Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Decision Support Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dss

A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management

Stefan Seuring
Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 3 June 2012 More than 300 papers have been published in the last 15 years on the topic of green or sustainable (forward)
supply chains. Looking at the research methodologies employed, only 36 papers apply quantitative models.
Keywords: This is in contrast to, for example, the neighboring field of reverse or closed-loop supply chains where several
Supply chain management reviews on respective quantitative models have already been provided. The paper summarizes research on
Sustainability management quantitative models for forward supply chains and thereby contributes to the further substantiation of the
Quantitative modeling
field. While different kinds of models are applied, it is evident that the social side of sustainability is not
Literature review
Environmental and social standards
taken into account. On the environmental side, life-cycle assessment based approaches and impact criteria
clearly dominate. On the modeling side there are three dominant approaches: equilibrium models, multi-
criteria decision making and analytical hierarchy process. There has been only limited empirical research
so far. The paper ends with suggestions for future research.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Globalization places demands on supply chain management to
reach beyond pure economic issues and matters like e.g. fair labor
conditions and environmentally friendly production. This raises inter-
est in its intersection with sustainable development, which is usually
comprehended in an economic, an environmental and a social dimen-
sion (see e.g. [45]; for the link to supply chain management see [70];
[42]). Managing supply chains in a sustainable manner has become an
increasing concern for companies of all sizes and across a wide range
of industries. Meeting environmental and social standards along all
stages of the supply chain ensures that (at least) minimum sustain-
ability performance is reached. This more reactive approach of
responding to external pressure from governments, consumers and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [71] and media can be com-
plemented by the development and introduction of sustainable
products.
For the period 1990 to 2007 Seuring and Müller [70] reviewed a
total of 191 papers. Toward the end of 2010 this list has grown to
about 308 related papers which published about green and sustain-
able supply chain management. Yet, sorting these papers according
to the research methodology employed, only 36 remain which build
or use quantitative models. Hence, this paper aims at taking a longer
period into account than Seuring and Müller [70], but focuses on one
kind of research method, i.e. quantitative models, only. This allows
detailed insights into this stream of research and should reach con-
clusions on how to develop it further. This small number and share
E-mail address: seuring@uni-kassel.de.
URL:http://www.uni-kassel.de/go/scm.
of models is in clear contrast to, for example, the neighboring field
of reverse or closed-loop supply chains, where Fleischmann et al.
[46] already provided a first review on “quantitative models for re-
verse logistics”. Furthermore, (wider) literature reviews on related
fields are available: (1) closed-loop supply chains [50]; (2) green supply
chains, but also with a focus on reverse logistics [73] and (3) sustainable
supply chain management [70]. Recently, further reviews have been
published, which address particular topics. Two examples are those
on sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational re-
sources [48] or those relating it to a wider set of constructs in supply
chain management [49]. Mollenkopf et al. [61] have emphasized the
link to lean management and globalization issues in their review. Carter
and Easton [42] evaluate particularly related empirical research,
restricting themselves to a set of papers taken from seven journals
mainly in the domain of logistics and supply chain management. Yet,
such a review has not been attempted for quantitative models applied
to the forward supply chain.
The aim of this paper is to summarize existing research on quanti-
tative models for forward supply chains, thereby aiming at substan-
tive justification as an important step in theory building [58]. This
provides insights toward future research directions and needs.
The paper is structured as follows: as the study deals with a liter-
ature review, a classical section labeled as such is not provided. In-
stead, the paper starts by outlining the content analysis method as
applied in the research process. Next, some descriptive background
on the papers (e.g. years of publication, major journals) is presented.
Further, the findings from the content analysis are discussed, with a
particular focus on the sustainability dimensions and modeling ap-
proaches. This will lead over to the discussion of the findings and
brief conclusions.

0167-9236/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.053
1514 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
Fig. 1. Time distribution of the analyzed papers.
2. Describing the method and base for the literature review
This study forms part of a wider literature review at the intersec-
tion of sustainability and supply chain management. The methodolo-
gy applied has already been described in detail [70]. Papers were
identified by means of a structured keyword search on major data-
bases and publisher websites (Ebsco, Springerlink, Wiley Inter-
science, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight). Keywords such as
“purchasing”, “sourcing”, “supply” and “supply chain”, and “logistics/
logistical” were combined with sustainability related ones, such as
“sustainable/sustainability”, “sustainable development”, “environ-
ment(al)”, “green”, “social” and “ethics/ethical”. Subsequently, pa-
pers were screened in detail in a two-step process. First, there were
three issues excluded from further analysis: (1) reverse logistics
and remanufacturing, as they have already been subject to self-
contained literature reviews already [46,50], (2) ethical behavior of
purchasing staff, and (3) public procurement. Second, the papers were
unanimously assigned to one research method, where five categories
were applied: modeling (the one used here), theoretical or conceptual,
case study, survey or literature review.
A content analysis was conducted to systematically assess the pa-
pers [55,56,63]. Material collection has already been described by
means of the literature search and reduction mode. For the analysis
itself, a set of criteria is used at first for describing the sample. Then,
the discussion is taken into the content analysis itself, where a mix-
ture of deductive and inductive as well as quantitative and qualitative
criteria is chosen. Respective criteria applied for the content analysis
are outlined below.
2.1. Basic terminology
2.1.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
The definition of Seuring and Müller [70] who take standard defi-
nitions of supply chain management [59] serves as a starting point:
“Sustainable SCM is the management of material, information and
capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the sup-
ply chain while integrating goals from all three dimensions of sustain-
able development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, which are
derived from customer and stakeholder requirements. In sustainable
supply chains, environmental and social criteria need to be fulfilled
by the members to remain within the supply chain, while it is
expected that competitiveness would be maintained through meet-
ing customer needs and related economic criteria.”
