Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have No Future by Pagell and Shevchenko - Article Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents 0 References 7 Introduction This paper critically analyses the article by Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. 2014, “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future”. The author’s main argument is that though sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) progressed from being a fringe topic to become mainstream increasing the odds of sustainable supply chain (SCM), the question on how to come up with sustainable supply chains is still unanswered. The author argues that this question can only be answered if researchers start treating the SSCM together with SCM. The author uses the term SSCM to address all the research that addresses both economic and non economic effects of the supply chain. The author notes that sustainability is a core necessity for survival. They assert that most of the supply chains today have low chances of success unless they take practices and business models which can help them in addressing the negative impacts they have on society and environment. This critical review will look at authors’ argument and determine its validity. Summary According to the authors, if the research aims at coming up with a sustainable supply chain, the separation that exists between SSCM and SCM must be eliminated. Future research should be designed in a way that they value special and environmental performance more or equal to the economic performance. All the SCM research should be involved in SSCM research. The main aim is to come up with a field that is able to manage sustainable supply chains rather than looking at managing unsustainable supply chains. The current knowledge is based on known practices for sustainability than looking for new practices. The authors’ notes five points that future research needs to look at in order to carry out the proposed changes. The five issues are; unknown issues about SSCM, a limited stakeholder’s view, a focus on the familiar, disadvantages of empiricism and measuring supply chain impacts. The current research looks more backward than forward due to measures that are used which does not have the ability to capture the impacts of supply chain. The author proposes that the way forward can only be achieved through changing the norms, measurement, methods and research questions (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014). Review and evaluation The authors are well versed in supply chain management. For instance, Mark Pagell had done an earlier research on supply chain management, sustainability in the mid 1990s. They have combined their exposure in the field of SCM and SSCM to come up with the article. The authors use adequate literature to introduce their argument which shows that they are well versed in supply chain management theory. The authors use the right methods in gathering evidence. The main source of evidence in this article is the peer reviewed journals on previous research in supply chain management. The authors cite credible sources of evidence. In order to adequately support a thesis statement, one is supposed to look at the previous research on the topic (Sikdar, 2003). Previous research gives a clear insight on the topic, especially through the use of peer reviewed sources. In defining sustainable supply chain management, the author looks at the work of several authors who have defined the concept. This helps the authors in coming up with a definition that is built up of all these definitions by several authors. The final definition is thus more accurate and broader. The evidence used by the author is very accurate. For instance, several studies have cited how SSCM have become a vital field of study (Xia & Tang, 2011). SSCM have become a mainstream issue, enabling it to have its own journals and tracks in conferences (Seuring & Müller, 2008). For example, an article by Sikdar (2003), describes SSCM as a popular field of study. Popularity of the SSCM is due to the challenges that companies have to face in today’s world such as climate change, financial crisis among others (Rao & Hold, 2005). The authors claim that currently, there is more knowledge on how to adapt to existing practices on sustainable supply chain than to new practices. There is less focus on new methods that can help in sustainability (Carter & Jennings, 2011). This is proved true through insight into the SSCM (Rao & Hold, 2005). The author claim that previous research was focused on synergetic and familiar views and failed to look at the trade offs and radical innovation is valid. According to Carter & Jennings (2011), reducing harm cannot imply that it has been eliminated. This claim is supported by several articles which claim that research looks at how to make unsustainable supply chains to be less unsustainable (Rao & Hold, 2005). There is little research on how to create supply chains that are fully sustainable and can even have positive impacts on the environment and socially (Sikdar, 2003). This is an issue that needs to address in order to come up with research that does not separate SCM and SSCM. The author supports their issues adequately with previous research. When looking at whether it pays to be sustainable, the authors have looked at previous research from several authors. A Meta analysis by Seuring & Müller (2008) proved that it pays to be sustainable. The authors analyse the situation and comes to a conclusion that future research have to look at the stakeholders who do not have economic benefit in the supply chain. This is supported by the fact that most of the research has not done enough to deal with tradeoffs (Xia & Tang, 2011). The authors claim that most of the focus is based on familiar practices is valid. By increasing the focus on the familiar practices, it is likely that new research overlooks new practices. It has been proved that having adequate understanding of coming up with sustainable supply chains is vital on creation of new methods. Several studies have supported changes in practices used in SCM models (Seuring & Müller, 2008). The authors are right in their arguments that by just looking at the existing practices, it is possible to miss a chance to come up with new types of supply chain models. Studies have shown that last two decades have focused on coming up with new methods that have helped to optimise supply chain with an aim of sustainability (Xia & Tang, 2011). This is