sustainability

Article
Sustainable Collaborative Governance in
Supply Chain
Jiguang Wang 1 ID
and Bing Ran 2, * ID

1 School of Economics and Management, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China; wangjg@sxu.edu.cn
2 Penn State Harrisburg, School of Public Affairs, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
* Correspondence: bingran@psu.edu; Tel.: +1-717-948-6057

Received: 20 November 2017; Accepted: 9 January 2018; Published: 12 January 2018

Abstract: Collaborative governance plays a critical role in guiding the whole supply chain to achieve
its strategic goals. Today’s tremendously changing and competitive business environment imposes
a significant challenge for firms to sustain a balance between their self-interest and the required
interdependency existed among them within a supply chain. Built upon the extensive literature
on the supply chain management, this paper theorizes and proposes a Sustainable Collaborative
Governance Framework detailing adaptive decision-making and action mechanisms throughout
supply chain lifecycle that will enable the whole supply chain proactively and resiliently respond to
uncertainties or perturbations without undergoing significant changes to firms’ normal operations.
The framework extends the understanding and practice of the sustainable supply chain management
by focusing on its dynamic, elastic, holistic, uncertainty-handling and future-oriented characteristics.

Keywords: supply chain management; changing and competitive environment; Sustainable

Collaborative Governance

1. Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) is a process that controls, coordinates, and integrates the logistics
and the flow of information and capital from original suppliers through a series of intermediaries to
end customers in a timely manner to improve the performance of all parties involved [1–3]. There is a
consensus that the successful SCM leads to a range of benefits, including reduced costs and reduced
rate of occupying funds, increased market shares and sales, on-time in-full (OTIF) deliveries, and solid
customer relations [4,5]. However, despite the growing interest among practitioners and researchers
in improving firm performance through SCM, there is enough evidence to suggest that achieving
SCM success may not be as effective in most cases as we assumed [6–8]. For example, Stank, Keller
& Daugherty [9] found no sufficient evidence to support a significant positive relationship between
SCM and firms’ performance, and some researchers even found a negative relationship between SCM
and performance [10–12]. More seriously, the failure of SCM would incur actual negative impacts on
the operational continuity and sometimes even threaten the very survival of the firms involved in
the supply chain. Quoting the data from Sáenz & Revilla [13], on average, the percentage of global
companies reporting a loss of revenue due to a supply chain failure increased from 28% in 2011 to
42% in 2013. Therefore, how to mitigate and eliminate the negative impacts of supply chain failures in
today’s constantly evolving and fiercely competitive business environment and how to achieve ideal
cooperation, collaboration, and integration between members in a supply chain to build supply chain
resilience [14,15] become the first and foremost precondition to its success [16,17].
Essentially, SCM is the management or governance of inter-organizational relationships. It is
widely acknowledged that without appropriate governance mechanisms, supply chain collaboration
is always short-lived and doomed to failure [18–20]. Unfortunately, although literature studied

Sustainability 2018, 10, 171; doi:10.3390/su10010171 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 2 of 17

supply chain governance from many different perspectives, there are still considerable gaps in the
supply chain governance literature [21,22]. This paper argues that, first, the current focuses of the
supply chain governance literature usually concentrate on specific issues or from the perspectives
of single or bilateral parties in supply chain. Very little effort has been made in the existing SCM
literature to construct a holistic governance model from the perspective of the whole supply chain.
Second, the understanding of “sustainable SCM” in the literature still remains in the arena of
natural-social-economic sustainable development (the contextual sustainability), rather than the
sustainable development of the supply chain itself (the internal sustainability). Third, although
researchers have proposed a few theories or models on supply chain governance, these models
usually fall short of proposing systematic and concrete mechanisms for supply chain managers to
implement, which largely inhibits their practical applications.
It is these research gaps that shape the main focus and contributions of this paper. To address
these gaps, this paper focuses on the research question: how to design a governance model with high
adaptability and resilience against uncertainties for the whole supply chain to obtain and sustain
an ideal collaboration with improved performance. We will propose a Sustainable Collaborative
Governance Framework, detailing the adaptive decision-making and action mechanisms throughout
supply chain lifecycle that will enable the whole supply chain proactively and resiliently respond
to uncertainties or perturbations without undergoing significant changes to its normal operations.
The proposed framework extends the research on “sustainable SCM” from the natural–social–economic
sustainable development to a focus on the internal capability of a supply chain to develop itself
sustainably. Our research elucidates the characteristics of supply chains’ internal sustainability as
dynamic, elastic, holistic, uncertainty-handling and future-oriented, and provides a clear classification
scheme reflecting the sustainable lifecycle of a supply chain. The Framework proposes a series of
systematic sustainable mechanisms and a functional governance structure of the whole supply chain.
We believe the proposed framework provides a concrete tool for supply chain managers to implement
appropriate governance structure and different sustainable mechanisms based on different situations
with improved adaptability and responsiveness in handling today’s changing business environment.
This paper is structured as follows: we will first analyze current supply chain governance literature
that has been mainly focusing on specific issues or from the perspectives of single or bilateral parties
in supply chain. We then theorize a Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework as a holistic
governance model depicting the highly adaptable and sustainable interactions between supply chain
members across the lifecycle of a supply chain in a dynamic and uncertain environment. We end the
paper with a delineation of the contributions of the proposed framework and practical managerial
applications built upon from this framework.

2. Governance and Collaborative Governance in Supply Chain

As a widely used concept in many fields, governance can be generally described as a series of
regulation and coordination of activities through a variety of formal and/or informal mechanisms
based on a specific purpose [23–25]. Governance mechanisms may include policies, guidelines, rules,
laws, norms, standards, monitoring and verification procedures, financial and other incentives, and the
exercise of authority [26,27]. For SCM, proper governance mechanisms are critical to the success of the
supply chain and have attracted growing academic attention in recent years [28]. Although significant
progress has been made toward understanding supply chain governance, the current focuses of the
supply chain governance literature usually concentrate on specific issues or from the perspectives of
single or bilateral parties in supply chain. Very little effort has been made in the existing SCM literature
to construct a holistic governance model from the perspective of the whole supply chain. For example:
From buyers’ perspectives, Claycomb & Frankwick [29] studied the governance on buyer–seller
relations. By dividing the relationships into four phases of relationship development, they argued that joint
problem solving will increase buyer’s uncertainty while conflict resolution decrease buyer’s uncertainty,
and buyers should seek suppliers with strong positive reputations. Stanko, Bonner & Calantone [30]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 3 of 17

also argued from buyers’ perspective that buyers should engage more in informal interpersonal
activities, such as golf, fishing, billiards, dinner and drinks, which contributes to establishing a common
understanding, shared values, and emotional ties that in turn improve the collaboration. Similarly,
from manufacturer’s perspectives, Vázquez-Casielles, Iglesias & Varela-Neira [31] studied the role of
governance and information sharing based on manufacturer–distributor relationship. They argued that
manufacturers should focus on distributors’ willingness to share strategic information with them that
contributes to achieving a more effective manufacturer–distributor relationship beyond the contractual
market negotiation.
All these researches have concentrated on either a single firm’s perspective or a particular
party’s perspective. Despite the escalating importance of SCM and the positive impact it can have on
performance, there is a clear tendency that the governance in supply chain is often implemented by a
single member mainly based on their arm-length contract. Few companies and practitioners are actually
engaged in collaborative governance efforts that promote extensive cooperation or collaboration
between members [32].
Theoretically, a supply chain is not just a “supply” chain, but also a collaboration chain.
Supply chain collaboration implies that the interdependent yet autonomous firms are working
jointly to achieve overall performance collaboratively [16,33]. Collaborative governance contributes
to achieve successful collaboration by emphasizing governance through relational means in addition
to governance through traditional means (e.g., arm-length contract) [34,35]. The current literature
on collaborative governance in supply chain extends the governance as implemented by a single
member to the bilateral collaborative governance (typically buyer–seller collaborative governance).
These dyadic studies made a promising progress towards a more holistic understanding of supply
chain governance. For example, based on buyer–seller collaborative governance, Cai, Yang & Hu [36]
examined the effects of four governance mechanisms: legal contract, joint problem solving, joint
planning and collaborative communication, on the buyer–seller collaborative relationships. Empirical
results showed that the four governance mechanisms, driven by inter-firm dependence, have distinct
effects on supplier’s performance and buyer’s commitment. Similarly, by focusing on a good buyer–
supplier strategic relationship, Tanskanen & Aminoff [37] studied the governance mechanisms on how
to enhance buyer and supplier attractiveness in order to get the other party to put more effort on the
relationship. The results showed that the economic and behavior-based attractiveness existed strongly
in the buyer-supplier relationship, while the resource and bridging-based attractiveness are important
when the aim is to leverage the buyer-supplier relationship in developing and expanding businesses
outside the dyad.
Another stream of research in collaborative governance in supply chain paid attention to the
specific issues such as contract, conflict, power and trust. Ellegaard & Andersen [38] investigated
conflicts in buyer–seller collaborations due to conflicting goals. By focusing on the evolution of conflicts,
they suggested a preventive mechanism where efforts should be aimed at avoiding conflict escalation
into the severe domain, together with joint and interactive resolution tactics such as problem solving,
compromising, consensus or activation of commitments necessary for the conflict resolution. Celuch,
Bantham & Kasouf [39] studied the role of trust in buyer–seller conflict management by highlighting
the crucial importance of trust in the process of conflict resolution and advancing some useful tactics
on how to maintain successful collaborative business relationships. Similarly, Liu et al., [40] discussed
the justice issue in buyer–seller collaborative governance by exploring the role of mutual perceptions
of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice in achieving profitable and stable
performance through coupling behaviors of the dyad.
Even though the current literature still fall short of proposing a holistic framework on collaborative
governance of a whole supply chain, it should be noted that some recent researches have begun to
investigate the specific issues in the whole supply chain, such as measurement and performance [5],
inventory [41], information distortion [42], risk mitigation [43,44]. However, the complexity of
managing modern supply chain requires more researches on the holistic framework of the supply
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 4 of 17