2.1.2. Quantitative modeling
According to Bertrand and Fransoo [39] this is “model-based
quantitative research, i.e. research where models of causal relation-
ships between control variables and performance variables are devel-
oped, analyzed and tested”. Such research methods are frequently
used in supply chain management research (see e.g. [38,60,57]). Sub-
sequently, four different quantitative approaches are distinguished,
which are briefly introduced, while the full justification for using
them as categories is provided later in the paper.
2.2. Sample and descriptive analysis
The overall sample contains 309 papers in total (status papers
published up to the end of 2010). Out of this sample only 36 papers
apply quantitative models, thereby only contributing little more
than 12% of the total number of papers.
Fig. 1 highlights the timely distribution of the 36 papers. Only two
papers were published before the year 2002 [29,31,6,7,24]. There is a
small peak in 2005 with seven papers, but this seems just accidental
as there was no special issue which would easily explain it. In current
years, there is an almost stable output with four or five papers pub-
lished for each year in 2007–10 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding journals, where such papers appear most often, Journal
of Cleaner Production (JCLEPRO) is the leading journal with nine pa-
pers (or 24%) published. Four papers appeared in the European
Journal of Operational Research (EJOR), and three each in the Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics (IJPE) and the International
Journal of Production Research (IJPR), in total contributing another
27% of the sample. The rest of the papers are distributed across a
range of other journals.
2.3. Criteria applied in the content analysis
Establishing criteria for content analysis can be based on a deduc-
tive or an inductive approach. Here, the criteria are mainly derived
deductively and are based on the already mentioned literature re-
views in the field (particularly [70] criteria). Yet, this would not be
sufficient for addressing all relevant issues, so in some cases, criteria
can only be established while working with the material. This was
the case here for the assessment of the modeling approaches applied
in the paper.
The following dimensions will be discussed, briefly explained and
justified:
• First, the environmental, social and economic criteria or perfor-
mance objectives are assessed. In a second step, the integration of
environmental and/or social issues with economic objectives is an-
alyzed. This is in line with the typical three dimensional compre-
hension of sustainability (see e.g. [45]) and has been discussed in
the field of supply chain management before (see e.g. [71,42]).
• The modeling approach taken in the paper is described. As there
was no clear starting point for this analysis, the categories were de-
rived inductively. Three categories, i.e. life-cycle assessment
models, equilibrium models and analytical hierarchy process, were
used right at the start, while the other two only appeared during
the coding.
• The link to empirical data forms the final dimension of the analysis
[42,69]. This allows insights into the field research done toward fill-
ing the models with empirical data.
The findings from applying these dimensions are now presented.
3. Analysis of the papers
In the following sections, the different dimensions of the analysis
will be presented. To allow easier presentation of the material, tables
will be used summarizing the single dimensions as embedded in the
papers. Unless stated otherwise, all figures refer to the sample of 36
papers analyzed here.
 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
3.1. Sustainability dimensions
Conceptualizing sustainability in three dimensions seems to be
widely accepted [45,42]. It allows an easy comprehension of the
integration of economic, environmental and social issues. This also of-
fers the justification of applying it in this paper. Hence, the papers are
categorized, based on how they relate to sustainable development. As
all papers are taken from management related literature, the eco-
nomic dimension forms an integral part and was therefore not
taken as a separate category. Yet, the papers show a very strong dom-
inance of addressing environmental issues (34 papers). There are no
papers that exclusively focus on social issues, and also integrating
all three dimensions of sustainability is only present in two of them
(i.e. [5,15]).
Seuring and Müller [70] emphasize the need for increasing coop-
eration along the supply chain, if sustainability goals are to be
reached (also [49]). Hence, this should be reflected in related goals.
A closer look is therefore taken on each dimension and on which
goals are put forward.
3.1.1. Economic dimension
As only papers dealing with supply chain management are taken
into account, it is logical that economic issues are addressed. Most
often, total cost or net revenue is taken as indicators. Yet, there are
a number of papers not providing insights into what kind of economic
goals is pursued. This holds for a first set of papers that mainly follow
a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach (e.g. [34]). Often, such papers
compare different alternatives toward their environmental perfor-
mance (e.g. [11,13]). In a number of cases, the current economic
situation is (inherently) seen as a kind of baseline for evaluating al-
ternatives on their environmental impact. This holds particularly for
the LCA related papers (e.g. [34,35,4,11]) or those applying AHP
[31,19,20,25,26].
3.1.2. Environmental dimension
Most papers spend much more effort on explaining related envi-
ronmental issues. In many cases, life-cycle assessment data forms
the starting point for the analysis. Hence, energy demand and CO2-
emissions (e.g. [4,11,35,28]) are among the frequently mentioned
topics. Yet, in a number of cases, rather comprehensive lists of envi-
ronmental impact criteria are taken up, such as referring to all kinds
of natural capital (e.g. [36]) or resources, such as water or energy as
well as waste (e.g. [26,23,17]). Overall a wide range of environmental
aspects is taken into account. A deeper look provides some critique to
the typical approach chosen. The relationship between the LCA-based
environmental impacts and their management in the supply chain
often points to supplier selection (e.g. [29,20,25]) and optimization
issues, such as transport to end customers [33,11]. Hence, LCA based
approaches seem to dominate here as they allow comprehending
and modeling product-related impacts (for a conceptual note see
[64]).
3.1.3. Social dimension
The social dimension is the one that is addressed the least often in
the papers. Building on a rather strict assessment, 34 of the 36 papers
do not mention it at all. In four cases one could even argue that the
term corporate social responsibility (CSR) is rather misused in the
title of the papers looking at their content [8–10,21]. While all carry
CSR in their title, they rather model environmental issues, but not so-
cial impact related ones. Cruz [8,9] as well as Cruz and Matsypura [10]
briefly refer to risk associated with not having (enough) CSR. Hsueh
and Chang [21] use it as starting point for a discussion on profit
sharing.
