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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1477-7835.htm

Validity and reliability of Sustainable

supply chain
sustainable supply chain management
framework
management frameworks in Indian
smart manufacturing industries 865
Neeraj Kumar Jha Received 1 April 2022
Revised 13 June 2022
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Accepted 22 June 2022
Hyderabad, India
Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti, Phaneendra Kiran Chaganti and
Srinivas Kota
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science,
Pilani, India, and
Lokesh Vijayvargy
Department of Operation Management, Jaipuria Institute of Management Jaipur,
Jaipur, India
Abstract
Purpose – Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) ensures integration of socially, environmentally
and economically feasible practices in entire supply chain. SSCM principles can be implemented to improve
efficiency and productivity of a system by different attributes of the system. The purpose of this article is to
identify the most appropriate existing (SSCM) framework that can be implemented suitably in Indian smart
manufacturing industries.
Design/methodology/approach – Validity and reliability analysis on the existing SSCM frameworks was
carried out with the help of empirical data collected using questionnaire survey methodology from various
Indian smart manufacturing organizations. The empirical data were gathered from various experts from top-
and middle-level management in different smart manufacturing organizations across the country. Further,
factor analysis was carried on the collected data to estimate the unidimensionality of each SSCM frameworks.
Cronbach’s alpha value was used to assess reliability of each framework. Subsequently, the frequency
distribution analysis was done to obtain familiar elements in the segregated frameworks based on validity and
reliability analysis.
Findings – The work observed that only five SSCM frameworks have shown unidimensionality in terms of the
elements or constructs. The work further found that these segregated frameworks have not shown sufficiently
high level of reliability. Additionally, this work attempted frequency distribution analysis and observed that
there were very few elements which were being repeatedly used in numerous frameworks proposed by
researchers. Based on the findings of this work, the work concluded that there is acute need of a new SSCM
framework for Indian smart manufacturing industries.
Research limitations/implications – This study gathered empirical data from 388 Indian smart
manufacturing organizations. Thus, before generalizing the findings of the study across the sectors, there is a
possibility of some more explication.
Originality/value – The main purpose of this article is to explore the feasibility of the existing SSCM
frameworks in Indian smart manufacturing sector. The study also assumes that the manufacturing managers
and executives may have the complete understanding on the existing sustainable manufacturing frameworks
and a chance to executing proper suitable framework in the respective manufacturing organization.
Keywords Sustainable supply chain, Indian industries, Empirical investigation, Manufacturing sector,
Validity, Reliability
Paper type Research paper
Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
1. Introduction Vol. 34 No. 4, 2023
pp. 865-901
Supply chain management is not new but among widely utilized competitive strategy among © Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-7835
various organizations since last few decades. It has emerged as one of the widely accepted DOI 10.1108/MEQ-04-2022-0098
MEQ tools to fight global competitive market (Rao and Holt, 2005; Corbett and Klassen, 2006).
34,4 Different organizations all around the world know the importance of an efficient supply
chain. A wise implementation of supply chain management not only ensures proper
fulfillment of customer’s demand, but also creates huge profit for the organization as well.
Additionally, it guarantees further demand and growth in future. Right after the
disintegrated model of Toyota’s supply chain management emerged from highly
integrated model of Ford’s supply chain management, this strategy has gone through
866 multiple innovations and amalgamation. Such additions made supply chain management
more adaptable for any organization. Success stories of Dell, Walmart, Amazon etc. show
various integrated approaches of supply chain management. Sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) or green supply chain management (GSCM) is one such integrated
approach which does value addition of social, environmental and economically viable
practices with supply chain management principles. Many organizations have approached
enhancement of their supply chain practices by considering not only their economic needs,
but also by focusing on environmental and social aspects (Thamsatitdej et al., 2017). To
achieve sustainability in supply chain management, its principles must align with
sustainability principles in all its concerned activities (Sarkis, 2012). The world
organizations are environmentally conscious. