The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Analysing the complexities of Sustainable

wood supply
sustainable wood supply chain in chain in the
Amazon
the Amazon: a systems
thinking approach
Arun A. Elias and Flavia Donadelli Received 10 July 2020
Revised 10 March 2021
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand 31 May 2021
Ely L. Paiva Accepted 20 June 2021

Escola de Administraç~ao de Empresas de Sao Paulo, Fundaç~ao Getulio Vargas,

Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Paulo Philipe Bacic Araujo
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – The overall objective of this study is to holistically analyse the complexities involved in the
adoption of sustainable wood supply chain in the Amazon and to develop strategic interventions to improve the
system.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses the systems thinking and modelling framework that
included problem structuring followed by the development of a systems model. Tumbira and Santa Helena do
Ingl^es, two Amazonian communities, were used as a case. Data were collected by staying inside the Amazon,
observing the community members and interacting with them during their activities, including logging inside
the forest.
Findings – A behaviour over time (BOT) graph developed as a part of problem structuring showed that
deforestation of the Amazon is still increasing, despite the creation of protected areas and NGO activities in the
region. Developing a sustainable wood supply chain is considered as one of the approaches for sustainable
forestry in the Amazon, but its adoption is slow. The systems model captured the underlying structure of this
system and explained this counterintuitive behaviour using eleven interacting feedback loops.
Research limitations/implications – This study is confined to two Amazonian communities and
recognises the limitations of generalisations.
Practical implications – This paper illustrates the development of three strategic interventions to improve
the adoption of sustainable wood supply chain in the Amazon.
Originality/value – This study highlights the real issues faced by real communities living in the Amazon for
adopting sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices. It contributes to the literature on sustainable
wood supply chain by systemically analysing the challenges in its adoption, not sufficiently discussed in the
literature.
Keywords Amazon, Sustainable wood supply chain, Systems thinking, Stakeholder analysis
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The Amazon Rainforest, popularly known as the lungs of the Earth, acts as a global
environmental shield absorbing approximately five billion metric tons of carbon dioxide
every year (Cama et al., 2013). But the active pressures and threats facing Amazon rainforests
are driving continuous alterations in the forest landscape, environmental and social diversity
and freshwater resources of Amazon (RAISG, 2012). Amazon rainforest is still the place with

The International Journal of

Logistics Management
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Brazilian Agency CAPES © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
for this research project. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-07-2020-0276
IJLM the greatest biodiversity on Earth, despite its continuous deforestation for more than
five decades (Souza-Filho et al., 2016).
Deforestation in Amazon is mainly caused by expansion of farming, primitive methods of
forest logging, mineral extraction, oil and gas explorations, building of infrastructure like
roads, water reservoirs and power transmission lines. It jeopardises not only the lives of
Amazon people, their communities and the surrounding environment, but also the diversity
of life on the Earth (RAISG, 2012). Globally, deforestation is currently a top contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions, along with emissions from industries, with tropical deforestation
causing almost 25% of greenhouse emissions (Culas, 2012).
In the year 2000, the forest area in Amazon was about 68.8% of the entire region, covering
5.3 million square kilometres. During 2000 to 2010, the forest area was diminished by 4.5%–
240,000 square kilometres, with the maximum deforestation happening in Brazil, Colombia,
Ecuador and Bolivia (RAISG, 2012). Information provided by the National Institute for Space
Research Brazil shows that deforestation in the Amazon increased 30% from 1st August
2018 to 31st July 2019, destroying 976,200 ha or 9,762 square kilometres of forests, a 50%
increase compared to the previous 10 years’ average (WWF, 2019a).
To control deforestation, a key policy initiated by the Brazilian government over the last
15 years has been the creation of an extensive system of protected areas (Nicolle and Leroy,
2017). NGOs like Fundaç~ao Amazonas Sustentavel (FAS) plays an important role in
operationalising such deforestation control policies inside the protected areas of Amazon
(FAS, 2020). As an operational strategy, NGOs like FAS try to develop sustainable supply
chains (Dubey et al., 2017), which includes wood from sustainable logging.
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has now become a mature field of
literature that covers theoretical topics like literature reviews and applied topics like barriers,
enablers and frameworks related to its adoption (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). In practise, the
adoption of SSCM is complex due to several interrelated factors in the system. For example, in
the Amazon an increase in deforestation that resulted in an increase in protected areas,
followed by an increase in NGO activity in the communities have not resulted in a similar
increase in the adoption of sustainable wood supply chain management (SWSCM). It is
increasing, but at a much slower rate only. Such counterintuitive behaviour can be better
understood using in-depth case studies in the literature that provides a holistic analysis of the
sustainable wood supply chain in the Amazon.
This study specifically explores the wood supply chain with focus on forestry practiced
in natural stands. Traditional wood supply chain includes harvesting of trees in forests,
cutting, sorting, transporting to terminals, sawmills, pulp mills, paper mills and heating
plants, and converting into products such as lumber, paper, pulp that ends at different
consumers (Carlsson and R€onnqvist, 2005). Sustainable wood supply chain, on the other
hand incorporates the three dimensions of economic, environmental and social
sustainability into the whole forest wood supply chain (Santos et al., 2019). While the
implementation of sustainable wood supply chain can be challenging, prior studies are
limited in the literature.
Following the above discussions, the objective of this research is to provide a holistic
analysis of the complexities involved in the adoption of sustainable wood supply chain in the
Amazon. This analysis will be used to formulate strategic interventions to improve the
adoption. The rest of this article includes an overview of SSCM literature with a specific focus
on the complexities involved in its adoption. The case of Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es
Amazon communities and the methodological framework based on systems thinking are then
presented. The remaining sections present an application of the three phases of this
methodology, problem structuring, causal loop modelling and developing strategic
interventions to the case before providing the conclusions of this study.
2. Overview of the sustainable supply chain literature Sustainable
A sustainable approach to supply chains incorporates environmental and natural resources, wood supply
social implications and public policies beyond the conventional economic focus (Sarkar et al.,
2021; Linton et al., 2007). Following this idea, the concept of SSCM has established itself as a
chain in the
dominant field in the supply chain management (SCM) literature (Seuring and M€ uller, 2008). Amazon
Starting from the mid-1990s, an increasing number of articles (Murphy et al., 1994), special
issues (Seuring et al., 2008) and books (e.g. Sarkis, 2019) have all contributed to the
establishment of this field. This review begins by providing a brief overview of this literature
by summarising the “what, why and how” of SSCM as covered in/from the literature.
On the “what” question, SSCM literature provides a variety of definitions, literature
reviews and theoretical foundations. SSCM has been defined as the designing, organising,
coordinating and controlling of supply chains to become truly sustainable with the minimum
expectation of a truly sustainable supply chain being to maintain economic viability, while
doing no harm to social or environmental systems” (Pagell and Schevchenko, 2014, p. 45).
When sustainability is combined with SCM activities, it can “create a longer-lasting and less
imitable set of processes” (Carter and Rogers, 2008, p. 371). Among this set of processes,
SSCM expects new behaviours from different stakeholders in supply chain (e.g. non-
governmental organisations) in search of supply base continuity (Pagell and Wu, 2009). As
core stakeholders in the supply chain, suppliers have to embrace sustainable practices for
achieving this continuity. Four types of supply responsible practices are discussed in the
literature which includes human rights; labour practices; codes of conduct; and social audits.
(Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010). Overall, five inter-linked facets are found in the SSCM
literature: adoption, implementation, extension, maintenance and outcomes at the top-most
level (Roy et al., 2018). This article will focus on the first facet.
Ahi and Searcy (2013) identified 12 definitions of SSCM along with 22 definitions of “Green
Supply Chain Management” (GSCM). Most of these definitions included the 7 business
sustainability characteristics of social, environmental, economic, stakeholder, resilience,
volunteer and long-term focuses; and the 7 SCM characteristics of coordination, stakeholder,
flow, relationship, value, performance and efficiency focuses. In terms of literature reviews,
this review found that there are at least 60 journal articles that provide a review of SSCM
literature. Such an abundance of literature reviews led to a “review of reviews” of 57 literature
reviews of SSCM by Carter and Washispack (2018) who found 32% of these literature reviews
focusses on the environmental pillar of sustainability, 10% on the social pillar of
sustainability and the remaining 58% on both the social and environmental pillars,
suggesting that researchers may be taking a more holistic view of SSCM. Regarding
theoretical foundations, many authors agree that SSCM is built on the interconnections
between economic, social and environmental aspects of supply chains (e.g. Yun et al., 2019).
Touboulic and Walker (2015) observed that theoretical rigour in SSCM is still developing,
with the help of other literatures like stakeholder theory, resource-based view (RBV) and
institutional theory.
Compared to the “what” question, the answers to the “why” question are neither that
explicit nor strong in the literature, albeit some examples. While introducing the concept of
sustainability to the SCM field, Carter and Rogers (2008) found that an integration of
environmental, social and economic aspects would allow organisations to attain long-term
economic viability. Seuring and M€ uller (2008) found customer needs, legal demands/
regulation, reactions to stakeholders, competitive advantage, social and environmental
pressure groups and reputation harm as triggers to SSCM. Achievement of sustainable flows
of products, services, information and capital to provide value to stakeholders (Wolf, 2011),
environmental and cost performance (Esfahbodi et al., 2016) are also mentioned as the
reasons for SSCM. There is also an attempt to connect corporate social responsibility (Feng
IJLM et al., 2017), circular economy (Meherishi et al., 2019) and business ethics (Quarshie et al., 2016)
to answer the why question of SSCM.
On the how question, the SSCM literature provides case studies (Pagell and Wu, 2009),
models (Brandenburg et al., 2014), frameworks (Chen and Kitsis, 2017; Schaltegger et al., 2014)
and enablers (Diabat et al., 2014). A variety of applications ranging from food supply chain
(Genovese et al., 2017) to fashion supply chain (Shen, 2014), covering private (Walker and
Jones, 2012) and public sectors, from Canada (Morali and Searcy, 2013) to Australia (Keating
et al., 2008) are also available. Guidelines on balancing short-term profit-centred decisions
with long-term sustainability-centred decisions are also provided (Wu and Pagell, 2011).
Additionally, researchers have acknowledged the need to address the how and why questions
related to the interactions between environmental and social performance (e.g. Yun et al.,
2019). In the latest trend, research guidance for analysing sustainability in supply chains in a
post-COVID-19 environment is also available in this literature (Sarkis, 2021).
This study proposes that the what, why and how questions of SSCM are interconnected
and they need to be addressed holistically. The interconnections between different aspects
within the what, why and how of SSCM makes it complex to deal with. As proposed by
Abbasi and Nilsson (2012), there is a need for better models and frameworks that capture this
complexity by taking holistic perspectives that can challenge the basic assumptions of
positivism, reductionism and economic growth.