Yet, turning to the definition of CSR (for an overview see [44]), it is
evident that this is about voluntary measures of companies, particu-
larly in the relation between business and society. Hence, CSR cannot
1515
be subject to a simplistic comprehension of just a single factor put
into any kind of quantitative model. While this is a normative state-
ment, the ongoing debate on CSR supports such a statement (e.g. [47]).
This would basically leave all assumptions of supply chain management
unquestioned and rather support a marginally changed business as
usual, where sustainability is still subordinate to economic issues. Just as
one closely related example, Halldórsson et al. [52] pointed out that
such an assumption is insufficient for addressing sustainability.
A much wider perspective is taken by a few other papers. Rather
macro-economic social aspects are put forward by Clift [5], Foran et
al. [15] and Ukidwe and Bakshi [36]. They cover employment and in-
come distribution, thereby pointing to the wide range of responsibil-
ities of companies.
3.1.4. Integration of the three dimensions
The integration of all the three dimensions plays a central role, but
is not often addressed so far in related research [70]. Previous findings
have rather confirmed that the social dimension needs much better
integration with the economic and environmental ones.
A second approach is taken by looking at the goal relations among
the three dimensions (see Table 1). It has to be noted first that each
paper is assigned here to one category only, while Seuring and Müller
[70] assigned papers into more than one category, therefore having a
total of 234 entries for 191 papers. Comparing the figures, it can be
seen that trade-offs among the environmental and the economic di-
mensions are most often taken as a starting point for building the
models. This will be discussed subsequently, after the modeling tech-
niques have been introduced.
This analysis already points to a clear research gap regarding social
aspects as well as the overall integration of the three sustainability di-
mensions. While this will not be an easy or simple task, such research
is much needed and would also allow links of sustainable supply
chain management toward other emerging fields, such as the Base-
of-the-Pyramid debate (see e.g. [51,66]).
3.2. Modeling approaches
Looking at the models proposed, they can be grouped into four
categories (see Table 2). The four categories were not chosen deduc-
tively, but emerged inductively while trying to group them when
reading and analyzing the material: (1) life-cycle assessment based
models, (2) equilibrium models, (3) multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM), and (4), applications of the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP). The overall objective is usually a cost minimization effort,
where the entities that incur costs and the respective cost elements
are specified. Each approach and the typical elements pertained
therein will be briefly presented.
It has to be mentioned that each paper is assigned to one category
only. The equilibrium models and the multi-objective decision mak-
ing (MCDM) models take somewhat similar starting points and both
aim at finding a balance between different (environmental and eco-
nomic) performance criteria. As a further issue, there are three papers
applying simulation as their method [24,34,14,30]. Yet, they do so ei-
ther for providing insights into LCA cases [24,34] or for evaluating
Table 1
Goal relations among the three sustainability dimensions.
Goal relations Seuring and Müller [70] Modeling papers
(N = 191 papers) (N = 36 papers)
(N = 234, multiple counting allowed)
Win–win-situations 124 (53%) 7 (19%)
Trade-offs 72 (31%) 20 (56%)
Minimum performance 37 (16%) 9 (25%)
for environmental
and social issue
1516 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520

Table 2 3.2.2. Equilibrium models

Grouping papers according to modeling techniques. The already mentioned line of research on assessing performance
Modeling approach Typical element of Related papers of an overall supply chain or even industry is continued within the
the model papers aiming at indentifying an equilibrium. This is a standard
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) Assessing [3–6,11,13,15,18,24,34,35] modeling technique [62] and is well established (e.g. [57]). Such equi-
models (11 papers) environmental librium would be established by assessing what the optimal level of
impacts along a investment into environmental (abatement) technologies and re-
supply chain and
spective economic returns would be. Kainuma and Tawara [23] start
minimizing them.
Equilibrium models (9 Balancing [7–10,21,23,27,30,36] this debate by proposing a multiple utility function approach, which
papers) environmental and builds on metrics in three dimensions: (1) LCA, (2) supply chain re-
economic factors and turn on assets and (3) customer satisfaction. A starting point for relat-
finding an ed research was presented with the shared savings contract model for
equilibrium or
indirect material [7]. The environmental consideration is easy to com-
optimal solution.
Multi-criteria decision Optimization of [14,16,17,22,28,33] prehend as it aims at reducing the amount of indirect materials being
making (6 papers) economic and applied. Staying with environmental considerations but aiming at a
environmental much wider equilibrium among natural and economic capitals,
criteria, usually
Ukidwe and Bakshi [36] present their model, mainly building on ther-
balancing trade-offs
or identifying opti- modynamic input–output analysis. Nagurney and Toyasaki [27] for-
mal solutions. mulate a more specific model based on manufacturers, retailers and
Analytical hierarchy Structuring a [1,2,12,19,20,25,26,29,31,32] consumers, but stay vague about what kind of emissions is actually
process (8 papers) decision process dealt with.