chain cooperation and collaboration, rather than solving some specific issues embedded in the whole
supply chain. In this paper, we will focus on the collaborative governance of the whole supply chain
by proposing adaptive processes and structures of decision-making and management that engage
supply chain members to work collaboratively across their boundaries in order to carry out a common
strategic purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished by any single member.
In addition, the understanding of “sustainable SCM” in the literature still remains in the
arena of natural-social-economic sustainable development (the contextual sustainability), rather
than the sustainable development of the supply chain itself (the internal sustainability). As an
important business concern, sustainability in the context of supply chain has attracted significant
attention in the past decade [45–47]. However, the understanding of “sustainable SCM” in the extant
literature usually focuses on how supply chain could contribute to the sustainable development of
natural-social-economic environment throughout its lifecycles (so called “Green Supply Chain”) [48,49].
For example, Gimenez & Sierra [48] defined “sustainable SCM” as “the management of material,
information and capital flows as well as cooperation among parties in supply chain while taking goals
from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, into
account”. De Brito & Van der Laan [49] also defined “sustainable SCM” as the strategic, transparent
integration and achievement of the supply chain’s social, environmental, and economic goals in
its business processes for improving the long-term economic performance. What is missing in this
understanding is how a supply chain could develop itself sustainably. In today’s complex and uncertain
business environment, the capability of a supply chain to develop itself sustainably with improved
performance, resilience and competitiveness should be highlighted as well.
Furthermore, some researchers have proposed a few frameworks or models from dynamic or
evolutionary perspectives, such as Contingency Framework, Three-stage process model, SCMM [50–54].
Undoubtedly, these frameworks or models made significant contributions to improve the supply
chain’s operation in some specific context. For example, Contingency Framework describes supply
chain networks as open organizations in an ever-changing environment, and decision-makers must
design supply chain networks to be dynamic and flexible through the implementation of the right
contingent strategic response in a collaborative manner. Although decision-makers enhanced their
contingent response abilities by identifying the environmental driving forces and internal resisting
force, the framework did not sketch in detail the strategic development process nor provide specific
mechanisms for the governance of the contingent network. In contrast, both Three-stage process
model [54] and SCMM [50–52] detailed the development process of the supply chain. The Three
Stage process model divided the supply chain development process into unfreeze, transformational,
and steady states, which largely adopted Kurt Lewin’s three stage change model [55], while SCMM
categorized the supply chain into four phases: the autonomous phase, the serial dependence phase,
the reciprocal dependence phase, and the mutual dependence phase. Although both Three-stage
process model and SCMM model mapped the development of a supply chain, they ignored the rapid
market evolution and high uncertain business environments from a long term perspective and failed to
propose systematic and concrete mechanisms for supply chain managers to implement, which largely
inhibited their practical applications.
Acknowledging the contributions made by the existing literature and aiming to address the
weaknesses of the literature identified above, this paper will propose a Sustainable Collaborative
Governance Framework with adaptive decision-making and action mechanisms throughout the
supply chain lifecycle that will enable the whole supply chain proactively respond to uncertainties or
perturbations without undergoing significant changes to firms’ normal operations.

3. Sustainable Collaborative Governance in Supply Chain

Undoubtedly, theorizing and practicing collaborative governance are not an easy task [56,57].
Though the literature has done extensive work from many different perspectives, there is still
a pressing call for an effective program to support a continuous and successful collaboration in
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 5 of 17

the highly uncertain business environment. The Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework
we propose will hopefully address this call. In the following sections, we will first define the
concept of “sustainable collaborative governance”, and then we will delineate the scope and the
characteristics of the framework, as well as the specific dynamics and mechanisms of the sustainable
collaborative governance.

3.1. “Sustainability” and Sustainable Collaborative Governance

Sustainable development of a supply chain entails a high degree of adaptability, responsiveness,
and resilience in handling the complexities and uncertainties of today’s business environment.
Sustainable governance will act as an effective strategy to deal with challenges and improve
competitiveness and the financial performance of a supply chain. The sustainable collaborative
governance in supply chain, based on this understanding, could be defined as an adaptive decision-
making and action mechanism in a changing business environment guiding the evolution of a supply
chain throughout its lifecycle. It enables the collaboration of the whole supply chain to proactively
respond to unanticipated or unpredictable incidents, events or perturbations without undergoing
significant changes to their normal operations. It could also guide the whole supply chain to evolve
from a lower level of sustainable development to a higher level associated with revenue increase,
cost reduction, risk reduction, and increased competitiveness.

3.2. Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework

The theoretical foundation for our conceptualization of the Sustainable Collaborative Governance
Framework is the Network theory and Resource-based view on governance [58–60]. In essence,
the supply chain could be viewed as a single unified entity that creates and delivers values to the end
consumer, rather than as a set of fragmented parts, each performing its own function [3,61]. In the
network context, a supply chain’s value-creating capability stems from the advantage that utilizes the
resources of the entire network effectively and efficiently. And this capability also contributes to foster
new and inimitable value-creating resources in a virtuous cycle, making supply chain a constantly
evolving network with the aim of achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore,
in today’s global environment, global dynamic capability of SCM, characterized by timely response,
rapid and flexible strategies, and coordinating mechanisms to effectively re-deploy internal and
relational resources [62], is necessary for the development of global management capabilities and
difficult-to-imitate combinations of organizational, functional and technological skills to gain and
sustain competitive advantage [63]. This capability could facilitate the customization of SCM strategies
via adaptation, integration and reconfiguration of both internal and relational resources to match the
opportunities in the global and local market [64,65].
Built upon this theoretical foundation, our theorizing of Sustainable Collaborative Governance
Framework starts from a recognition of the previous classification schemes researchers have developed
on the lifecycle of a supply chain [50–53]. Especially, Tuckman’s process model on small group
development [53] provided some insightful observations on the development of a network of agents
in a group setting that will go through “storming”, “norming”, and “performing” stages. Researchers
have noted that a systematic framework is needed [66,67] to guide a supply chain to proactively
and resiliently respond to perturbations and evolve from a lower level of sustainable development
to a higher level, where different stages of development could be characterized. We theorized and
developed a new integrative classification scheme detailing the evolution of a supply chain in different
phases of sustainable development (Table 1).
 Sustainability
y 2018, 2018, 10, 0171 10.3390/su10010171
10, 0171 10.3390/su10010171 6 of 17 6 of 17
nability 2018, 10, 0171 10.3390/su10010171 6 of 17

