THEORY BUILDING SURROUNDING SUSTAINABLE
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: ASSESSING WHAT
WE KNOW, EXPLORING WHERE TO GO
GIDEON D. MARKMAN AND DANIEL KRAUSE Colorado State University
This special topic forum (STF) features four articles that focus on sustainability, which is
generally de±ned as the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Our own research of the 500 most
cited studies on sustainability shows that scholars and managers often struggle with the
concept and applications of sustainability. To some, sustainability is about environmental
preservation, to others, it is about addressing societal needs, and yet for those who use a
±nancial lens, sustainability is primarily about the economic bottom line. Then, there are
scholars and managers for whom sustainability is synonymous with corporate social
responsibility, ethical issues, shared value creation, and/or legal compliance. Naturally, all of
the above are critical, and e²orts in these areas should continue. But as we explain, none of
these are sustainability per se, and to date, no ±rm is truly or fully sustainable. Also, most
research and practice in sustainability follows a preservation view. We advance a new
paradigm and evince that sustainable practices—whether in supply chain management or
any other business activity—are a function of two inseparable principles: (1) they must
enhance ecological health, follow ethical standards to further social justice, and improve
economic vitality; and (2) they must prioritize the environment ±rst, society second, and
economics third. Our introduction to this STF elaborates on what sustainability is and is not,
and it also summarizes the four articles in the STF.
Keywords: sustainable supply chain management; conceptual theory building
INTRODUCTION
In co-editing this special topic forum (STF) on sustainable supply chain management, we noticed that
sustainability attracts scholars from diverse disciplines —for example, supply chain management,
±nance, accounting, marketing, political science, ethics, sociology, economics, and management, to
name a few. Such cross-disciplinary e²ort is needed because over and above de±nitional challenges,
translating the concept of sustainability into managerial action is even more di³cult. This complexity
also explains why many scholars and managers still link sustainability only to discrete business
activities inbound and out- bound logistics, processes and operations, distribution channels and
service, and product use and disposal rather than assessing the totality of all business activities. It is
clear, therefore, that the concept of sustainability is still under construction for both scholars and
managers.
The word “sustain,” from the Latin sustinere (sus-, from below and tenere, to hold), means to keep in
existence or maintain, which implies long-term sup- port or permanence. From the UN Brundtland Com-
mission, sustainability is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). To the Environmental Protection Agency (USA), sustainability is a principle in
which “. . . every- thing that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or
indirectly, on our natural environment. To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions
under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support
April 2016 3 present and future generations.” To supplement cost- bene±t analyses, ecological
economists advocate a “safe minimum standards” (SMS) approach; a choice process aimed at
