European Journal of Operational Research: Marcus Brandenburg, Kannan Govindan, Joseph Sarkis, Stefan Seuring

European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor
Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management:

Developments and directions
Marcus Brandenburg a,d,, Kannan Govindan b, Joseph Sarkis c, Stefan Seuring a
a
Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Kassel, Germany
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
c
Department of Management, School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
d
Department of Production Management, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 4 October 2013
Keywords:
Literature review
OR in environment and climate change
OR in societal problem analysis
OR in sustainability
Supply chain management
Sustainability
a b s t r a c t
Sustainability, the consideration of environmental factors and social aspects, in supply chain management (SCM) has become a highly relevant topic for researchers and practitioners. The application of operations research methods and related models, i.e. formal modeling, for closed-loop SCM and reverse
logistics has been effectively reviewed in previously published research. This situation is in contrast to
the understanding and review of mathematical models that focus on environmental or social factors in
forward supply chains (SC), which has seen less investigation. To evaluate developments and directions
of this research area, this paper provides a content analysis of 134 carefully identied papers on quantitative, formal models that address sustainability aspects in the forward SC. It was found that a preponderance of the publications and models appeared in a limited set of six journals, and most were
analytically based with a focus on multiple criteria decision making. The tools most often used comprise
the analytical hierarchy process or its close relative, the analytical network process, as well as life cycle
analysis. Conclusions are drawn showing that numerous possibilities and insights can be gained from
expanding the types of tools and factors considered in formal modeling efforts.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The integration of environmental and social aspects with
economic considerations, known as the triple-bottom-line (TBL)
dimensions of organizational sustainability (Elkington, 1998,
2004), has continuously gained relevance for managerial decision
making in general and for supply chain management (SCM) (Carter
& Rogers, 2008) and operations management (Drake & Spinler,
2013; Kleindorfer, Singhal, & van Wassenhove, 2005) in particular.
Organizations have rethought and redened the concept of operations management using the supply chain (SC) perspective through
the incorporation of upstream (input) and downstream partners
(output) into the boundary of investigation and management
(Bettley & Burnley, 2008). Traditionally, SCM has been dened as
the management of physical, logical, and nancial ows in networks
of intra- and inter-organizational relationships jointly adding value
and achieving customer satisfaction (Mentzer et al., 2001; Stock &
Boyer, 2009). From a process-oriented or cross-functional perspective, SCM comprises planning, sourcing, production, and distribution
Corresponding author. Address: Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Business
and Economics, University of Kassel, Untere Knigsstr. 71, D-34117 Kassel,
Germany. Tel.: +49 561 804 7517.
E-mail address: brandenb@uni-kassel.de (M. Brandenburg).
0377-2217/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032
logistics (Supply-Chain Council, 2008) but is not exclusively focused

on one of these areas (Cooper, Lambert, & Pagh, 1997).
In contrast to traditional SCM, which typically focuses on economic and nancial business performance, sustainable SCM
(SSCM) is characterized by explicit integration of environmental
or social objectives which extend the economic dimension to the
TBL (Seuring & Mller, 2008a). In this context, SSCM focuses on
the forward SC only (Seuring & Mller, 2008a) and is complemented by closed-loop SCM (CLSCM) (Guide & van Wassenhove,
2009; Lebreton, 2007) including reverse logistics, remanufacturing,
and product recovery.
The increasing importance of this eld, academically, socially,
and economically, is reected by the geometric growth of related scientic publications during the past two decades and especially so in
the past decade (Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring & Mller, 2008a). In addition to a large variety of empirical research papers that utilize eld
research, case study, and broad-based empirical surveys, numerous
publications employ formal, mathematical models for practice and
theory-driven research. Models are a simplied representation or
abstraction of reality, and related research differentiates between
conceptual models dened as a set of concepts suitable to represent
but not explain real-life objects or processes and quantitative
models that are based on a set of variables and their causal relationship (Bertrand & Fransoo, 2002; Meredith, 1993).
300
M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312
For CLSCM, quantitative models are often applied and practical

(Fleischmann et al., 1997; Srivastava, 2007; Sasikumar & Kannan,
2008a, 2008b, 2009). In contrast to this circumstance, the majority
of models employed for SSCM are more conceptual. Only about one
out of nine papers on SSCM utilizes formal models (Seuring & Mller, 2008a). In recent years, the quantity of formal modeling efforts
has started to increase.
It is evident from literature that (reverse-oriented) CLSCM models are more popular (Ilgin & Gupta, 2010; Min & Kim, 2012), but a
signicant number of (forward) SSCM models do exist (Hassini,
Surti, & Searcy, 2012; Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring & Mller, 2008a;
and Seuring, 2012), many of which are quite recent in development. A comprehensive review of these models is not currently
available and thus it is timely to take an inventory of the research.
The lack of a comprehensive understanding of modeling-based
SSCM research is surprising since the non-sustainability modeling
eld has a well-developed traditional research focus on forward
SCM. It may be that research focusing on CLSCM has caused many
modeling researchers to overlook this forward SCM eld in context
to sustainability.
To help further catalyze research in this area, which has
numerous opportunities to improve organizational, industrial,
and commercial sustainability, further understanding of the
common and unique modeling characteristics is needed. Some
SSCM reviews currently exist, but most of these reviews are
descriptive (e.g. Carter & Rogers, 2008; Fleischmann et al.,
1997; Seuring & Mller, 2008a). Although somewhat descriptive, this paper provides additional insightful discussion,
analyzing a number of important eld advancing questions as
discussed below.
Which aspects and factors are considered in existing quantitative SSCM models? What are the limits of these models and what
issues remain? What feasible and fruitful opportunities for
further research exist? To help understand the history and
direction of SSCM modeling efforts and to answer these questions, this paper presents a content analysis (Krippendorff,
1980; Mayring, 2002, 2008) of related literature to assess recent
developments and future directions of quantitative, formal modeling in the SSCM context. The rich descriptions offered and the
overall lines of research identied this way, often have tremendous impact on future research. Therefore, we also discuss
overarching lines of research as well as gaps and future research
directions.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next
section, a brief overview of related literature reviews on SSCM is
given. The subsequent section describes the methodology applied
in this paper and is followed by a representation of the results
obtained by the content analysis. Remarks comprising the summarized ndings and a related discussion, limitations, and future research perspectives conclude this paper.
2. Insights from previous literature reviews

To justify the need for the content analysis presented in this paper and to position its results to extant scientic research, former
reviews of scientic literature on SSCM are summarized. Existing
literature reviews on SSCM can be categorized into reviews published prior to 2008 and recent reviews published within the last
ve years. The purpose of this background on previous literature
reviews is to help derive relevant information and structures for
this study. The background literature also helps to identify open issues in model-based SSCM research. These recent reviews are assessed with regards to SCM perspectives, e.g. level and actor of
analysis, sustainability, i.e. the dimensions of the TBL, and
research designs.
2.1. Literature reviews prior to 2008

The earliest related literature reviews (Gungor & Gupta, 1999;
Kleindorfer et al., 2005) identify green product and process development, green operations management, remanufacturing, and
CLSCM as areas to integrate planet- and people-related issues into
SCM, but the reviews do not include social aspects of SSCM.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, van Beek, Hordijk, and van Wassenhove
(1995) focused on operations research (OR) applications in the
context of environmental management (EM) and suggest a conceptual SC-EM-framework. Daniel, Diakoulaki, and Pappis
(1997) apply this framework in their survey of OR-related environmental planning and categorize related OR methods into
descriptive approaches for observation and analysis and normative methods for solution identication. ReVelle (2000) provides
an overview on the application of OR methods for the management of water resources, solid waste, and air quality and outlines
different normative models for these areas. Sbihi and Eglese
(2007) focused specically on combinatorial optimization problems in green logistics, which comprises reverse logistics, waste
management, and vehicle routing and scheduling. While these
early published reviews paved the way for SSCM research, they
are not able to inform on current developments and future trends
of related model-based research.
2.2. Literature reviews after 2008
Recent reviews of SSCM literature can be categorized as either
general or focused on empirical research or quantitative models
and metrics. Table 1 overviews 14 recent reviews regarding their
research focus and characteristics, such as time horizon, number
of reviewed papers, main journals, employment of keyword search
and content analysis as well as taken perspectives on SCM and
sustainability.
In contrast to reverse logistics or remanufacturing, OR methodologies and analytic approaches for forward SSCM play a
subordinate role in the published research (Ilgin & Gupta,
2010; Min & Kim, 2012). As shown in Table 2, approximately
only one out of ten SSCM papers employs a research method
which is based on quantitative models using formal OR modeling techniques.
With regards to the SCM perspective, extant research shows
that sustainability is often externally motivated by government,
customers, or stakeholders (Gold, Seuring, & Beske, 2010a,
2010b; Seuring & Mller, 2008a). The literature also shows that a
vertical coordination and a SC-wide implementation are required
(Carter & Rogers, 2008). In contrast to this focus, empirical research
on SSCM mainly focuses on single rms and neglects inter-organizational aspects (Carter & Easton, 2011). This conict leads to the
question of whether model-based research takes into account the
intercompany perspective and if the role and inuence of legal
authorities or other stakeholders is adequately reected in quantitative SSCM models. Furthermore, Hassini et al. (2012) show that
sustainability metrics are most often designed for manufacturing
rms. Hence it should be assessed which SC sectors are in the focus
of model-based SSCM research.
Holistic approaches of SSCM that reect all three sustainability
dimensions are relatively rare in the academic literature (Seuring
& Mller, 2008a). However, empirical research shows the growing
relevance of multiple sustainability dimensions (Carter & Easton,
2011). Given that SSCM can positively inuence a rms protability, performance, and competitive advantage (Carter & Rogers,
2008; Gold et al., 2010b; Golicic & Smith, 2013), SSCM research
tends to focus primarily on environmental issues (Seuring &
Mller, 2008a), while social facets are widely neglected in empirical
(Gold et al., 2010a) and in analytical SSCM modeling research
301