TableTable Table 1. Ascheme

1. A classification classification
of a supplyscheme chainof athroughout
supply chain itsthroughout
lifecycle. its lifecycle.
1. A classification scheme of a supply chain throughout its lifecycle.
Governance Governance
Phase Governance
Sustainability Sketch Map
10,
2018,Sketch * Sketch
171 Map Map * MainMain Features Main Features 6 of 17
Phase Mechanism Mechanism * Features
Mechanism Sustainability
Sustainability 2018,
2018,
Sustainability 2018,
10,
10,
2018, 10,
0171
0171
10, 0171
10.3390/su10010171
10.3390/su10010171
0171 10.3390/su10010171
10.3390/su10010171There is no supply chain integration. Firms are 66 of
of 17
17
Sustainability ThereThere is no issupply chain integration. Firms are 66 of
of 17
17
no supply chain integration. Firms are
still instill still
theinprocess in
of the process of establishing their core
Table 1.TableTable
Table
Table
1.
1.
1. A
1.
A classification
A classification
A classification scheme
A classificationthe process
classification ofestablishing
scheme
scheme
scheme
scheme
of
a ofofaaaaestablishing
supply
of
of
supply
supply
supply
supply chaintheir
chain
chain
chain
chain
core
throughout
throughout
their
throughout
throughout
throughout core itsits itslifecycle.
its lifecycle.
lifecycle.
its lifecycle.
lifecycle.
competitive competitive
advantages with advantages
the focus with
on the focus
their on their
Governance competitive advantages with the focus on their
Internal Internal Phase Governance
Governance
independent operations.
Governance independent
Sketch Map MapThe operations.
* firm’s internal The firm’s internal
Main Features
Features
Disorderly
yrderly Internal Phase
Phase Governance
Mechanismindependent Sketch
Sketch Map ***
operations. The firm’s internalMain Main
Main Features
Features
Functional Phase Phase
Functional Mechanism
Mechanism
Mechanismfunctional
Sketch
Sketch
functional
integration
Map
Map
has *not been
integration has not been
achieved yet Main
achieved Features yet
development
Functional Mechanism functional integration has not Therebeen is achieved
no supply yet
chain integration. Firms Firms are are
ent
lopment integration and it does not have Therea
There clearis
is no
no supply
strategic
supply chain
goal
chain integration.
and
integration. Firms are are
integration and itand does There is no supply chain integration. Firms
integration it not
doeshave a clear
not have strategic
a clear still
Theregoal
strategic
still
still
in
in
in
the
theis
the
and
process
no
goal supply
process
process and of
of
of
establishing
chain integration.
establishing
establishing
their
their
their
core
Firms
core
core
are
stablestable
business stable
partners.business The supplypartners.
still
stillin
chain
competitive
The
the
in the supply
process
process
advantages
of chain
establishing
of establishing
with the
their
the focus theiron
focus
core
coretheir
business partners. Thecompetitive
supply
competitive
competitive chainadvantages
advantages
advantages with
with
with the focus on
on their
their
Internalcooperation is cooperation
temporary, is temporary,
unstable, competitive
and non-
independent unstable, advantages
operations. and non- withthe
The thefocus
firm’s focus on
internalontheir
their
Disorderly Internal
Internal
Internal cooperation is temporary, unstable,
independent
independent
independent
independent
andoperations.
non-
operations.
operations.
operations.
The
The
TheThe
firm’s
firm’s
firm’s
firm’s
internal
internal
internal
internal
Disorderly
DisorderlyInternal
Disorderly
Disorderly Functional strategic.
Functional strategic. functional integration has not been achieved yet
Functional
development Functional Functional strategic. functional
functional
functional
functional integration
integration
integration
integration has
has
hashasnotnot
not
not been
been
been achieved
achieved
beenachieved
achieved yet
yet
yet
development
development
development
development integration
integration There is a minimum and supply doeschain
it does not integration.
have a clear
clear strategic goal andand
integration
integration
There is a minimum
integration There is a minimum supply and supply chain andintegration.
and
chain it
yetititand does not
not have
it does
integration.
does not have
have
not have a
aa clear
clear strategic
strategic
a clear
strategicstrategicgoal
goal and
goal and
goal
Each firm itshas stable
finished business partners. The supply
supply chain chain
Each Eachfirm hasfirmfinished
has finished internal andits
functional
stable
stable
stable
its internal
internal
business
stable
business
business
functional business functional
partners.
partners.
partners. The
partners.
The supply
The The supply
supply chainchain
chain
Governance cooperation is temporary, unstable, and non-
Governance
Governance integration andintegration
integration established
and established
and its established
corecooperation
cooperation
competitive
cooperation
cooperation
its core
itsis iscore
is
competitive
competitive
temporary,
istemporary,
temporary,
temporary, unstable,
unstable,and
unstable,
unstable, and
and non-
andnon-
non-
strategic.
non-strategic.
the the from the
from from advantage. advantage.
Firms begin to
advantage. Firms begin to cultivate
Firms
cultivate begin
strategic.
strategic.
stable
strategic. to cultivate stable
There is
There is aastable
minimum supply
minimum supply chain chain integration.
integration.
perspectives
Contractual ofperspectives
perspectives of
of business business
partnership
business partnership
partnership
consciouslyconsciously
There
by
There
Each
consciously
There isisaaaminimum
is
by
firm
minimum
minimum
has finished
by supply
finished its
supply
supplychain chain
its internal
integration.
chainintegration.
integration.
internal functional
functional
al
ractuala single a single establishing contractualEach
Each
Each firm
firm has
relations,
firm has
has finishedfinished
although
finished its internal
its internal functional
internal functional
functional
establishing contractual relations, Each
although firm has its
n integration a single
member, losing
Governance establishing contractual relations,
Governance
Governance each firm interested
is still mainly
integration
integration
integration
integration although and
and
and
established
andestablished
established
established
established
its
its
its
core
itscore
core
core
competitive
corecompetitive
competitive
competitive
competitive
gration member, losing
member, losing
Governance
from the each firmeach is still
firm ismainly
still mainly in
interested itsinterested
integration
advantage.
advantage. own
in its
and
Firms
own
Firms
inbegin
its own
begin to to
its
cultivate
cultivate stable
stable
from
from
from the
the
the advantage.
advantage.
advantage. Firms
Firms
Firms begin
begin
begin to
to
to cultivate
cultivate
cultivate stable
stable
stable
emphasis on emphasis on Governance from
perspectives the
objectives
of and objectives
interests and interests
without focusing
business
business
without on the
partnership
partnership
focusing on the by
consciously
consciously by
emphasis on Contractual perspectives
perspectives
perspectives
perspectivesof a of objectives and interests without
of
of business
business
business focusing partnership
partnership
partnership on theconsciously
consciously
consciously by by
by
collaboration
Contractual
Contractual shared Theobjectives. The supply chain cooperation
collaboration
collaboration
Contractual
Contractual
integration single aaamember,
a
single shared objectives.
single
single
single shared objectives. supply
The chain
supply
establishing
cooperation
establishing
establishing
chain
establishing
establishing
contractual
cooperation
contractual
contractual
contractual
contractual
relations,
relations,
relations,
relations,
although
relations,although although
although
integration
integration
integration
integration member, is losing
contractual, is contractual,
relative stable relative
without each
each stablefirmiswithout
firm
overall isstill
stillmainly
mainly overall interestedalthough
interested in initsitsown
own
member,
losingmember,
emphasis
member, losing
on is contractual, relative stableeach
losing
losing each
each
withoutfirm
firm is
firm is
is still mainly
stillinterests
overall
still interested
mainly interested
mainly interested in its
in its
in own
its own
own
emphasis on strategic goals for the objectives
objectives
whole and
and
supply interestschain. without focusing
without focusing on the
on the
collaboration
emphasis
emphasis
emphasis strategic
on goals goals
on strategic
on for the forwhole
the whole supply chain.chain.
objectives
objectives
objectives
supply and interests
and interests
and interests without
without
without focusing
focusing on
focusing on the
on the
the
collaboration sharedobjectives.
shared objectives. TheThesupplysupplychain chain cooperation
collaborationThereThere
collaboration
collaboration
There
is a bilateral is a bilateral
supply chainchain supply
shared
integration
shared
shared
cooperation
chainisintegration
objectives.
objectives.
objectives. The supply
The supply
The
contractual, supply chain cooperation
chain cooperation
chain
relative cooperation
stable
is a bilateral supply integration
is contractual,
contractual, relative stable without
without overall overall
Bilateral Bilateral between between
neighboring neighboring
partners. Theis
is partners.
iswithout
contractual,
supply
contractual, overall The
relative
relativesupply
strategic
relative stable
stable
stable goalswithout
for the
without overall
whole
overall
Bilateral between neighboring partners. The
strategic
strategic supply
goals
goals for
for the
the whole
whole supply
supply chain.
chain.
collaborative collaborative chain collaborationchainiscollaboration
not just is
contractual,not just
supply
strategic
strategic chain.
goals
but
goals contractual,
for the
for the whole
whole butsupply
supply chain. chain.
collaborative chain collaboration is not just There
Therecontractual,
is aa bilateral
is bilateral butsupply
supply chain chain integration
integration
Bilateral governance more strategic withTherefocus
There on
isis
is winwin
aaabilateral
bilateral
bilateralsupply potentials.
supply chain
chain integration
integration
eral governance Bilateralmore more strategic with focus on winwin potentials.
There
between neighboring supply
partners. chain The integration
supply
governance Bilateral
Bilateral strategic with focus on winwin
between
between potentials.
neighboring
neighboring partners.
partners. The
The supply
supply
n integration
between between Bilateral The
collaborative supply The
chain supply
is stable chain
with is stable
between
between
bilateral
chain
with
collaboration
bilateral
neighboring
neighboring
is
partners.
partners.
not just
Thesupply
The
contractual,
supply
but
gration between collaborative
Bilateralcollaborative
collaborative The supply chain is stable with
chain
chain bilateral
collaboration
collaboration
chaincollaboration
chain collaboration is not
isisnot
is not just
just
notjust contractual,
contractual,
justcontractual,
contractual,but but
but
neighboring neighboringBilateral governance strategic goals strategic
of goals
collaboration of collaboration
built
more upon strategic the built
with upon
focus the
on winwin potentials.
neighboring Bilateral
BilateralBilateral governance strategic goals
governance
Bilateral collaborative
governance of collaboration more
but
more
more builtstrategic
more upon
strategic
strategic strategic the focus
with
with
with focus
with
focus on
focus
on
on winwin
on winwin
winwin
winwin potentials.
potentials.
potentials.
partners partners integrationgovernance between complementary complementary
competitive competitive
The
advantages supply advantages
of each chain is stable
stable of each
withisbilateral
bilateral
partners integration integration
integration
integration between
between
between between complementary competitive Thepotentials.
supply
advantages
The
The supply chain
supply The
chain
chainof supply
is
each
is stable
is stable chainwith stable with
with bilateral
with bilateral
neighboring
neighboring
neighboring partner.
partners partner. strategic
bilateral
strategic goals
strategic
goals of collaboration
of collaboration
goals of built upon
collaboration
built uponbuilt the
the
neighboring partner.
neighboring strategic goals
strategic goals of of collaboration
collaboration built built upon upon the the
partners There is a close, complementary
long-term
upon the and competitive
strategic
complementary advantages
competitive of each
partnersThereThere
partners
partners is a close, long-term
is a close, long-term and strategic
complementary
complementary
complementary
and strategic
competitive
competitive advantages
competitive advantages
advantages of of each
of each
each
partnership firmly partner.
advantages
established
partner. of
and each partner.
formalized
partnership firmly established
partnership firmly established and formalized
partner.
partner.
andisformalized
Sustainable by maximizing There
mutual interests a close,
close, long-term and strategic
Sustainable
Holistic Sustainable by maximizing
by maximizing mutual interests
mutual thatThere
There
There
There
interests
is
benefit
is
that thethat
isisaaaaclose,
close,
close,
benefit
benefitand
long-term
long-term
long-term
long-term
the
thestrategic
and
and
and strategic
strategic
strategic
partnership
partnership
partnership firmly
firmly
firmly established
established
established and
and
and formalized
formalized
formalized
stic Collaborative Collaborative wholewhole supply whole The
chain. supply chain.
governance The of governance
partnership
partnership theoffirmlyfirmly establishedof the
established and formalized
and formalized
n integration
Collaborative Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainable supply chain. The governance
by
by by maximizing
maximizing
maximizing the mutual
mutual
mutual interests
interests
interests that
that
that benefit
benefitthe
benefit the
the
grationGovernance Governance Holistic
Holistic Holistic
Holistic Collaborative
Sustainable
Sustainable wholewhole
Collaborative supply wholehas
chain supplydynamic, chainby by has
elastic,
whole
whole
dynamic,mutual
maximizing
maximizing supply
supply
elastic,interests
mutual
chain.
chain. The
The
interests that
governance
governance
that benefit
benefit the
ofof the
the
the
Governance Holistic
integration
integration Collaborative
Collaborative supply chain has dynamic,
whole
whole supply elastic,
supply
supply chain.
chain. The governance
The governance
governance of of the
of the
the
integration Collaborative
integrationGovernanceGovernance holistic, uncertainty-handling
holistic, uncertainty-handling andwholefuture-
whole
whole supply
supply andchain. future-
chain
chain
The
hashasdynamic,
dynamic,elastic, elastic,
integration Governance holistic, uncertainty-handling
Governance wholeandsupply
whole future-
supply
supply chain
chain has
has dynamic,
dynamic, elastic,
elastic,
Governance oriented oriented characteristics.
characteristics. whole chain
holistic,uncertainty-handling has
uncertainty-handlingand dynamic, elastic,
andfuture-
oriented characteristics. holistic,
holistic, uncertainty-handling and future-
holistic,
holistic,
future-oriented uncertainty-handling
uncertainty-handlingcharacteristics. and future-
and future-
oriented characteristics.
oriented characteristics.
Note: oriented
oriented characteristics.
characteristics.
1. “●”:
Note: firma 1.
1. a“●”:
“●”: internal
whose a firm
firm whose
Note:whose
1.
internal
“ ”:internal
functional a firm
functional
functional
integration
whose internal
integration
integration
hasn’t been been
functional
hasn’t
hasn’t
achieved been
integration achieved
yet.hasn’t
achieved 2. “★”:
yet.
beena yet.
firm
2. “★”:
2. “★”:
achieved
a firm
yet.a 2.
firm“F”: a firm whose
e internal whose internal
functional functional
integration hasNote:
Note:been 1.
integration
internal functional 1. “●”: ahas
integration
achieved
“●”: a firm
firm whose
been
has internal
achieved
beeninternal
successfully.
whose achieved
3. functional
successfully.
“ successfully.
functional integration
3. “
3. ”: hasn’t
“ an unstable
integration hasn’t been
”: achieved
an unstable
”: anachieved
been yet. 2.
unstable business
yet. 2. “★”:
“★”: a firm
firm
partnership.
whose internal functional integration Note:
Note:has 1. “●”:
1. “●”: a firm
beenaachieved whose
firm whose internal functional
internal functional
successfully. 3. been integration
integration ”:
“ achieved hasn’t
hasn’t been achieved
been achieved yet. 2.
an unstable yet. 2. “★”:
“★”: aaa firm
firm
business4.partnership. whose
4.”:“whose
whose internal
internal functional
”: a stable
functional integration
and win-win
integration has
has business
been successfully.
partnership.
achieved successfully.5. “3.
3. “
“ ”: the ”:
”: an
an unstable
unstable
ess partnership. “ a stable
whose and
internal win-win
functional business
integration partnership.
has been 5.
achieved “ ”: the
successfully. 3. “ ”: an unstable
business partnership. 4.4.““ ”:internal
business stable”:functional
a partnership.a stable
and win-win integration
4. ““ isand business has
win-win been achieved
business
partnership.
”: in
successfully.
“ partnership.
5. win-win 3.5.“ “
”: the governance scope. ”: an unstable a
5. ““6. * Although
rnance governance
scope. 6. * scope.
Although a6.supply
supply * chain
Although
business
business
chain
business
is a apartnership.
issupply
partnership.
networka network
partnership.in chain4.
4. in
4.
general, “ atathis
“ general,networkat
point,
”:
”: aaa stable
”:this
a
we
stable
stable
stable
point,
and
general,
and
and
andwe
simplified at this
win-win
win-win
simplified
win-win
it as a
business
point, we
business
business
it
business
chain in this
partnership.
simplified
partnership.
partnership.
partnership.
table. it5.
5.
5. ““
”: the
”: the
”: the
”: the
”: the governance scope. 6. * Although governance
governance
a supply
scope.
scope.
chain
6.
6. *
* Although
Although
is a network
a
a supply
supply
in general,
chain
chain is
is a
a
at
network
network
this
in
in
point,
general,
general,
we
at
at this
this point,
point, we
we simplified
simplified it
it
as a chain
hain in thisittable. in this table. governance scope. 6. * Although a supply chain is a network in general,
governance scope. 6. * Although a supply chain is a network in general, at this point, we simplified it at this point, we simplified it
simplified as a chain in this table. as a chain in this
as a chain in this table. table.
as aa chain
as chain in
in this
this table.
table.
Reflecting the sustainable lifecycle of a supply chain, this classification scheme provides us a clear
cting theReflecting
Reflecting sustainable thelifecycle
the sustainable
sustainable of a lifecycle
Reflectingsupply the of a supply
chain,
sustainable this lifecyclechain, of
classification
lifecycle this classification
scheme
a supply
supply chain,provides scheme
this us aprovides
classification us a provides us a
scheme
path for alifecycle
supply
Reflecting
Reflecting
Reflectingof a the
chain supply
the
the chain,
tosustainable
evolve
sustainable
sustainable from this
anclassification
lifecycle
lifecycle unsustainable
of
of aaa supply
of supply scheme
statethis
chain,
chain,
chain, toprovides
this
this aclassification
sustainable
classificationus a scheme
classification one that
scheme
scheme is positively
provides
provides us
us aaa
h pathclear
for afor path
supply for
chaina supply
to evolvechain
clear from
path tofor evolve
an a from
unsustainable
supply chain an unsustainable
to state
evolve to a
from state
sustainable
an to a
unsustainable sustainable
one that
stateis toone
a that
sustainableisprovides
one
us
that is
a supply associated clear
chain cleartowith
clear path
evolve
path
path for
itsfor from a
performance
for supply
aa supply
supply chain
an unsustainable
andto
chain
chain to evolve state
competitiveness.
to evolve
evolve from
from
from toanan
an unsustainable
a unsustainable
sustainable
The four different
unsustainable onestate
state
state to
that a
phases
to
to sustainable
aaissustainable one that
in the classification
sustainable one that
one that isis
is
positivelywith
associated associated
its with
performance its
positively
positively
performance
associated
and with
competitiveness.
associated with
and itscompetitiveness.
its performance
The
performance four and The
different
and
four
competitiveness.
phases
competitiveness.
differentin The
the
The
phases
four
in the phases
four different
different phases in in the
the
ively associated with scheme its situate
performance
positively
positively a supply and
associated
associated competitiveness.
chain with
with its performance
in terms
its performance Theand
of its sustainable fourcompetitiveness.
and different
competitiveness.
development phases The
and
The infour
thedifferent
four
the different phases
implementationphases in in the
ofthe
best
ionclassification
scheme
ification scheme
scheme
situate a supply
situate
situate chain
classificationa supply
classification
aclassification
supply
classification chain
scheme
in
scheme
scheme
scheme terms chain of in
situate
situate
situate
in situate
terms itsof aterms
supplyofchain
aaa sustainable
supply
supply
its sustainable
supply
its sustainable
chain
chain
in terms
chaindevelopment
in terms of
in terms
in terms
development
of development
of
its
its
of its and
its the theand
sustainable
sustainable
sustainable
and
sustainable
the
development
development
development and
development
and the
and the
and the
the
governance practices.
implementation of best governance practices.
implementation
ntation of best of
governance best governance
practices.
implementation
implementation practices.
of
of best
best governance
governance practices.
practices.
ementation of best governance implementation
The firstThe practices.
phase of best
in theinevolutiongovernance practices.
of aofsupply
The first phase
phase the evolution
evolution supplychain
a supply chain is disorderlydevelopment.
is disorderly
disorderly development. In this
In this
this phase,phase,
the
first
The phase infirst
first phase
phase in the
theinevolution
thefirm’s
evolution
evolution
The
of aThe
The
of
first
supply
first phase
first
a phase
supply
of ain
chain supply
in
in the
isthe
chainthe chain is
disorderly
evolution
evolution
is disorderly ofdisorderly
of
of aaa supply
development.
supply chain
development.
development.
chain
chain Inis is
this
is phase,
disorderly
disorderly
In this
Inthe
this phase, the
development.
development.
development.
phase, the
In
In this
In phase,
this phase, the
phase, the
the
the internal
firm’s integration
internal integration has not
has been
not been achieved
achieved yetyetandand ititdoes
does not
not have
have a
a clear
clear strategic
strategic goal
goal and
and
ernal firm’s internalhas
integration integration
not firm’s
firm’s
been
firm’s has not been
internal
internal
achieved
internal yet achieved
integration
integration
and
integration it has
has
does
has yet
not
notnot
not and
been
been
been itachieved
have does
achieved
achieved
a not
clear yet
yet
yet have
and
and it
strategic
and ait does
it clear
does
does
goal strategic
not
not
not have aaa goal
have
and
have clear and
clear
clear strategic goal
strategic goal
strategic and
goal and
and
s internal integration has not
stable business been
stable business
stable
achieved
partners.partners.
business yet
partners. and
Firms areFirms Firms it
still indoes
are
are
not
thestill
still have
process
in the
in thea clear
of process strategic
establishing
process goal and
their core competitive
of establishing
of establishing their core
their advantages
core competitive
competitive
stable business partners. stable
stable Firms
business
business are partners.
still in the
partners. Firms
Firms process stillofin
are still
are inestablishing
the process
the process their core competitive
of establishing
of establishing their core
their core competitive
competitive
esiness partners.
business Firms
partners.
with Firms
are still
are
advantages
the advantages
focus on
advantages
in with
still the
their
with
with
in process
the
the
internal
the process
focus
focus
the focus
focus
of
on
functional
on
establishing
their
their
on their
of
theirand
establishing
internal
integration
internal
internal
their
functional
and
functional
functional
core
theirtheir
competitive
core
integration competitive
independent
integration
integration
and
and their
their
and their
their
independent
operations.
independent Asoperations.
the lowest
operations.
independent operations.
operations.
es advantages
with the focus with the focus
on their on their
advantages
internal with
functionalinternal
the functional
on
integration integration
internal
their and their
functional
independent independent
integrationoperations. and operations.
independent
ntages with the focus
level,onthere As
their
As the
is no
the lowest
internal
supply
lowest level,
functional
chain
level, there is
integration
integration
there is no
no supply
in
supplyand
this chain
their
phase,
chain integration
independent
and
integrationthe in
supply
in this
this phase,
operations.
chain
phase, and
cooperation
and the
the supply
is chain
temporary,
supply chain
As level,
the lowest level, As the
As
there theislowest
lowest
noissupply level, there
level, there
chain isintegration
is no supply
no supply chain chain
in andthis integration
integration
phase, in this
in
and this phase,
thephase,
supply and
and the supply
the
chain supply chain
chain
owest there
he lowest level, there is no supply
cooperation
is cooperation
no chain integration
temporary, in
unstable, this andphase,
non-strategic. the supply chain
unstable, andsupply
non-strategic.
cooperation
cooperation is
ischain
temporary,
temporary,
is temporary, integration
unstable,
unstable, in and
andthis phase,
non-strategic.
non-strategic.
unstable, and non-strategic. and the supply chain
on cooperation
is temporary, isunstable,
temporary, andunstable,
non-strategic. and non-strategic.
eration is temporary, unstable,
The second andphasenon-strategic.
in the evolution of a supply chain is contractual integration. In this phase,
the firm’s internal functional integration has been achieved successfully and its core competitive
advantage is established which makes it possible to build a stable supply chain with others. Firms
Sustainability
Sustainability 2018,
2018,
Sustainability 10,0171
10,
2018, 0171 10.3390/su10010171
10.3390/su10010171
10, 0171 10.3390/su10010171 77of
of17
717of 17

