Research paper

The evolution from corporate social

responsibility to supply chain responsibility:
the case of Waitrose
Laura Spence
Centre for Research into Sustainability, School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK, and
Michael Bourlakis
Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the evolution from corporate social responsibility to supply chain responsibility via the examination of
Waitrose, a leading UK food retailer. These two concepts differ substantially and illustrate contrasting approaches in terms of social responsibility
development and application.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative case study methodology is used where managers from Waitrose and its suppliers, industry experts
and representatives from professional bodies are interviewed. An observation of an ethical audit with a Waitrose supplier was also conducted.
Findings – Findings show an example of good practice in the area of corporate social responsibility in the supply chain and illustrate the substantive
progress that can be made in achieving supply chain responsibility. At the same time, the paper provides the specific challenges in developing from a
corporate social watchdog approach to one in which the power in the chain is more balanced and where a holistic approach requires to be taken to
achieve social responsibility.
Originality/value – Considering the scarcity of work examining empirically the issue of corporate social responsibility in food supply chains, this study
demonstrates an evolutionary process and its stages based on an examination of Waitrose’s supply chain and the corporate social responsibility
approach it has taken with its suppliers. The authors also illustrate a range of key implications that need to be considered by both managers and policy
makers and it provides a range of areas where further research is required.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Supply chain management, Food industry, United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction In this paper we advance the theoretical understanding of

To date, any corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues
relating to supply chains have tended to be focused on labour
standards in factory suppliers based in developing countries
(see for example Fabian and Hill, 2005) as experienced to
their cost by firms such as Gap and Nike (Zadek, 2004). In
fact, supply chain CSR challenges are closer to home than
might at first be acknowledged and warrant more detailed
scrutiny than thus far received (Spence, 2006). Here, we are
also concerned with a perspective on supply chain CSR which
takes the view from the dominant company in the chain, the
retailer, particularly in relation to small suppliers.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
CSR and the supply chain. We use the empirical example of
the UK food retailer Waitrose to illustrate this conceptual
development. We argue that CSR, defined as the
“consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow
economic, technical and legal requirements of the firm to
accomplish social (and environmental) benefits along with the
traditional economic gains which the firm seeks” (Aguilera
et al., 2007, pp. 836-837), is an inadequate concept for
capturing the necessary level of social responsibility for the
whole supply chain critical in today’s complex and integrated
economic context. We develop a new approach called supply
chain responsibility (SCR). Supply chain responsibility is the
chain-wide consideration of, and response to, issues beyond
the narrow economic, technical and legal requirements of the
supply chain to accomplish social (and environmental)
benefits along with the traditional economic gains which

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

The research on which this paper is in part based was funded by the
14/4 (2009) 291– 302 Institute for Business Ethics. The authors would like to thank seminar
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] participants at Cardiff Business School and the School of Management at
[DOI 10.1108/13598540910970126] Bath University for feedback on earlier versions of this work.

291
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
every member in that supply chain seeks. Importantly,
however, we argue that even in the best case examples, SCR
has not yet been achieved in practice. Instead, current best
practice is reflective of a corporate social watchdog approach
that is focused on the socially responsible credentials of a
single actor in the chain being pushed up the supply chain.
SCR is important for scholars, policy makers and business
alike. For academics researching supply chains and business
ethics, focusing on individual organisations truncates the
possibility of understanding inter-organisational issues.
Supply chain managers sit at an organisation’s boundaries,
acting as a critical interface with important stakeholders
including customers and suppliers (Carter and Jennings,
2002). For policy makers trying to improve the social
responsibility of business practices, supply chain management
can be used to transfer CSR initiatives beyond the individual
firm, acting as a multiplier effect for social responsibility
(Preuss, 2000, p. 143).
CSR mitigates the risks in supply chain management (Faisal
et al., 2006, p. 539). If upstream suppliers are adopting poor
management practices (in terms of labour, environmental,
health and safety standards etc.), customers risk the security
and sustainability of their supply chain as well as their own
reputations (Eltantawy et al., 2009; Roberts, 2003).
The next section examines the relevant literature focussing
on the key aspects of the customer-supplier relationship. It is
followed by another conceptual section where the evolution
from corporate social responsibility to supply chain
responsibility is presented.
In the remainder of the paper we analyse the methodology
applied, followed by an examination of a case study from the
UK supermarket Waitrose, which is renowned for having
good supply chain relationships. We reflect on CSR, corporate
social watchdog and SCR and how Waitrose’s practices
illustrate these different conceptual phases.
2. Literature review
Research on supply chain social responsibility is
multidisciplinary in nature and accordingly can be found in
both the purchasing, supply chain management, logistics (e.g.
Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Carter and Jennings,
2002; Cooper et al., 1997; Cox, 2004; De Vlieger, 2006;
Walker and Brammer, 2009) and the business ethics/CSR
(e.g. Hamann et al., 2005; Maloni and Brown, 2006; Preuss,
2000; Roberts, 2003; Van Tulder et al., 2008) literature as
well as in mainstream management (e.g. Liker and Choi,
2004; Munson et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2007). The small
business/entrepreneurship literature presents a supplier
perspective (e.g. Arend and Wisner, 2005; Holmlund and
Kock, 1996). This is also a topic of great interest to policy
makers, with reports and position papers from relevant non-
governmental organisations and government bodies (e.g.
BRTF, 2003; Ram and Smallbone, 2003; Spence, 2006).
Based on specific management theories, tools and models, De
Vlieger (2006) also developed a conceptual model for
managing CSR in food supply chains in the Netherlands.
That work took into account other models and frameworks
including the model on interorganisational relationships
proposed by Ring and Van de Ven (1994). Van Tulder et al.
(2008) used a focus on the development of codes of conduct
292
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
around health and safety issues for multinational enterprises
to explore a shift from liability to social responsibility in the
supply chain.
The extant literature deals with social issues in the supply
chain in different ways. First is a focus on the relationships
between customers and suppliers. Second is research around
the intervention of usually large customers in the working
practices of usually smaller suppliers. Finally there is also
industry-specific literature that pulls together risks and
challenges particularly pertinent in a given sector. An
expanded view of the literature relating to supply chain
social responsibility and the food supply chain (FSC) is
summarised in Table I.
2.1 Supply chain relationships and partnerships
In general, the supply chain management theory advocates
that the use of one or a few long-term suppliers results in
heightened operational benefits for the firms involved
(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Spekman et al., 1998) and
supports the development of a long-term relationship.
Cox (2004) also argues that the notion of a complete win-
win situation between supplier and buyer is mythical, and that
the nature of transactional exchanges is determined by the
balance of power between them. Nevertheless, both De
Vlieger (2006) and Van Tulder et al. (2008) advocate dialogue
with suppliers and working toward partnership as important
in developing positive social responsibility in the supply chain.