Table 1
Recent reviews on SSCM literature.
Research focus
Author(s) and year
Time
horizon
Number of
reviewed
papers
Main journalsa
Keyword search
content
analysis
Perspective on SCM sustainability
General
Carter and Rogers (2008)

Seuring and Mller
(2008a)
Min and Kim (2012)
n.a.
19942007
n.a.
191
n.a.
JCLP, POM, IJPR
No no
Yes yes
Undisclosed TBL
Forward TBL
19952010
519
JCLP, IJPR, IJPE,

EJOR
Yes yesb
Forward and reverse TBL
Gold et al. (2010a)

Gold et al. (2010b)
Carter and Easton (2011)
Sarkis, Zhu, and Lai
(2011)
Sarkis (2012)
Golicic and Smith (2013)
19942007
19942007
19912010
19952010
70
70
80
150
JCLP
n.a.
TRE
n.a.
Yes yes
Yes yes
No no
No no
Forward TBL
Forward TBL
Undisclosed TBL
Forward and reverse environmental
20002010.
20002011
100
77
n.a.
n.a.
No no
Yes no

Undisclosed environmental
Ilgin and Gupta (2010)
19992010
540
n.a.
No yesb
Dekker et al. (2012)
n.a.
60
n.a.
No no
Yes yes
Yes yes
Forward and reverse logistics

environmental
Forward TBL
No no
Empirical
Quantitative
models and
metrics
a
b
Hassini et al. (2012)

Seuring (2012)
20002010
19942010
87
36
Tang and Zhou (2012)
n.a.
56
IJPR, IJPE, EJOR

JCLP, EJOR, IJPE,
IJPR
n.a.
Not including journals with a pure empirical focus.

Only rough categorization based on very few categories and dimensions.
Table 2
Relevance of forward SSCM formal models in scientic research.
Author(s) and year
Size of initial paper sample
Number with SSCM formal models
Share (%)
Seuring and Mller (2008a)

Min and Kim (2012)
Seuring (2012)
191
519
707
306
21
46
87
36
11
9
12
12
Note: The remaining literature reviews did not contain information required for these calculations.
(Tang & Zhou, 2012). Tang and Zhou (2012) observe that environmental factors in quantitative models mainly include the consumption of natural resources and the emission of waste and pollution,
while social aspects are related to only customers and producers.
Assessing the literatures usage of the three sustainability dimensions in greater detail, e.g. which metrics are suitable to represent
sustainability factors in formal SSCM models and which perspectives are taken in holistic SSCM models, would identify what avenues exist to further integrate holistic TBL measures and the
resulting performance impacts into SSCM formal modeling.
In contrast to SSCM research in general, which focuses on win
win approaches to sustainability (Seuring & Mller, 2008a), formal
modeling research is dominated by trade-off based modeling approaches (Seuring, 2012). An assessment of the main purposes
(descriptive or normative) of SSCM models still requires investigation. Although a lack of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for green logistics seems to exist (Dekker, Bloemhof, &
Mallidis, 2012), preferred types and techniques for forward SSCM
models have not been identied and analyzed. This lack of identication of prevalent modeling approaches is in contrast to Ilgins
and Guptas (2010) ndings for green (re-)manufacturing and
product recovery, where discrete-event simulation (DES), fuzzy
logic, genetic algorithms (GA), and mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) are identied as preferred modeling techniques.
The research design is important to consider in the literature
review because it can help identify the current situation in the eld
and how it may be advanced by varying research methodology.
Previous research has found that empirical SSCM studies are more
prevalent than conceptual or formal modeling research designs

(Seuring & Mller, 2008a). It has also been found that forward
SSCM research can benet from OR applications, ideally combined
with rigorous empirical studies (Min & Kim, 2012; Seuring, 2012).
But the ndings in these papers have only started to identify these
concerns, and further investigation can provide additional insights.
For example, a sectoral focus of scientic SSCM research is of particular interest, which is not yet covered in model-based SSCM research. Empirical studies focus on transportation, textile, and
consumer products sectors while the automotive, chemical, and
electronics industries have fewer investigations (Carter & Easton,
2011; Gold et al., 2010a, 2010b). Again, determining whether model-based SSCM research considers similar sectoral emphasis would
provide insight into what sectors are underrepresented and also
shed light on why certain sectors might be overrepresented. A potential mismatch can be predicted by the fact that papers on SSCM
metrics preferably deal with manufacturing sectors such as automotive or electronics industries (Hassini et al., 2012). Identifying
a sectoral preference or lack thereof can provide guidance to policy
makers and researchers on what sectors need further academic and
policy intensive modeling research.
2.3. Research questions

To assess research developments and directions for formal
modeling in forward SSCM, we ask the following research
questions:
302
1. Which SCM dimensions exist with formal models for SSCM?

2. Which sustainability aspects of forward SC are reected in these
models?
3. Which models and tools are employed in quantitative SSCM
research?
4. What research designs exist and which future directions should
be addressed?
Sustainability aspects within one or more industry sectors, e.g.
CO2 emission of the manufacturing industry, or within geographical regions or macro-economies, such as rural, poor areas or
developing countries, are included in our analysis. The papers
focus is on formal, quantitative models capable of predicting
the outcome of actions or theoretically evaluating various
dynamic properties of complex problems (Mikkola, 2005). In the
remainder of this paper, the terms formal and quantitative
will be used interchangeably for models that include (descriptive
and normative) OR methods but exclude statistical approaches,
e.g. regression or structural equation models, to evaluate empirical data.
3. Methodology
3.1. Content analysis
To address the four research questions, a thorough review of papers on quantitative models for SSCM is performed. To ensure the
required methodological rigor, this literature review employs the
systematic process of content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980; Lage
Junior & Godinho Filho, 2010) that consists of four iteratively executed steps (Mayring, 2002, 2008):
Step 1. Material collection: The material to be collected and the
unit of analysis are dened and delimited.
Step 2. Descriptive analysis: Formal aspects of the material are
assessed.
Step 3. Category selection: Structural dimensions including the
major topics of analysis and related analytic categories
with detailed classications of each structural dimension are selected to be applied to the collected material.
Step 4. Material evaluation: The content of the papers is analyzed according to the structural dimensions and analytic categories to identify relevant issues and to
interpret the results.
3.2. Material collection
This literature review is bounded to only include: (a) scientic
research from the last 15 years; (b) formal models; (c) SSCM; and
(d) forward SC. Hence, each reviewed paper had to match four
ltering criteria:
(a) The manuscript must be written in English language and
published in peer-reviewed journals between 1994 and
2012.
(b) Empirical manuscripts using statistical approaches for evaluating causal relationships were excluded from the analysis.
(c) Publications on ethical behavior of purchasers (e.g. corruption) or with a non-managerial focus (e.g. technical or political science) were excluded from the analysis.
(d) Papers focusing on reverse logistics, remanufacturing, or
CLSCM were not considered.
The most common way of acquiring the publications sample is
through a keyword-based search using electronic databases and li-
brary services (Seuring & Gold, 2012). This approach is especially