TheThe
The second
secondsecond phase
phase phase in the
in the evolution
evolution
in the evolution of aaof
of supply
supply
a supply chain
chain is contractual
is
chain contractual
is contractual integration.
integration.
integration. Inthis
In this
In thisphase,
phase, thethe
the
phase,
firm’s
firm’s internal
internal functional
functional integration
integration has
has been
been achieved
achieved
firm’s internal functional integration has been achieved successfully and its core competitive successfully
successfully and
and its
its core
core competitive
competitive
advantage
advantage
advantage is established
is established
is established which
which which makes
makes makes itit possible
possible
it possible to build
to build
to build aa stable
stable
a stable supply
supplysupply chain
chain chain with
with others.
others.
with others. Firms
Firms Firms
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 7 of 17
begin
begin begin to cultivate
to cultivate
to cultivate stable
stable stable business
business
business partnership
partnership
partnership consciously
consciously
consciously byby by establishing
establishing
establishing contractual
contractual
contractual relations,
relations,
relations,
although
although
although each
each firm
firm
each isstill
is
firm still mainly
mainly
is still mainly interested
interested
interested in its
in its
inownown
its own objectives
objectives
objectives andand
and interests
interests
interests instead
instead instead offocusing
of focusing
of focusing on on
on
thethe
the
begin shared
shared
to objectives
objectives
cultivate
shared objectives andand
and
stable substantial
substantial
business
substantial collaboration,
collaboration,
partnership
collaboration, leading
leading
consciouslyleading tominimum
to minimum
by supply
supply
establishing
to minimum supply chain
chain
contractual integration.
integration.
chain relations,
integration. At At
At
thisthis
this
althoughphase,
phase, each the
the governance
governance
firm is still mainlymechanisms
mechanisms
interested of
of inaa its supply
supply
own
phase, the governance mechanisms of a supply chain are mainly implemented by a single chain
chain
objectives are
are andmainly
mainly implemented
implemented
interests instead of by
by aa
focusing single
single
on
member
member
the shared
member independently,
independently,
objectives
independently, and and
and thethe
the
substantial
and supply
supply chain
chain
collaboration,
supply chaincooperation
cooperation leading
cooperation isbased
is based
to onarm’s
on
minimum
is based arm’s
on length
length
supply
arm’s length contracts
contracts
chain thatthat
that
integration.
contracts areare
are
relatively
relatively
At this phase,
relatively stable
stablestable but
thebut without
without
governance
but without overall
overall
mechanisms
overall strategic
strategic
strategic goals
of agoals supply
goals forchain
for thethe
the
for whole
whole
arewhole supply
supply
mainly chain.
chain.
implemented
supply chain. As As
As aaby significant
significant
a asignificant
single
turning
turning
member point
point of
of
independently,the
the “breakthrough”
“breakthrough”
and the supply phase,
phase, chain contractual
contractual
cooperation
turning point of the “breakthrough” phase, contractual integration marks a beginning of a possible integration
integration
is based marks
marks
on a
arm’sa beginning
beginning
length of
of a
contractsa possible
possible
that
collaborative
collaborative
are collaborative relationship.
relativelyrelationship.
stable but without overall strategic goals for the whole supply chain. As a significant
relationship.
turning TheThe
The third
third
point phase
phase
of
third thephase isbilateral
is bilateral
“breakthrough”
is bilateral integration.
integration.
phase,In
integration. In this
this
contractual
In this phase,
phase, phase, thethe
the neighboring
neighboring
integration partners
markspartners
neighboring a beginning
partners inaain
in supply
supply
ofa asupply chain
chain
possible chain
achieve
achieve
collaborative bilateral
bilateral
achieve bilateral integration
integration
relationship. on
on the
the basis
basis of
of mutual
mutual understanding
understanding
integration on the basis of mutual understanding of each other’s capabilities of
of each
each other’s
other’s capabilities
capabilities to to
to
achieve
achieve
achieve their
Thetheir third
theirmutual
mutual
phase
mutual strategic
strategic
is bilateral
strategic missions.
missions.
integration.
missions. TheThe
The supply
supply
In supply chain
thischainphase,
chaincollaboration
collaboration
the neighboring
collaboration is not
is not justjust
just
is partners
not contractual,
contractual,
in a supply
contractual, butbut
but
more
more
chain strategic
strategic
achieve with
with
bilateral focus
focus on
on
integration win-win
win-win on the potentials
potentials
basis of of
of
mutual both
both
more strategic with focus on win-win potentials of both parties. Therefore, a long-term and stable parties.
parties.
understanding Therefore,
Therefore,
of each aa long-term
long-term
other’s and
and
capabilities stable
stableto
partnership
partnership
achieve
partnership between
their between
mutual
between the
the the
strategic neighboring
neighboring
missions.
neighboring Thepartners
partnerssupply
partners was
was
chainwas established
established
collaboration
established with
with iswith
notbilateral
bilateral
just strategic
strategic
contractual,
bilateral strategic goals
goals
but more of of
of
goals
collaboration
collaboration
strategic with focus
collaboration built
built on
built upon
upon win-win
upon each
each other’s
other’s
potentials
each other’s complementary
complementary
of both competitive
competitive
parties. Therefore,
complementary competitive advantages.
advantages.
a long-term and stable
advantages. TheThe
The governance
governance
partnership
governance
mechanisms
mechanisms
between the in
in this
this
neighboring phase
phase are
are
partners often
oftenwas implemented
implemented
established
mechanisms in this phase are often implemented as bilateral collaborative governance as
as
with bilateral
bilateral collaborative
collaborative
strategic goals governance
governance
of collaboration between
between
built
between
neighboring
neighboring
upon each other’s
neighboring partners
partners which
which
complementary
partners which mainly
mainly focus
focus
competitive
mainly focus on fostering,
on fostering,
onadvantages.
fostering, promoting
promoting
The governance
promoting and
andand extending
extending
mechanisms
extending their
their collaboration
collaboration
theirin this phase
collaboration
as their
as
are their
often
as mutual
mutual
their implemented
mutual objectives.
objectives.
objectives.as bilateral collaborative governance between neighboring partners which
mainly The
The lastlast
last
focus
The phase
phase
on is the
is
fostering,
phase the
is theholistic
holistic
promoting
holistic integration.
integration.
and extending
integration. ItIt isisItan
an ideal
ideal
istheir
an andand
and
collaboration
ideal desired
desired
desired phase
phase
as their
phase of
of aaofsupply
mutual supply chain.
chain.
objectives.
a supply In In
In
chain.
thisthis
this phase,
phase,
Thephase, anphase
an
last intimate,
intimate,
an is the
intimate, long-term
long-term
holistic
long-term and
and strategic
strategic
integration.
and strategic partnership
partnership
It an idealis
ispartnership isandfirmly
firmly established
established
desired
is firmly phase and
established andaand
of formalized
formalized
supply by by
by
chain.
formalized
maximizing
maximizing
In this phase, mutual
mutual
an interests
interests
intimate, that
that
long-term benefit
benefit
and the
the whole
whole
strategic supply
supply
partnership
maximizing mutual interests that benefit the whole supply chain. Every partner in the supply chain chain.
chain. is Every
Every
firmly partner
partner
established in
in the
the
and supply
supply
formalizedchain
chain
is strategically
is
by strategically
maximizing
is strategically benefited
benefited
mutual benefited from
from
interests from the
the
that advanced
advanced
the benefit
advanced the management
management
whole
managementsupply practices
practices
chain.
practices andand
and
Every innovative
innovative
partner
innovative technology
in technology
the supply
technology
introduced
introduced
chain andand
and
is strategically
introduced adopted
adopted benefited
adopted in aaintimely
in timely
from the
a timely manner
manner
advanced
manner to enhance
to enhance
tomanagement
enhance thethe
the competitiveness
competitiveness
practices of the
of
and innovative
competitiveness the
of the whole
whole supply
supply
technology
whole supply
chain.
chain.
introduced Furthermore,
Furthermore, continuous
continuous
and adopted continuous
chain. Furthermore, improvements
improvements
in a timely manner improvements to enhance are
are made
made
arethe made jointly
jointly
competitiveness by
by each
each
jointly by each partner
partner
of thepartner learning
learning
whole from
from
supply chain.
learning thethe
the
from
feedback
feedback
Furthermore,
feedback of the
of the performance
performance
continuous
of the performance measurement
measurement
improvements measurement are made of
of thethe whole
whole
of jointly
the by
whole supply
supply
each
supply chain.
chain.
partnerchain. The
The
learning
Thegovernance
governance of
from theoffeedback
governance the
the whole
whole
of the of
whole
supply
supply
the chain
chain
performance
supply chainis sustainable
is sustainable
measurement
is sustainable with
with withdynamic,
ofdynamic,
thedynamic, elastic,
wholeelastic, supply
elastic, holistic,
holistic,
chain. uncertainty-handling
uncertainty-handling
The
holistic, governance of the and
uncertainty-handling andand
whole future-oriented
future-oriented
supply chain
future-oriented
characteristics.
characteristics.
is sustainable
characteristics. with dynamic, elastic, holistic, uncertainty-handling and future-oriented characteristics.
TheThe
The
The four
four
four phases
phases
phases
four phases of aaofsupply
of supply
a supply chain
chain chain evolution
evolution
evolution in this
in this classification
classification
in this classification scheme
schemescheme detail
detail aa sustainable
detail sustainable
a sustainable
development
development of of
of a aa
supplysupply
supply chain, chain,
chain,
which which
which
laid the laid
laid the
the
foundation
development of a supply chain, which laid the foundation for the Sustainable Collaborative foundation
foundation
for the for
for
Sustainable the
the Sustainable
Sustainable
Collaborative Collaborative
Collaborative
Governance
Governance
Governance
Framework
Governance Framework
Framework
(Figure 1). The
Framework (Figure
(Figure
framework
(Figure 1). The
1). The
1).aimsTheframework
framework direct aaims
toframework aims
supply
aims to chain
to direct
direct
to direct aa supply
supply
evolvinga supplyfromchain
chain chain evolving
evolving
a lower from
from
sustainable
evolving fromaa a
lower
lower
level to
lowersustainable
sustainable
a higher
sustainable one level
level to aato
to
throughout
level higher
higher the
a higher one
one throughout
throughout
supply
one chain lifecycle.
throughout thethe
the supply
supplysupply chain
chain lifecycle.
lifecycle.
chain lifecycle.