The above points are extremely relevant to the UK (FSC)
with Fearne (1998) examining partnerships in that chain. He
notes how difficult it is for them to be developed under the
current business environment and appreciates the hard work,
trust and commitment required by both parties involved.
Duffy and Fearne (2004) also stress that the retailer-supplier
relationship in the FSC depends on the market structure and
the type of product supplied “because this determines
available choice and the power of prospective partners in a
market” (Duffy and Fearne, 2004, p. 147).
2.2 “Negotiation”, honesty, openness and trust in
supply chain relationships
The power balance and type of relationship between buyers
and suppliers will in turn affect the terms of engagement of
the association and how they are negotiated and altered over
time. Holmlund and Kock (1996, p. 37) note that small
suppliers are more or less “captives” in the buyer relationship,
being dependent on their relationship and in a weak
negotiation position, often with no real choice but to do
what is asked of them (Cox, 2004). Munson et al. (1999)
identify how power dominance can be used in terms of pricing
control (e.g. putting pressure on suppliers to reduce costs),
inventory control (e.g. requiring just-in-time delivery from
suppliers), operations control (e.g. requiring compliance with
quality, environmental or social standards).
Carter and Jennings (2002) identify ethical issues relating to
honesty in the supplier relationship including lying or
misleading a supplier, for example when a buyer exaggerates
the seriousness of a problem to gain concessions from a
supplier (Cooper et al., 1997; Wood, 1996), or sharing
information about suppliers with competitors. The trend
towards closer relationships between suppliers and buyers can
cause ethical problems if representatives get to know each
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302

Table I Summary of supply chain social responsibility literature related to FSC

Category Focus Key literature
Relationships between Power, partnership and integration of the supply chain Cox (2004); Hingley (2005); Morissey and Pittaway (2004); De
buyers and suppliers Vlieger (2006); Van Tulder et al. (2008)
Negotiation, honesty, openness, trust in supply relationships Holmlund and Kock (1996); Munson et al. (1999); Carter and
Jennings (2002); Atkinson (2003)
Supplier selection and delisting: enabling supplier diversity (e.g. Ram and Smallbone (2003); Spence (2006)
SMEs/ethnic minority businesses/women-owned businesses)
Extended responsibility The appropriateness of extended responsibility Preuss (2000); Lamprecht (2000); Arend and Wisner (2005);
Spence (2006)
Monitoring and auditing versus engagement with suppliers Jamison and Murdoch (2004); Fabian and Hill (2005)
Industry-specific issues Extreme dominance of supermarkets Dawson (2004); Duffy and Fearne (2004)
The food sector
Seasonal supply – temporary labour Maloni and Brown (2006)
Highly competitive – promotional offers and price competition Duffy and Fearne (2004); Institute of Grocery Distribution
(2002)
Growth of retail brands and direct sourcing Burt (2000); Dawson (2004)
Consumer safety – Hygiene Kuznesof and Brennan (2004)
Animal welfare – husbandry, use of antibiotics and hormone Hubbard et al. (2007), Maloni and Brown (2006)
treatments, feed, transportation, slaughter
Arable farming – Genetic engineering, use of pesticides, organic/ Morgan and Murdoch (2000), Butler et al. (2004)
conventional
Fair trade Bourlakis and Vizard (2007), Maloni and Brown (2006)
Perishable goods – short life Fearne and Hughes (1999)
Packaging Sparks et al. (2006)
Labelling Fulton and Giannakas (2004)

other too well and lose their objectivity as working
relationships become personal relationships (Wood, 1996;
Atkinson, 2003). While clear-cut cases of bribing are clearly
unethical, the line becomes blurred when disproportionate
gifts are offered and accepted which are not relevant to the
business being proposed (Spence, 2006).
2.3 Supplier selection and delisting: enabling supplier
diversity
Supplier diversity (SD) refers to initiatives that aim to
increase the number of different suppliers such as ethnic-
minority owned, women-owned, disabled owners which are
often SMEs (Ram and Smallbone, 2003). There is a tendency
in supplier selection to focus on large, well-established
suppliers (BRTF, 2003, p. 9). SMEs are more likely to offer
innovative solutions and products, better customer care and
after-sales service, a more flexible and responsive approach to
changing needs, and local access and, therefore, a speedier
response (BRTF, 2003, p. 7). Here we look separately at the
selection issues around SMEs.
However, SMEs can be disadvantaged in the supply chain
by factors such as supplier rationalisation, programmes of
standardisation, complex invitations to tender (Ram and
Smallbone, 2003, p. 189), aggregation and compliance with
voluntary standards requirements. Ethnic-minority
businesses, women owned and disabled owners might
additionally face direct discrimination. Even CSR
requirements may be a disincentive to working with smaller
organisations that are unlikely to be engaged in formal
standards (Graafland et al., 2003; Spence, 1999), and
encourage large firms to concentrate on a few, established
suppliers (Hamann et al., 2005, p. 14).
2.4 Extended responsibility: auditing vs engagement
The literature on social responsibility and suppliers tends to
focus on the requirement by large companies to take
responsibility for their suppliers’ activities. Preuss (2000,
p. 152) is one of the few who engages with the
appropriateness of this extended responsibility and asks
“whether the whole process of a company imposing criteria
on suppliers, even if they are socially responsible, can lay
claim to a moral quality or whether it simply represents an
extension of buyer power over suppliers.” Lamprecht (2000)
argues that an organisation should trust the craft and
competence of the supplier, not interfering with their
practices. Demands made, often by multiple customers, may
be incommensurate with normal operating practices (Spence,
2006) given that small business’ operational practices are
quite different from those of large firms (Holliday, 1995;
Spence, 1999). Small suppliers might not use the same tools
or language of ethics as large firms (Pedersen, 2009), they
often have perfectly laudable practices in ethical terms
(Murillo and Lozano, 2006). However, the supply chain is
the most important pressure for most small suppliers to
engage with CSR (Hamann et al., 2005, p. 14) and there are
learning opportunities for the SME in supply chain
management (Macpherson and Wilson, 2003).
When a large customer commits to extended responsibility
for its supply chain, the current trend is for it to engage in a
programme of monitoring suppliers taking the form of audits.
Jamison and Murdoch (2004) point out that at best an audit

293
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
can only take a snapshot of what is happening in a supplier
business but often does not explore why it is happening or
how the situation can be improved. Without effective follow-
up and engagement, audits alone are unlikely to be effective
(Fabian and Hill, 2005). There is increasing awareness that
traditional audit approaches will not work for small suppliers
which are unlikely to have the same levels of formal or written
procedures in place. It is important that audits, or other
assessment mechanisms, are tailored to suit the supplier in
question.