recommended for covering a specic topic that can be broadly addressed. Complementary, the paper search can be focused on selected journals. This allows employing a broader search string
and thus makes it easier to assess all related papers on a certain topic, although some relevant papers in other journals might be
missed (Seuring & Gold, 2012). These keyword-based searches
can be complemented by cross-referencing for further relevant
publications (Athanasopoulou, 2009) or by employing bibliometric
software (Linnenluecke & Grifths, 2012). These complementary
search strategies were combined, resulting in four steps of paper
collection applied in this paper.
In a rst step, all papers reviewed by Seuring (2012, 36 papers)
and Hassini et al. (2012, 87 papers) were considered. This reects
broad searches in databases (Emerald, Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Ebsco, Scopus, Metapress) which were performed by these authors and
limited by them to particular keyword combinations (e.g. (sustainable OR green) AND (supply AND chain)). Fifty-six papers reviewed
by Tang and Zhou (2012) were additionally taken into account.
Forty-six out of the total 179 papers matched the four ltering criteria for this study and were the initial sample set. Hassini et al. (2012),
Seuring (2012) and Tang and Zhou (2012) identied Decision Support
Systems (DSS), European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR), International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE), International Journal of
Production Research (IJPR), Journal of Cleaner Production (JCLP), and
Transportation Research Part E (TRE) as relevant journals for quantitative SSCM models (see Table 1 in Section 2.2 or Table 6 in Section 4.1 for the distribution of the 46 papers over these journals).
Two reviews published in 2012 were not considered in this rst step
due to an undisclosed paper sample (Min & Kim, 2012) or a functional and purely environmental focus (Dekker et al., 2012).
In a second step, a journal-specic search was performed which
was limited to the six journals using the broader search string
sustain in title, abstract, and keyword elds. This journalspecic search resulted in 1016 papers out of which an additional
81 papers matched the four ltering criteria and hence were
selected for the review.
In a third step, the paper sample was completed by cross-referencing using ReVelle (2000, 39 papers), Radulescu, Radulescu, and
Radulescu (2009, 30 papers), and Seuring (2012, 8 papers). Six papers out of these 77 cited manuscripts matched the four ltering
criteria and hence were selected for the review.
In a fourth step, the literature sample was validated by employing the bibliometric software HistCiteTM (version 12.03.17) (Gareld, 2004). With this software, 25 manuscripts were identied
that were cited by at least ve of the selected papers. All but one
of these 25 manuscripts describe a particular modeling method
(e.g. Saaty, 1980, 10 citations from the paper sample) or literature
reviews on SSCM models (e.g. Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al., 1995, 9
citations) or were already included in the paper sample (e.g. Sheu,
Chou, & Hu, 2005, 8 citations). One additional paper (Handeld,
Walton, Sroufe, & Melnyk, 2002, 7 citations) from these 25
manuscripts, which was not identied by the rst three data collection steps, matched the four ltering criteria and thus was
added to the paper sample.
In total, approximately 1400 papers were considered, out of
which 134 were found to meet the criteria of this study. This selection ratio matches the 10% occurrence rate for modeling papers
which was mentioned in Section 2.2. Table 3 illustrates the results
of the paper collection process and the paper validation test.
3.3. Criteria for the descriptive analysis
The temporal distribution of papers over the study time horizon
is assessed. For a more meaningful descriptive analysis, the distribution of manuscripts from the sample over time is compared to
303

Table 3
Results of the paper collection process.
Collection method
Source
Selected from other reviews

Seuring (2012)
Tang and Zhou (2012)
DSS
EJOR
IJPE
IJPR
JCLP
TRE
Other papersb
HistCiteTM
Journal-specic keyword search
Cross-referencing
Bibliometric software
# of papers
Total
a
b
c
d
Relevant worksc
87
36
56
29
80
75
125a
825
7
77
25
7
35
4
3
13
20
12
31
2
6
1
1422d
134
Split of search criteria (in title, in abstract, in keywords).

ReVelle (2000, 39 papers), Radulescu et al. (2009, 30 papers), Seuring (2012, 8 papers).
Each paper is assigned only once to exclude double counting.
Not adjusted for papers found several times by different search strategies.
the overall growth trend of publications in SCM and modeling journals, as indicated by papers issued in EJOR and in IJPE, which are
chosen as related journal proxies. In order to compare developments in empirical, model-based and general SSCM research, the
temporal distribution of the paper sample is compared to the papers of Seuring and Mllers (2008a) general review and to the
empirical papers reviewed by Gold et al. (2010a, 2010b). Furthermore, the distribution of papers across journals is analyzed. To
avoid bias resulting from a journal-specic paper search, this analysis also shows the distribution of the 46 papers selected from Hassini et al. (2012), Seuring (2012), and Tang and Zhou (2012).
Additionally, the descriptive analysis provides information on geographical position of the contributing author afliations (academic
institutions), about inuential research institutions (regarding the
number of citations) and the citation impact of the reviewed paper
sample. The HistCiteTM program was employed for the bibliometric
citation analysis (Gareld, 2004).
3.4. Category selection
Corresponding to the four research questions of this study, four
structural dimensions SCM, sustainability, modeling, and research directions were dened and grouped by categories for this
analysis. These analytic categories listed in Table 4 are derived

deductively, before the material is analyzed, and inductively,
developed from the analyzed material by means of generalization
(Mayring, 2008; Seuring & Mller, 2008a).
The SCM dimensions are from a literature review presented by
Halldorsson and Arlbjrn (2005) and from the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model (Supply-Chain Council, 2008). The
sustainability categories are based on variations of the TBL (Carter
& Rogers, 2008). The modeling dimension is assessed based on
model purpose and type. The model purpose distinguishes between the analytic categories as dened by Shapiro (2007). The
model type keywords were quite extensive and linked to a multitude of tools and techniques and the employed solution approaches. The resulting category system, which is depicted in
Fig. 1, is based on the classication of Kleijnen (2005) and Sasikumar and Kannan (2009). In the research design dimension, the
assessment is based on the industrial sector, the data basis of the
presented applications, and the research perspective such as
whether or not there is an extension.
To facilitate an exhaustive categorization of each paper, the
analytic categories are supplemented with various/other and
not applicable categories. Furthermore, the assignment of papers
to analytic categories is unique for each structural dimension.
Table 4
Structural dimensions and analytic categories.
Structural
dimension
SCM
Analytic categories (in alphabetical order)

Primary actor of
analysis
Level of analysis
Process of analysis
Functional
application area
Sustainability
Modeling
Chain, dyad, rm, function, industry, macro-economy, network

Deliver, make, plan, return, source
Construction project, logistics, network design, outsourcing/offshoring, planning, pricing, product development, production,
sourcing, SCM, information technology, technology, waste management
Economic, economic-environmental, environmental, holistic, social, socio-economic, socio-environmental
Model purpose
Model type
Modeling technique
Solution approach
Research
Carrier, distributor, industry/macro-economy, legal authority, manufacturer, retailer, warehousing, wholesaler
Observed industry
Numerical analysis
Suggested
perspective
Descriptive deterministic, descriptive stochastic, normative deterministic, normative stochastic

Analytical, heuristics, hybrid, mathematical programming, simulation
Articial intelligence, business game, discrete-event simulation (DES), game theory, meta-heuristics, multi-criteria decision
making, multi objective, simple heuristics, single objective, spreadsheet calculation, system dynamics, systemic models
Analytic hierarchy process/analytic network process (AHP/ANP), ant colony optimization, Bayesian networks, case based
reasoning, data envelopment analysis (DEA), differential evolution, dynamic programming, fuzzy logic, genetic algorithm, goal
programming, greedy randomized adaptive search procedure, inputoutput-analysis (IOA), life cycle analysis (LCA), linear
programming/mixed integer linear programming (LP/MILP), metrics, neural networks, nonlinear programming, petri net,
particle swarm optimization, queuing, rough set, simulated annealing, variation inequality
Agriculture, apparel, automotive, bicycle, biotechnology, chemical/ pharmaceutical, electronics, energy, food & beverages,
furniture, health care, information technology, macro-economy, metal, paper, retail, transportation, utilities
Empirical data, generic example, none
Extend/validate, none, specic
304
Fig. 1. Analytic categories of the structural dimension Modeling (based on Sasikumar & Kannan, 2009).
3.5. Methodological rigor
4. Results
The required methodological rigor of this analysis is ensured in

all steps of the content analysis (see Seuring & Gold, 2012, for further details). A replicable and hence reliable material collection is
achieved by focusing both on papers that were assessed by three
recent reviews on SSCM (Hassini et al., 2012; Seuring, 2012; Tang
& Zhou, 2012) and on papers that are obtained by a keyword-based
search in specic journals which were identied as most relevant
by these three recent reviews. Internal validity is achieved by
ensuring that the paper coding is performed by at least two
researchers, thereby also ensuring inter-coder reliability. Resolving
differences in the coding and reaching an agreement on how each
aspect would be coded was the approach of choice. Most of the selected structural dimensions and analytic categories were taken up
in a deductive approach, which ensures construct validity as this is
based on respective literature (as described in Section 3.4). This
was complemented by a few categories selected inductively. To
strengthen external validity and rigor of the material evaluation,
intermediate results of this analysis were presented to and discussed with scientic audiences at ve international conferences.1
Overall, the research process is documented in a transparent manner
contributing to its objectivity.
4.1. Descriptive analysis
1
4th World P&OM Conference and 19th International Annual EurOMA conference
(July 2012, Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2nd International Workshop on Eco-Efcient
Based Green SCM, (October 2012, Odense, Denmark), sessions of the German
Academic Association for Business Research scientic commissions Operations
Research (January 2013, Wuppertal, Germany) and Sustainability Management
(September 2012, Hamburg, Germany), workshop of the Gesellschaft fr Operations
Research e. V. (March 2012, Goslar, Germany).
Overall it can be stated that model-based SSCM is a comparably

young and increasingly developing research discipline. This elds
robust growth is illustrated by the temporal distribution of this
studys sample of 134 papers when compared to the growth
distribution of the overall set of publications within EJOR and IJPE
(Fig. 2). Also, the temporal distribution of this studys paper sample
is compared to the distribution of the 191 manuscripts of Seuring
and Mllers (2008a) study (Table 5).
Since 1994, the number of analytical SSCM model papers shows
a stronger growth (+24.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR))
than the overall number of papers published in EJOR and IJPE
(+12.6% CAGR). Fig. 2, which depicts the annual share of published
papers and the number of SSCM papers on the ordinate axes, illustrates these trends in greater detail. In the rst decade of the
studys time horizon, the annual share of published SSCM analytical modeling papers was lower (below 3.0%) than the respective
share of papers issued in EJOR and IJPE (between 3.7% and 4.4%),
which indicates the relatively smaller relevance of SSCM modeling
in scientic research during that time. This result was reversed in
2003 for the rst time (4.5% annual share of SSCM modeling papers
vs. 4.2% annual share of papers published in EJOR and IJPE) and has
continuously seen stronger shares since 2007 (on average an 11.7%
annual share of SSCM modeling papers vs. a 7.2% annual share of
papers published in EJOR and IJPE). More than half of the SSCM
modeling papers (82 manuscripts) were published within the last
ve years of the considered time horizon.
305
Fig. 2. Paper sample compared to SCM and modeling papers.
Table 5
Temporal distribution of general, empirical, and model-based SSCM papers (19942007).
a
b
c
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Gen.a
Emp.b
Mod.c
2
1
1
3
0
2
5
2
0
10
3
2
12
6
4
4
1
3
14
6
2
21
7
2
16
4
3
20
11
6
17
5
4
25
10
8
12
3
4
30
11
11
Papers reviewed by Seuring and Mller (2008a).