2.1 Complexities in adopting SSCM

The SSCM literature acknowledges that the adoption of SSCM can be complex due to several
interrelated factors (Moktadir et al., 2021), while recognising financial, social and
environmental elements of the SSCM (Hall et al., 2012). Such complexity can be due to
multiple decision-logics used in a supply chain; time-variant stakeholder pressures; dynamics
of prominence in positions among the different organisations involved in the field (Sayed
et al., 2017); as well as the complex network of suppliers involved (Wan Ahmad et al., 2016).
Heterogeneity in structures along with ambiguous, incoherent and non-hierarchical paths of
control also contributes to this complexity (Frostenson and Prenkert, 2015). Abbasi and
Nilsson (2012) reviewed 190 articles from 18 journals to find costs, complexity,
operationalisation, mindset and cultural changes, and uncertainties as the main five
challenges of SSCM. Complexities related to SSCM can be found in the literature streams
within the SSCM literature that focus on barriers, stakeholder pressures and performance
outcomes (e.g. Chen and Kitsis, 2017).
In this context, a dominant stream in the literature is that of barriers that add to the
complexity of SSCM adoption. Several authors have contributed to this stream by developing
comprehensive lists of barriers and classifying them into different categories. For example,
Moktadir et al. (2018) identified 35 major barriers and classified them into environmental,
technological, support and knowledge, society and monetary while Walker and Jones (2012)
classified the external barriers into competition, government, consumers, media, suppliers
and sectoral; and internal barriers into people, strategic and functional issues.
Another SSCM literature stream that explains complexity is based on stakeholder theory
(Freeman, 2010). Different stakeholders can exert different levels of stakeholder pressures
that may affect SSCM at different phases: while creating sustainability-awareness, while
identifying sustainability goals and during the execution phase of sustainability (Meixell and
Luoma, 2015). Stakeholder networks can also help in identifying key supply chain
sustainability risks (Busse et al., 2017). Gualandris et al. (2015) found that some stakeholder
groups play central roles as “counselors” or “advisors” in the evaluation of sustainability in
supply chains. The literature stream on SSCM performance outcomes suggests that there are
many challenges in integrating sustainability into SCM (Morali and Searcy, 2013). Some
authors in this stream acknowledge that studies linking environmental sustainability to firm Sustainable
performance have found desirable and undesirable associations, leaving practitioners wood supply
confused as to what actions would be better to follow (e.g. Golicic and Smith, 2013). Using the
example of Greenpeace’s aggressive campaign against Nestle, Wolf (2014) proved that SSCM
chain in the
can contribute positively to the organisational reputation as a good citizen, opposing the idea Amazon
that external stakeholder pressure is the main cause of SSCM. Overall, stakeholder theory
integrated with SSCM (Chen and Kitsis, 2017) can help in explaining the complexity of SSCM
adoption when multiple stakeholders have conflicting stakes (Elias and Zwikael, 2007).
Forest wood supply chain present an interesting example where different stakeholder
values and preferences lead to dissimilar perceptions on the importance of indicators and
indicator values in the supply chain (P€aivinen et al., 2012). The overall preference for a forest
wood chain can differ among different stakeholders. To implement a transparent decision-
making process in this context, multi-criteria analysis can be employed to show how different
stakeholder values and interests affect the acceptance of alternative forest wood supply
chains and how trade-off relations between different domains of sustainability vary among
stakeholder groups (P€aivinen et al., 2012).
Additionally, prior studies have highlighted a set of elements and associated managerial
orientations related to SSCM. According to Hall et al. (2012), SSCM is a complex model
considering the economic, social and environmental dimensions. Pagell and Wu (2009)
identified “guardrail” value or a clear guide value; integration of economic, social and
environmental goals; and proactiveness and commitment as SSCM’s elements. These aspects
are key for supply continuity and are based on transparency, traceability, supplier
certification and decommodisation. Koberg and Longoni (2019) highlighted the role of
governance in SSCM. They considered aspects like supplier assessment, supplier
collaboration and multi-stakeholder initiatives. Beyond these aspects considered as direct
by the authors, they also mention certifications as an indirect mechanism of SSCM
governance.
Complexities in adopting SSCM are also acknowledged in some of the applications of
SSCM, with case studies on chemical supply chain (Genovese et al., 2017) and tourism supply
chain (Sigala, 2008) appearing in the literature. In this context, wood supply chain, that begins
with trees in forests that are harvested, cut, sorted, transported to terminals, sawmills, pulp
mills, paper mills and heating plants, conversion into products such as lumber, paper, pulp
and ends at different consumers (Carlsson and R€onnqvist, 2005) presents an interesting case
for SSCM, because these supply chains are a potential hazard for rainforests like the Amazon.
However, this review found that in-depth case studies that provide a holistic analysis of the
sustainable wood supply chain are limited in the SSCM literature.
A critical analysis of the SSCM literature found the need for a more holistic understanding
of the complex connections between barriers that affect SSCM adoption. The links between
stakeholders and performance outcomes also require further investigation. While
considering supplier collaboration, certification, guide value and integrated economic,
social and environmental goals as key elements for SSCM, this study proposes an integrative
model for SSCM elements, based on the literature. This research also acknowledges the calls
for systems thinking approaches to analyse the complexities involving SSCM (Rebs et al.,
2019). Therefore, this study aims at extending the SSCM literature by providing a holistic
analysis of the complexities involved in the adoption of SSCM using an in-depth case study of
a wood supply chain in the Amazon.