3. From corporate social responsibility to supply
chain responsibility
In this section we outline the theoretical development from a
situation of CSR to the new ideal that we are advancing,
supply chain responsibility. We propose that a middle stage in
this process is key, that of the corporate social watchdog (see
Figure 1). The latter stage strengthens the uniqueness and
originality of our model compared to other relevant models
raised in the CSR literature, especially combined with an
empirical focus (see for example, work by De Vlieger, 2006;
Van Tulder et al., 2008).
3.1 Corporate social responsibility
Where social responsibility issues have been made
operational, the standard practice is the well-established one
of CSR. While it is a contested concept (Lockett et al., 2006),
a consensus of sorts has been reached on the core
characteristics of CSR. These are that it is voluntary,
involves internalising or managing externalities,
encompassing a multiple stakeholder orientation, with
alignment of social and economic responsibilities, includes
both practices and values and goes beyond philanthropy
(Crane et al., 2008, pp. 7-8). The UK government definition
is as follows:
CSR is essentially about companies moving beyond a base of legal
compliance to integrating socially responsible behaviour into their core
values, in recognition of the sound business benefits in doing so
(www.csr.gov.uk/ukpolicy.shtml).
Figure 1 From CSR to CSW to SCR
294
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
While stakeholder engagement is part of this approach, the
focus is clearly on the corporation as an entity at the hub of its
stakeholders, suggesting a rather egocentric view of the
operating environment. Where the CSR approach to supply
chains is dominant, the corporation views itself as having no
closer a relationship to its supply chain partners than other
stakeholders. This reflects adversarial relationships that are
characterised by open market negotiations around price-based
factors (see Figure 2).
This position could be illustrated by Nike in the 1990s,
when they had social responsibility programmes and codes of
conduct but did not consider the labour conditions in their
supplier companies to be of concern to them. This is a view
which they have radically changed in the subsequent decades
(see Zadek, 2004).
The unilateral perspective of CSR would be reflected by an
inward looking Code of Conduct in which emphasis is put on
the organisational ethos. In such an organisation, in order to
understand the perspective on social responsibility in the
supply chain, we should look to the purchasing ethics of the
buyers (Carter and Jennings, 2002) and their individual
motivations (Bakker and Kamman, 2007).
3.2 Corporate social watchdog
As awareness of the corporation’s embeddedness in the supply
chain becomes clear – perhaps through a public scandal such
as that experienced by Nike (Zadek, 2004), or the
Morecambe Bay Cockle pickers tragedy (Meadowcroft and
Blundell, 2004) – the corporation’s members are made aware
of the impact which irresponsible behaviour by their suppliers
can have on them. This matches a general approach that takes
the corporation from the nodal point of its stakeholders in
dyadic relationships to being the dominant organisation in a
supply chain network. Hence, the corporation moves to more
co-operative stages aiming to coordinate the exchange of its
values in the supply chain (see Figure 2). Activities of others
in the supply chain become a risk to the reputation of the
corporation (Eltantawy et al., 2009). This risk can be
mitigated by extending responsibility through the supply
chain (Faisal et al., 2006; Spekman and Davis, 2004).
This notion of extended responsibility we will call the
corporate social watchdog (CSW) approach. The major
dominant corporation – commonly a supermarket in the food
sector – acknowledges its dominant and powerful position in
the food chain and, rather than disassociate from suppliers,
seeks to set the standards and to guide them according to the
corporation’s values and expectations that is another case of
coordination of value exchange in the supply chain (see
Figure 2). At the extreme, it may be viewed that the
corporation takes a paternalistic degree of moral responsibility
for the suppliers, acting in loco parentis, almost as if they were
subsidiaries of the corporation. This approach may be
motivated by good will, but is also in the enlightened self-
interest of the corporation.
In the CSW approach the relationship between the
corporation and its suppliers becomes a dominant focus of
consideration. Cox (2004) has noted that despite a rhetoric of
partnership and win-win situations, power differences remain
an issue. Indeed, SMEs can be very sceptical about
partnership with large organizations (Morissey and Pittaway,
2004). There is some evidence that the power imbalance and
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
Figure 2 The transition from open-market negotiations to collaboration
inevitability of such stances is understood and accepted by
small suppliers (Hingley, 2005).
3.3 Supply chain responsibility
We are proposing an approach to responsibility that goes
beyond both CSR and CSW to take a perspective from the
whole of the supply chain called supply chain responsibility
(SCR). SCR is the chain-wide consideration of, and response
to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical and legal
requirements of the supply chain to accomplish social (and
environmental) benefits along with the traditional economic
gains which every member in that supply chain seeks. The key
features of SCR are:
1 A chain-wide commitment to achieving social (and
environmental) benefits.
2 The legitimacy and possibility of all links in the chain to
have a voice.
3 Genuine partnership approach.
4 Acknowledgement of different approaches to ethics by
different organisational forms within the supply chain.
For a significant shift to be made from CSR to CSW to SCR,
all members of the supply chain need to be committed to the
achievement of social and environmental goals as well as
economic ones with the issue of commitment having been also
raised in relevant CSR work in the past (see for example, De
Vlieger, 2006). Overall, in many respects, the public mood
has shifted, with an expectation of social responsibility across
the private and public sectors.
CSR and CSW are both focused on the dominance of the
individual corporation. The shift to SCR requires the
expansion of activity to the whole supply chain. SCR
involves taking responsibility beyond the extended enterprise
(Spekman and Davis, 2004), and requires others than the
dominant corporation to find their voice, and indeed have it
heard. Where SCR is the approach taken, all members have a
contribution to make in terms of how the responsibility
should be played out. This might include individual suppliers,
representative trade associations, trade unions and consumer
bodies.
SCR also puts relationships and partnerships at the heart of
tackling social responsibility issues, requiring more
sophisticated management (Johnsen et al., 2008). This is the
295
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
partnership approach that is based on collaboration (see
Figure 2) where each member commits to that partnership. It
allows the joint planning of goals, objectives and supply chain
activities between individual firms aiming to achieve a highly
committed, integrated partnership based on open two-way
flow of communication and information sharing.
Implicit in the CSR and CSW approaches is the privileging
of the assumed standard of ethics of the corporation over the
practices and actions of other organisations and groups in the
supply chain. In SCR this is not the case no one organisation’s
ethics should dominate the chain. Accordingly, the social
responsibility and ethical standards are determined via the
partnerships along the chain. Understandably, achieving this
would require sophisticated co-ordination and is an
aspirational target, but should be a priority if SCR is to be
achieved.
