Search results

This paper presents an investigation into the ways the term “practice” is commonly referenced in supply chain management academic papers. Scholars have not yet developed a common understanding of the meaning and do not use practice theories when examining practices related to sustainability management in supply chains. Hence, the authors highlight theoretical gaps and make recommendations for future research.

Grounded in a systematic literature review of 232 peer-reviewed papers published in operations and supply chain management journals, a qualitative content analysis was conducted using both a deductive and an inductive approach.

Results show that supply chain sustainability (SCS) scholars seem barely interested in increasing the understanding of the term “practice,” widely used in the literature to refer to a practical context. Moreover, a clear distinction between being practical and using practice theories to study SCS practices is needed. A descriptive and critical analysis revealed eight key supply chain practices connected to sustainability, with a clear reflection on their meaning. As awareness of practice theories for research on SCS is limited, few recommendations for researchers and practitioners were identified.

Unlike prior literature reviews, the authors reinforce the need to increase the maturity of the SCS field by going beyond superficial theoretical building. Practice theories pathways are provided to enlighten scholars on how to avoid using the term “practice” as taken-for-granted and on how to deal with SCS research and practice.

Sustainability has long been known to present an epistemic challenge. In the corporate setting, this challenge translates into the difficulties experienced by managers not only in devising solutions to corporate sustainability problems, but even in developing the awareness of the latter. The paper explores how these difficulties may be overcome by corporate stakeholder management policies.

The paper develops a conceptual framework that reconstructs the Hayekian theory of market process in the context of Williamson's (1996) distinction between autonomous and cooperative adaptation.

Applying the Hayekian theory of market process to the process of engagement and collaboration of corporate stakeholders, the paper shows how the latter process may address the epistemic challenge of corporate sustainability and derives implications for the design of business models for sustainability.

The paper informs stakeholder theory in two ways: first, stakeholder theory is given a novel justification in terms of reflecting the growing prominence of cooperative adaptation and second, corporate stakeholder management is shown to be crucial for maximizing not only economic but also sustainability performance.

To develop a roadmap of sustainability practices and assessment mechanisms to advance in the sustainable supply chain (SSC) performance assessment in the food supply chain. The analysis is grounded on the contingency and stakeholder theories.

The study follows a multiple case study approach analyzing the sustainability practices implementation and assessment across different supply chain stages in the food industry in Italy. The set of cases comprises 12 companies in the fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV), and seven companies in the “Balsamic Vinegar of Modena” (BVM) supply chains.

The sustainability practices and assessment in each company in both supply chains according to their objectives are identified. Different stakeholder pressures for sustainability implementation and assessment are analyzed. The contingency factors that foster sustainability assessment are outlined as well. Finally, the study develops a roadmap with five levels of progress considering the groups of practices implemented and the type of assessment applied.

The roadmap is a decision-making tool for planning and monitoring progress on SSC performance along five possible levels of progress. While identifying the assessment mechanisms implemented for different kind of sustainability practices, companies can develop a strategy according to their aims and capabilities and stakeholder's expectations.

The novelties in this study are threefold. First, the roadmap with five levels of progress. Second, investigating two different food supply chains that allowed for a broader view regarding sustainability practices and assessment. Third, the adoption of stakeholder and contingency theories in SSC studies.

The circular economy (CE) approach has been acknowledged as key for manufacturing organizations wishing to overcome sustainability challenges. However, the transition has been slow. Stakeholder engagement is a driver of the transition, but there is limited knowledge on stakeholder engagement practices in a CE context. The purpose of this paper is thus to explore with whom, on what and how organizations engage with stakeholders to implement CE as part of sustainability efforts.

This study is situated at the intersection of CE, stakeholder theory and supply chain literature. A case study with three Swedish manufacturing organizations was conducted to explore stakeholder engagement practices that facilitate the implementation of CE in organizational practice and the supply chain, considering conceptual differences between stakeholder engagement for sustainability and CE.

This study provides empirical evidence on how manufacturing organizations engage stakeholders to implement CE as part of organizations' sustainability efforts. The study highlights that manufacturing organizations have to move not only from linear to circular resource flows, but also from linear to circular stakeholder engagement. Such engagement can be achieved by extending with whom, expanding on what and leveling up how stakeholders are engaged.

This study provides an enhanced conceptual understanding of stakeholder engagement in the CE context and discusses differences regarding stakeholder engagement based on linear thinking. The study emphasizes the role of circular stakeholder engagement practices for the transition toward CE in manufacturing organizations.