3. Context
Forests have always been one of the most critical elements in the management of natural
resources in Brazil. The country currently has about 59% of its territory covered with forests,
IJLM a total of 4,925,540 square kilometres of which around 4 million square kilometres are
constituted by the Amazon rainforest (The World Bank, 2019). The forested area in Brazil is
mostly constituted by native forests. Deforestation has been an issue in Brazil for several
decades and despite the implementation of a relatively successful deforestation prevention
strategy that reduced deforestation levels between 2004 and 2014 (PPCDAm, 2016),
deforestation has increased since 2014 (de Bolle, 2019). Data shows that deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon increased 30% from 1st August 2018 to 31st July 2019, summing up 9,762
square kilometres of deforestation in one year, the highest rate in 10 years (WWF, 2019a).
The creation of a comprehensive system of protected areas is among the most central
deforestation control policies implemented by the Brazilian government since 2000. The
Brazilian National System of Protected Areas (SNUC, in the Portuguese acronym) was
created in 2000. The creation of new protected areas in the country increased remarkably
between 2000 and 2009, but its pace reduced after 2009; and an intensification of cases of
downsizing and reversing the previously protected status of areas is currently under way
(WWF, 2019b). According to the SNUC, protected areas can be classified in 12 different kinds
based on their use. These 12 kinds can be, however, divided in two larger groups: areas of
direct or sustainable use, where a controlled human presence and use is allowed, and areas of
indirect or full protection use, where direct human interference in the ecosystem is banned
and only low impact actions like eco-tourism or scientific research are allowed.
Protected areas have been shown to be efficient in controlling deforestation (Nogueira
et al., 2018) however challenges related to the internal governance of established areas has
threated the effectiveness of this policy (Capelari et al., 2020). This study addresses this issue
by investigating the challenges of SWSCM in the case of two sustainable or direct use
protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon: Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es.
Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es are two riverside neighbouring communities located
at the Negro river in the Amazon forest (Figure 1), 64 km away from the Amazonas State
capital – Manaus. They belong to the Rio Negro Sustainable Development Reserve, created in
2008, which comprises of 18 communities and a total area of 103,086.00 ha (ISA, 2019). The
governmental instance responsible for the creation and management of this protected area is
the federal state of Amazonas. They are formed by “caboclos”, people of mixed Indigenous
Brazilian and European ancestry who occupied the region as rubber tappers during the
Amazon rubber boom (1879–1912). After the end of the rubber boom the main economic
activities in both communities were based on illegal logging but had to move to alternatives
such as sustainable wood extraction and eco-tourism after they gained their status of
protected area of sustainable use (Pace, 1997).
The NGO FAS (Fundaç~ao Amazonas Sustentavel) plays a fundamental role in the
economic and social viability of these communities. It fosters eco-tourism in the region
through programmes of training and capacitation as well as through the “Amazon Summer
School programme” an immersive educational initiative focused on building capacities to
appreciate, think and take part in the realisation of sustainable development (FAS, 2020). The
programme involves immersing a group of participants in the traditions and livelihood style
of the traditional communities of Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es. Three authors of this
paper participated in this programme and used their experience as their main source of data.

4. Methodological framework
The overall methodological approach employed in this study is summarised in Table 1. This
study included seven phases: literature review, data collection through participant
observation, data analysis, problem structuring, model building, strategic interventions
development and validation. While the literature review was discussed in section 2, the
remaining phases are discussed in this section.
 Sustainable
wood supply
chain in the
Amazon

1. Tiririca, 2. Santo António, 3. Marajá, 4. Nova Esperança , 5. Terra Preta, 6. Camará,

7. Carão, 8. Tumbira, 9. Santa Helena do Inglês, 10. Saracá, 11. 15 de Setembro, 12. São Tomé,
13. Santo António do Lago do Tirica, 14. São Fransisco do Bujaru, 15. Terra Santa, 16. Nova Figure 1.
Aliança, 17. Nossa Senhora Perpétuo, 18. Nossa Senhora de Fátima, 19. Nossa Senhora da Riverside Communities
including Tumbira and
Conceição
Santa Helena do Ingl^es
Source(s): FAS, 2017, p. 29

Data collection for this paper was conducted through the participation of three of the authors
in one of the editions of the FAS “Amazon Summer School Programme” between January and
February 2020. Following the informed consent of organisers and community leaders, the
authors utilised the method of “participant observation” to gather data. Participant
observation is a method derived from ethnography in which the researcher is immersed in the
research setting, either as a complete participant in the activities of the community or as an
external observer. Accordingly, in-depth observation takes place in “everyday context, rather
than in conditions created by the researcher” and data are analysed through the
“interpretation of the meanings, functions, and consequences of human actions and
institutional practices, and how these are implicated in local, and perhaps also wider
contexts” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007, p. 3). Participant observation is particularly well-
suited for studies that are interested in human interactions viewed from the insider’s
perspective and that require the observation of everyday life setting (Jorgensen, 2011).
Although this method has its roots in social anthropology, it has been taken up by a
variety of disciplines and applied in different ways (Uldam and McCurdy, 2013). The main
IJLM Phases Description

1. Literature review Review of sustainable wood supply chain (national and international)
literature and policy reports
2. Data collection through Informal conversations with the local people, experience of their
participant observation routines
3. Data analysis Identification of the main challenges associated with sustainable wood
supply chain in the region
4. Problem structuring Identification of the counterintuitive problem situation and analysis of
stakeholders
5. Model building Development of a qualitative systems model to explain the problem
situation
6. Strategic interventions Presentation and discussion of the model between the authors and local
Table 1. development leaders and developing strategic interventions to address the problem
Methodological situation
summary 7. Validation Validation of the results in final interviews with the community

distinction made by different streams of the literature refers to the role of researcher or the
participant observer’s positions in relation to those whom he observes. This position usually
varies along a continuum between “complete participant” and “complete observer” – the
former being related to a complete integration to the community’s life as an “in-group”
member and the latter referring to a more detached position in which the researcher is present
but does not directly engage with her research subjects (Figure 2). In between these two
extremes, the roles of “participants-as-observers”, in which an outsiders becomes gradually
more familiar with their research subjects and practices, and “observers-as-participants”,
according to which outsiders interact and participate in local routines but do not intend to be
seen as “insiders” are differentiated by the literature (Junker, 1952; Gold, 1958; Hammersley
and Atkinson, 2007; Uldam and McCurdy, 2013).
Following this typology, our group adopted a “observer-as-participant” position. Having
come from abroad and having stayed in the community for two weeks, the researchers were
clearly perceived as non-members or “outsiders” and did not intend to be perceived
differently than that at any point of the data collection process. However, the nature of the
summer school programme allowed three of the authors with privileged access and direct
participation in the community’s daily routines (such as cooking, fishing, handcrafting,
hunting and logging). In addition to allowing the authors to observe insiders’ conception of
reality through participation in their daily activities, most of the program was directly
delivered by members of the community, creating plenty of formal and informal
opportunities for locals to share their views and perspectives with researchers. Several
visits to community members’ houses and informal conversations were facilitated by the
programme organisers, which provided a rich set of specific observations on the meanings
and experiences of community members in relation to sustainable logging. Although “direct
observation” was the main method of data collection, complementary strategies such as the
analysis of documentary sources (deforestation reports and studies presented to us by locals)