Figure
Figure 1. Sustainable
1. Sustainable Collaborative
Collaborative Governance
Governance Framework.
Framework. Note:
Note: ““ “ “ ”: Operational
Figure
Figure 1. 1.Sustainable
Sustainable Collaborative
Collaborative Governance
Governance Framework.
Framework. Note:
Note: ”:”: Operational
”: Operational
Operational
mechanism;
mechanism;
mechanism;“
“ “ ”: Evolutionary
”: Evolutionary progression
progression
”: Evolutionary of a
of a of
progression supply
supply chain.
chain.
a supply chain.
mechanism; “ ”: Evolutionary progression of a supply chain.
As Figure
As Figure
As 11 shows,
Figure shows,
1 shows,thethe
the Sustainable
Sustainable Collaborative
Collaborative
Sustainable CollaborativeGovernance
Governance
Governance Framework
Framework
Framework enables
enables supply
supply
enables chain
chain
supply chain
As
managers
managers Figure
make1
make shows, the
comprehensive
comprehensive Sustainable Collaborative
diagnosis
diagnosis and
and Governance
actions
actions in
in its
its Framework
evolution
evolution
managers make comprehensive diagnosis and actions in its evolution process to promote enables
process
process supply
to
to chain
promote
promote
managers
harmonious
harmonious make
harmonious comprehensive
collaboration
collaboration
collaboration that diagnosis
thatthat
positively
positively and actions
contributes
contributes
positively in to
its
contributesto evolution
its
to its process
its synergistic
synergistic
synergistic togrowth.
promote
growth.
growth. harmonious
Specifically,
Specifically,
Specifically, thethe
the
collaboration
framework
framework that
provides
framework positively
provides
providesus aaus
us contributes
clear
clear roadmap
roadmap
a clear to
roadmapofits
of thesynergistic
the growth.
evolutionary
evolutionary
of the evolutionary Specifically,
process
process
processof aaof
of the
supply
supply framework
chain
chain
a supply provides
lifecycle
lifecycle
chain from
from
lifecycle from
us a clear roadmap of the evolutionary process of a supply chain lifecycle from the lowest phase of
disorderly development to the ideal holistic integration phase. Based on the framework, supply chain
managers could continuously implement necessary actions to ensure and promote the whole supply
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 8 of 17

chain development in a positive direction associated with improved performance and competitiveness.
Through some necessary sustainable mechanisms (such as communication and trust, benefit and
risk sharing, collaborative R&D, restructure, etc.), the framework enables supply chain managers
continuously reexamine and adjust the supply chain strategy to ensure it is still appropriate based
on the situational circumstances. These sustainable mechanisms contribute to improved forecasting,
production scheduling and inventory planning, etc., to respond swiftly to uncertainties and to govern
the supply chain more sustainably and more effectively, through an overarching governance structure
of decision-making committee and information sharing platform. Thus, the framework shows a high
degree of collaborative adaptability and resilience to cope with today’s constantly changing business
environment and competitive landscape. Moreover, as a sustainable holistic collaborative governance
framework throughout the lifecycle of a supply chain, a high degree of proactive responsiveness,
rather than passively responding to the changing business environment, is called upon for supply
chain managers to proactively respond to the possible changes and uncertainties.
Moreover, the framework provides an evolutionary path and a governance structure for supply
chain managers to lead the supply chain towards a more sustainable state based on different situations
and following different mechanisms. For firms whose internal integration has not been achieved
yet and who do not have a clear strategic goal and stable business partners, the evolution of a
supply chain is from the disorderly development phase to the contractual integration phase, involving
accelerating firms’ internal functional integration and strengthening communication and trust in order
to stabilize and extend their business as the top priority. For firms who have established stable supply
chain partners based on contractual relations, the evolution of the supply chain is from contractual
integration phase to bilateral integration phase where benefit and risk sharing, conflict resolution, and
collaborative R&D will play a greater role in achieving their mutual strategic missions of win-win
integration. Furthermore, besides all of the mechanisms mentioned above, the evolution from bilateral
integration phase to holistic integration phase will also entail that supply chain managers need to adopt
any necessary mechanisms, including restructuring the supply chain situationally and dynamically, to
benefit the whole supply chain.
The Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework emphasizes a governance structure for
decision-makers to proactively diagnose and act through sustainable mechanisms as the pivotal factor
to the positive evolution of a supply chain.

3.3. Sustainable Governance and Mechanisms

To guide a supply chain to move positively from a lower phase to a higher one under the
Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework, we propose a governance structure and a series of
sustainable mechanisms to be implemented situationally.
Governance of a supply chain requires a governing structure. In our framework, we propose
a decision-making committee and an information sharing platform as the governing structure of
a sustainable supply chain. Some researchers emphasized the pivotal role of a decision-making
committee in SCM which functions as the nerve center for the whole supply chain [68–70]. Therefore,
the decision-making committee is also named as “steering committee” [71,72]. Although Stadtler [68]
argues that the most powerful partner of a supply chain will be the decision-maker for the whole
supply chain that will lead to difficulties in the governance of the supply chain, this paper proposes
a different perspective. In our framework, the decision-making committee is established upon the
consensus of all partners in the supply chain aiming at a win-win strategic planning. This consensus
among supply chain partners is the result of negotiations between partners based upon rational
tradeoff leading to a consent on the pattern of power distribution in decisions pertinent to the
interests of the whole supply chain. Thus, the decision-making committee acquires its legitimacy and
decision power from all partners who choose to stay in the supply chain. An effective decision-making
committee will be empowered by the whole supply chain to serve as the mind for this complex
federation of organizations to handle the myriad activities and multiple objectives of the supply chain.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 9 of 17

In general, the decision-making committee will serve several different functions to SCM, namely,
governance, coordination and administration, market analysis, imposing discipline for violations,
etc. The decision-making committee therefore affords the supply chain decision-makers with the
knowledge and skills to make meaningful and acceptable decisions in order to move the supply chain
to a higher phase and effectively overcome the challenges of the changing environment.
Information sharing platform is considered as an essential component of a supply chain
architecture which contributes to a better collaboration and integration [73–75]. An efficient and
effective information sharing platform should be structured to enable the whole supply chain to share
essential market and operational information, improve productivity, and reduce transaction cost and
time-to-market. As a centralized information platform, partners of the supply chain will continuously
update operational data required by the decision-making committee, monitor the critical situation as
reflected by the updated data, and coordinate the daily operational schedule based on the information
in the platform.
In fact, what the information sharing platform shared is not just information, but also knowledge.
According to Resource-based view, knowledge is also a resource. Increasingly, a key goal in SCM is
to acquire and disseminate knowledge in ways that lead to effective decision making [76,77]. And in
today’s global environment, research confirms that knowledge value is increased when globally diverse
supply chain partners share knowledge [78]. Converting knowledge resources into value requires a
proper governance framework because knowledge is only valuable when it is in use [79,80]. Thus,
the information sharing platform serves as the governance framework and performs four functions:
facilitating daily operations, monitoring critical information, triggering responses, and managing
knowledge. Specifically, it enables partners of the supply chain to optimize their daily operations with
an increased return to be shared among them thus further consolidating partnerships and moving
the supply chain in a positive direction. The information sharing platform also dynamically monitors
critical information or key indicators in the supply chain, and if necessary, triggers appropriate
responses to deal with potential crisis. And most importantly, this information sharing platform
codifies knowledge acquired from the collaborative governance of the supply chain, shares the
knowledge in the network, and routinizes the acquired knowledge to increase the network capabilities
to handle disturbances.
The Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework also identifies a series of mechanisms
for decision-makers to proactively diagnose and act. Among many, four major mechanisms are
proposed: communication and trust mechanism, benefit and risk sharing mechanism, collaborative
R&D mechanism, and restructure mechanism.
Communication and trust mechanism: Effective cross-functional communication contributes to
mutual understanding and trust, and having been widely considered as an important driver for culture,
identity, image and reputation of a supply chain [36,39,81]. Two patterns of communication could
be used: formal and informal communication. Formal communication involves specific structural
formats for engagement, such as cross-functional teams, co-location, regularly scheduled meetings
and conferences, or matrix-style reporting structures, which will result in greater boundary-spanning
activities for the whole supply chain. Informal communication, viewed as “socialization tactics” in
a non-workplace environment, focuses on mutual understanding and awareness by interpersonal
relationship-building activities. Compared with formal communication, informal communication
often plays a more significant role in creating and maintaining trust, contributing to reduced conflicts
and leading to a more coherent collaboration of the supply chain.
Benefit and risk sharing mechanism: Supply chain tends to increase in complexity. The
involvement of numerous partners in a network of relationships causes risks and vulnerability for
everyone [82]. Thus, how to reduce the risk of disruption as much as possible becomes a major
concern in SCM. Benefit and risk sharing is considered one of the effective programs to handle this
challenge [83,84]. For a trust-based complex federation of organizations, a benefit and risk sharing
mechanism is significant to supply chain continuity. Though the benefit and risk sharing varies
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 10 of 17

based on the type of collaboration, they are often shared with formal agreements such as obligating
contracts, price concession and profit sharing schemes, property rights sharing, or ownership control,
all providing an incentive for partners to further their collaboration.
Collaborative R&D mechanism: Supply chain is also a collaboration chain and an innovation
chain. From the Resource-based view, the focus of SCM research in recent years has shifted from the
narrow operating efficiency considerations to the effective resources or capabilities development that
emphasizes collaborative R&D and innovation [85,86]. Collaborative R&D and innovation reflects the
characteristics of win-win cooperation in SCM which contributes to maximizing their mutual interests
that benefit the whole supply chain [87]. Greater supply chain collaboration has important strategic
significance to the boundary-spanning of a supply chain because they need to utilize the resources
and knowledge of their partners to enhance innovation capacity that could not be accomplished solely
by themselves. Built upon the communication and trust mechanism and the benefit and risk sharing
mechanism, it is possible for the collaborative R&D of the supply chain to be launched successfully in a
format of a series of detailed arrangements, such as clear divisions of labor, intellectual and intangible
property ownership, cost-sharing, and opportunism prevention.
Restructure mechanism: From a strategic perspective, a supply chain is structured and established
based comparative advantage with focus on win-win potentials. Today’s tremendously changing
and competitive environment imposes a significant challenge for SCM. If the existing supply chain
structure could not meet their strategic goals and respond to dynamic and unpredictable changes
after the necessary adjustment and maintenance procedure, the supply chain should be restructured
to adapt to such changes [88,89]. As an uncertainty handling mechanism, options for restructuring
include re-enacted strategic objectives (e.g., Blue Ocean Strategy), technology acquisition, partner
update, and others.
In addition to the four major mechanisms to ensure sustainable evolution of a supply chain,
decision-makers could use other mechanisms such as moral hazard prevention and punishment,
joint investment, cultural identity, information confidentiality and disclosure, etc. to proactively
diagnose and act in developing a supply chain sustainably. In fact, drawing from the relationship
marketing literature [90,91], a supply chain could be considered as relationships in networks in which
partners interact through an interaction process to create value for each other collaboratively [92]. In the
process of collaboration, the idea of relationship development is necessary, and managing sustainably
the development and maintenance of these collaborative relationships will require many mutually
complementary mechanisms such as the ones mentioned above and possibly honesty, benevolence,
reliability, commitment and diligence [93,94]. It should be noted that the use of these mechanisms
and detailed implementation of these mechanisms should depend on the specific situation of a supply
chain and the different characteristics of each phase.

3.4. Characteristics of the Framework

The Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework aims to realize a continuously successful
collaboration and the sustainable improvement of performance and competitiveness of a supply chain.
The framework has five distinctive characteristics.
The first characteristic of the Framework is dynamic. The dynamic nature reflects the essence of an
open system that fast changes in internal and external environments force a system to handle varieties
in a dynamic way [95]. The initial chosen set of strategies, policies and practices are no guarantee for
future survival without mechanisms for dynamic adjustments and might eventually lead to stagnation
and decay [96]. Our framework proposed a dynamic monitor-trigger-react governance structure to
handle disturbances from internal or external environment of the supply chain through the information
sharing platform aiming to prevent the supply chain from moving in the negative direction. Further,
the framework proposed mechanisms to proactively handle potential disturbances by continuously
scanning environment and conduct collaborative R&D and innovation. In general, the mechanisms
proposed in the framework should be implemented dynamically based on different situations in a
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 11 of 17

