue growth) with less attention to sustainability issues, which contradicts the win-win view of the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

First, this study contributes an in-depth review of sustainability disclosure practices of top logistics firms operating in Australia. Second, using DPA, it identifies the novel effects of environmental and social sustainability disclosure levels on these firms' financial performance. It also sheds further light on the potential effect of investments beyond substantial profitability for sustainability growth and corporate governance on the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

Construction sustainability (CS) is a strategic reaction to the sustainability expectations of the construction industry's external stakeholders. The extant literature has viewed the environmental, social and economic dimensions of CS as having independent effects on financial performance. Due to the influence of common stakeholders, however, interactions in these dimensions will be present in their effect on financial performance. Accordingly, this study identifies the mechanisms of the interactions between the three CS dimensions and how they jointly affect financial performance.

Content analysis of GRI reports of 60 large construction organisations, followed by a hierarchical regression analysis was used to identify the interactions between environmental, social and economic CS in their effect on financial performance.

Economic CS was found to indirectly, and not directly, affect financial performance, the effect being mediated by both environmental and social CS. Environmental CS was found to have a strong negative effect on financial performance, whilst social CS was found to have a strongly significant positive effect on financial performance.

The motivation for engaging in CS is that investment in economic CS will have a positive effect on both environmental and social CS outcomes, which, in turn can have a combined effect on financial performance.

This is one of the first studies investigating the effect of interactions between the environmental, social and economic CS dimensions on the financial performance of construction organisations. It is also one of the first studies that applies a sociotechnical framework to this relationship.

This case is the second of a three-part series that follows the managerial, strategic, and communications decisions of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) or Clean India Mission, the flagship programme of the Government of India to eliminate the practice of open defecation (i.e., not using a toilet) from 2014 to 2019. As of 2014, 550 million people in India practiced open defecation. This problem posed a massive public health hazard and economic drag for the country as well as a threat to global health. Written from an insider's perspective, the cases centre on the decisions made by a new Secretary of India's Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, who was hired to manage SBM, and the team he assembled. Case B discusses the start-up challenges for SBM, including implementation in India's complex federal system, workplace culture, and the deep-rooted behaviour of open defecation in rural India and the managerial and communication strategies formulated to address them. The case concludes by framing the difficulties with slow-moving states and monitoring rigour that the leadership SBM, with a new team, strategic focus, and early momentum, faced as the mission entered its final two years.