a proof that sustainability of supply chain has to be optimised through research and coming up with new methods (Carter & Jennings, 2011). Sustainability is beyond current practices and requires continuous research. According to the authors, empiricism limits the research on sustainability. They claim that most of the empirical research is backward looking. By critically looking at the claim, it is true that the type of research has a capability to limit the understanding of coming up with a sustainable supply chain. Measuring supply chain impact is a contentious issue (Rao & Hold, 2005). For managers, they look at the profitability. The manager’s view may not be similar to the views of other stakeholders. There is a need to use measures that are not only associated with the management perceptions. The article proposes that the way forward can be achieved through changing norms, measurements, methods and the questions used in research. Through the changes that are occurring in the field of SCM and SSCM, the norms will eventually change. This is supported by the fact that the two fields have been changing over the past years (Srivastava, 2007). It is important to realise that sustainability cannot be measured through its economic contribution alone. There are other stakeholders who benefit from sustainability despite the fact that they have no economic stake in the chain. The main issue that the researchers should be asking themselves is whether supply chains are truly sustainable. It has been proved through study that a multidisciplinary approach can help in capturing all stakeholders involved in supply chain, hence catering for them all (Zhu, Sarskis & Lai, 2007). This supports the claim by the authors of the article that sustainability cannot be addressed through one perspective only. Outliers in this research are an important source of insight. There is a need to focus on literature that addresses sustainable supply chain correctly. Proper measurements while doing research is prudent (Rao & Hold, 2005). This helps to identify all stakeholders involved. There is also need to get ahead of the practice as proposed by the author. A research done by Seuring & Müller (2008), propose that a greater understanding of the SSCM can be achieved through looking at the supply chain from different perspectives. This involves the use of participatory form of research. The author’s assertion that sourcing and SCM research can help to come up with change that leads to a sustainable supply chain is valid. The authors have utilised sufficient research to come up with this point (Srivastava, 2007). It has been proved that in every decision that is made by the researchers, there are tradeoffs (Linton, Klassen & Jayaraman, 2007). This means that every suggestion that is made in a research comprise of tradeoffs. According to the article, the authors look for a time when SCM and SSCM research are combined. This is a major step that can enhance the creation of sustainable supply chain management (Rao & Hold, 2005). There are still several obstacles that have to be overcome in order for both researches to be combined. The main issue that can lead to this change is the manner in which research is conducted as suggested by other studies (Xia & Tang, 2011). According to the authors, a major issue on the current study is the limited focus on the stakeholders and existing norms. A study done by Abbasi & Nilsson (2012), support this view. There are stakeholders who have different focus on supply chain. The arguments used by the authors are logical as we cannot engage in research that focus on unsustainability and expect the supply chain to be sustainable. There is a need for change in way of carrying out research and make it more logical (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008). The authors’ uses valid arguments as explained to come up with their conclusion which is supported by several peer reviewed articles. By critically analysing the article, the authors have been successful in making their point. The recommendations they make are capable of helping in coming up with sustainable supply chains. Conclusion By critically evaluating the article, I fully agree with the authors. The question on how to come up with a sustainable supply chain still remains unanswered. The researchers still treat the field of SCM and SSCM separately. This makes it hard to come up with truly sustainable supply chains. There is a need to come up with new practices that can enhance sustainability. The future research must address issues given in order to come up with more sustainable supply chains. Changes in norms, methods of measurements and the research questions used can act as the way forward to current research. Unless we change the means of conducting our research through use of sourcing and SCM, it will be hard to come up with fully sustainable supply chains. Despite this, there is need for more research on the issue. Reference lists Abbasi, M & Nilsson, F 2012, “Themes and challenges in making supply chains environmentally sustainable”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17,No. 5, pp.517-530. Carter, C. R & Jennings, M. M 2011, “Logistics social responsibility. An integrative framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol.23, No.1, pp.145-180. Hutchins, J & Sutherland, J. W 2008, “An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol.16, pp.1688-1698. Linton, J. D., Klassen, R & Jayaraman, V 2007, “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal of operations management, Vo.l.25, pp.1075-1082. Pagell, M & Shevchenko, A 2014, “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol.50, no.1, p.44-55. Rao, P & Hold, D 2005, “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?” Internaitonal Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, p. 898-916. Seuring, S & Müller, M 2008, “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production Vol.16, No.15, pp.1699-1710. Sikdar, S. K 2003, “Sustainable development and sustainability metrics”, AIChE Journal, Vol.49, no.8, pp.1928-1932. Srivastava, S.K 2007, “Green supply chain management: a state Of The art literature review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.9, no.1, pp.53-80. Zhu, Q., Sarskis, J & Lai, K 2007, “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.15,pp. 1041-1052 Xia, Y., & Tang, T. L.P. 2011, “Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: Suggestions for the auto industry”. Management Decision,Vol. 49, No.4, pp.495-512. Read More