supply chain lifecycle to ensure continuous adjustments along the positive direction of the supply
chain evolving through different phases.
The second characteristic of the framework is elastic. As mentioned above, the business
environment of a supply chain has gone through an unbelievable transformation in recent decades
in which only a small number of supply chains survived [13]. Therefore, supply chains require
an elastic governance structure with high degree of fault-tolerance and adaptability capable to
respond to the unpredictable scenarios [19]. Our framework empowers supply chain managers to
implement collaborative governance effectively by flexible combinations of sustainable governance
mechanisms deemed to be appropriate to respond to different situations. Furthermore, this framework
affords a high degree of fault-tolerance and could be used in implementing process control against
the potential mistakes made by the decision-makers. Decision-makers could dynamically monitor
critical information or key indicators in the supply chain and if necessary, trigger appropriate
responses to proactively correct the wrong decision and prevent the supply chain from moving
in the negative direction.
The third characteristic of the framework is holistic. As mentioned above, firms have abandoned
the antagonistic approach of doing business and have chosen a more integrative management style
which focused on collaboration along the supply chain as a whole in order to sustain their competitive
position [97]. However, collaborating activities in a supply chain is often faced with conflicts between
individual member’s interests and the holistic interests of the supply chain [38]. The framework
provides a guidance to coordinate the different individual interests effectively by decision-making
committee working through mechanisms such as benefits and risk sharing and communication and
trust. As showed in Figure 1, the framework encompasses a holistic picture of the supply chain lifecycle
and divides them into four phases with the aims of improving supply chain overall performance and
competitiveness. As we see in the framework, there are different governance needs in each of the
phases, and the holistic perspective will offer decision-making committee a method for describing and
analyzing problems from such holistic perspective, rather than fall into the trap of focusing on one
particular phase losing the sight of the overall supply chain lifecycle movement.
The fourth characteristic of the framework is uncertainty-handling. There are many sorts of
uncertainties associated with doing business on a daily basis which will have various effects on a supply
chain [98]. The traditional governance models that focused on certain and specific problems could
not cope with this situation [99]. The Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework presented
in this paper is developed as an open framework capable of handling diverse uncertainties by
incorporating more governance structure and more variety-handling mechanisms. As a strategic
framework, it enables the supply chain managers a strategic thinking in proactive diagnosis and novel
adoption of pertinent precautionary measures according to the various uncertain events at their early
phases. In this way, the negative impacts of the uncertain events would be minimized as far as possible,
which guarantees the supply chain collaboration moved forwards in the positive direction.
The fifth characteristic of the framework is future-oriented. As a collaboration chain, a win-win
collaboration is a supply chain’s ultimate strategic goal [4]. A desired win-win situation can enlarge
the joint benefits and reward each partner a share of greater gain that could not be generated by each
member on its own [100]. Future-orientation is the cornerstone of the continuous win-win collaboration.
In Figure 1, the supply chain collaboration is depicted as an evolution from the current state to an ideal
future state. The current state could be disorderly development, contractual integration, or bilateral
integration, all moving towards a future ideal state of the holistic integration. The governance
mechanisms are also future oriented. For example, both supply chain members’ interests and whole
system’s interests were guarded through benefit and risk sharing and communication and trust
mechanisms. Further, the sustainable evolution of the supply chain is strengthened by the collaborative
R&D and restructuring mechanisms that utilize and update each member’s competitive advantages to
develop technologies and processes conducive to the sustainable evolution of the whole supply chain.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 12 of 17

In summary, the Sustainable Collaborative Governance Framework enables SCM not only to
maintain, but also to improve their performance and competitiveness under the changing business
environment. We argue that studying SCM through the lens of this framework has the potential to
provide useful insights into the governance of a supply chain throughout its lifecycle.

4. Conclusions
The research question we set out in this paper is how to design an appropriate governance
framework to guide the whole supply chain to collaborate sustainably in the volatile and uncertain
environment. We focused our attention on an effective governance framework to improve the
sustainability of a supply chain throughout its lifecycle, and proposed a Sustainable Collaborative
Governance Framework with a classification scheme detailing the evolution of a supply chain in
different phases of sustainable development. This Framework, covering all possible operating states
of a supply chain from disorderly development up to ideal holistic integration and enumerating
four major governance mechanisms, provides us a clear roadmap for a supply chain to evolve
from an unsustainable state to a sustainable one that is positively associated with its performance
and competitiveness. As such, the four different phases in the classification scheme situate a
supply chain in terms of its sustainable development and the implementation of best governance
practices. This framework, with the classification scheme and its adaptive decision-making and action
mechanisms throughout supply chain lifecycle, will enable the whole supply chain proactively and
resiliently respond to uncertainties or perturbations without undergoing significant changes to firms’
normal operations.
Comparing to the prior frameworks or models, the Sustainable Collaborative Governance
Framework proposed in this paper contributes to the SCM literature in the following ways:
First, this study adds to the existing body of knowledge on “sustainable SCM”. To our best
knowledge, although literature has many studies on the sustainable supply chain, very few researches
have focused on the sustainable development of the internal lifecycle of a supply chain and proposed
an effective program in managing such development. Our study extends the research on “sustainable
SCM” from traditional natural-social-economic perspective to managerial perspective that focuses
on the capability of a supply chain to develop itself sustainably in today’s complex and uncertain
business environment.
Second, our research extends and re-defines the nature and connotation of “sustainable SCM” by
clearly elucidating its characteristics as dynamic, elastic, holistic, uncertainty-handling and future-oriented.
Today’s increasing changing and complex business environment requires a supply chain network
possess the necessary capabilities (the requisite variety) to cope with uncertainties, imposing significant
challenges to traditional SCM. The framework provides a clear roadmap of the evolutionary process of
a supply chain lifecycle and details a governance structure and a series of sustainable mechanisms that
embody the above characteristics to enable the supply chain to move positively from a lower phase to
a higher one under the scenario of rapid market evolution and high uncertain business environments.
Third, the framework proposed in this paper provides a clear classification scheme reflecting the
sustainable lifecycle of a supply chain, a series of systematic sustainable mechanisms, and a functional
governance structure that could implement the sustainable mechanisms situationally. To our best
knowledge, this is the first study in the field of sustainable SCM research proposing a framework with
more specific implementation mechanisms which showed a high adaptability against uncertainties to
ensure the whole supply chain to obtain and sustain an ideal collaboration with improved performance
and competitiveness. We believe that our framework makes an important contribution to the study
of the sustainable supply chain and we call on future research in refining the framework further,
empirically examining it, and operationalizing the framework for the implementation by supply
chain managers.
In addition to theoretical contributions, the framework has substantial managerial significance to
practitioners. First, the framework provides additional insights into the area of supply chain governance
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 13 of 17

when managerial decisions are especially important to maintain and improve competitiveness
and financial performance from a long-term strategic perspective. Second, it enables supply chain
managers make comprehensive diagnosis and actions in its evolution process to promote harmonious
collaboration that positively contributes to its synergistic growth. Third, through the necessary
sustainable mechanisms, the framework enables supply chain managers continuously reexamine and
adjust the supply chain strategy to ensure it is still appropriate based on the situational circumstances.
Based on the framework, supply chain managers could continuously implement necessary actions
to ensure and promote the whole supply chain development in a positive direction and with a high
degree of adaptability and responsiveness in handling changing business environment.
In today’s volatile and complex business environment, it is more and more difficult for supply
chain managers to make decisions effectively, thereby both researchers and practitioners have an
increased interest to investigate how to design an appropriate governance framework to guide the
supply chain to collaborate successfully under such environment. This paper theorizes and proposes
a framework on the sustainable evolution of a supply chain with specific governance mechanisms
that are highly adaptable to proactively respond to uncertainties or perturbations without undergoing
significant changes to firms’ normal operations, which contributes to the comprehensive understanding
and practice of the sustainable SCM.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities
and Social Sciences [grant numbers 16YJC630116].
Author Contributions: Jiguang Wang contributes to the whole process of research and manuscript writing.
Bing Ran contributes to the whole process of research and manuscript writing. Both authors have approved the
final article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fawcett, S.E.; Ellram, L.M.; Ogden, J.A. Supply Chain Management: From Vision to Implementation; Pearson:
London, UK, 2014.
2. Emmett, S.; Crocker, B. The Relationship-Driven Supply Chain: Creating a Culture of Collaboration throughout the
Chain; Gower Publishing, Ltd.: Hampshire, UK, 2012.
3. Mentzer, J.T.; DeWitt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S.; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D.; Zacharia, Z.G. Defining supply chain
management. J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 1–25. [CrossRef]
4. Stadtler, H. Supply chain management: An overview. In Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning;
Stadtler, H., Kilger, C., Meyr, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 257–277.
5. Grosvold, J.; Hoejmose, U.S.; Roehrich, J.K. Squaring the circle: Management, measurement and performance
of sustainability in supply chains. SCM Int. J. 2014, 19, 292–305. [CrossRef]
6. Yu, H.; Zeng, A.Z.; Zhao, L. Single or dual sourcing: Decision-making in the presence of supply chain
disruption risks. Omega 2009, 37, 788–800. [CrossRef]
7. Wu, T.; Blackhurst, J.; O’grady, P. Methodology for supply chain disruption analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007,
45, 1665–1682. [CrossRef]
8. Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2004, 15, 1–14. [CrossRef]
9. Stank, T.P.; Keller, S.B.; Daugherty, P.J. Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance.
J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 29–48. [CrossRef]
10. Azevedo, S.G.; Carvalho, H.; Machado, V.C. The influence of green practices on supply chain performance:
A case study approach. Transp. Res. Part E 2011, 47, 850–871. [CrossRef]
11. Swink, M.; Narasimhan, R.; Wang, C. Managing beyond the factory walls: Effects of four types of strategic
integration on manufacturing plant performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 5, 148–164. [CrossRef]
12. Koufteros, X.; Vonderembse, M.; Jayaram, J. Internal and external integration for product development: The
contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decis. Sci. 2005, 36, 97–133. [CrossRef]
13. Sáenz, M.J.; Revilla, E. Creating more resilient supply chains. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2014, 55, 22–24.
14. Ponomarov, S.Y.; Holcomb, M.C. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag.
2009, 20, 124–143. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 14 of 17

15. Mari, S.I.; Lee, Y.H.; Memon, M.S. Sustainable and resilient supply chain network design under disruption
risks. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6666–6686. [CrossRef]
16. Jain, K.; Dubey, A. Supply chain collaboration: A governance perspective. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2005, 6,
50–57. [CrossRef]
17. Storey, J.; Emberson, C.; Godsell, J.; Harrison, A. Supply chain management: Theory, practice and future
challenges. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 754–774. [CrossRef]
18. Johnson, M.E. Supply chain management: Technology, globalization, and policy at a crossroads. Interfaces
2006, 36, 191–193. [CrossRef]
19. Blanchard, D. Supply Chain Management Best Practices; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
20. Christopher, M.; Holweg, M. “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 63–82. [CrossRef]
21. Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Shi, D.; Li, X. Governance of sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry. Eur.
Manag. J. 2014, 32, 823–836. [CrossRef]
22. Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaborative advantage: A firm’s perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 128,
358–367. [CrossRef]
23. Williamson, O.E. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20,
1087–1108. [CrossRef]
24. Howard, M.; Roehrich, J.K.; Lewis, M.A.; Squire, B. Converging and Diverging Governance Mechanisms:
The Role of (Dys) Function in Long-term Inter-organizational Relationships. Br. J. Manag. 2017, in press.
[CrossRef]
25. Fawcett, S.E.; Ogden, J.A.; Magnan, G.M.; Cooper, M.B. Organizational commitment and governance for
supply chain success. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2006, 36, 22–35. [CrossRef]
26. Wathne, K.H.; Heide, J.B. Relationship governance in a supply chain network. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 73–89.
[CrossRef]
27. Bitran, G.R.; Gurumurthi, S.; Sam, S.L. The need for third-party coordination in supply chain governance.
MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2007, 48, 30–37.
28. Richey, R.G.; Roath, A.S.; Whipple, J.M.; Fawcett, S.E. Exploring a governance theory of supply chain
management: Barriers and facilitators to integration. J. Bus. Logist. 2010, 31, 237–256. [CrossRef]
29. Claycomb, C.; Frankwick, G.L. Buyers’ perspectives of buyer–seller relationship development. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 2010, 39, 252–263. [CrossRef]
30. Stanko, M.A.; Bonner, J.M.; Calantone, R.J. Building commitment in buyer-seller relationships: A tie strength
perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007, 36, 1094–1103. [CrossRef]
31. Vázquez-Casielles, R.; Iglesias, V.; Varela-Neira, C. Collaborative manufacturer-distributor relationships:
The role of governance, information sharing and creativity. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2013, 28, 620–637. [CrossRef]
32. Fawcett, S.E.; Magnan, G.M. The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 2002, 32, 339–361. [CrossRef]
33. Holweg, M.; Disney, S.; Holmström, J.; Småros, J. Supply chain collaboration: Making sense of the strategy
continuum. Eur. Manag. J. 2005, 23, 170–181. [CrossRef]
34. Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier
perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 101–114. [CrossRef]
35. Amann, M.; Roehrich, J.K.; Eßig, M.; Harland, C. Driving sustainable supply chain management in the
public sector: The importance of public procurement in the European Union. SCM Int. J. 2014, 19, 351–366.
[CrossRef]
36. Cai, S.; Yang, Z.; Hu, Z. Exploring the governance mechanisms of quasi-integration in buyer-supplier
relationships. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 660–666. [CrossRef]
37. Tanskanen, K.; Aminoff, A. Buyer and supplier attractiveness in a strategic relationship—A dyadic
multiple-case study. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 50, 128–141. [CrossRef]
38. Ellegaard, C.; Andersen, P.H. The process of resolving severe conflict in buyer–supplier relationships.
Scand. J. Manag. 2015, 31, 457–470. [CrossRef]
39. Celuch, K.; Bantham, J.H.; Kasouf, C.J. The role of trust in buyer–seller conflict management. J. Bus. Res.
2011, 64, 1082–1088. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Zhao, Y. How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship
performance? J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 355–367. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 15 of 17