thereby obtaining a
The above already criticized papers modeling CSR activities also
solution based on
semi-quantitative fall into this category. Hsueh and Chang [21] stay particularly vague
criteria and respec- about what CSR would imply: “Herein, undertaking CSR is originally
tive weights. utilized for coordinating the decentralized supply chain.” In the
model itself, this is only present in a production function as “per-
ceived production and inventory cost of manufacturer (considering
CSR)” [21]. Cruz [8] handles this in a similar manner, even claiming:
variables among a multi-objective decision making approach [14]. “We note that any level of social responsibility activities between any
Hence, they are grouped into the respective categories. two parties in the supply chain requires a strong level of collaboration/
Table 2 provides an outline of the different modeling approaches cooperation between them.” Such an approach is made somewhat clear-
used, briefly describing the typical approach taken and listing the pa- er in the paper by Cruz and Matsypura [10] who claim that “engagement
pers that were grouped into the respective category. in CSR is assumed to reduce transaction costs, waste, as well as risk.” This
is one of the assumptions forming the background for modeling a re-
spective network of manufacturers and retailers. In the equilibrium, an
3.2.1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) based studies optimal solution is found for CSR related investments, products' flows
Life-cycle assessment is a product based on environmental assess- along the supply chain and respective prices.
ment techniques (e.g. [54]), which was even standardized in the ISO A similar approach is presented by Saint Jean [30], but is based on
14041. It is first discussed here, as it often forms a kind of background emission standards, which seems easier to comprehend. Here, the
for the other modeling approaches. LCA-type data is pointed to in 29 minimum performance level of environmental and social standards
of the 36 papers. The papers mainly present life-cycle assessment [70] is pointed to, which seems much more straightforward than
data and illustrate its use in a specific context or case application. unspecified investments into CSR. This refers to the overall contribu-
This is well in line with earlier analysis, such as the concept suggested tion of these models, which evaluate the consequences of introducing
by Pesonen [64], who already pointed to the use of life-cycle some sort of minimum performance criteria. While the problem
assessment based criteria in supply chains. Furthermore, Seuring statement and model formulation for environmental issues seem
[67] elaborates that LCA-based criteria usually provide the product straightforward, the integration of social issues needs further elabora-
optimization perspective which precedes the supply chain optimiza- tion and a clearer positioning whether minimum standards, e.g. for
tion. In this respect, it is no surprise that LCA type data serves as a working conditions and payment, are reached or whether voluntary
background for subsequent optimization in the papers reviewed CSR activities are expected. It is emphasized again that these models
here (e.g. [14,13]). The link to products is evident, as a core line of re- evaluate the overall equilibrium among a given set of market actors,
lated research is labeled as supply chain management for sustainable but do not directly aim at their decisions. Such focus is taken within
products (e.g. [70,69]). the other modeling approaches.
This also offers a link to the already discussed environmental di-
mension and related performance objectives (see Section 3.1). In 3.2.3. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
total, a broad range of environmental emissions and impacts is re- The link to the previous category is evident, in e.g. the paper of
ferred to, while related impact assessments usually concentrate on Sheu et al. [33], who use multi-objective programming but also assess
the direct emission level. the equilibrium among manufacturing chain and reverse chain, in-
One further typical element is the focus of a number of papers on cluding e.g. transaction costs and recycling fees. This showcases the
one product or industry, such as aluminum [24,35,13], milk [34], elec- typical idea of the papers where different objectives have to be met
tronics [18] or services, particularly book distribution [11] or wine at the same time, which makes the point for such multi-criteria deci-
distribution [4]. This allows reducing the environmental issues dealt sion making approaches (e.g. [60]). Hence, the focus is usually not so
with as well as making respective supply chain related decisions much on reaching an equilibrium situation, but rather dealing with
more evident. While the LCA-studies therefore often stay on general trade-offs among conflicting objectives. There is a somewhat weak
supply chain wide aspects and in many cases do not center on a single line among these papers looking more at single company/supply
actor or actor network in the supply chain, such is usually the case in chain based decisions and the previous category. An efficient logistics'
the other approaches taken in respective papers. network configuration is at the core of the arguments presented by
 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
Neto et al. [28]. In line with the LCA studies and equilibrium models,
they mention that trade-offs would be based on societal decisions
based on Pareto efficiency. Their model could help in making respec-
tive decisions and is clearly linked to the equilibrium models already
described. Hugo and Pistikopoulos [22] also use LCA data as their
starting point and integrate this into modeling the supply chain for
“environmentally conscious strategic investment planning”.
More into detail are e.g. Fichtner et al. [14], assessing joint invest-
ments into inter-firm energy supply and respective savings. Quite
similarly, Geldermann et al. [16] look at a bicycle manufacturer in
China. Heat integration, water management and solvent recovery
are the environmental issues addressed and optimized. While these
two papers already point to supply chain design, this is emphasized
in the two papers remaining in this category.
3.2.4. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
The logic of LCA-data is also evident in the paper applying the
AHP, similar techniques or modifications thereof. The AHP is also a
multi-objective decision making technique [65]. The major difference
is that it is not based on a full mathematical formulation of a certain
problem, but is called a semi-quantitative decision making technique
simplifying and structuring decisions (e.g. [65,53]). This justifies an
own category, different from the two previous ones. The two papers
published early in the entire data set are based on this semi-
quantitative decision technique [29,31]. The AHP allows evaluating
not only complex decision situations, where environmental and eco-
nomic goals are assessed at the same time (e.g. [31,32,19,12]), but
also more specialized decisions, such as looking at the role of
hazardous substance management [20] or green supplier selection
[29,26,25] and supplier development practices [1,2]. The last two pa-
pers somewhat form their own category as they apply rough set the-
ory. Yet, as this also deals with incomplete information and follows
similar aims as the AHP, it was decided to keep them in the same
category.
Overall, the decisions evaluated focus on improving environmental
performance toward greening respective products [41,70]. Compared
to the previous two categories, the aim is not so much reaching an equi-
librium or optimal approach but rather pointing toward the complexity
of decision making and emphasizing the influence of the decision
makers. AHP allows taking different decision criteria into account and
evaluating them without necessarily connecting all of them into one
quantitative model. Hence, such an approach may also be called
multi-objective decision making (e.g. [26]), but building on managerial
judgments.