Papers reviewed by Gold et al. (2010a, 2010b).
SSCM modeling papers from our paper sample.
Table 6
Distribution of papers over journals.
a
b
Journal
JCLP
IJPR
IJPE
TRE
EJOR
DSS
OR
Others
Total
Step 1
Subtotal
All steps
9
28 (= 61%)
40
161a
19
24
20
2
18 (= 39%)
2
46
46
134
181b
16 other journals with one paper each.

18 other journals with one paper each.
Using Seuring and Mllers (2008a) sample illustrates that the

overall eld of SSCM research was strong before 2007 while SSCM
modeling papers published during this time were relatively
uncommon. A comparison to the paper sample reviewed by Gold
et al. (2010a, 2010b) leads to similar observations. These results,
as depicted in Table 5, indicate that conceptual and empirical
methods paved the way for a model-based prescriptive SSCM
research.
The distribution of papers over journals as depicted in Table 6
shows that nearly two-thirds of the 46 papers chosen from Hassini
et al. (2012), Seuring (2012), and Tang and Zhou (2012) in the rst
paper collection step were published in one of the six journals
(DSS, EJOR, IJPE, IJPR, JCLP, TRE) which then were considered in
the journal-specic keyword search. Beyond this, Table 6 depicts
the overall distribution of all 134 papers over journals.
The analysis of the geographical position of the contributing
authors institutions reveals that universities from Europe (61
papers), North America (44 papers), or Asia (41 papers) represent
the vast majority of publications. Australian (6 papers), Latin
American (4 papers), and African (3 papers) research publications
are severely underrepresented in this research area. Only 21 papers

represent collaborative inter-continental research. These manuscripts mainly stem from research cooperation of North American
universities (15 papers) with institutions from other continents
(Asian: 8 papers, European: 5 papers, Australian and Latin American: 1 paper each).
A citation analysis shows that 2049 publications refer to at least
one of the reviewed papers, i.e. on average each paper of the sample has more than 15 citations in Thomson Reuters Web of Sci
ence while the median is 8 citations. Fifty-eight papers of the
sample have at least 10 citations in total, and 80 papers are cited
at least once a year, while only 34 papers of the sample are not
yet cited. These gures indicate the overall scientic relevance of
the reviewed paper sample. However, the paper sample does not
show a strong internal coherence with regards to citations; only
31 papers are cited by another paper of the sample. This indicates
that the scientic eld of model-based SSCM research is still scattered, and major streams of thought have not yet developed. Furthermore, the citation analysis identies that ve of the most
inuential institutions are located in the USA: Clark University
306
Table 7
Evaluation results structural dimension SCM.
Primary actor of analysis
Carrier
Distributor
Ind./macro-econ.
Legal authority
Manufacturer
Retailer
Warehousing
Wholesaler
Various/other
n.a.
Level of analysis
2
1
15
11
67
1
0
0
18
19
Function
Firm
Dyad
Chain
Network
Industry
Macro-econ.
Various/other
n.a.
Process of analysis
27
39
7
6
25
17
8
1
4
Plan
Source
Make
Deliver
Return
Various/other
n.a.
Functional application area

53
12
18
9
0
0
42
Logistics
Network design
Outsourcing/offshoring
Planning
Product dev.
Production
Sourcing
SCM
Technology
Various/other
n.a.
Singulara
9
13
2
3
9
40
12
16
5
6
15
4
Construction project, pricing, information technology, and waste management were considered in one paper each.
(325 citations), Michigan State University (184 citations), Boston

College, Emory University, North Carolina State University (165
citations each).
4.2. Evaluating the status of research

4.2.1. SCM dimension
The SCM dimensions, as shown in Table 7, include four major
characteristics: (1) the primary actor that is the focus of the study;
(2) the organizational level of analysis ranging from internal functions to broad macro-economic focus; (3) the SCOR process covered in the model, and (4) the functional application area (e.g.
SCM, logistics, or product development).
In SSCM models, manufacturing companies dominate as primary actors of analysis (67 papers), while carriers (Lee, Dong, &
Bian, 2010; Lovric, Li, & Vervest, 2012), distributors (Zanoni & Zavanella, 2011) and retailers (Edwards, McKinnon, & Cullinane, 2010)
are seldom the focus of these studies. A considerable number of papers analyze industry sectors (15 papers) and legal authorities (11
papers) or remain unspecic (18 papers various, 19 papers n.
a.) on the primary actors. The level of analysis shows a clear preference for the intra-organizational models that focus on a specic
function or rm (66 papers) when compared to models that take an
inter-organizational perspective on a dyad, chain, or network (38
papers) or macroscopic views on an industrial sector or a macroeconomy (25 papers).
In 42 papers SSCM models are not limited to a particular SCOR
process. The majority of models support some planning processes
(53 papers). Yet, sourcing (12 papers), transformation (18 papers),
or delivery processes (9 papers) are less often modeled. None of the
selected papers focus on the return stage, but that is due to our
elimination of reverse logistics oriented papers from our analysis.
Functionally, SSCM modeling research targets production (40
papers) or general SCM (16 papers). Manufacturing-related papers
can be found in nearly every year of the study horizon, while nine
of the general SCM papers were published within the last ve
years. In the nine logistics-related papers as well as in the 11
sourcing-oriented ones, the intra-organizational and the interorganizational perspectives on the level of analysis are evenly distributed. Network design models (13 papers) seem to represent a
new trend in SSCM research, because only the publication of Agrell,
Stam, and Fischer (2004) is older than three years. Issues of product design are considered in nine papers which in seven cases deal
with a manufacturer as a focal company. Whitefoot and Skerlos
(2012), who elaborate on design incentives from a legal authority
perspective, and Andersson, Hogaas Eide, Lundqvist, and Mattsson
(1998), who integrate sustainability aspects in product development from an industry point of view, are the two exceptions.
4.2.2. Modeling dimension

In the evaluation of this dimension we consider the three levels
of modeling from Fig. 2, but also a general purpose-environment
characteristic is added (see Table 8). The purpose-environment focuses on the type of research for which normative (prescriptive,
problem solving oriented) or descriptive (seeking to evaluate or
understand a phenomenon) models are used. The assumed environment may include a deterministic or stochastic approach. Thus
four categories (descriptivedeterministic, etc.) exist for the purpose-environment evaluation of the modeling dimension. The
remaining three dimensions in Table 8 are directly linked to the
modeling levels in Fig. 1.
Normative SSCM models (75 papers), which mainly employ
analytic hierarchy process/analytic network process (AHP/ANP)
(20 papers) and linear programming/mixed integer linear programming (LP/MILP) (18 papers) as solution approaches, are the
more popular model purposes when compared to descriptive
models (59 papers). Descriptive modeling efforts are most often
utilizing systemic models (39 papers), in particular life cycle analysis (LCA) (24 papers), inputoutput-analysis (IOA) (4 papers), and
metrics (8 papers) as solution approaches. Combining the SCM perspectives and the modeling categories (see Table 9) shows that
managerial decision making is often supported by optimization
methods while in macroscopic contexts, models are most often
employed to explore or explain the interplay of various factors.
On the intra-organizational level of a single rm or a particular
function, normative SSCM models are more often employed (42 papers) than descriptive models (24 papers). In contrast, descriptive
models (20 papers) represent the vast majority of 25 papers that
contain models for industrial sectors or macro-economies.
Stochastic approaches (12 normative, 3 descriptive) are not well
represented in this literature. Normative stochastic models most
often focus on manufacturers and strive for improving companywide planning processes (Chen & Fan, 2012; Hu & Bibanda, 2009;
Linninger, Chakraborty, & Colberg, 2000; Radulescu et al., 2009;
Tsai & Hung, 2009; Wu & Chang, 2004) or the implementation of
cleaner production technologies (Tseng, Lin, & Chiu, 2009). Other
approaches deal with network design at a carrier (Lee et al.,
2010) or the product sustainability assessment in the automotive
industry (Ghadimi, Azadnia, Yusof, & Saman, 2012). Normative stochastic models that take an inter-organizational perspective focus
on green SCM in the electronics industry networks (Hsu & Hu,
2008; Che, 2010) or on sustainability policies in a macroeconomic
context (Munda, 2009). Descriptive stochastic models are all at
the inter-organizational level (Kainuma & Tawara, 2006;
Saint Jean, 2008; van der Vorst, Tromp, & van der Zee, 2009). The
limited amount of stochastic models provides opportunities for
further SSCM research. But uncertainty may also be investigated
307

Table 8
Evaluation results structural dimension Modeling.
Model purpose
Modeling techniquea
Model type
Descriptive deterministic
Descriptive stochastic
Normative deterministic
Normative stochastic
56
3
63
12
Analytical
Heuristics
Hybrid
Mathematical programming
Simulation
Various/other
77
7
1
36
9
4
Solution approachb
Articial intelligence
DES
Game theory
Meta-heuristics
Mcdm
Multi-objective
Simple heuristics
Single-objective
System dynamics
Systemic models
Various/other
5
1
1
1
25
34
1
2
3
39
22
AHP/ANP
DEA
Goal programming
IOA
LCA
LP/MILP
Metrics
Nonlinear programming
Rough set
Variation inequality
Various/other
n.a.
Singularc
20
3
2
4
24
18
8
5
3
6
31
7
3
Not employed in reviewed papers: spreadsheet calculation, n.a.