41. Viswanathan, S.; Piplani, R. Coordinating supply chain inventories through common replenishment epochs.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 129, 277–286. [CrossRef]
42. Lee, H.L.; Padmanabhan, V.; Whang, S. Information distortion in a supply chain: The bullwhip effect.
Manag. Sci. 1997, 43, 546–558. [CrossRef]
43. Mani, V.; Delgado, C.; Hazen, B.T.; Patel, P. Mitigating Supply Chain Risk via Sustainability Using Big Data
Analytics: Evidence from the Manufacturing Supply Chain. Sustainability 2017, 9, 608. [CrossRef]
44. Walker, H.; Phillips, W. Sustainable procurement: Emerging issues. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2008, 2, 41–61.
[CrossRef]
45. Lee, J.S.; Kim, S.K.; Lee, S.Y. Sustainable supply chain capabilities: Accumulation, strategic types and
performance. Sustainability 2016, 8, 503. [CrossRef]
46. Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S. Measuring the (un-) sustainability of industrial biomass production and use.
Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2012, 32, 109–133. [CrossRef]
47. Preuss, L. Addressing sustainable development through public procurement: The case of local government.
SCM Int. J. 2009, 14, 213–223. [CrossRef]
48. Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V. Sustainable supply chains: Governance mechanisms to greening suppliers.
J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 189–203. [CrossRef]
49. De Brito, M.P.; Van der Laan, E.A. Supply chain management and sustainability: Procrastinating integration
in mainstream research. Sustainability 2010, 2, 859–870. [CrossRef]
50. Varoutsa, E.; Scapens, R.W. The governance of inter-organizational relationships during different supply
chain maturity phases. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 46, 68–82. [CrossRef]
51. Mortensen, M.H.; Freytag, P.V.; Arlbjørn, J.S. Attractiveness in supply chains: A process and matureness
perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 799–815. [CrossRef]
52. Lockamy, A., III; McCormack, K. The development of a supply chain management process maturity model
using the concepts of business process orientation. SCM Int. J. 2004, 9, 272–278. [CrossRef]
53. Tuckman, B.W.; Jensen, M.A.C. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organ. Stud. 1977, 2,
419–427. [CrossRef]
54. Fawcett, S.E.; Magnan, G.M.; McCarter, M.W. A three-stage implementation model for supply chain
collaboration. J. Bus. Logist. 2008, 29, 93–112. [CrossRef]
55. Lewin, K. Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria
and Social Change. Hum. Relat. 1947, 1, 5–41. [CrossRef]
56. Carmeli, A.; Halevi, M.Y. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity
enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadersh. Q. 2009, 20,
207–218. [CrossRef]
57. Jap, S.D. “Pie sharing” in complex collaboration contexts. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 86–99. [CrossRef]
58. Klibi, W.; Martel, A.; Guitouni, A. The design of robust value-creating supply chain networks: A critical
review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 203, 283–293. [CrossRef]
59. Kothandaraman, P.; Wilson, D.T. The future of competition: Value-creating networks. Ind. Mark. Manag.
2001, 30, 379–389. [CrossRef]
60. Walker, H.; Preuss, L. Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses: Public sector
perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1600–1609. [CrossRef]
61. Tan, K.C. A framework of supply chain management literature. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2001, 7, 39–48.
[CrossRef]
62. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18,
509–533. [CrossRef]
63. Griffith, D.A.; Harvey, M.G. A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2001, 32,
597–606. [CrossRef]
64. Salam, M.A.; Ali, M.; Kan, K.A.S. Analyzing Supply Chain Uncertainty to Deliver Sustainable Operational
Performance: Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Modeling Approaches. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2217. [CrossRef]
65. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage of Nations: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance; Simon & Schuster:
New York, NY, USA, 2011.
66. De Oliveira, M.P.V.; Ladeira, M.B.; McCormack, K.P. The supply chain process management maturity
model-SCPM3. In Supply Chain Management-Pathways for Research and Practice; Önkal, D., Aktas, E., Eds.;
InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; pp. 201–218.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 16 of 17

67. Chan, F.T.; Qi, H.J. An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management.
SCM Int. J. 2003, 8, 209–223. [CrossRef]
68. Stadtler, H. Supply chain management and advanced planning-basics, overview and challenges. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2005, 163, 575–588. [CrossRef]
69. Lin, C.T.; Chiu, H.; Chu, P.Y. Agility index in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 100, 285–299.
[CrossRef]
70. Lummus, R.R.; Krumwiede, D.W.; Vokurka, R.J. The relationship of logistics to supply chain management:
Developing a common industry definition. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2001, 101, 426–432. [CrossRef]
71. Manthou, V.; Vlachopoulou, M.; Folinas, D. Virtual e-Chain (VeC) model for supply chain collaboration.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004, 87, 241–250. [CrossRef]
72. Hammer, M. The superefficient company. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2001, 79, 82–93. [PubMed]
73. Prajogo, D.; Olhager, J. Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships,
information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 514–522.
[CrossRef]
74. Sahin, F.; Robinson, E.P. Information sharing and coordination in make-to-order supply chains. J. Oper. Manag.
2005, 23, 579–598. [CrossRef]
75. Gunasekaran, A.; Ngai, E.W. Information systems in supply chain integration and management. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2004, 159, 269–295. [CrossRef]
76. Marra, M.; Ho, W.; Edwards, J.S. Supply chain knowledge management: A literature review. Expert Syst. Appl.
2012, 39, 6103–6110. [CrossRef]
77. Esper, T.L.; Ellinger, A.E.; Stank, T.P.; Flint, D.J.; Moon, M. Demand and supply integration: A conceptual
framework of value creation through knowledge management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010, 38, 5–18. [CrossRef]
78. Cummings, J.N. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization.
Manag. Sci. 2004, 50, 352–364. [CrossRef]
79. Li, Y.H.; Huang, J.W.; Tsai, M.T. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge
creation process. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 440–449. [CrossRef]
80. Myers, M.B.; Cheung, M.S. Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2008, 49, 67–73.
81. Hoejmose, S.U.; Roehrich, J.K.; Grosvold, J. Is doing more doing better? The relationship between responsible
supply chain management and corporate reputation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 77–90. [CrossRef]
82. Roehrich, J.; Lewis, M. Procuring complex performance: Implications for exchange governance complexity.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 221–241. [CrossRef]
83. Wakolbinger, T.; Cruz, J.M. Supply chain disruption risk management through strategic information
acquisition and sharing and risk-sharing contracts. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 49, 4063–4084. [CrossRef]
84. Kremic, T.; Icmeli Tukel, O.; Rom, W.O. Outsourcing decision support: A survey of benefits, risks,
and decision factors. SCM Int. J. 2006, 11, 467–482. [CrossRef]
85. Barratt, M. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. SCM Int. J. 2004, 9, 30–42.
[CrossRef]
86. Min, H.; Zhou, G. Supply chain modeling: Past, present and future. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2002, 43, 231–249.
[CrossRef]
87. Soosay, C.A.; Hyland, P.W.; Ferrer, M. Supply chain collaboration: Capabilities for continuous innovation.
SCM Int. J. 2008, 13, 160–169. [CrossRef]
88. Roh, J.J.; Min, H.; Hong, P. A co-ordination theory approach to restructuring the supply chain: An empirical
study from the focal company perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 49, 4517–4541. [CrossRef]
89. Zhang, D.Z.; Anosike, A.I.; Lim, M.K.; Akanle, O.M. An agent-based approach for e-manufacturing and
supply chain integration. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2006, 51, 343–360. [CrossRef]
90. Thorelli, H.B. Networks: Between markets and hierarchies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1986, 7, 37–51. [CrossRef]
91. Gummesson, E. Relationship marketing as a paradigm shift: Some conclusions from the 30R approach.
Manag. Decis. 1997, 35, 267–272. [CrossRef]
92. Yang, J.; Wang, J.; Wong, C.W.; Lai, K.H. Relational stability and alliance performance in supply chain. Omega
2008, 36, 600–608. [CrossRef]
93. Chen, J.V.; Yen, D.C.; Rajkumar, T.M.; Tomochko, N.A. The antecedent factors on trust and commitment in
supply chain relationships. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2011, 33, 262–270. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 171 17 of 17

94. Cheng, J.H.; Yeh, C.H.; Tu, C.W. Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. SCM Int. J. 2008, 13,
283–295. [CrossRef]
95. Ashby, W.R. An Introduction to Cybernetics; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1956.
96. Breen, L. A Preliminary examination of risk in the pharmaceutical supply chain (PSC) in the National Health
Service (NHS). J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2008, 1, 193–199. [CrossRef]
97. Ghosh, A.; Fedorowicz, J. The role of trust in supply chain governance. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2008, 14,
453–470. [CrossRef]
98. Finch, P. Supply chain risk management. SCM Int. J. 2004, 9, 183–196. [CrossRef]
99. Heckmann, I.; Comes, T.; Nickel, S. A critical review on supply chain risk—Definition, measure and modeling.
Omega 2015, 52, 119–132. [CrossRef]
100. Hugos, M.H. Essentials of Supply Chain Management; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).