4. Methodology
In our empirical work, we employed a qualitative case study
methodology aiming to facilitate the in-depth exploration of
the case- in hand and to provide rich knowledge of a specific
context (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The data represented here is drawn from a wider research
study on ethics in the UK supply chain completed for the
Institute of Business Ethics (for the full report see Spence,
2006). The primary source of information was interviews with
key decision-makers in organisations which is a typical
interrogative method in case research (see Miles and
Huberman, 1994). Over 25 interviews were carried out with
people from the case study companies, suppliers, a small
business professional body, a purchasing professional body
and industry experts. Interviews were recorded, transcribed
and analysed to present a rounded picture of the company
with input from different perspectives in relation to supply
chain issues. In addition, an observation was done of an
ethical audit with a Waitrose supplier, given the pseudonym
here of F&V. The qualitative analysis was undertaken by
identifying key themes, which is a common approach in this
discipline and is known as “thematic” analysis (Banister et al.,
1994). More specifically, the “thematic” analysis is a coherent
way of organising primary material and enables data to speak
for itself (Banister et al., 1994).
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
Specific quotes from the interviewees are also provided in
the next section, primarily because they are of some value in
defining, supporting or elaborating the researcher’s
interpretation of events (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
5. Case example: Waitrose[1]
Waitrose Ltd is over 100 years old with 198 supermarkets and
has 3.9 per cent of the UK supermarket market. Annual
turnover is just under £4 billion. It is part of the John Lewis
Partnership which has an unusual system of co-ownership
whereby 69,000 employees, called “partners”, have a say in
how the business is run and share its profits. The lack of
traditional shareholders gives Waitrose a certain freedom to
act according to its principles rather than responding to the
demands of increasing shareholder value. With its historically
ethically aware perspective, dealing with social issues is not
new terrain for Waitrose. Corporate policy and strategy for
CSR in the John Lewis Partnership is developed in relation to
the environment, responsible sourcing, community
investment and partner (employee) welfare. These issues are
managed by a risk assessment approach. Each year all the
potential CSR issues relating to the four key areas mentioned
are reviewed in terms of significance to the business based on
legislation, cost, stakeholder concern (customers, Partners,
suppliers) and whether the organisation has the ability to
change and respond. Key to the organisation’s success in
terms of the fairness of its supply chain is the engagement of
the senior management and resulting top level commitment to
responsible sourcing, which is framed in business as well as
ethical terms.
There is a raft of activity at Waitrose that is overseen by the
Responsible Sourcing Steering Committee. The committee
comprises of heads of department of those areas involved in
the practical day-to-day realities of buying and trading
including food technologists, buyers, ethical trading experts,
elected representatives and marketing professionals. To date
there is no external representation on the Responsible
Sourcing Steering Committee, which indicates a CSR
approach of this aspect of the activities. The types of
initiatives undertaken at Waitrose and overseen by the
Responsible Sourcing Steering Committee are illustrated
below, and demonstrate a keen concern for social
responsibility issues in the supply chain, reflecting a CSW
approach. These include two cross-sector initiatives.
5.1 Cross-sector initiatives
5.1.1 Temporary labour practices in the supply chain
In the fresh produce sector Waitrose identify the key sector-
specific issues as health and safety, proper remuneration for
workers, bonded labour, exposure to risk and temporary
labour. The Morecambe Bay cockle picking disaster when 23
illegal Chinese immigrants died in February 2004 highlighted
the problem of poor temporary labour conditions, resulting in
the establishment of the Temporary Labour Working
Group[2] (of which Waitrose was a member). The
standards developed by this group became the basis of those
adopted by the Gangmaster Licensing Act that came into
force in April 2006. Under the Act, all temporary labour in
the agriculture, forestry, horticulture, shellfish gathering and
food processing and packaging sectors now have to be
296
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
licensed and achieve acceptable minimum standards for
labour provision.
5.1.2 Suppliers ethical data interchange (SEDEX)
SEDEX came about because Waitrose and a number of other
retailers realised that suppliers were required to go through
discrete audits for each customer, with resource implications
for suppliers and inconsistencies between codes. Audit data
on individual suppliers is shared through the SEDEX web
pages and all Waitrose’s supplier audit information is
managed through SEDEX. The Board is responsible for
ensuring that SEDEX is commercially astute and ethically
guided.
5.2 Responsible sourcing code of practice
This is the flagship of Responsible Sourcing at Waitrose and
was launched in 1999. It covers the employment of children,
forced labour, health, safety and hygiene, discipline, freedom
of association and employee representation, working hours,
equality of treatment, wages, and regular employment. The
code (see www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/) draws
particularly on the International Labour Organisation
standards (see www.ilo.org). It also covers environmental
protection and animal welfare issues.
5.3 Risk assessment
New suppliers are required to complete a detailed self-
assessment questionnaire and analysed according to a pre-
determined weighted analysis of areas of vulnerability. High-
risk organisations are subsequently required to undergo an
independent ethical audit against the responsible sourcing
policy at their own cost. To put this in context, there are
nearly always areas of non-compliance in an audit report, the
issue is how significant they are and importantly how the
suppliers then act to correct these. Suppliers are not de-listed
as a result of initial non-compliance but a programme of
corrective action is agreed and monitored. Indeed, there is a
move by Waitrose to get away from focusing on ethical
assurance to engaging with suppliers in tackling the issues and
determination to manage the business risks in a way that is
sustainable and has the least burden on suppliers.
5.4 External supplier accreditation schemes and quality
control
Waitrose seek further assurances of quality products through
external accreditation schemes (such as the Assured Food
Standards) and their own. In the UK food chain Assured
Food Standards (AFS) are the primary body for accreditation,
using the Red Tractor scheme (see www.redtractor.org.uk)
and the British Retail Consortium guidelines (see www.brc.
org.uk). The main sections of the standard are: HACCP
System, Quality Management System, Factory Environment
Standards, Product Control, Process Control, and Personnel.
These are monitored by Waitrose food technologists, who are
a face-to-face representative of Waitrose and able to note
other (ethical, social and environmental) issues also. As one
food technologist says:
For example, if you’re on a factory floor you might not be going to audit
factory cleanliness or health and safety but you can’t fail to notice (other
things) . . . so we would ask if we could look at, two or three things, we get an
idea of which subjects are likely to be the ones that are more challenging, we
target on those.
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
While the response required for a small firm to meet customer
requirements is disproportionate, some note the positive
affect on their organisation.
One small supplier said:
The relationship with Waitrose has taught me a lot, especially in areas you
wouldn’t necessarily need to consider when dealing with smaller outlets, like
the use of bar codes, sizing of product, packaging, layout and distribution. I
was able to access some good advice and can now apply this depth of
professionalism to all my customer relationships.
This is a clear case of Waitrose pushing good practice down
the supply chain, in accordance with CSW.
5.5 Supplier ethical audit
The use of supplier ethical audits represents a clear corporate
social watchdog approach, with Waitrose seeking to assess the
activities of suppliers, reaching into their operational
practices, and requiring suppliers to meet Waitrose’s
standards.