3.3. Interrelation of modeling approaches and goal relations
As a further step, it is interesting to combine the two analytic di-
mensions of goal relations and modeling approaches. As briefly men-
tioned, the analytic dimensions and categories for the content
analysis are often derived inductively and are then validated against
the interpretation and understanding they offer.
Table 3
Relationship among goal relations and modeling approaches.
Goal relations Modeling approach
LCA Equilibrium Multi-criteria Analytical
model model decision hierarchy
making process
Win–win situations 2 0 1 4
Trade-offs 6 9 5 0
Minimum performance 3 0 0 6
for environmental and
social issues
Sum 11 9 6 10
1517
This kind of construct validity is derived from the two analytic di-
mensions, jointly offering interesting insights into how the typical
models look and thus allowing a distinction among them (discrimi-
nant validity). This is shown in Table 3.
The equilibrium models as well as the multi-objective decision
making build on trade-off situations among environmental and eco-
nomic goals. There is only one MCDM paper which takes its starting
point from a win–win situation [14]. This is also the only one building
on data from a practical environment.
It almost seems obvious that these models take their starting point
from trade-offs between the economic and environmental dimen-
sions. Such trade-offs are a critical aspect of sustainable supply
chain management and often form the starting point for respective
action [71]. Further, trade-offs are more straight forward to model
in these approaches.
All three goal relations are observed only for the LCA based papers.
This is in line with the previous finding that LCA data forms a back-
ground for many of the studies presented here. While the trade-offs
dominate, the two other categories are also found. Foran et al. [15]
as well as Tan and Khoo [35] take win–win-situations as their starting
point. Both apply an analysis of statistical data. The latter looks at
cleaner production and process improvements in the aluminum sup-
ply chain. Foran et al. [15] look at different products relevant for pri-
vate consumption (e.g. cotton and vegetables).
There are three papers arguing for minimum conditions for envi-
ronmental and social performance [34,3,18]. The paper by Sonesson
and Berlin [34] is based on the milk supply chain, while Brent ad-
dresses the automotive one. All papers have in common that they
rather argue on a macro-level, well in line with the win–win-category
ones. It seems to be more straightforward to depart from a trade-off
assumption if the level of analysis is not focused on just a single com-
pany and its respective supply chain.
For the AHP papers, there are contrasting findings as there are no
papers dealing with trade-offs. While four look at win–win situations
[31,32,26,12], there are six taking environmental issues as minimum
standards against which economic decisions have then to be made
(see Table 2). The selection of the decision criteria is more flexible
within the AHP as they are rather connected in a logical but not in a
mathematical matter. This allows choosing criteria that represent ei-
ther win–win-situations or minimum standards. The most recent de-
velopment in this category, namely being the application of rough set
theory [1,2], also allows evaluating performance issues of each com-
pany as well as the supply chain in total, an issue not addressed in
the previous publications in this category.
3.4. Illustrations and empirical data
Many modeling papers contain a theoretical example of numerical
illustration of the model presented (see Table 4). This is also found
here, as 28 papers in total do so. The purpose of such an illustration
usually emphasizes the consequences of the decision making for a
real life application. Yet, very few papers actually build on empirical
research. On most occasions, the illustration is “made up”. Only one
paper is purely theoretical and does not contain any such information
[5]. Few examples are found to be different. Fichtner et al. [14] use an
Sum
Table 4
Empirical research presented in the papers.
7
Empirical content No. of papers (N = 36)
20
9 Theoretical or numerical example 28 (all others not listed below)
Statistical data 5 [6,15,24,34,36]
Empirical data 2 [14,19]
36 None 1 [5]
1518 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
industrial network in the Karlsruhe area, Germany, as background for
their model, thereby relating to real world data. Others take industrial
sector data, such as the example of the European pulp and paper in-
dustry [28], but stay at an illustrative level. Such statistical data is
used most often in LCA-type studies, which make up four of the five
papers offering such an approach [6,15,24,34]. Only Ukidwe and
Bakshi [36] build a thermodynamic input–output model on 488 sec-
tor data sets for the USA, thereby assessing an equilibrium situation
between natural and economic capitals (Table 4).
Besides the already mentioned model based on real technical data
by Fichtner et al. [14], there is only one paper presenting empirical
data. A survey feeding into the decision making process is found in
Hsu and Hu [19], who take responses from 87 managers for validating
their AHP model.
Overall, it has to be concluded that the link to empirical data is
missing for most of the related research. Yet, combining the models
presented with empirical data should offer interesting insights and
hence provides a sound direction for future research.
4. Discussion
This paper provides a first review of publications applying a
modeling approach for green or sustainable supply chain issues. The
contribution of this review lies in aggregating the so far scattered
publications on this topic and providing an overview on the ap-
proaches taken therein.
4.1. Sustainability dimensions
Several conclusions can be drawn, which first of all relate to the
three dimensions of sustainability:
• The social dimension is almost completely missing or sometimes
comprehended in a far too simplified manner. It might be difficult
to model social impacts. This is in line with wider literature reviews
(e.g. [73,70,49]), which also found a lack of research on social as-
pects. Hence, there seems to be a challenge for the wider range of
related research, while social aspects might have to be evaluated in
detail before they are suitably integrated in such (multi-objective)
modeling approaches.
• The environmental dimension is mainly treated by building on life-
cycle assessment-based categories. Yet, many papers stay vague
about the kind of environmental impacts taken into account.
Some specify the environmental impacts of a particular product or
supply chain process and mention how to deal with them. Such
models would offer the chance to look at particular impacts and
offer guidance to practitioners on how to deal with them. This
also points to a more theoretical stream of research, which assesses
the role of LCA-data in supply chain decisions. Here, a link to empir-
ical research on the decision makers would be relevant in particular.