This article explores and contrasts the views of two influential research projects within the social and environmental accounting space. Both projects advocate for sustainability. The first here referred to as the Critical Social and Environmental Accounting Project (CSEAP), was developed and championed by Rob Gray and calls for immediate radical structural change. The second one is called the Pragmatic Sustainability Management Accounting Project (PSMAP), championed by Stefan Schaltegger, and advocates for an entrepreneurial process of creating radical solutions in joint stakeholder collaboration over time.

The paper is the culmination of a decade-long debate between Gray and Schaltegger as advocates of CSEAP and PSMAP, respectively. Specifically, the paper explores the differences and agreements between CSEAP and PSMAP on whether and how companies should pursue sustainability and the role of accounting in these efforts. The paper focusses on critical issues that exemplify the tension in their views: general goals, the role of structure and agency and how to creating change and transformation.

The article contrasts CSEAP's uncompromising antagonising approach to accountability and fundamental systemic change with PSMAP's pragmatic approach to sustainability accounting with its management and entrepreneurship-orientated approach to change and unwavering support for transformative managers on the front lines. Despite their apparent differences, the paper also outlines areas of agreement between these two positions and how accounting and sustainability can move forward.

The debate tries to reconcile language and conceptional differences in the social and environmental accounting (SEA) and sustainability management accounting (SMA) communities to reduce confusion in the research space over what sustainability is for organisations and what role accounting plays in this. The authors hope that the tension between the different positions outlined in this paper generates new insights and positions on the topic.

While the two views explored in this paper are primarily incompatible, each generates implications for practice, research and education. Debates like this are crucial to moving from discursive disagreement to creating a tolerant and robust foundation for moving forward and achieving much-needed sustainable transitions in the economy and society.

The authors offer shared understandings, points of continuing disagreement and alternative views on the nature of sustainability. The debate forges a bridge of understanding where both sides can learn from each other.

Discussions about sustainability in the organizational context present a blind spot. It appears when we ask if a company recognized as sustainable, keep what it means compatible with corporate sustainability premises and its values on the strategic decision process. In this context, the purpose of this paper is, on the light of sensemaking and the decision-making theory, to reflect on possible divergences between meanings attributed to sustainability, available on official documents, and the meanings identified in current actions and narratives related to sustainability goals in the researched organization.

The research adopted a qualitative approach, characterized as descriptive, using as methods narrative analysis and documentary research, that were carried out from sensemaking theory.

It was identified coherence between strategic statements and present sustainable actions. However, in view of theoretical reference used, it was identified an imprecision in sustainability perspectives of decision making. Inconsistency tends to promote internal resistance, difficulty to commit to all areas and prejudice long-term results.

Future studies should compare the decision-making meaning attributed to sustainability in companies of different market segments.

The studied case shed light on the importance of managers having at their disposal a map that relates strategic objectives and actions aimed at sustainability. The lack of this compromises the organizational results focused on corporate sustainability.

The understanding of the meanings attributed gives rise to perceptions of possible and relevant flaws in the alignment between the discourse and the practice of sustainability, supporting possibilities of the fine adjustments in strategic decision making.

Electric utility companies (EUC) are expected to play a key role toward implementing ambitious climate change aims being under critical scrutiny by regulators and stakeholders. However, EUC provide an under-researched field regarding sustainability reporting with the focus on economic, social and ecological concerns. This paper aims to gain insights of the sustainability reporting practice of EUC and the coverage of indicators based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)-Guidelines.

A twofold documentary analysis of 186 GRI-G4 sustainability reports by EUC globally is conducted to investigate the coverage rates of G4-indicators. Neo-institutionalism and strategic stakeholder theory serve as theoretical lenses. A regression analysis is used to examine ownership, stock-exchange listing, area of activity and region as potential drivers of sustainability reporting.

Results show that the coverage of indicators based on triple-bottom-line dimensions is moderate in EUC leaving room for improvement. The coverage of sector-specific indicators lacks behind the coverage of standard disclosure indicators. Results show that private and listed EUC show better coverage rates than public and not-listed EUC.

Neo-institutionalism shows limited homogenization in the sector. Strategic stakeholder theory demonstrates insufficient stakeholder compliance of public and not-listed EUC.

This study contributes to sustainability reporting research by focusing on the under-researched electricity sector. It provides practical reporting insights for EUC, the GRI and regulators.