An independent ethical auditor carries out audits for
Waitrose on their suppliers identified as high risk at the
suppliers’ cost. Other random audits are made at Waitrose’s
cost. There follows here observation data from one such
audit, for a “medium risk” supplier. F&V is a medium-sized
supplier which imports and distributes fruit and vegetables.
Waitrose’s custom is about 25 per cent of the business, the
rest being from other major supermarkets. The audit follows
the topics in the Waitrose Responsible Sourcing Code. The
assessment visit contained the following elements: a visual
inspection of the factory, a visual inspection of the canteen
and changing facilities, discussions with managers, interviews
with 11 randomly selected permanent non-English speaking
workers using a translator and seven workers carried out in
English plus a review of factory records.
A number of non-compliances with the Waitrose
Responsible Sourcing Code were identified. Some of the key
ones were: the taking of deposits for safety shoes, inconsistent
use of contracts and a number of health and safety issues.
These issues were addressed by corrective actions recorded in
the audit report and monitored by Waitrose via SEDEX.
F&V in turn monitors its own suppliers (of which they have
20-30). They visit European suppliers once or twice a season,
worldwide once per year, working on agronomics, production
quality, pest control, environmental issues, accreditation,
Ethical Trading Initiative compliance, health and safety, fire
escapes and machinery. They follow up on much of the
similar areas as the Waitrose Responsible Sourcing Code.
Some suppliers already have third party ethical audits that can
be checked. The technical manager responsible for the visits is
“Happy to be creating meaningful, sustainable jobs”. F&V are
moving towards monitoring their own suppliers using
SEDEX, though this is not without its challenges. He says:
“Some suppliers require a lot of encouragement and
support”.
Suppliers pay for their own registration. Support is
provided through events such as supplier conferences and
training and guidance materials on how to complete the
online information in SEDEX. There is very little contact
with suppliers further up the chain apart from through grower
schemes, which are very small growers who group together
because they are too small to deal with individually. F&V do
not get involved with wider second tier suppliers. The
297
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
company invests in farming projects in Africa driven by local
requirements, e.g. health medical centre, schools, social
centres.
5.6 Managing supplier relationships
In keeping with a CSW approach, great emphasis is put on the
partnership approach at Waitrose when a long-term view is
taken of supplier selection and retention. The Director,
Agriculture and Meat, Poultry, Fish, Frozen Food and Dairy
Buying says:
Our supply chain strategy ensures security of supply and is linked to farmers,
processors and customers. Its success is based on efficient, well invested and
innovative suppliers and the ability to take a long-term view, a perfect fit with
agriculture and gaining farmers’ confidence.
Collaboration is the key to achieving our goal for the Waitrose brand to have
wide appeal working together to gain consistent quality and value for money
whether for our everyday ranges or premium assortments.
Establishing a supply chain involves engaging in every stage of the process
from farming, processing and retailing. Waitrose are experienced in each
area, working together sharing responsibility and leading on performance
management and environmental gain.
This approach supports Waitrose’s goal of finding unusual,
very high quality products. Accessing these sources requires a
collaborative approach with suppliers. During the selection
process Waitrose might get involved with everything from
factory facilities to some financial support, or by buddying
them with an established supplier. The developing
relationship is ongoing, with regular buyer meetings.
Business plans are required and reviewed half-yearly. From
the supplier perspective, however, having a good relationship
with the customer and its representatives does not necessarily
mean that the relationship is considered to be a partnership,
as one small supplier clarifies:
The people at Head Office, the buyers, they know us, I call them by their
first names, we’ve got a good relationship but I don’t see it as a partnership,
it’s not at arms length because we talk and they know who we are (so in that
sense) we’re a partner but I think we’re a supplier, we’re a small regional
supplier which I don’t call that a partnership.
The above aspects demonstrate Waitrose as an actor with a
largely CSW approach to managing their supply chain. In
some respects, however, they demonstrate a significant move
to the SCR approach, by seeking to understand their
suppliers’ perspectives.
5.7 Understanding the supplier’s perspective
Considerable effort is made to engage with suppliers through
the following initiatives.
5.7.1 Supplier feedback
Supplier surveys are used to encourage feedback to Waitrose.
In addition in the meat, poultry, fish and dairy section for
example, twelve long standing key suppliers work together to
give more feedback on what opportunities there are and how
relationships with Waitrose and efficiency could be improved.
5.7.2 Waitrose local producers
The Waitrose Local Producer’s programme, that won the
2003 Business in the Community Award for Excellence
(Rural Action), is designed to enable small, local producers to
supply the stores. Small firms supplying very small quantities
to Waitrose are required to comply to similar but appropriate
levels when compared to larger scale suppliers.
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
Consumer enthusiasm for locally produced products means
that such schemes are not unique to Waitrose, but suppliers
are particularly enthusiastic about the Waitrose version:
The Waitrose Small Producer Scheme is brilliant. All the supermarkets are
starting to do this now and do it well. But I definitely get a sense of the
different motivations for introducing such a scheme. For me it was important
to work with a supermarket like Waitrose, who shares the same values and
commitment to quality and environmental standards as us (small supplier).
5.7.3 Internal supplier
Waitrose have their own internal farm supplier in Hampshire,
the Leckford Estate (see www.waitrose.com/about/
leckfordestate/), which aims to set a good example to other
suppliers and accordingly high ethical and environmental
standards in its production processes. Leckford includes a
working farm, modern milk processing plant and free-range
poultry unit, as well as water gardens, a plant nursery, farm
shop and leisure facilities for John Lewis Partnership
employees. The Leckford Estate has about 150 employees,
nearly half of whom are employed on the mushroom farm.
Mushrooms are the strongest line, serving 30-40 per cent of
the Waitrose category (the farm produces 27 tonnes of
mushrooms every week). They supply 25 per cent of Waitrose
Cox’s apples in a season, in addition to fruit juice, flour, milk,
eggs, free range poultry. Some products are branded as
Leckford, others go into Waitrose through the normal supply
chain. The arable part of the farm supplies the agriculture
industry. Waitrose is the only supermarket supplied. The farm
manager sees Leckford as a point of difference for Waitrose –
while treated largely the same as other suppliers, the farm is
constantly working to meet high ethical environmental
standards and set a best practice example to other suppliers.
For example, the Leckford Estate actively encourages
biodiversity, has a ten-year programme of countryside
stewardship, uses backhauling, is Linking Environment And
Farming (LEAF) accredited uses integrated farm
management (a whole farm system for efficient and
profitable production that is environmentally responsible)
and actively shares its approach with contractors, customers
and suppliers. Taking chicken, for example, at the Leckford
Estate they rear Leckford free-range chicken from day-old
chicks, using traditional husbandry techniques. The birds
have unlimited daytime access to fields and are fed on a corn-
rich, cereal-based diet, free from antibiotic growth promoters.