Not employed in reviewed papers: Ant colony optimization, Bayesian networks, case-based reasoning, differential evolution, fuzzy logic, greedy randomized adaptive
search procedure, neural networks, petri net, particle swarm optimization, queuing, simulated annealing.
c
Dynamic programming, genetic algorithms, and neural networks were considered in one paper each.
b
Table 9
Evaluation results combination of categories Level of analysis and Model
purpose.
Level of analysis
Normative models
Descriptive models
Function, rm
Dyad, chain, network
Industry, macro-econ.
n.a., other
42
24
5
4
24
14
20
1
Total
66
38
25
5
Total
75
59
134
using various scenarios, each evaluated with a deterministic

approach.
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) (25 papers) and mathematical programming (35 papers), with only two papers (Gunson,
Klein, Veiga, & Dunbar, 2010; Yura 1994) optimizing a singleobjective function, are most often chosen model types and techniques to investigate SSCM. These results may occur because (1)
the application nature of the journals supports more normative approaches; and (2) the multi-dimensionality of the sustainability
problem requires integrating a variety of factors and objectives
simultaneously. A hybrid model is developed by Fichtner, Frank,
and Rentz (2004), who combine a MILP approach for economic
optimization with a technical process simulation and a LCA for
the ecologic assessment of energy supply systems.
Surprisingly, solution approaches based on genetic algorithms
(Radulescu et al., 2009) as well as dynamic programming (Hu &
Bibanda, 2009), goal programming (Tsai & Hung, 2009; Yura,
1994), and neural networks (Kuo, Wang, & Tien, 2010) models
occur only in very few papers. This result is in contrast to Ilgin
and Guptas (2010) observation of modeling approaches for green
(re-)manufacturing and product recovery.
4.2.3. Research dimension
For the industry focus (see Table 10), model-based SSCM research focuses on technology-related sectors (39 papers on energy,
electronics, or automotive), consumable goods (18 papers on agricultural or food & beverage industry) or on macro-economic contexts (10 paper), while surprisingly, from an environmental
perspective, the transportation industry (Lee, Geum, Lee, & Park,
2012; Lovric et al., 2012; with a macroscopic view: lengin, Kabak,
nsel, lengin, & Aktas, 2010) has not been as well covered in this
literature. Clearly, there is room in a number of industries for formal models to be applied. The imbalance in industrial perspectives
could be due to variations in the relative importance of
sustainability topics or to convenience and data availability. But
Table 10
Evaluation results structural dimension Research (number of studies per
industry).
Agriculture
Apparel
Automotive
Chemical/
pharmaceutical
Construction
Electronics
10
3
8
2
2
16
Energy
Food &
beverages
Furniture
Macro-economy
Metal
Paper
15
8
Retail
Transportation
2
10
Various/other
n.a.
6
2
Singulara
3
2
6
32
7
a
Bicycle, biotechnology, health care, mining, packaging, petroleum, and utilities
were considered in one paper each.
the diffusion of modeling efforts to other industries is clearly a

valuable research direction.
In SSCM modeling papers, the numerical analysis (see Table 11)
is based on empirical data (105 papers), but most of these numerical sections may not be easily replicable and are with limited rigor
in the underlying empirical research methods. This result is in line
with Seurings (2012) observations and points towards the need to
combine empirical and model-based research as addressed by Hassini et al. (2012).
Furthermore, specic areas for generalizable future research
are seldom addressed (only 24 papers, see Table 11). These deductively identied research directions, which include recommendations on research design, models and metrics, resources and
processes, and interfaces with customers and various systems,
are now briey summarized. For research design a higher degree
of integration between empirical and theoretical research is recommended (Ukidwe and Bakshi, 2005). A fertile model-based research direction is developing new solution methodologies for
green SC network design (Wang, Lai, & Shi, 2011). Additional modeling suggestions include employing asymmetric competition
models to assess sustainability triggers (Yalabik & Fairchild,
2011) and integrating the decision maker in the evaluation of solu-
Table 11
Evaluation results structural dimension Research (data basis and research
perspective).
Data basis of numerical example
Research perspective
Empirical data
None
Generic example
Extend/validate
None
Specic
105
3
26
73
37
24
308
tions (Harris, Naim, Palmer, Potter, & Mumford, 2011). Tools to

model ecological factors in processes and the denition and implementation of related effective ecological metrics have also been
recommended (Smith and Ball, 2012).
As mentioned in Section 2.2, transportation has been neglected
in SSCM modeling. Metrics are needed to incorporate specic fuel
consumption gures for transportation (Harris et al., 2011) or to
consider transportation modes or demand uncertainties (Wang
et al., 2011). Addressing opportunity costs to assess environmental
impacts and their tradeoffs are additional issues that can be incorporated in various models (Figge & Hahn, 2012; Mouzon, Yildirim,
& Twomey, 2007).
For resources and processes, further understanding of resource
reduction impacts on production activities is needed (Smith & Ball,
2012). Innovative production process investigation, such as the
development of machines with multiple sleep mode states, product design process improvements, eco-design technology initiatives and their evaluation, are all directions (Bovea & Wang,
2003; Kengpol & Boonkanit, 2011; Mouzon et al., 2007). Assessing
and improving the manufacturer-retailer-interface to eliminate
sources of environmentally unsustainable practices, and relating
these to consumer utility and reactions from rms is needed
(Darlington & Rahimifard, 2007; Yalabik & Fairchild, 2011; Feng,
Li, Duan, & Zhang, 2007). In addition, sustainability benets of
collaboration, coordination, information sharing, and communication
within an SC can be assessed further using quantitative methods (e.g.
see Kainuma & Tawara, 2006).
4.2.4. Sustainability dimension
This dimension focuses primarily on social and environmental
factors of sustainability and their interplay and overlap with each
other and the economic factor. Most formal SSCM models include
environmental factors and aspects of eco-efciency while the social dimension is neglected. Holistic models that cover all sustainability dimensions have gained attention in the last ten years.
Ecological and social dimensions are often modeled using generic
factors, although more specic metrics are employed as well. The
main evaluation results of the sustainability dimension are depicted in Fig. 3.
Forty-one papers focus on environmental issues exclusively
and comprise all model purposes, most of the primary actors, all
SC levels, and processes of analysis. The functional focus of analysis
is predominantly within production (19 papers) or the other traditional SCM functions sourcing, logistics, and SCM (14 pa-
pers in total). Other papers investigate the design of products

(Andersson et al., 1998) or networks (Gunson et al., 2010) or are
technology-related (Kaldellis, Simotas, Zarakis, & Kondili, 2009;
Kiwjaroun, Tubtimdee, & Piumsomboon, 2009; Saint Jean, 2008).
More general approaches for environmental management practices are suggested by Sarkis (1998). Most of these 41 manuscripts
were published after 2007 (27 papers), only six papers before 1999
and eight between 2002 and 2006. Sixty-one papers from the sample deal with the interface between environmental and economic
issues and can be labeled eco-efciency papers, which cover normative (36 papers) and descriptive models (25 papers) in a deterministic (51 papers) as well as in a stochastic way (10 papers). All
actors, levels, processes, and most of the functions of analysis are
evaluated on eco-efciency. The green research areas are comprehensive and cover about 90% of all 67 manufacturer-related
SSCM models.
Compared to the extensive model-based research on environmental issues of SSCM, the social aspects are neglected. Only four
papers elaborate on social issues (Yura, 1994) or the socio-economic (Brent, Rogers, Ramabitsa-Siimane, & Rohwer, 2007; Abreu
& Camarinha-Matos, 2008) or socio-environmental (Clift, 2003)
interfaces.
Twenty-eight papers from the sample set describe holistic
SSCM models that cover all three sustainability dimensions. All
of these papers, except Georgopoulou et al. (1998), were published
after 2004, and more than half (15 papers) were published within
the last three years. This indicates that holistic SSCM models represent one of the more recent areas of SSCM research investigation.
The large majority of these 28 holistic SSCM models have a normative purpose (21 papers), which is in contrast to the balance between normative and descriptive models observed in all 134
reviewed papers (see Section 4.2.2). With regards to the SCM perspective it is detected that the 28 holistic SSCM models are often
employed for macroscopic analyses. Every third holistic SSCM
model focuses on legal authorities or an industrial sector, while
these actors of analysis are taken into account in less than 20% of
all 134 reviewed papers (see Section 4.2.1). Furthermore, the high
share of models for manufacturers in the overall paper sample
(every second paper, see Section 4.2.1) is not observed in the 28
holistic SSCM models; only 7 papers deal with manufacturing
rms. These ndings are explained by the circumstance that social
effects, e.g. employment rate changes or other societal impacts, are
usually reected in macroscopic contexts but not on the microeconomic level of a rm or function.
Fig. 3. Distribution of papers over sustainability categories (based on Carter & Rogers, 2008; Kannegiesser & Gnther, 2013).
To conclude the assessment of the sustainability dimension,

metrics that were used to represent sustainability factors in formal SSCM models are summarized. Although sustainability aspects
are often modeled using generic factors such as sustainability criteria, social benet, or ecologic impact, more specic metrics
can be found for each sustainability dimension. Economic aspects
can be categorized into microeconomic factors such as cost, protability, or revenue (Lovric et al., 2012) and macroeconomic metrics
including gross domestic product or growth rate (Agrell et al.,
2004) as well as labor productivity, market concentration, or import dependency (Yakovleva, Sarkis, & Sloan, 2011) or overall
macro-economic development (Feng, Li, Duan, & Zhang, 2007).
Environmental aspects comprise input-oriented factors including
renewable energy sources (Georgopoulou, Saradis, & Diakoulaki,
1998; Munda, 2009), natural resources (Liu, Li, Wang, & Dong,
2011), water and energy consumption (Yakovleva et al., 2011), or
water quality (Feng et al., 2007). Output-oriented environmental
factors focus on waste (Yakovleva et al., 2011) and pollution (Georgopoulou et al., 1998). Beyond this, ecological factors can be distinguished into environmental impacts of construction, normal
operations, and failure (Dey, 2006). Specic social aspects are related to internal factors such as wages, employees, or employment
gender ratios (Yakovleva et al., 2011) and furthermore point towards external inuences including individual customer needs
and requirements (Lovric et al., 2012), social acceptance and
contribution to employment (Georgopoulou et al., 1998), or
population growth (Feng et al., 2007). There are papers such as
Handeld et al. (2002) or Hassini et al. (2012) that suggest a broad
set of environmental factors which can be grouped at multiple
levels.
4.3. A research model and additional considerations

By aggregating the various research evaluation dimensions discussed, a research model can be formed by integrating the core
arguments of the analysis together (see Fig. 4). The ultimate
choice/solution begins with consideration of the SCM-dimensions
modeled, which are inuenced by the respective industrial context.
The sustainability aspects to be considered then serve as a kind of
moderating variable that drives the modeling purpose. This approach is based on Seurings (2012) contention that trade-offs
among the economic and environmental dimension are key
assumptions for much of the model building. These tradeoffs can
occur amongst any combination of the sustainability dimensions.
The high share of multi-criteria decision making models underpins
this contention, as the trade-offs serve as a starting point that is
easier to model. Considering the broader set of tradeoffs expands
the solution space. Many researchers have argued for sustainability
evaluation in sustainable supply chains among the economic and
social dimension (or) the environmental and social dimension
309
(e.g. Seuring & Mller, 2008b) and calling for more research on
such interactions.
In many of the research approaches evaluated here, research
tended to focus on the production processes of a manufacturing
company and then analyze the results on a specic function or at
the factory level, with a focus on environmental issues (in line with
the ndings of Seuring, 2012). In these situations why such research is published under the label sustainable supply chain management, can be called into question. A more critical perspective
might be needed avoiding that the conceptual borders of sustainable SCM are increasingly blurred. Just because a research paper
has utilized and argued that sustainable SCM is being considered,
the validity of such suppositions needs to be carefully evaluated.
This type of validation will require that a clearer denition of sustainable SCM be derived and agreed upon by the research
community.
As a further issue, while there are a number of papers dealing
with supplier selection criteria (e.g. Kuo et al., 2010; Saint Jean,
2008), suppliers and the extended supply chain still require considerably more attention in respective research. Whereas empirical
surveys are difcult to complete for multi-tier supply chains, modeling efforts are more exible in the number of players involved
and allow evaluating sustainable supply chains. As the eld continues to mature, more complex and insightful modeling can be
integrated.
Expanding the development of criteria sets for sustainable supplier selection to integrate environmental and especially social aspects is required. The challenge is a sufciently comprehensive and
precise simultaneous modeling effort, such that the solutions are
not trivial, but still solvable problems.
From an industry modeling perspective, the lack of specic
industry focused studies on sensitive industries is especially surprising. For example, the transportation industry with its heavy
carbon emissions, energy, and materials usage is relatively sparsely
represented. The chemical/pharmaceutical industry with its potentially hazardous waste management is an environmental dimension that seems to be overlooked. Finally, the apparel and textile
industry with its prevalence of social issues (e.g. underpaid workers, unsafe and dangerous working conditions) would be a prime
consideration for social sustainability issues. How to integrate
and develop models into each of these areas requires careful consideration of the intangibility of the measures and modeling.
5. Results and discussion
This paper employs a systematic and methodologically rigorous
process to review quantitative SSCM models. This study uses content analysis to assess a large sample of related papers and to identify current gaps and future perspectives of model-based SSCM
research.
Before turning to them, we discuss the contribution of this paper. As the title clearly states, the paper describes the body of literature on quantitative models for sustainable supply chain
management is which is the core contribution. We show the
increasing publication output and use a number of categories for
providing insights into this body of literature. A general metaresearch model is presented as well. This research model allows
for consideration of how the various review elements t together
and can aid in further development of a research agenda.
5.1. Research gaps and future research perspectives
Fig. 4. An aggregated research model.
Additional avenues for future research on SSCM models were

not only determined deductively from the research opportunities
suggested in the assessed papers (see Section 4.2.3) but also induc-
310
tively from the results and the discussion of the analysis presented
here. These inductively identied research directions are related to
both research content and research methodology.
Model-based SSCM research can advance the inter-organizational perspective of SCM and extend this to the level of industry
sectors (e.g. Kannegiesser & Gnther, 2013; Kannegiesser, Gnther,
& Gylfason, 2013). Economic contributions of vertical coordination
in the SSCM context can be assessed quantitatively. Furthermore,
quantitative models could be employed to elaborate on the interplay of regulatory decisions made by legal authorities and managerial decision making in rms, supply chains, or industries.
Beyond the inter-organizational aspects, research gaps can be
identied at the functional SCM level. Taking into account that
most papers focus on production or general SCM, a thorough analysis of sustainability in transportation and warehousing is recommended. Decision making in intermodal transportation to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or vehicle routing under consideration
of workers time preferences might be adequate examples for related research questions.
Environmental risk management has been widely neglected
and hence offers signicant potential in model-based SSCM research. The lack of social aspects in SSCM models points towards future research perspectives in related research, because
such factors need to be incorporated in SSCM models. With regards to input factors and resource consumption, models that
include the option of reducing supply offer another research
perspective.
Further SSCM research is needed with regards to the integration of model-based methods with empirical research, which has
a strong focus on eco-efciency and environmental aspects as
well. Empirical research methods should be employed to identify
social factors in SCM and their economic prerequisites and implications, while model-based research methods are needed to
quantitatively investigate this context. A lack of social sustainability research may cause a mistaken impression that holistic
sustainability and the TBL concept are simply theoretical constructs with limited relevance. Employing case study research
rigorously (e.g. Seuring, 2008; Stuart, McCutcheon, Handeld,
MacLachlin, & Samson, 2002) is highly recommended not only
for SSCM models in particular but also for model-based research
in general. Linking empirical and model-based research, as suggested by Golicic, Davis, and McCarthy (2005), could broaden
the scientic eld of SSCM with regards to the focused industries. The food, apparel, or automotive industries represent sectors that are thoroughly investigated by only one of these two
methodological designs while being neglected by the other.
Expanding this industry focus of the employed scientic approaches would balance this existing research bias. Furthermore,
the chemicals & oil sector seems to be neglected so far by both
empirical and model-based research.
Focusing on developments and directions of SSCM models leads
to the question of why some of the sophisticated modeling approaches have been widely neglected so far. Dynamic programming, evolutionary algorithms, or local search methods represent
normative approaches to solve complex problems that offer large
optimization potential. The fact that these solution approaches
are employed only seldom in context to SSCM models outlines further research opportunities and raises the question of whether the
complexity of SSCM problems and their optimization potential are
already fully exposed.
5.2. A comparative analysis to other SSCM literature reviews
The need for further research on OR applications and hybrid
qualitative and quantitative approaches (Min & Kim, 2012) as well
as more empirical rigor in numerical analyses of SSCM models
(Seuring, 2012) are conclusions reinforced by this study. This study

also conrms the relative lack of social factors in (model-based)
SSCM research (Seuring, 2012; Seuring & Mller, 2008a; Tang &
Zhou, 2012). There are some contradictions to other reviews that
nd a strong environmental focus but an increased consideration
of social factors in empirical SSCM research (Carter & Easton,
2011). We found that the green focus of model-based SSCM research remains unchanged.
In further contrast to empirical research, which has predominantly investigated the food, apparel, and consumer products sectors (Carter & Easton, 2011; Gold et al., 2010a), the results of this
paper indicate that model-based SSCM research mainly focuses
on technology-related industries. This industry focus does support
other SSCM modeling literature reviews (Hassini et al., 2012). Unlike empirical research, which focuses on intra-organizational level
(Carter & Easton, 2011), formal SSCM models integrate inter-organizational interdependencies. Beyond this, SSCM models do include the perspective of legal authorities and hence are capable
of reecting external triggers of sustainability (Gold et al., 2010a,
2010b; Seuring & Mller, 2008a).
In terms of modeling results, the ndings do conrm the high
relevance of AHP/ANP, LCA, and MCDM for SSCM models (Seuring, 2012), but DES or GA are not as important for SSCM as for
product recovery and (re-)manufacturing (Ilgin & Gupta, 2010).
The unexploited potential for goal programming in green logistics (Dekker et al., 2012) is substantiated for SSCM research by
this study, although the lack of MCDM applications in green
logistics (Dekker et al., 2012) cannot be conrmed for forward
SSCM.
6. Summary and conclusion

This paper reviewed almost two decades worth of research
focusing on SSCM quantitative, formal modeling. One hundred
thirty-four articles were identied and utilized in the analysis of
the research. Overall, the number of publications in this topical
area is not as large as empirical and conceptual work, but it is
growing. The ndings included variations in focus by function, research perspective, methodology, and the type of sustainability focus of the supply chains. The results also provided opportunities to
identify gaps in the research that could be addressed and potentials for further research directions. Some major ndings for fertile
areas of research include the integration of social issues into modeling, expanding the scope and diffusing modeling from one industry to another, and the need for more stochastic approaches in
modeling to relay a more realistic uncertain decision environment
associated with these many and complex environmental factors
identied with SSCM.
Although this study was rigorously completed, there are still
limitations that we encountered, but these limitations provide
opportunity for future research. Despite the fact that several
researchers were involved in the validation and the content analysis of this studys paper sample, the categorization of these papers
remains interpretative and hence subjective. Furthermore, statistical methods (e.g. Wolf, 2008) could be employed to cluster the paper sample and to analyze contingencies of different categories.
Additionally, more comprehensive bibliometric citation analyses
represent another rigorous and structured approach to assess related scientic literature (e.g. Linnenluecke & Grifths, 2012).
These limitations leave room for future analyses and reviews of
SSCM modeling publications.
As can be seen, the SSCM modeling eld is on the research upswing; signicantly more modeling based research can and needs
to be completed to more fully understand and integrate SSCM into
business thought and practice.
References
Abreu, A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2008). On the role of value systems to promote
the sustainability of collaborative environments. International Journal of
Production Research, 46(5), 12071229.
Agrell, P. J., Stam, A., & Fischer, G. W. (2004). Interactive multi-objective agroecological land use planning: The Bungoma region in Kenya. European Journal of
Operational Research, 158, 194217.
Athanasopoulou, P. (2009). Relationship quality: A critical literature review and
research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5/6), 583610.
Andersson, K., Hogaas Eide, M., Lundqvist, U., & Mattsson, B. (1998). The feasibility
of including sustainability in LCA for product development. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 6, 289298.
Bertrand, J. W. M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2002). Operations management research
methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 22(2), 241264.
Bettley, A., & Burnley, S. (2008). Towards sustainable operations management:
Integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies
and practices. In K. B. Misra (Ed.), Handbook of performability engineering
(pp. 875904). London: Springer.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., van Beek, P., Hordijk, L., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1995).
Interactions between operational research and environmental management.
European Journal of Operational Research, 85(2), 229243.
Bovea, M. D., & Wang, B. (2003). Identifying environmental improvement options by
combining life cycle assessment and fuzzy set theory. International Journal of
Production Research, 41(3), 593609.
Brent, A. C., Rogers, D. E. C., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T. S. M., & Rohwer, M. B. (2007).
Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste
management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries.
European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 403424.
Carter, C. R., & Easton, P. L. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution
and future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 41(1), 4662.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain
management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360387.
Che, Y. H. (2010). Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and particle swarm
optimisation for balanced and defective supply chain problems considering
WEEE/RoHS directives. International Journal of Production Research, 48(11),
33553381.
Chen, C. W., & Fan, Y. (2012). Bioethanol supply chain system planning under supply
and demand uncertainties. Transportation Research Part E, 48, 150164.
Clift, R. (2003). Metrics for supply chain sustainability. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 5, 240247.
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply chain management More
than a new name for logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management,
8(1), 114.
Daniel, S. E., Diakoulaki, D. C., & Pappis, C. P. (1997). Operations research and
environmental planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 102(2),
248263.
Darlington, R., & Rahimifard, S. (2007). Hybrid two-stage planning for food industry
overproduction waste minimization. International Journal of Production
Research, 45(1819), 42734288.
Dekker, R., Bloemhof, J., & Mallidis, J. (2012). Operations Research for green logistics
An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. European Journal
of Operational Research, 219, 671679.
Dey, P. K. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and selection using multipleattribute decision-making technique. International Journal of Production
Economics, 103, 90103.
Drake, D., & Spinler, S. (2013). Sustainable operations management: An enduring
stream, or passing fancy? Working paper 13-084. Harvard Business School.
Edwards, J. B., McKinnon, A. C., & Cullinane, S. L. (2010). Comparative analysis of the
carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing A last mile
perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 40(1/2), 103123.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21st century.
Stoney Creek/CT: New Society.
Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson
(Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp 116). London: Earthscan.
Feng, S., Li, L. X., Duan, Z. G., & Zhang, J. L. (2007). Assessing the impacts of South-toNorth water transfer project with decision support systems. Decision Support
Systems, 42, 19892003.
Fichtner, W., Frank, M., & Rentz, O. (2004). Inter-rm energy supply concepts: An
option for cleaner energy production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 891899.
Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2012). Is green and protable sustainable? Assessing the tradeoff between economic and environmental aspects. International Journal of
Production Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.001.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., Dekker, R., van der Laan, E., van Nunen, J.
A. E. E., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1997). Quantitative models for reverse
logistics: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 103(1), 117.
Gareld, E. (2004). Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature.
Journal of Information Science, 30, 119145.
Georgopoulou, E., Saradis, Y., & Diakoulaki, D. (1998). Design and implementation
of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European Journal
of Operational Research, 109, 483500.
311
Ghadimi, P., Azadnia, A. H., Yusof, M. N., & Saman, M. Z. M. (2012). A weighted fuzzy
approach for product sustainability assessment: A case study in automotive
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 1021.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010a). The constructs of sustainable supply chain
management A content analysis based on published case studies. Progress in
Industrial Ecology An International Journal, 7(2), 114137.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010b). Sustainable supply chain management and
inter-organizational resources: A literature review. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 230245.
Golicic, S. L., Davis, D. F., & McCarthy, T. M. (2005). A balanced approach to research
in supply chain management. In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Mller, & G. Reiner
(Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 89108).
Heidelberg: Physica.
Golicic, S. L., & Smith, C. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable
supply chain management practices and rm performance. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 49(2), 7895.
Guide, V. D. R., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). The evolution of closed-loop supply
chain research. Operations Research, 57(1), 1018.
Gungor, A., & Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues in environmentally conscious
manufacturing and product recovery: A survey. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 36(4), 811853.
Gunson, A. J., Klein, B., Veiga, M., & Dunbar, S. (2010). Reducing mine water network
energy requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 13281338.
Halldorsson, A., & Arlbjrn, J. (2005). Research methodologies in supply chain
management What do we know? In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Mller, & G.
Reiner (Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 107122).
Heidelberg: Physica.
Handeld, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental
criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141, 7087.
Harris, I., Naim, M., Palmer, A., Potter, A., & Mumford, C. (2011). Assessing the
impact of cost optimization based on infrastructure modeling on CO2 emissions.
International Journal of Production Economics, 131, 313321.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., & Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of
sustainable supply chain management with a focus on metrics. International
Journal of Production Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042.
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2008). Green supply chain management in the electronic
industry. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(2),
205216.
Hu, G., & Bibanda, B. (2009). Modeling sustainable product life cycle decision
support systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 122, 366375.
Ilgin, M. A., & Gupta, S. M. (2010). Environmentally conscious manufacturing and
product recovery (ECMPRO). A review of the state of the art. Journal of
Environmental Management, 91, 563591.
Kainuma, Y., & Tawara, N. (2006). A multiple attribute utility theory approach to
lean and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production
Kaldellis, J. K., Simotas, M., Zarakis, D., & Kondili, E. (2009). Optimum autonomous
photovoltaic solution for the Greek islands on the basis of energy pay-back
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 13111323.
Kannegiesser, M., & Gnther, H.-O. (2013). Sustainable development of global
supply chainsPart 1: Sustainability optimization framework. Flexible Services
and Manufacturing Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10696-013-9176-5.
Kannegiesser, M., Gnther, H.-O., & Gylfason, O. (2013). Sustainable development of
global supply chainsPart 2: Investigation of the European automotive
industry. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10696-013-9177-4.
Kengpol, A., & Boonkanit, P. (2011). The decision support framework for developing
Ecodesign at conceptual phase based upon ISO/TR 14062. International Journal of
Production Economics, 131, 414.
Kiwjaroun, C., Tubtimdee, C., & Piumsomboon, P. (2009). LCA studies comparing
biodiesel synthesized by conventional and supercritical methanol methods.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 143153.
Kleijnen, P. (2005). Supply chain simulation tools and techniques: A survey.
International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling, 1(1/2), 8289.
Kleindorfer, P. A., Singhal, K., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable
operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4),
482492.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills/CA: Sage.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of articial neural network
and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18, 11611170.
Lage Junior, M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2010). Variations of the Kanban system:
Literature review and classication. International Journal of Production
Lebreton, B. (2007). Strategic closed-loop supply chain management. Lecture notes in
economics and mathematical systems. Berlin: Springer. 586.
Lee, D. H., Dong, M., & Bian, W. (2010). The design of sustainable logistics network
under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 128, 159166.
Lee, S., Geum, Y., Lee, H., & Park, Y. (2012). Dynamic and multidimensional
measurement of product-service system (PSS) sustainability: A triple bottom
line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32,
173182.
Linnenluecke, M. K., & Grifths, A. (2012). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the
intellectual origins and structures of the corporate sustainability eld. Global
Environmental Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.007.
312
Linninger, A. A., Chakraborty, A., & Colberg, R. D. (2000). Planning of waste reduction
strategies under uncertainty. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(27),
10431048.
Liu, D., Li, H., Wang, W., & Dong, Y. (2011). Constructivism scenario evolutionary
analysis of zero emission regional planning: A case of Qaidam Circular Economy
Pilot Area in China. International Journal of Production Economics. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.008.
Lovric, M., Li, T., & Vervest, P. (2012). Sustainable revenue management: A smart
card enabled agent-based modeling approach. Decision Support Systems. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.061.
Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative Sozialforschung (Qualitative social research) (5th ed.).
Weinheim: Beltz.
Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis) (10th ed.).
Weinheim: Beltz.
Mentzer, J., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J., Min, S., Nix, N., Smith, C., & Zacharia, Z. (2001).
Dening supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2),
125.
Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(3), 311.
Mikkola, J. H. (2005). Modeling the effect of product architecture modularity in
supply chains. In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Mller, & G. Reiner (Eds.), Research
methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 493508). Heidelberg: Physica.
Min, H., & Kim, I. (2012). Green supply chain research: Past, present, and future.
Logistics Research, 4, 3947.
Mouzon, G., Yildirim, M. B., & Twomey, J. (2007). Operational methods for
minimization of energy consumption of manufacturing equipment.
International Journal of Production Research, 45(1819), 42474271.
Munda, G. (2009). A conict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues
in sustainability policy. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 307322.
Radulescu, M., Radulescu, S., & Radulescu, C. Z. (2009). Sustainable production
technologies which take into account environmental constraints. European
Journal of Operational Research, 193, 730740.
ReVelle, C. (2000). Research challenges in environmental management. European
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. Pittsburgh/PA: RWS Publications.
Saint Jean, M. (2008). Polluting emissions standards and clean technology
trajectories under competitive selection and supply chain pressure. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16S1, S113S123.
Sarkis, J. (1998). Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. European
Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and ows perspective of green supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 202216.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green
supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production
Economics, 130(1), 115.
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2008a). Issues in reverse supply chains, part I: End-oflife product recovery and inventory management An overview. International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(3), 154172.
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2008b). Issues in reverse supply chain, part II: Reverse
distribution issues An overview. International Journal of Sustainable
Sasikumar, P., & Kannan, G. (2009). Issues in reverse supply chain, part III:
Classication and simple analysis. International Journal of Sustainable
Sbihi, A., & Eglese, R. W. (2007). Combinatorial optimization and green logistics.
4OR, 5, 99116.
Seuring, S. (2008). Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2),
128137.
Seuring, S. (2012). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
management.
Decision
Support
Systems.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.dss.2012.02.053.
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews
in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 17(5), 544555.
Seuring, S., & Mller, M. (2008a). From a literature review to a conceptual

framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(15), 16991710.
Seuring, S., & Mller, M. (2008b). Core issues in sustainable supply chain
management A Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8),
455466.
Shapiro, J. (2007). Modeling the supply chain (2nd ed.). Duxbury: Brooks/Cole,
Thompson.
Sheu, J. B., Chou, Y. H., & Hu, C. C. (2005). An integrated logistics operational model
for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E, 41,
287313.
Smith, L., & Ball, P. (2012). Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through
modelling material, energy and waste ows. International Journal of Production
Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.036.
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art
literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 5380.
Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus denition of supply chain
management: A qualitative study. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 39(8), 690711.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handeld, R., MacLachlin, R., & Samson, D. (2002).
Effective case research in operations management: A process perspective.
Journal of Operations Management, 20, 419433.
Supply-Chain Council (Ed.), (2008). Supply chain operations reference model SCOR
version 9.0. Pittsburgh: Supply-Chain Council.
Tang, C. S., & Zhou, S. (2012). Research advances in environmentally and socially
sustainable operations. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 585594.
Tsai, W. H., & Hung, S. J. (2009). A fuzzy goal programming approach for green
supply chain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance
evaluation with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production
Research, 47(18), 49915017.
Tseng, M. L., Lin, Y. H., & Chiu, A. S. F. (2009). Fuzzy AHP-based study of cleaner
production implementation in Taiwan PWB manufacturer. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17, 12491256.
Ukidwe, N. U., & Bakshi, B. R. (2005). Flow of natural versus economic capital in
industrial supply networks and its implications to sustainability. Environmental
Science Technology, 39, 97599769.
lengin, F., Kabak, ., nsel, S., lengin, B., & Aktas, E. (2010). A problemstructuring model for analyzing transportationenvironment relationships.
van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Tromp, S. O., & van der Zee, D. J. (2009). Simulation
modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on
product quality, sustainability and logistics. International Journal of Production
Research, 47(23), 66116631.
Wang, F., Lai, X., & Shi, N. (2011). A multi-objective optimization for green supply
chain network design. Decision Support Systems, 51, 262269.
Whitefoot, K. S., & Skerlos, S. J. (2012). Design incentives to increase vehicle size
created from the US footprint-based fuel economy standards. Energy Policy, 41,
402411.
Wolf, J. (2008). The nature of supply chain management research Insights from a
content analysis of international supply chain management literature from 1990 to
2006. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Wu, C. C., & Chang, N. B. (2004). Corporate optimal production planning with
varying environmental costs: A grey compromise programming approach.
Yakovleva, N., Sarkis, J., & Sloan, T. (2011). Sustainable benchmarking of supply
chains: The case of the food industry. International Journal of Production
Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.571926.
Yalabik, B., & Fairchild, R. J. (2011). Customer, regulatory, and competitive pressure
as drivers of environmental innovation. International Journal of Production
Economics, 131, 519527.
Yura, K. (1994). Production scheduling to satisfy workers preference for days off
and overtime under due-date constraints. International Journal of Production
Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2011). Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for
sustainable food supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.028.

European Journal of Operational Research: Marcus Brandenburg, Kannan Govindan, Joseph Sarkis, Stefan Seuring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Operational Research: Marcus Brandenburg, Kannan Govindan, Joseph Sarkis, Stefan Seuring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management:

logistics (Supply-Chain Council, 2008) but is not exclusively focused

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

For CLSCM, quantitative models are often applied and practical

2. Insights from previous literature reviews

2.1. Literature reviews prior to 2008

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Author(s) and year

Perspective on SCM sustainability

Carter and Rogers (2008)

JCLP, IJPR, IJPE,

Forward and reverse TBL

Gold et al. (2010a)

Forward and reverse environmental

Ilgin and Gupta (2010)

Forward and reverse environmental

Dekker et al. (2012)

Forward and reverse logistics

Forward and reverse TBL

Hassini et al. (2012)

Tang and Zhou (2012)

IJPR, IJPE, EJOR

Not including journals with a pure empirical focus.

Size of initial paper sample

Number with SSCM formal models

Seuring and Mller (2008a)

prevalent than conceptual or formal modeling research designs

2.3. Research questions

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

1. Which SCM dimensions exist with formal models for SSCM?

brary services (Seuring & Gold, 2012). This approach is especially

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Selected from other reviews

Hassini et al. (2012)

Journal-specic keyword search

Split of search criteria (in title, in abstract, in keywords).

analysis. These analytic categories listed in Table 4 are derived

Analytic categories (in alphabetical order)

Chain, dyad, rm, function, industry, macro-economy, network

Carrier, distributor, industry/macro-economy, legal authority, manufacturer, retailer, warehousing, wholesaler

Descriptive deterministic, descriptive stochastic, normative deterministic, normative stochastic

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

3.5. Methodological rigor

The required methodological rigor of this analysis is ensured in

4.1. Descriptive analysis

Overall it can be stated that model-based SSCM is a comparably

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Fig. 2. Paper sample compared to SCM and modeling papers.

Papers reviewed by Seuring and Mller (2008a).

16 other journals with one paper each.

Using Seuring and Mllers (2008a) sample illustrates that the

are severely underrepresented in this research area. Only 21 papers

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Functional application area

(325 citations), Michigan State University (184 citations), Boston

4.2. Evaluating the status of research

4.2.2. Modeling dimension

M. Brandenburg et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 299312

Not employed in reviewed papers: spreadsheet calculation, n.a.

using various scenarios, each evaluated with a deterministic