Figure 2.
Participant observer
positions
Source(s): Gold (1958)
and 3 semi-structured interviews with community leaders around the themes identified for Sustainable
this study were also employed. (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007; Jorgensen, 2011). These wood supply
strategies were not related to the Summer School programme and went beyond it.
In terms of data analysis, this study uses a systems thinking approach (Senge, 1990) to
chain in the
understand the complexities related to the adoption of sustainable wood supply chain in the Amazon
Amazon. As a holistic approach, systems thinking considers the complex interactions
between the different parts of a system (Pepper et al., 2016). Systems thinking recognises the
concept of emergent property, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Maani and
Cavana, 2007).
Systems approaches have evolved from the general systems theory (Von Bertalanffy,
1972) to hard systems approaches mainly based on the positivist paradigm (e.g. Forrester,
1958), soft systems approaches mainly based on the interpretivist paradigm (e.g. Checkland,
1981), critical systems approaches mainly based on the critical paradigm (e.g. Ulrich, 1987)
and multimethodology (e.g. Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997). During this evolution, systems
approaches were able to reinvent their links with complexity thinking (Jackson, 2009) and
move towards fields like complex adaptive systems (Dooley, 1997). In the context of SCM,
experts have argued the need for recognising supply networks as a complex adaptive system
(Choi et al., 2001). It was also found that the basic assumptions of complex adaptive systems
and complexity thinking are appropriate to understand the current challenges of
organisational complexity in SCM (Nilsson and Gammelgaard, 2012). These experts also
explain that the challenges associated with novel phenomena like innovation and
sustainability in SCM can be better handled using complex adaptive systems and
complexity thinking, rather than a traditional systems approach based on a pure positivist
paradigm (Nilsson and Gammelgaard, 2012). They also encourage more case studies to
further refine the theoretical constructs in this field (Choi et al., 2001). The current trend in
systems thinking research is moving in this direction with case studies embracing theoretical
constructs from fields like innovation and flexibility (e.g. Elias, 2021).
Within systems thinking, this study used a framework based on the systems thinking and
modelling methodology, which is based on an interpretivist paradigm rather than a pure
positivist paradigm (Maani and Cavana, 2007). While systems thinking and modelling
includes both qualitative and quantitative phases (Narayana et al., 2014), this study is limited
to qualitative methods (Elias, 2019). The methodological framework used in this study
consists of three phases, problem structuring, causal loop modelling and developing strategic
interventions as presented in Table 2.
Problem structuring involves the identification of the problem area and establishing the
objectives, considering multiple stakeholders and perspectives (Maani and Cavana, 2007).

Phases Steps

Problem structuring Developing a behaviour over time graph

Developing a stakeholder map
Identifying specific stakeholders
Identifying stakes of stakeholders
Developing a power vs. stake grid
Causal loop modelling Identifying main variables
Developing a causal loop model
Analysing loop behaviour over time
Developing strategic interventions Discussing the model Table 2.
Identifying leverages Methodological
Formulating strategic interventions framework
IJLM Problem structuring in this study included the development of a behaviour over time (BOT)
graph and a rational level stakeholder analysis. Causal loop modelling phase is intended to
capture the underlying structure of the problem situation by identifying and analysing the
interconnected feedback loops operating in the system (Sterman, 2000). Finally, the strategic
intervention phase includes formulating strategic interventions by involving stakeholders
who have some interest in the problem (Narayana et al., 2019).

5. Problem structuring
The problem structuring in this study began by developing a BOT graph of the problem
situation related to the adoption of SWSCM in the Amazon. A BOT graph, also known as a
“reference mode”, is a systems thinking tool that captures the trends and patterns of key
variables in a system over an extended time period, usually several years (Sterman, 2000).
These patterns can present the trends and variations in the key variables like decline, growth
or oscillations (Narayana et al., 2014). The main elements captured by a BOT graph are the
overall trends, directions and variations of the key variables, not their numerical value. So,
BOT graphs are typically drawn in a rough sense, not using exact numbers (Maani and
Cavana, 2007).
Data collected (e.g. Figure 3) for developing the BOT graph shows that deforestation has
been generally increasing in the Amazon during the last 20 years (de Bolle, 2019). To manage
this challenge and to address the pressure exerted by a variety of stakeholders, protected
areas were created as a forest conservation policy (PPCDAm, 2016). Our study also found that
NGO interest and activity in the Amazon has increased over the years with NGOs like FAS
dedicating their work to the sustainable development of the Amazon (FAS, 2020). According
to their website, in 2019 FAS assisted more than 9,430 families, benefiting more than 39,460
people living in 16 sustainable use conservation units in the State of Amazonas and 32
municipalities, in an area of more than 11 million hectares, building solutions for the
sustainable development through programs and projects that address strategic issues for the
region (FAS, 2020). However, our study found that the adoption of SWSCM is not increasing
as expected from such interventions.
The BOT graph developed in this research is presented in Figure 4. It shows the smoothed
patters of increase in deforestation, followed by an increase in protected areas and NGO
pressure over a period of fifteen years. In a normal situation, more protected areas and NGO

deforestation in thousands of square miles

20

16.6
15
Estimated deforestation
2004 based on current rate
Brazilian government launches the
Action Plan for the Prevention and
10 Control of Deforestation in the Legal
Amazon (PPCDAm) 8.3

5
4.2

2020 goal in the 1.5

Copenhagen Accord
Figure 3. 0
Deforestation in the 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Amazon
Source(s): de Bolle (2019), Figure 1, p. 3
 Deforestation Sustainable
wood supply
Protected areas chain in the
Amazon
NGO pressure

SWSCM adoption
expected

SWSCM adoption
actual Figure 4.
Behaviour over
time graph
1995 2020

pressure would lead to a corresponding increase of the fourth variable, SWSCM adoption;
however, this variable is increasing at a much slower rate only.
This slow increase in the adoption of SWSCM is counterintuitive, but it was supported by
the data collected for developing the BOT graph from documentary sources and primary
data. For example, at the macro level, the trends related to the total certified area by the Forest
Stewardship Council and the number of chain of custody certifications, which certifies the
sustainability of the supply chain, are both relatively stable in Brazil (Forest Stewardship
Council, 2021). At the micro-level in the Amazon communities, this slow adoption was
confirmed during the semi-structured interviews with community leaders and during the
discussions with loggers.
In the next stage, the stakeholders of the problem situation were identified by
integrating both the core supply chain members and the external stakeholders. Co and
Barro (2009, p. 597) consider “customers, the retail outlets, the financial institutions, the
government, the third-party logistics providers, the authorized representatives and
distributors, the manufacturers and contract manufacturers, the suppliers and vendors”
as stakeholders. The core supply chain actors (Beamon, 1999; Carter and Rogers, 2008)
in this study are suppliers (loggers), distributors (warehouses), transport, retailers and
customers. A traditional stakeholder map, which is the first step in a rational level
stakeholder analysis (Freeman, 2010) is modified in this study to differentiate these core
supply chain members by shading them with external ones that are not shaded
(Figure 5).
The remaining three steps in the rational level stakeholder analysis, the specific
stakeholder chart, stakes of selected stakeholders and power versus stake grid developed in
this study based on Elias (2016) are presented in Tables 3–5 respectively. To differentiate
between the primary actors and the external ones in the supply chain, the primary actors in
these three steps are also shaded while the external ones are not shaded. Overall, this rational
level stakeholder analysis helped in better understanding the variety of stakeholders with
different interests affecting the system.
IJLM Government
Loggers

Regulatory NGOs

Customers SWSCM Adoption in Amazon Transport

Special Interest Businesses

Groups

Figure 5. Warehouses/ Community

Stakeholder map Retail

Government NGOs
Federal government FAS
Government of the state of Amazonas Rainforest trust
Municipal government of Iranduba Rainforest action network
Transport IPAM (Instituto de Pesquisas da Amaz^onia)
Public boats IDESAM (Instituto de Conservaç~ao e
Private boats Desenvolvimento sustentavel da Amaz^onia)
Community IMAZON (Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente
Tumbira community da Amaz^onia)
Santa Helena do Ingl^es community WWF Brasil
Other riverside communities ISA (Instituto Socioambiental)
Special interest groups Businesses
Tourists Pousado do Garrido (lodge)
Media Tourist operators
Researchers Warehouses/Retail
Regulatory Legal
Police Illegal
Informers
IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Customers
Renewable natural resources, or in Portuguese – Instituto Local/Internal
Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais External
Renovaveis)
Loggers
Table 3. Legal
Specific stakeholders Illegal

6. Causal loop modelling

Causal loop modelling process involves connecting the variables in a system by arrows using
the cause and effect logic (Elias and Davis, 2018). In this exercise, a positive link is used when
cause and effect are both increasing or decreasing. Similarly, a negative link is sued when the
cause increases the effect decreases or vice versa (Sterman, 2000). The causal loop model thus
developed in this study is presented in Figure 6.
6.1 Model analysis Sustainable
The model in Figure 6 was analysed by identifying the feedback loops formed in it. Systems wood supply
thinking literature classifies feedback loops into reinforcing/positive or balancing/negative
(Sterman, 2000). Eleven feedback loops, including two reinforcing and nine balancing
chain in the
feedback loops were identified. The behaviour of the system, presented in the BOT graph Amazon
(Figure 4), is now explained using these eleven feedback loops.
6.1.1 Loop 1: Deforestation loop (R1). A good starting point for this analysis is the variable
“demand for quality wood”. Quality of wood in this context means the physical properties of
the wood available in the Amazon forests. When the demand for quality Amazon wood
increases, the business potential related to this quality wood increases. To realise this
potential, some individuals and businesses unfortunately engage in “illegal logging”. “Illegal
logging” increases “deforestation” and it is reported as a main reason for deforestation. The
deforestation of Amazon rainforest results in greater supply of very high-quality wood which
will in turn increase the demand for more quality wood. This forms the first reinforcing
feedback loop.
6.1.2 Loop 2: Corruption loop (R2). Another unfortunate consequence of business
potential for quality wood is an unholy business-political nexus. Such a nexus increases
bureaucratic corruption, thereby allowing more illegal logging. The rest of this feedback
loop follows the links and logic in the deforestation loop (R1). This is the second
reinforcing loop.
6.1.3 Loop 3: Regulation loop (B1). Deforestation results in several environmental impacts,
and the country’s leadership is forced to employ regulations as a control mechanism. One
such mechanism that started in 2000 is the creation of protected areas in the Amazon. The
creation of protected areas encourages the adoption of SWSCM in these areas, which is also
aimed at controlling deforestation. It is important to note that such an adoption may not
happen immediately and there will be a delay. Delay is an important concept in systems

Government of the State of FAS Pousado do Garrido (Lodge)

Amazonas
Implement public policies to Sustainable development of Provide accommodation in Tumbira on a
develop Amazon the Amazon commercial basis
Legal logger Public boats Informers Table 4.
Logging as a profession Provide transport to public Support the Police in maintaining law and Stakes of selected
order stakeholders

Power Formal Economic Political

Stake

Equity Government of the Legal logger

State of Amazonas

Economic Pousado do Garrido

Public boats
Table 5.
Influencers FAS Local customers Informers Stakeholder grid for
selected stakeholders
 IJLM

Figure 6.
Causal loop model
+
Bureacratic
Business political corruption
nexus +
R2 +
Environmental
+ Illegal logging impacts NGO pressure
+
Business potential
+ + + + B3 +
B1 Regulations
Deforestation Awareness
R1 + B2 +
– Fear & punishment
Protected areas regime
+
Demand for +
Quality wood from –
quality wood Amazon SSWCM adoption +
+
– +
+
B4 +
Time delays No. of smallscale +
Fair price sustainable loggers
– + Professional
– + barriers
– + + + Licensing barriers
+
Bureaucratic Warehousing New equipment
process barriers B5 Competition with barriers barriers
– illegal logging
Attractiveness of
other professions
+ B6
Licensing costs +
Registration costs Logistics costs B7
+ +
B8 B9
thinking and is denoted by drawing two short lines across the causal link (Sterman, 2000). Sustainable
This is the first balancing loop. wood supply
6.1.4 Loop 4: Fear and punishment loop (B2). Regulatory measures also install a fear and
punishment regime in small Amazonian communities like Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es.
chain in the
Such a regime encourages many loggers to discontinue illegal logging and adopt SWSCM after Amazon
a delay, as evident from the words of a local logger: “Eu mudei porque eu tinha medo, medo de
ser preso. Agora eu posso transporter madeira `a luz do dia.” (English translation: I changed
because of fear, fear of going to jail. Now I can transport the logs in daylight”).
6.1.5 Loop 5: NGO pressure loop (B3). Environmental impacts due to deforestation also
results in NGOs becoming more active in the Amazon, exerting pressure on the government
to act. The activities of FAS in Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es is a solid example.
The work of NGOs like FAS makes the communities more aware of the benefits of sustainable
logging, which encourages SSCM adoption in Amazon communities, usually after a delay.
Technically, this is a balancing loop. Words of a community member support this loop:
“Primeira eu achei que a FAS era igual aos polıticos. Mas as atividades deles, construindo uma
escola aqui e ensinando a gente a fazer o manejo seletivo me ajudaram a ser mais sustent avel.”
(English translation: “I first thought FAS was like politicians. But their actions like building us a
school here and teaching us to log selectively encouraged me to move towards sustainability”).
6.1.6 Loop 6: Bureaucratic barrier loop (B4). When SWSCM adoption increases in the
Amazon, more small-scale loggers in the Amazon will try to become sustainable loggers. But
they will soon face the barriers of bureaucratic processes that leads to long time delays. This
situation discourages small-scale loggers to adopt SWSCM, thus completing a balancing loop
in the system.
6.1.7 Loop 7: Competition loop (B5). The small-scale loggers who enter the sustainable
logging system face stiff competition with the well-established illegal loggers. Due to this
competition the small-scale sustainable loggers find it difficult to fetch a fair price for their
wood. When the chances of obtaining fair price decreases, the SWSCM adoption also
diminishes, after a delay. This is another balancing loop.
6.1.8 Loop 8: Warehousing barrier loop (B6). Another barrier that the small-scale
sustainable loggers face is related to the warehousing of sustainably extracted wood. They
have a hard time finding warehouses and shops that can legally trade wood because most of
them have been embargoed by the government because they sold illegal wood in the past: “A
gente visitou varias lojas de construç~ao em Manaus, so a metade se interessou pela nossa
madeira, e dessas so uma ou outra podia comprar legalmente. A maoria tava embargada pelo
governo porque vendia madeira ilegal.” (English transalation: “We visited several building
supply shops in Manaus, only half were interested in our wood and only a handful could actually
buy it legally. The majority of them were embargoed by the government due to previous illegal
sourcing”).
This situation increases the logistical costs for the small-scale logger, thereby reducing the
chances of getting a fair price.
6.1.9 Loop 9: New equipment barrier loop (B7). The new small-scale loggers who enter the
sustainable logging system are required to wear “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”.
This involves registration costs and contributes to the reduced chances of fetching a fair price
as explained by a new small-scale logger: “A gente n~ao Liga de usar equipamento de
segurança, e ate melhor e mais seguro mesmo. O problema e que a gente tem que comprar e
usar o tempo todo. Quem e ilegal n~ao tem esse custo.”
(English translation: “We do not mind wearing PPE, we think it’s actually safer and better to
wear them. The problem is that we have to buy them ourselves and wear them at all times. Illegal
loggers do not have this additional cost”).
6.1.10 Loop 10: Licensing barrier loop (B8). Yet another barrier that the new small-scale
loggers face is related to licensing:
IJLM “Tudo que a gente usa pra tirar madeira tem que ser registrado (a motoserra, tratores,
barcos) e a gente precisa de uma licença especial pra cada arvore que a gente tira. Demora
semanas pra tirar essas licenças e tem que ir pra Manaus. A gente gasta pelos menos uns
duzentos contos por licença, sem contar o gasto de combustıvel.” (English translation:
“Everything we use for extraction has to be registered. . .chainsaws, tractors, boats...and we
need a special license for every single tree we’d like to remove. It takes a few weeks to get these
licenses and we can only get them in Manaus. We spend at least a couple hundred bucks per
license excluding petrol costs”). This situation increases the licensing costs for the small-scale
logger, thereby reducing the chances of obtaining a fair price.
6.1.11 Loop 11: Professional barrier loop (B9). The dynamics discussed in loops B4 to B8
tend to reduce the adoption of SWSCM in Amazon communities like Tumbira and Santa
Helena do Ingl^es, while increasing the barriers for small-scale loggers who take up
sustainable logging as a profession. This situation forces these poor loggers to quit
sustainable logging and try other professions which become more attractive in due course
(after a delay) as shown in the words of a logger who quit the profession: ““Eu parei de tirar
madeira ja faz uns 5 anos (ilegal ou por manejo sustent avel) porque a pousada da mais dinheiro
e e muito melhor”. (English translation: I quit logging 5 years back, illegal or sustainable. The
lodge business is much better and profitable”).
The combination of these eleven feedback loops explains the complexities related to the
slow rate of increase in the adoption of sustainable wood supply chain in Amazon
communities like Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es.

7. Developing strategic interventions

Strategic intervention development in systems thinking is about making changes to the
structure of the system as shown in the causal loop model that can change the behaviour of
the system captured in the BOT graph (Maani and Cavana, 2007). For this purpose, the model
was discussed both individually and as small groups with a total of seventeen stakeholders in
Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es. This was followed by the identification of leverage
points in the causal loop model and formulation of strategic interventions.
Model discussion in this study involved the discussion of the structure of the system using
the eleven feedback loops operating in the causal loop model. For example, it included a
discussion of the positive effects of the first three balancing feedback loops (B1 to B3) in
improving SWSCM adoption in Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es, while the remaining
balancing feedback loops (B4 to B9) control and dampen this adoption. The effect of delays in
creating instability and oscillations in the system (Sterman, 2000) was also discussed with the
stakeholders using the five delays captured in the model.
Analysing the feedback provided by the different stakeholders during these
discussions, it was seen that the core supply chain members were more pessimistic
towards the current and possible future behaviour of the system. For example, the small-
scale legal loggers mentioned that the competition posed by the large sustainable wood
companies was a major issue as they felt the regulations were made for those companies
who had the capability to easily overcome the barriers in the system. Local customers were
sceptical, mentioning that the sustainable wood management is not worth the cause.
Private boat owners felt that transporting wood to the city was very expensive and
unaffordable for local loggers. The feedback of external stakeholders about the system
captured using the model included a mix of optimism and pessimism. For example, some of
the NGOs were optimistic that that regulation can be made easier for the small-scale loggers
in the future by putting pressure on the authorities. These NGOs were bringing technicians
and engineers to help the small-scale loggers to overcome some of their barriers. But the
NGOs acknowledged that funding was becoming an issue. Local community was more
supportive and felt local loggers are safer within the community. They mentioned that the Sustainable
local markets within the community were not following strict regulations imposed by the wood supply
authorities. Overall, most stakeholders agreed that the model was able to capture the whole
system with a variety of issues.
chain in the
After in-depth discussions of the model during each stakeholder meeting, the stakeholders Amazon
were requested to identify possible leverage points in the system. Leverages are points in a
system where small changes in one point can produce big changes in the entire system
(Meadows, 1999). The leverage points identified using this process are fair price, time delays
and awareness. A few stakeholders also discussed controlling “illegal logging” as a leverage
point but it was decided not to include it since most of them felt that any tangible action on
this leverage is beyond the scope of this project.
After they identified possible leverage points, during each stakeholder meeting the
stakeholders were posed the question: “Based on your identification of leverage points, please
suggest a few strategies to improve SWSCM adoption in Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es”.
The different strategies suggested by the stakeholders were grouped by the authors into
three strategic interventions (Figure 7). This grouping was done with 2 main considerations,
first “which feedback loop is this strategic intervention connected to?” and second “on which
leverage point is this strategic intervention based on?”.
The first strategic intervention aims at developing a system that can fetch fair price for the
wood generated by small-scale sustainable loggers. This strategy connects with the
competition loop (B5), warehousing barrier loop (B6), new equipment barrier loop (B7) and
licensing barrier loop (B3) in the causal loop model. Based on the leverage point of “fair price”,
this strategy could involve setting up retail units dedicated for quality wood from sustainable
logging, without involving middle persons. It could also involve exerting pressure through
NGOs like FAS to enhance political will, capable of implementing public policies that
minimises licensing and registration fee for small-scale sustainable loggers.
The second strategic intervention aims at developing a simple and efficient registration
process for the new sustainable loggers. This strategy mainly addresses the bureaucratic
barrier loop (B4) in the causal loop model. Employing the leverage point of “time delays”, this
strategy could involve convincing the government to develop an online process with
minimum or no registration fee for the new sustainable loggers.
The last strategic intervention aims at strengthening the awareness campaign creatively.
This strategy mainly addresses the NGO pressure loop (B3) in the causal loop model.
Employing the leverage point of “awareness”, this strategy could involve using sporting
organisations like the Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es football clubs, religious
institutions like the Tumbira and Santa Helena do Ingl^es churches and educational
institutions like the Tumbira school in spreading deeper and more impactful awareness for
adopting SWSCM.

8. Conclusions
This study provided a holistic analysis of the complex interactions of the barriers affecting
the adoption of sustainable wood SCM in the Amazon. Using the case of Tumbira and Santa
Helena do Ingl^es communities, it showed that the adoption of SSCM is not always linear and
requires a re-analysis of traditional perceptions (Jabbour, 2010). It also demonstrated the use
of systems thinking and modelling framework (Maani and Cavana, 2007) in structuring the
problem situation systemically, in developing a systems model that captures the underlying
structure of the system and in formulating strategic interventions that can improve the
behaviour of the system. The results of this study were also validated using some final
interviews with the community.
 IJLM

Figure 7.
Strategic interventions
+
Bureacratic
Business political corruption
nexus +
R2 + Environmental
+ Illegal logging impacts NGO pressure
+
Business potential
+ + + + B3 +
B1 Regulations
Deforestation + Awareness
R1 + B2
– Fear & punishment
Protected areas regime
Demand for + +
quality wood Quality wood from –
Amazon SSWCM adoption +
+ +
–