The birds are slower growing and spend longer on the farm
than any other chicken. A proportion of the chicken feed is
produced on the estate, while chicken manure provides
additional nourishment to the soil and for the fruit orchards –
thus completing the full cycle of growth and production from
the land and back again. There are 13 modern, warm, well-
ventilated chicken sheds, each housing 1,300 birds. Energy
for heating and lighting comes from solar power and wind
power. The farm also has its own Quality Assurance
department, and they audit their own suppliers (bottle,
packaging, goat and cow milk), meaning that Waitrose’s
perspective is extended down to the second tier suppliers.
5.7.4 Waitrose Foundation
Finally, initiatives to understand the supplier perspective also
reach out globally. In 2005 the Waitrose Foundation was
established which is an international partnership project
created to improve the lives of farm workers who grow and
298
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
pick South African Citrus fruit, mangoes, grapes, avocadoes
and stone fruit (see www.waitrose.com/food/originofourfood/
foundation.aspx). This initiative extends Waitrose’s firm
commitment to trading fairly. They are also supporters of
the Fair Trade for British Farmers (see www.
fairtradeforbritishfarmers.co.uk) (with Country Living
Magazine) principles, bringing its ethical credentials back
full circle to the domestic supplier context.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The Waitrose case study, which we propose as a good practice
example in the area of CSR in the supply chain, illustrates the
substantive progress that can be made in achieving SCR. At
the same time, it illustrates the challenges in developing from
a CSW approach to one in which the power in the chain is
more balanced, a holistic approach taken to social
responsibility and voice given to the wide range of
stakeholders in the chain.
We conclude that Waitrose is driven by both commercial
and social objectives in terms of how suppliers are treated. In
an organisation like Waitrose, with its historical approach to
internal partnership, and mission inherited from the founder
to “do business differently”, the intention is evident across the
organisation to also work in partnership with suppliers, and
seek to empower them to improve their business. As a
commercially successful organisation, it is clear that some of
the drivers for this are self-interested.
We do not advocate relying on a single organisation to
provide assurance of social responsibility in the supply chain.
Waitrose has thousands of suppliers. No matter how good the
intentions are to work in open and honest partnership with
each of these, there is a simple problem of scale to be
addressed. With its internal Partners (employees), only a
fraction of whom work in potential direct contact with
suppliers, it would be physically impossible to build
substantive relationships with them all. Inevitably, a focus is
on the larger, strategically most important suppliers as
partners. The Waitrose Local Producer’s programme and the
efforts of the lead buyers to be an interface with the small
local suppliers goes some way to alleviating this challenge of
scale, but embraces a small subgroup of the supplying
population for the organisation. However, the onus remains
one of CSW. Society is effectively requiring large
organisations to be responsible for an impossibly large
network of suppliers. If the second and third tier suppliers
are taken into account, this expands many times over
(Ciliberti et al., 2009). This does not seem to be a realistic
approach to ensuring responsibility in the supply chain.
Despite the good intentions of Waitrose, they as the
customer remain more important to the supplier than vice
versa. The supplier remains in the weaker positions and is not
usually in a position to set the terms of the relationship or
partnership. We propose that there is an overemphasis on the
seeking of perfect partnerships, whereas what is actually
reasonable is a good, or fair relationship. A fair relationship
does not constitute a partnership, but could be a basis on
which to determine appropriate modes of co-operation. A
final point in this respect is that even where there is a
partnership, there is no guarantee that the associated
relationship is fair.
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
There is a moral question surrounding the appropriateness
of one organisation involving itself in the operations of
another and presuming what might be called a moral
monopoly. Social responsibility issues are quite different in
SMEs and should be respected accordingly. Pedersen (2009)
supports the latter advocating the development of different
tools when dealing with SMEs and aiming to reduce the costs
of enforcement of CSR standards and other issues.
Furthermore, there is the unfortunate effect which
demanding standardisation of ethics in the supply chain
may have for smaller firms that lack the bureaucratic
infrastructure and resources necessary to set up
standardised procedures. There is a clear danger of CSW
initiatives that seek to promote social responsibility in the
supply chain resulting in a reduction in supplier diversity
because they discriminate against small firms.
In the Waitrose case study we also note the positive
examples of cross-sector initiatives such as the Temporary
Working Labour Group and the Supplier Ethical Data
Exchange (Sedex). We see these as good and practical
examples of collaborative activity that have the potential to
contribute to SCR. It should be ensured that such cross-
sector initiatives do not turn into macro versions of the large
customer dominance of the supply chain by involving
representative groups from the whole chain. To make
further steps in improving SCR we recommend
consideration of the Dutch covenant approach employed in
tackling environmental challenges in The Netherlands. Here,
rather than piecemeal legislation, a sector agrees targets with
Government and implements independently a collaborative
process to achieve these targets. We propose this kind of
approach as a means for policy makers to enable and support
SCR.
In this paper we have used a case study to illustrate our
conceptual development from CSR to CSW to SCR. The co-
operative nature of Waitrose could suggest a particular
influence on their socially responsibility activities which may
not be reflected in the more traditional private sector; this
could be a research limitation of this work. In addition, the
focus on one sector, although it is the strategically important
food sector, limits the findings to this industrial group,
although our wider research indicates that it is relevant across
sectors. It is our view that other food chains with different
chain characteristics (e.g. chain structure, power
relationships, private firms which are not influenced by a
co-operative nature such as Waitrose) will benefit from the
SCR practices being developed and applied by Waitrose
notwithstanding that this work could inspire and benefit non-
food chains and non-food firms. The latter indicates the need
for further research work that will test our model and
illustrate key similarities and differences between other
industrial sectors and particular chains. For example, a
recent paper by Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009)
examined CSR issues in the non-food supply chain focusing
on IKEA, the furniture retailer. Hence, there may be an
opportunity for testing the application of our model to the
non-food retail sector considering the increasing research
interest for CSR issues in retail supply chains. Furthermore,
in our case study we lack a consumer or a trade union
perspective, and could usefully include more input from trade
organisations. The most serious limitation is the small
299
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
number of supplier interviews relative to the total supplier
population in this case. What we have presented here is
indeed illustrative rather than definitive of CSR, CSW and the
SCR concept.
Understanding the prevailing CSW perspective and
working towards a SCR approach has important
implications for policy makers. There are risks associated
with assuming that the CSW perspective is acceptable,
although it is largely in-keeping with the current UK
Government discourse on CSR which focuses on voluntary
practices rather than government intervention[3]. More
precisely, the UK government “see corporate responsibility
(CR) as the voluntary actions that business can take, over and
above compliance with minimum legal requirements, to
address both its own competitive interests and the interests of
wider society”[4]. This approach leaves decisions about
specific standards and approaches to the individual firm.