• In the economic dimension, “total” cost-based or decision related
cost and revenue approaches dominate. This does not really capture
how proactive companies strive to implement green or sustainable
supply chains and thereby actively managing a number of perfor-
mance objectives. Some of the AHP related papers point to this
and thereby get closer to what Seuring [69] calls supply chain man-
agement for sustainable products. Widening the scope of economic
performance criteria would be a welcome contribution.
• Last but not least, the integration of the three dimensions as well as
the interrelations among sustainability dimensions and objectives
demand further research. Previous modeling research mainly
looks at trade-offs. While this might be a sound starting point for
decision making, the consequences of either win–win situations or
environmental and social standards as minimum criteria also war-
rant further research.
4.2. Limitations
The first limitation of this paper comes from the small sample size
of only 36 papers. This has been justified as no previous literature re-
view or similar approach has been presented on quantitative model-
ing approaches in sustainable supply chain management. A second
limitation is that only a number of quantifiable criteria are used for
the content analysis. Only meaning embedded into these categories
is extracted from the papers. Yet, it is obvious that each paper was
read more than once during the coding and thereby other aspects
came forward in a more inductive manner. The range of codes could
be expanded, so that e.g. the environmental dimension is analyzed
in more detail. Furthermore, the quantitative models could be
assessed toward the constraints taken into account and based on
the different variables being modeled. Taking the analysis to such
depth might even require restricting the sample further. This leads
over to directions for future research.
4.3. Research directions
Further conclusions are drawn regarding the modeling ap-
proaches taken as well as the so far weak link to empirical data:
• A critical link is the one to empirical research. While there is plen-
ty of empirical research on sustainable supply chain management
(see [42,69]), such data is not linked to the formal assessments of-
fered by quantitative models. While this might be challenging,
building on empirical data for the model development should pro-
vide a sound link into other streams of research within the wider
field.
• There is also the open question about the popularity of models for
closed-loop supply chain management and reverse logistics and
not for the forward supply chain in research. The reasons can only
be speculated on. This cannot be concluded from the current body
of literature, but might be an issue for further analysis.
• One further direction might be the link to supply chain contracts.
While a review of this topic has already been provided by Tsay et
al. [74], this has not been connected to environmental and sustain-
ability issues. The single link to this topic is the analysis of shared
savings contracts ([7], as a further paper see [43]).
• Finally, the link into the supply chain management literature should
be strengthened. There is rarely a link into the literature on strate-
gic supply chain design (e.g. [68]), supply chain performance and
collaboration literature, which sees a number of interesting devel-
opments (see e.g. [72,37]). One such attempt has been made in a re-
cent paper by Wang et al. [75], who analyze supply chain network
design against environmental criteria. A further example links
green supply chain management to stock market performance [40].
The analysis needs further expansion. Future research can take up
some of the challenges to fill gaps in the still emerging intersection of
sustainability and supply chain management.
4.4. Future research questions
As a consequence of the previous analysis and research directions,
a number of broader research questions can be raised. Two broad
groups of research questions are proposed. The first one relates to as-
pects of sustainability, while the second group integrates with supply
chain management thought.
Regarding questions on sustainability, it is obvious that the envi-
ronmental side has been addressed more often so far. This also
holds for the many contributions already looking at carbon based
emissions. Therefore, the link into the social dimension of sustainabil-
ity is emphasized here.
 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
• How can the social dimension be integrated into respective models?
Such approaches might have to build on the assessment of particular
social impacts, thereby reducing the overall complexity.
• What is the interrelation among the social and the environmental
dimensions? This might be an issue where multi-objective optimi-
zation or the AHP allows reaching further conclusions.
• Can the interrelation among all three dimensions of sustainability
be modeled? What are suitable approaches for doing so? Address-
ing this question, it would be worthwhile taking a look at functions
other than logistics, operations and supply chain management. This
should allow shedding light on the challenges but also respective
opportunities in research on sustainable supply chain management.
Questions on supply chain management:
• How does environmental and social performance impact supply
chain performance? While there are a number of contributions al-
ready on this question, a wider or more detailed analysis would
still be beneficial.
• How can contracts and supply chain cooperations be understood
further, so that sustainability issues are not just seen as trade-offs.
As the analysis in Table 3 is revealed, the assumption of trade-offs
dominates this stream of research. It might be interesting to see al-
ternative approaches and identify win–win solutions without being
overly simplistic.
These research directions and questions would help developing
the field further while only a selected set of them can be discussed
here.
5. Conclusion
The paper provides a review of the status of research on sustain-
able supply chain management applying (mathematical) modeling
techniques. The sustainability dimensions, the particular modeling
approaches taken as well as the empirical content as presented in
the papers have been assessed. It is evident that the environmental
dimension clearly dominates and social aspects are widely ignored
or interpreted in an unusual manner. Life-cycle assessment type stud-
ies and respective data form the backbone of the environmental de-
bate in the papers, while cost minimization still seems to dominate
the economic dimension. The different modeling approaches (equi-
librium models, multi-objective optimization and analytical hierarchy
process) form only a subset of the wider range of methods available.
The findings of the paper summarize the status of research on apply-
ing modeling techniques in sustainable supply chain management
and offer insights into directions for future research.
References
Papers reviewed
[1] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough
set theory, Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (12) (2010) 1–11.
[2] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, X. Wie, Addressing key sustainable supply chain management is-
sues using rough set methodology, Management Research Review 33 (12) (2010)
1113–1127.
[3] A. Brent, Integrating LCIA and LCM: evaluating environmental performances for
supply chain management in South Africa, Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal 16 (2) (2005) 130–142.
[4] S. Cholette, K. Venkat, The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A
study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers, Journal of Cleaner
Production 17 (16) (2009) 1–13.
[5] R. Clift, Metrics for supply chain sustainability, Cleaner Technology and Environ-
mental Policy 5 (3–4) (2003) 240–247.
[6] R. Clift, L. Wright, Relationships between environmental impacts and added value
along the supply chain, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65 (3)
(2000) 281–295.
[7] C.J. Corbett, G.A. DeCroix, Shared-savings contracts for indirect materials in sup-
ply chains: channel profits and environmental impacts, Management Science 47
(7) (2001) 881–893.
1519
[8] J.M. Cruz, Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility
through integrated environmental decision-making, European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 184 (3) (2008) 1005–1031.
[9] J.M. Cruz, The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management:
multicriteria decision-making approach, Decision Support Systems 48 (1) (2009)
224–236.
[10] J.M. Cruz, D. Matsypura, Supply chain networks with corporate social responsibil-
ity through integrated environmental decision-making, International Journal of
Production Research 47 (3) (2009) 621–648.
[11] J.B. Edwards, A.C. McKinnon, S.L. Cullinane, Comparative analysis of the carbon
footprints of conventional and online retailing: a “last mile” perspective, Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 40 (1–2) (2010)
103–123.
[12] M.N. Faisal, Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers,
Business Process Management Journal 16 (3) (2010) 508–529.
[13] I. Ferretti, S. Zanoni, L. Zavanella, A. Diana, Greening the aluminium supply chain,
International Journal of Production Economics 108 (1–2) (2007) 236–245.
[14] W. Fichtner, M. Frank, O. Rentz, Inter-firm energy supply concepts: an option for
cleaner energy production, Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (8–10) (2004)
891–899.
[15] B. Foran, M. Lenzen, C. Deyb, M. Bilek, Integrating sustainable chain management
with triple bottom line accounting, Ecological Economics 52 (2) (2005) 143–157.
[16] J. Geldermann, M. Treitz, O. Rentz, Towards sustainable production networks, In-
ternational Journal of Production Research 45 (18) (2007) 4207–4424.
[17] P. Georgiadis, M. Besiou, Environmental strategies for electrical and electronic
equipment supply chains: which to choose? Sustainability 1 (3) (2009) 722–733.
[18] S. H'Mida, S.Y. Lakhal, A model for assessing the greenness effort in a product sup-
ply chain, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 7 (1) (2007) 4–24.
[19] C.-W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, Green supply chain management in the electronic industry,
International journal of Environmental Science and Technology 5 (2) (2008)
205–216.
[20] C.-W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selec-
tion using analytic network process, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2) (2009)
255–264.
[21] C.F. Hsueh, M.S. Chang, Equilibrium analysis and corporate social responsibility
for supply chain integration, European Journal of Operational Research 190 (1)
(2008) 116–129.
[22] A. Hugo, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Environmentally conscious long-range planning and
design of supply chain networks, Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (15) (2005)
1471–1491.
[23] Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara, A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and
green supply chain management, International Journal of Production Economics
101 (1) (2006) 99–108.
[24] H.H. Khoo, T.A. Spedding, I. Bainbridge, D.M.R. Taplin, Creating a green supply
chain, Greener Management International 35 (2001) 71–88.
[25] S.S. Lin, Y.S. Juang, Selecting green suppliers with analytic hierarchy process for
biotechnology industry, Operations and Supply Chain Management 1 (2)
(2008) 115–129.
[26] L.Y.Y. Lu, C.H. Wu, T.-C. Kuo, Environmental principles applicable to green suppli-
er evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis, International Journal of
Production Research 45 (18) (2007) 4317–4331.
[27] A. Nagurney, F. Toyasaki, Supply chain supernetworks and environmental criteria,
Transportation Research: Part D 8 (3) (2003) 185–213.
[28] J.F. Neto, J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.A.E.E. van Nunen, E. van Heck, Designing and
evaluating sustainable logistics networks, International Journal of Production
Economics 111 (2) (2008) 195–208.
[29] G. Noci, Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier's
environmental performance, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Manage-
ment 3 (2) (1997) 103–114.
[30] M. Saint Jean, Polluting emissions standards and clean technology trajectories
under competitive selection and supply chain pressure, Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 16 (1) (2008) 113–123 (S1).
[31] J. Sarkis, Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices, European Jour-
nal of Operational Research 107 (1) (1998) 159–174.
[32] J. Sarkis, A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management,
Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (4) (2003) 397–409.
[33] J.-B. Sheu, Y.-H. Chou, C.-C. Hu, An integrated logistics operational model for
green-supply chain management, Transportation Research: Part E 41 (4) (2005)
287–313.
[34] U. Sonesson, J. Berlin, Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in
Sweden: a scenario study, Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3) (2003) 253–266.
[35] R.B.H. Tan, H.H. Khoo, An LCA study of a primary aluminum supply chain, Journal
of Cleaner Production 13 (6) (2005) 607–618.
[36] N.U. Ukidwe, B.R. Bakshi, Flow of natural versus economic capital in industrial
supply networks and its implications to sustainability, Environmental Science
and Technology 39 (24) (2005) 9759–9769.
Further references
[37] B.J. Angerhofer, M.C. Angelides, A model and a performance measurement system
for collaborative supply chains, Decision Support Systems 42 (1) (2006) 283–301.
[38] B.M. Beamon, Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods, Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 55 (3) (1998) 281–294.
[39] J.W.M. Bertrand, J.C. Fransoo, Operations management research methodologies
using quantitative modeling, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 22 (2) (2002) 241–264.
1520 S. Seuring / Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520
[40] I. Bose, R. Pal, Do green supply chain management initiatives impact stock prices
of firms? Decision Support Systems 52 (3) (2012) 624–634.