B4 +
No. of smallscale +
Time delays sustainable loggers
– Fair price +
– Professional +
barriers
– + + Licensing barriers
+ +
Bureaucratic Warehousing New equipment
– process barriers B5 Competition with barriers barriers
illegal logging
Attractiveness of
other professions
B6
+ Licensing costs +
Registration costs
+ Logistics costs B7
+
B8 B9
 From a sustainable supply chain perspective, this study highlighted the main barriers in Sustainable
the adoption of a sustainable approach in the wood supply chain in Amazon. The main wood supply
barriers that impede the move towards sustainability in this supply chain were found to
include bureaucracy, regulatory requirements and distribution. The model proposed in this
chain in the
study showed how a sustainable wood supply chain based on forestry would be feasible in Amazon
this context. Fair price and better distribution are key aspects. Additionally, decreasing the
bureaucracy with a simple and efficient process would encourage more loggers to seek
sustainable practices in this supply chain. The study confirmed that the actions of
stakeholders like NGOs in playing a crucial role in supporting the movement towards
sustainability in this supply chain. Moreover, the complex interactions in the system
highlighted the need of integrated actions between core supply chain actors like loggers
(suppliers), distributors and retailers and other stakeholders external to the supply chain, like
regulatory agencies, local government and NGOs for advancing the adoption of sustainable
wood supply chain in the Amazon.
This study also contributes to the governance of Tumbira, Santa Helena do Ingl^es and
other sustainable development protected areas in the Amazon region and can directly impact
on the success of protected areas’ policies in preventing or reducing deforestation. By closely
observing the reality of local people, this research has shown the importance of providing
realistic and implementable alternatives to illegal logging. The study is unique in deriving
broader policy implications from the in-depth observation of the daily choices and challenges
faced by those “on the ground”, a group who has often been misrepresented as the main
“villains” in the battle against deforestation.
From a literature perspective, this study contributes to the SSCM literature (e.g. Seuring
and M€ uller, 2008; Meherishi et al., 2019) by extending the works of experts like Moktadir et al.
(2018) on the barriers to SSCM. By analysing the complex interactions of the barriers using a
systems thinking and modelling approach (Narayana et al., 2019) it provided an in-depth case
study of a sustainable wood supply chain system in the Amazon.
This study has clear impacts on practice. For a practising manager, it provides a
framework for formulating strategic interventions that can improve the adoption of
sustainable supply chains. One important economic impact of this study is the scope of
including small-scale loggers in legal trade of quality wood in Amazon. Such an inclusion can
positively impact the revenues of these loggers and may allow them to receive a fair price for
their wood.
At the same time, public policies need to be redesigned to support the inclusion of these
loggers. Such modified public policies should address the barriers faced by the small-scale
loggers like additional costs with licenses and PPE adoption. This may also encourage the
local communities to become a part of the legal trade of quality wood, incentivising them to
successfully seek sustainable activities for their livelihood.
This article acknowledges the limitation of this study to a single case and recognises the
need for fine-tuning the framework with more diverse applications. However, this study could
lead to more applications of systems thinking to the field of SSCM. These applications could
include the quantitative phases of the systems thinking and modelling thinking like system
dynamics modelling (Narayana et al., 2019) or a “hybrid systems thinking approach” as
explained by Pepper et al. (2016). Finally, this study lays a platform for further empirical
research, which will help build theory in understanding complex problem situations facing
the Amazon.