Since firms are multiplying their choices and the effects of
their actions through their supply chain requirements, this
strategy in practice hands regulation and policing of social
responsibility over to large corporations. We have pointed out
in this paper the dangers of this approach. We recommend a
SCR approach as one which is more appropriate a mechanism
for promoting good practices relevant to both the sector, the
small firm in the supply chain, the relevant trade unions,
customers and so on. From a policy perspective, SCR can be
enabled and enhanced by working with sectors to agree legally
non-binding but bespoke approaches and targets, as for
example has been done in The Netherlands as a response to
environmental issues (Spence et al., 2000). We also provide a
plethora of policy implications for the food chain and its small
suppliers per se including an analysis of the numerous
initiatives undertaken by Waitrose when dealing with small
food suppliers such as the Waitrose Foundation and Waitrose
Local Producer’s programme. In this work, we illustrate how
these initiatives support the development of small food
suppliers and acknowledge that these suppliers have different
needs and requirements compared to the larger suppliers; this
is also supported by Pedersen (2009). Overall, we believe that
there are many “lessons to be learned” for policy makers
emanating from this research work.
The current work offers a number of practical implications
and insights to supply chain firms. For example, the
operational practices followed by small firms vary compared
to the ones applied by larger suppliers. Therefore, small firms
require different approach in terms of both supply chain
management and CSR as this paper has illustrated. Among
some firms, such as Waitrose, this recognition already exists.
To achieve enhanced social responsibility, we have noted
specific key practical features including, for example, the need
for chain-wide commitment and genuine partnership
approach, both to be applied by all chain members
involved. Many other practical implications for suppliers,
retailers and other chain members are also raised in the
analysis of our work emanating from specific initiatives such
as SEDEX, the Waitrose Responsible Sourcing Code and
most importantly, the CSW approach implemented by
Waitrose.
Following on from the research presented in this paper we
recommend a systematic testing of the validity of our
proposed progression from CSR to CSW to SCR. We
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
recommend the systematic analysis of the applicability of the
CSR to CSW to SCR progression in other case examples,
particularly incorporating a longitudinal approach. Given this
research was on a partnership organisation, it is necessary to
investigate how and whether it transfers to private sector and
listed companies. Other sector contexts as well as institutional
arrangements and legal, economic and cultural influences
could also be valuably compared.
Notes
1 Some of the data presented here also appears in Spence
(2006).
2 The Temporary Labour Working Group was a cross-
sector agreement, its members included supermarkets,
food manufacturers, food wholesalers and importers,
trade unions, farmers, growers and temporary labour
providers. This group agreed a Code of Practice for
Labour Providers to Agriculture and the Fresh Produce
Trade that was intended as a model of co-operative
working. Labour providers were then encouraged to
register their intent to comply with the code and audited
accordingly. The code covered basic business
requirements (e.g. tax and national insurance payment),
taking on workers, conditions of employment and
treatment of workers. This work then fed into and was
superseded by the Gangmasters Licensing Act. For
further details see www.gla.gov.uk
3 This voluntary approach to CSR may be revised after the
economic crises of 2008 and recognition that self
regulation in the financial sector led in part to unethical
practices, extreme risk taking and ultimately the need for
part nationalisation of a number of financial institutions
(The Independent, 2008).
4 www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors/sustainability/corp-
responsibility/page45192.html (accessed October 2008).
References
Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C. and Ganapathi, J.
(2007), “Putting the S back in corporate social
responsibility: a multi-level theory of social change in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 836-63.
Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), “Corporate
social responsibility in global supply chains”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 75-86.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989), “Determinants of
continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 8, pp. 310-23.
Arend, R. and Wisner, J. (2005), “Small business and supply
chain management: is there a fit?”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 20, pp. 403-36.
Atkinson, W. (2003), “Procurement ethics: new buying tools
present different ethical challenges”, Purchasing, Vol. 132
No. 4, pp. 27-9.
Bakker, E. and Kamman, D. (2007), “Perception and social
factors as influencing supply management: a research
agenda”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 13, pp. 304-16.
300
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and Tindall,
C. (1994), Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research
Guide, Open University Press, London.
Better Regulation Taskforce (BRTF) (2003), “Government:
supporter and customer?”, Better Regulation Taskforce
report.
Bourlakis, M. and Vizard, C. (2007), “Ethical (fair) trade:
a basis for adequate producers’ incomes, farm reinvestment
and quality and safety focused production”, in Leifert, C.
(Ed.), Handbook of Organic Food Safety and Quality,
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
Burt, S. (2000), “The strategic role of retail brands in British
grocery retailing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 8, pp. 875-900.
Butler, G., Newton, H., Bourlakis, M. and Leifert, C. (2004),
“Factors influencing supply and demand for organic
foods”, in Bourlakis, M. and Weightman, P. (Eds), Food
Supply Chain Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 199-210.
Carter, C. and Jennings, M. (2002), “Social responsibility
and supply chain relationships”, Transport Research Part E,
Vol. 38, pp. 37-52.
Ciliberti, F., de Groot, G., de Haan, J. and Pontrandolfo, P.
(2009), “Codes to coordinate supply chains: SMEs’
experiences with SA8000”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 117-27.
Cooper, R., Frank, G. and Kemp, R. (1997), “Ethical issues,
helps and challenges: perceptions of members of the
chartered institute of purchasing and supply”, European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 189-98.
Cox, A. (2004), “The art of the possible: relationship
management in power regimes and supply chains”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5,
pp. 346-56.
Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J. (Eds) (2008),
Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global
Context, Routledge, London, pp. 7-9.
Dawson, J.A. (2004), “Food retailing, wholesaling and
catering”, in Bourlakis, M. and Weightman, P. (Eds),
Food Supply Chain Management, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 116-35.
De Vlieger, J.J. (2006), “From corporate social responsibility
to chain social responsibility: consequences for chain
organization”, in Ondersteijn, C.J.M., Winjnads, J.H.M.,
Huirne, R.B.M. and van Kooten, O. (Eds), Quantifying the
Agri-food Supply Chain, Springer Publishing, New York,
NY, pp. 191-205.
Duffy, R. and Fearne, A. (2004), “Partnerships and alliances
in UK supermarket supply networks”, in Bourlakis, M. and
Weightman, P. (Eds), Food Supply Chain Management,
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 136-52.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study
research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 532-50.
Eltantawy, R.A., Fox, G.L. and Giunipero, L. (2009),
“Supply management ethical responsibility: reputation
and performance impacts”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 99-108.
Fabian, T. and Hill, C. (2005), Sourcing Overseas for the Retail
Sector: CSR and the Ethical Supply Chain, Price Waterhouse
Coopers, London.