[41] F.E. Bowen, P.D. Cousins, R.C. Lamming, A.C. Faruk, The role of supply manage-
ment capabilities in green supply, Production and Operations Management 10
(2) (2001) 174–189.
[42] C.R. Carter, P.L. Easton, Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and fu-
ture directions, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Man-
agement 41 (1) (2011) 46–62.
[43] C.J. Corbett, G.A. DeCroix, A.Y. Ha, Optimal shared-savings contracts in supply
chains: linear contracts and double moral hazard, European Journal of Operation-
al Research 163 (3) (2005) 653–677.
[44] A. Dahlsrud, How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 def-
initions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (1)
(2008) 1–13.
[45] T. Dyllick, K. Hockerts, Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability, Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment 11 (2) (2002) 130–141.
[46] M. Fleischmann, J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, R. Dekker, E. van der Laan, J.A.E.E. van
Nunen, L.N. Van Wassenhove, Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review,
European Journal of Operational Research 103 (1) (1997) 1–17.
[47] E. Garriga, D. Melé, Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territo-
ry, Journals of Business Ethics 53 (1–2) (2004) 51–71.
[48] S. Gold, S. Seuring, P. Beske, Sustainable supply chain management and
inter-organizational resources: a literature review, Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity and Environmental Management 17 (4) (2010) 230–245.
[49] S. Gold, S. Seuring, P. Beske, The constructs of sustainable supply chain management:
a content analysis based on published case studies, Progress in Industrial Ecology — An
International Journal 7 (2) (2010) 114–137.
[50] V.D.R. Guide, V. Jayaraman, R. Srivastava, W.C. Benton, Supply chain management
for recoverable manufacturing systems, Interfaces 30 (3) (2000) 125–142.
[51] R. Hahn, The ethical rational of business for the poor: integrating the concepts
bottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship, Jour-
nal of Business Ethics 84 (3) (2009) 313–324.
[52] A. Halldórsson, H. Kotzab, T. Skjott-Larsen, Supply chain management on the cross-
road to sustainability: a blessing or a curse? Logistics Research 1 (2) (2009) 83–94.
[53] W. Ho, Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: a literature re-
view, European Journal of Operational Research 186 (1) (2008) 211–228.
[54] D. Hunkeler, K. Saur, H. Stranddorf, G. Rebitzer, W.P. Schmidt, A.A. Jensen, K.
Christiansen, Life Cycle Management, SETAC, Brussels, 2003.
[55] P. Mayring, Qualitative content analysis, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1 (2)
(2000) 1–10 (http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/
1089/2386, accessed on 25 January 2012).
[56] P. Mayring, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 9th edition
Beltz, Weinheim, 2007.
[57] M.J. Meixell, V.B. Gargeya, Global supply chain design: a literature review and cri-
tique, Transportation Research: Part E 41 (6) (2005) 531–550.
[58] J.T. Mentzer, K.B. Kahn, A framework of logistics research, Journal of Business Lo-
gistics 16 (1) (1995) 231–250.
[59] J.T. Mentzer, W. DeWitt, J.S. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D. Smith, Z. Zacharia, De-
fining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2) (2001)
1–26.
[60] H. Min, G. Zhou, Supply chain modeling: past, present and future, Computers and
Industrial Engineering 43 (1–2) (2002) 231–249.
[61] D. Mollenkopf, H. Stolze, W.L. Tate, M. Ueltschy, Green, lean, and global supply
chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
40 (1–2) (2010) 14–41.
[62] A. Nagurney, J. Dong, D. Zhang, A supply chain network equilibrium model, Trans-
portation Research: Part E 38 (5) (2002) 281–303.
[63] K.A. Neuendorf, The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2002.
[64] H.L. Pesonen, Environmental management of value chains, Greener Management
International 33 (2001) 45–58.
[65] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Jour-
nal of Operational Research 48 (1) (1990) 9–26.
[66] C. Schrader, J. Freimann, S. Seuring, Business strategy at the base of the pyramid,
Business Strategy and the Environment (forthcoming) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
bse.727.
[67] S. Seuring, Industrial ecology, life-cycles, supply chains: differences and interrela-
tions, Business Strategy and the Environment 13 (5) (2004) 306–319.
[68] S. Seuring, The product-relationship-matrix as framework for strategic supply
chain design based on operations theory, International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics 120 (1) (2009) 221–232.
[69] S. Seuring, Supply chain management for sustainable products: insights from re-
search applying mixed-methodologies, Business Strategy and the Environment
20 (7) (2011) 471–484.
[70] S. Seuring, M. Müller, From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sus-
tainable supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15) (2008)
1699–1710.
[71] S. Seuring, M. Müller, Core issues in sustainable supply chain management: a Del-
phi study, Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (8) (2008) 455–466.
[72] C. Shepherd, H. Günter, Measuring supply chain performance: current research
and future directions, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 55 (3/4) (2006) 242–258.
[73] S. Srivastava, Green supply-chain management: a state-of the-art literature re-
view, International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1) (2007) 53–80.
[74] A.A. Tsay, S. Nahmias, N. Agrawal, Modelling supply chain contracts: a review, in:
Sridhar Tayur, Ram Ganeshan, Michael Magazine (Eds.), Quantitative Models for
Supply Chain Management, Kluwer, Boston, 1999, pp. 299–337.
[75] F. Wang, X. Lai, N. Shi, A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain net-
work design, Decision Support Systems 51 (2) (2011) 262–269.
Stefan Seuring is a full professor of supply chain management at the University of
Kassel, Germany. Previously, he worked at the Waikato Management School, Hamilton,
New Zealand and was a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He hold
a PhD and habilitation from the Carl von Ossietzky-University of Oldenburg, Germany.
He has published widely on sustainability and supply chain management.