References
Abbasi, M. and Nilsson, F. (2012), “Themes and challenges in making supply chains
environmentally sustainable”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 517-530.
IJLM Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 52, pp. 329-341.
Awaysheh, A. and Klassen, R.D. (2010), “The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier
socially responsible practices”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1246-1268.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Designing the green supply chain”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Quantitative models for sustainable
supply chain management: developments and directions”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 233 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J. and Wagner, S.M. (2017), “Extending the supply chain
visibility boundary: utilizing stakeholders for identifying supply chain sustainability risks”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 18-40.
Cama, A., Montoya, F.G., Gomez, J., De La Cruz, J.L. and Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2013), “Integration of
communication technologies in sensor networks to monitor the Amazon environment”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 59, pp. 32-42.
Capelari, M.G.M., Gomes, R.C., de Ara ujo, S.M.V.G. and Newton, P. (2020), “Governance and
deforestation: understanding the role of formal rule-acknowledgement by residents in Brazilian
extractive reserves”, International Journal of Commons, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 245-261.
Carlsson, D. and R€onnqvist, M. (2005), “Supply chain management in forestry––case studies at S€odra
Cell AB”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 163 No. 3, pp. 589-616.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38, pp. 360-387.
Carter, C.R. and Washispack, S. (2018), “Mapping the path forward for sustainable supply chain
management: a review of reviews”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 242-247.
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, Chichester.
Chen, I.J. and Kitsis, A.M. (2017), “A research framework of sustainable supply chain management: the
role of relational capabilities in driving performance”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1454-1478.
Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001), “Supply networks and complex adaptive
systems: control versus emergence”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 351-366.
Co, H.C. and Barro, F. (2009), “Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 591-611.
Culas, R.J. (2012), “REDD and forest transition: tunneling through the environmental Kuznets curve”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 79, pp. 44-51.
de Bolle, M. (2019), The Amazon Is a Carbon Bomb: How Can Brazil and the World Work Together to
Avoid Setting It Off?, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.
Diabat, A., Kannan, D. and Mathiyazhagan, K. (2014), “Analysis of enablers for implementation of
sustainable supply chain management - a textile case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 83,
pp. 391-403.
Dooley, K.J. (1997), “A complex adaptive systems model of organization change”, Nonlinear Dynamics,
Psychology, and Life Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 69-97.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T. and Fosso Wamba, S. (2017), “World class
sustainable supply chain management: critical review and further research directions”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 332-362.
Elias, A. (2016), “Stakeholder analysis for lean six sigma project management”, International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 394-405.
Elias, A.A. (2019), “Strategy development through stakeholder involvement: a New Zealand study”, Sustainable
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 313-322.
wood supply
Elias, A.A. (2021), “Kerala’s innovations and flexibility for Covid-19 recovery: storytelling using
systems thinking”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 22, pp. 33-43.
chain in the
Elias, A.A. and Davis, D. (2018), “Analysing public sector continuous improvement: a systems
Amazon
approach”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-13.
Elias, A.A. and Zwikael, O. (2007), “Stakeholder participation in project management: a New Zealand
study”, Proceedings of the 5th ANZAM Operations Management Symposium and 1st Asia
Pacific Operations Management Symposium, June 6-7, Melbourne.
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y. and Watson, G. (2016), “Sustainable supply chain management in emerging
economies: trade-offs between environmental and cost performance”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 181, pp. 350-366.
FAS (2020), “Fundaç~ao Amazonas sustentavel”, available at: https://fas-amazonas.org/ (accessed 29
March 2020).
Feng, Y., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2017), “Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management:
a literature review and bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 158,
pp. 296-307.
Forest Stewardship Council (2021), “Facts and figures”, available at: https://fsc.org/en/facts-figures
(accessed 3 March 2021).
Forrester, J.W. (1958), “Industrial dynamics. A major breakthrough for decision makers”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 37-66.
Freeman, R.E. (2010), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Frostenson, M. and Prenkert, F. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management when focal firms are
complex: a network perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 107, pp. 85-94.
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S.L. (2017), “Sustainable supply chain
management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications”,
Omega, Vol. 66, pp. 344-357.
Gold, R.L. (1958), “Roles in sociological field observation”, Social Forces, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-223.
Golicic, S.L. and Smith, C.D. (2013), “A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain
management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49
No. 2, pp. 78-95.
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2015), “Sustainable evaluation and
verification in supply chains: aligning and leveraging accountability to stakeholders”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 38, pp. 1-13.
Hall, J., Matos, S. and Silvestre, B. (2012), “Understanding why firms should invest in sustainable
supply chains: a complexity approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50
No. 5, pp. 1332-1348.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed., Routledge,
London.
ISA (2019), “Instituto socioambiental. Banco de Dados do ISA”, available at: https://uc.socioambiental.
org/arp/5036 (accessed 31 March 2020).
Jabbour, C.J.C., Junker, B.H., Gold, R.L. and Kittel, D. (2010), “Non-linear pathways of corporate
environmental management: a survey of ISO 14001-certified companies in Brazil”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 1222-1225.
Jackson, M.C. (2009), “Fifty years of systems thinking for management”, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. S24-S32.
IJLM Jorgensen, D.L. (2011), “Participant observation”, in Scott, R.A. and Kosslyn, S.M. (Eds), Emerging
Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Junker, B. (1952), “Some suggestions for the design of field work learning experiences”, in Hughes,
E.C., Junker, B.H., Gold, R.L. and Kittel, D. (Eds), Cases on Field Work, University of Chicago,
Chicago.
Keating, B., Quazi, A., Kriz, A. and Coltman, T. (2008), “In pursuit of a sustainable supply chain:
insights from Westpac Banking Corporation”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 175-179.
Koberg, E. and Longoni, A. (2019), “A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in
global supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 1084-1098.
Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S. and Sarkis, J. (2021), “Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply
chain: theoretically exploring adoption barriers”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 231, p. 107831.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082.
Maani, K.E. and Cavana, R.Y. (2007), Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing Change and
Complexity, 2nd ed., Pearson Education (Prentice Hall), Auckland.
Meadows, D. (1999), Leverage Points-Places to Intervene in a System, Sustainability Institute,
Hartland.
Meherishi, L., Narayana, S.A. and Ranjani, K.S. (2019), “Sustainable packaging for supply chain
management in the circular economy: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 237,
p. 117582.
Meixell, M.J. and Luoma, P. (2015), “Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2,
pp. 69-89.
Mingers, J. and Brocklesby, J. (1997), “Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing
methodologies”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 489-509.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Rajesh, R. and Paul, S.K. (2018), “Modeling the interrelationships among
barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 181, pp. 631-651.
Moktadir, M.A., Dwivedi, A., Khan, N.S., Paul, S.K., Khan, S.A., Ahmed, S. and Sultana, R. (2021),
“Analysis of risk factors in sustainable supply chain management in an emerging economy of
leather industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 283, p. 124641.
Morali, O. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A review of sustainable supply chain management practices in
Canada”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 635-658.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F. and Braunschwieg, C.D. (1994), “Management of environmental issues in
logistics: current status and future potential”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 48-56.
Narayana, S.A., Elias, A.A. and Pati, R.K. (2014), “Reverse logistics in the pharmaceuticals industry:
a systemic analysis”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 379-398.
Narayana, S.A., Pati, R.K. and Padhi, S.S. (2019), “Market dynamics and reverse logistics for
sustainability in the Indian Pharmaceuticals industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208,
pp. 968-987.
Nicolle, S. and Leroy, M. (2017), “Advocacy coalitions and protected areas creation process: case study
in the Amazon”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 198 No. 1, pp. 99-109.
Nilsson, F. and Gammelgaard, B. (2012), “Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics
research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42,
pp. 764-783.
Nogueira, E.M., Yanai, A.M., de Vasconcelos, S.S., de Alencastro Graça, P.M.L. and Fearnside, P.M. Sustainable
(2018), “Carbon stocks and losses to deforestation in protected areas in Brazilian Amazonia”,
Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 261-270. wood supply
P€aivinen, R., Lindner, M., Rosen, K. and Lexer, M.J. (2012), “A concept for assessing sustainability
chain in the
impacts of forestry-wood chains”, European Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 7-19. Amazon
Pace, R. (1997), “The Amazon Caboclo: what’s in a name?”, Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 81-89.
Pagell, M. and Shevchenko, A. (2014), “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z.H. (2009), “Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain
management using case studies of 10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 37-56.
Pepper, M., Sense, A. and Speare, K. (2016), “Systems pluralism in infrastructure decision-making for
socially connected greenfield communities”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 129-148.
PPCDAm (Plano de Aç~ao para Prevenç~ao e Controle do Desmatamento na Amaz^onia Legal) (2016),
“Vegetaç~ao Nativa”, available at: https://www.mma.gov.br/informma/item/616-prevenç~ao-e-
controle-do-desmatamento-na-amaz^onia (accessed 29 March 2020).
Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A. and Leuschner, R. (2016), “Sustainability and corporate social responsibility
in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain management and business ethics
journals”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 82-97.
RAISG (2012), Amazonia under Pressure, Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-environmental
Information, Brazil.
Rebs, T., Brandenburg, M. and Seuring, S. (2019), “System dynamics modeling for sustainable supply
chain management: a literature review and systems thinking approach”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 208, pp. 1265-1280.
Roy, V., Schoenherr, T. and Charan, P. (2018), “The thematic landscape of literature in sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM): a review of the principal facets in SSCM development”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 1091-1124.
Santos, A., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Marques, A. and Amorim, P. (2019), “Assessment and
optimization of sustainable forest wood supply chains–a systematic literature review”, Forest
Policy and Economics, Vol. 105, pp. 112-135.
Sarkar, B., Sarkar, M., Ganguly, B. and Cardenas-Barron, L.E. (2021), “Combined effects of carbon
emission and production quality improvement for fixed lifetime products in a sustainable
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 231, p.
107867.
Sarkis, J. (Ed.) (2019), Handbook on the Sustainable Supply Chain, Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham.
Sarkis, J. (2021), “Supply chain sustainability: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sayed, M., Hendry, L.C. and Bell, M.Z. (2017), “Institutional complexity and sustainable supply chain
management practices”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 542-563.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2014), “Determining and applying sustainable
supplier key performance indicators”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 275-291.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Currency Doubleday, New York.
IJLM Seuring, S. and M€uller, M. (2008), “Core issues in sustainable supply chain management - a Delphi
study”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 455-466.
Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Muller, M. and Rao, P. (2008), “Sustainability and supply chain management - an
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 14, pp. 1545-1551.
Shen, B. (2014), “Sustainable fashion supply chain: lessons from H&M”, Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 9,
pp. 6236-6249.
Sigala, M. (2008), “A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators
on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1589-1599.
Souza-Filho, P.W.M., de Souza, E.B., J unior, R.O.S., Nascimento, W.R., de Mendonça, B.R.V.,
Guimaraes, J.T.F. and Siqueira, J.O. (2016), “Four decades of land-cover, land-use and
hydroclimatology changes in the Itacai
unas River Watershed, Southeastern Amazon”, Journal
of Environmental Management, Vol. 167, pp. 175-184.
Sterman, J.D. (2000), Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
The World Bank (2019), “The World Bank open data”, available at: https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations5BR (accessed 31 March 2020).
Touboulic, A. and Walker, H. (2015), “Love me, love me not: a nuanced view on collaboration in
sustainable supply chains”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 178-191.
Uldam, J. and McCurdy, P. (2013), “Studying social movements: challenges and opportunities for
participant observation”, Sociology Compass, Vol. 7, pp. 941-951.
Ulrich, W. (1987), “Critical heuristics of social systems design”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 276-283.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972), “The history and status of general systems theory”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 407-426.
Walker, H. and Jones, N. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Wan Ahmad, W.N.K., Rezaei, J., Tavasszy, L.A. and de Brito, M.P. (2016), “Commitment to and
preparedness for sustainable supply chain management in the oil and gas industry”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 180, pp. 202-213.
Wolf, J. (2011), “Sustainable supply chain management integration: a qualitative analysis
of the German manufacturing industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 2,
pp. 221-235.
Wolf, J. (2014), “The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder
pressure and corporate sustainability performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 3,
pp. 317-328.
Wu, Z. and Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: decision-making in sustainable supply chain
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 577-590.
WWF (2019a), “Deforestation in the Amazon increased 30% between August 2018 and July 2019”,
available at: https://www.wwf.org.br/informacoes/english/?uNewsID574083 (accessed 29
March 2020).
WWF (2019b), “PADDD em Unidades de Conservaç~ao da Amaz^onia”, available at: https://
d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/padddunidadesconservacaoamazonia final.pdf
(accessed 31 March 2020).
Yun, G., Yalcin, M.G., Hales, D.N. and Kwon, H.Y. (2019), “Interactions in sustainable supply chain
management: a framework review”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 140-173.
Further reading Sustainable
FAS (2017), “Fazendo a floresta valer mais em pe do que derrubada: atlas do desenvolvimento wood supply
sustentavel de comunidades ribeirinhas do Amazonas: 2010 – 2017”, available at: http://www.
fundoamazonia.gov.br/export/sites/default/pt/.galleries/documentos/acervo-projetos-cartilhas-
chain in the
outros/FAS-BolsaFloresta-Atlas.pdf (accessed 30 March 2020). Amazon

Corresponding author
Arun A. Elias can be contacted at: arun.elias@vuw.ac.nz

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com