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
Faisal, M., Banwet, D. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Supply
chain risk mitigation: modelling the enablers”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-52.
Fearne, A. (1998), “The evolution of partnerships in the meat
supply chain: insights from the British beef industry”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 214-31.
Fearne, A. and Hughes, D. (1999), “Success factors in the
fresh produce supply chain: Insights from the UK”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 120-8.
Fulton, M. and Giannakas, K. (2004), “Inserting GM
products into the food chain: the market and welfare effects
of different labeling and regulatory regimes”, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-60.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of
Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Graafland, J., van de Ven, B. and Stoffele, N. (2003),
“Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small
and large businesses in The Netherlands”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Hamann, R., Agbazue, T., Kapelus, P. and Hein, A. (2005),
“Universalizing corporate social responsibility? South
African challenges to the international organization for
standardization’s new social responsibility standard”,
Business and Society Review, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Hingley, M. (2005), “Power imbalanced relationships: cases
from UK fresh food supply”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 33 Nos 8/9, pp. 551-69.
Holliday, R. (1995), Investigating Small Firms: Nice Work?,
Routledge, London.
Holmlund, M. and Kock, S. (1996), “Buyer-dominated
relationships in a supply chain: a case study of four small-
sized suppliers”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 26-40.
Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M. and Garrod, G. (2007), “Pig in
the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare
standards”, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 11,
pp. 919-30.
(The) Independent (2008), “A black day for the banks, and the
dawn of a new era”, The Independent, Tuesday, 14 October,
available at: www.independent.co.uk (accessed October
2008).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (2002), Grocery Retailing
2002, IGD, Watford.
Jamison, L. and Murdoch, H. (2004), Taking the Temperature:
Ethical Issues in the Supply Chain, Institute of Business
Ethics, London.
Johnsen, T., Johnsen, R. and Lamming, R. (2008), “Supply
relationship evaluation”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 274-87.
Kuznesof, S. and Brennan, M. (2004), “Perceived risk and
product safety in the food supply chain”, in Bourlakis, M.
and Weightman, P. (Eds), Food Supply Chain Management,
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 32-48.
Lamprecht, J. (2000), Quality and Power in the Supply Chain,
Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Liker, J. and Choi, T. (2004), “Building deep supplier
relationships”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 12,
pp. 104-13.
Lockett, A., Moon, J. and Visser, W. (2006), “Corporate
social responsibility in management research: focus, nature,
301
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
salience and sources of influence”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-36.
Macpherson, A. and Wilson, A. (2003), “Enhancing SMEs?
Capability: opportunities in supply chain relationships?”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Maloni, M. and Brown, M. (2006), “Corporate social
responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the
food industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68, pp. 35-52.
Meadowcroft, J. and Blundell, J. (2004), “The Morecambe
bay cockle pickers: market failure or government disaster?”,
Economic Affairs, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 69-71.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data
Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd Ed., Sage
Publications, London.
Morgan, K. and Murdoch, J. (2000), “Organic vs
conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and
innovation in the food chain”, Geoforum, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 159-73.
Morissey, B. and Pittaway, L. (2004), “Research note: a study
of procurement behaviour in small firms”, Journal of Small
business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 254-62.
Munson, C., Rosenblatt, M. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1999),
“The use and abuse of power in supply chains”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 42, pp. 55-65.
Murillo, D. and Lozano, J. (2006), “SMEs and CSR:
an approach to CSR in their own words”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 227-40.
Pedersen, E.R. (2009), “The many and the few: rounding up
the SMEs that manage CSR in the supply chain”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 109-16.
Preuss, L. (2000), “Should you buy your customer’s values?
On the transfer of moral values in industrial purchasing”,
International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 13,
pp. 141-58.
Ram, M. and Smallbone, D. (2003), “Supplier diversity
initiatives and the diversification of ethnic minority business
in the UK”, Policy Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 187-204.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994), “Developmental
processes of cooperative interorganisational relationships”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118.
Roberts, S. (2003), “Supply chain specific? Understanding
the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 44, pp. 159-70.
Sparks, L., Gustafson, K., Jonson, G. and Smith, D. (eds)
(2006), Retailing Logistics and Fresh Food Packaging:
Managing Change in the Supply Chain, Kogan Page,
London.
Spekman, R. and Davis, E. (2004), “Risky business:
expanding the discussion on risk and the extended
enterprise”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 414-33.
Spekman, R., Kamauff, J. and Myhr, N. (1998),
“An empirical investigation into supply chain
management: a perspective on partnerships”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 630-50.
Spence, L.J. (1999), “Does size matter? The state of the art in
small business ethics”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 163-74.
 The evolution from CSR to supply chain responsibility
Laura Spence and Michael Bourlakis
Spence, L.J. (2006), Supplier Relationships in the UK: Business
Ethics and Procurement Practice, Institute of Business Ethics,
London.
Spence, L.J., Jeurissen, R. and Rutherfoord, R. (2000),
“Small business and the environment in the UK and The
Netherlands: towards stakeholder cooperation”, Business
Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 945-65.
Van Tulder, R., van Wijk, J. and Kolk, A. (2008), “From
chain liability to chain responsibility: MNE approaches to
implement safety and health codes in international supply
chains”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 399-412.
Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2009), “Sustainable
procurement in the United Kingdom public sector”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 128-37.
Wood, G. (1996), “Ethical issues in purchasing”, in Kitson,
A. and Campbell, R. (Eds), The Ethical Organisation,
Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Wright, C., Smith, M. and Wright, B. (2007), “Hidden costs
associated with stakeholders in supply management”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, August, pp. 64-82.
Zadek, S. (2004), “The path to corporate responsibility at
Nike”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, December,
pp. 125-32.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
302
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 14 · Number 4 · 2009 · 291 –302
About the authors
Laura Spence is a Reader in Business Ethics in the School of
Management at Royal Holloway, University of London. She is
Director of the interdisciplinary Centre for Research into
Sustainability. Her principal research interests include ethics
and CSR in the supply chain (especially the food sector), small
business ethics and social capital, She is currently engaged on a
project researching sustainability accounting at Sainsbury’s for
one of the Prince of Wales’ charities. Laura is Vice-President of
the International Society for Business, Economics and Ethics
and is section editor of the Journal of Business Ethics. Her most
recent book is CSR: Readings and Cases in a Global Context
which she co-edited with Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten
(Routledge). Laura Spence is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: laura.spence@rhul.ac.uk
Michael Bourlakis is a Senior Lecturer based at Brunel
Business School. His principal research interests include food
retail logistics, food supply chain management, food supply
chain networks and relationships. He has secured funding
from both national and international organisations such as the
European Commission, the Food Standards Agency (UK),
the Ministry of Trade and Commerce (UK) and the
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK). He
has published more than 100 papers in various outlets and sits
on the editorial board of five academic journals.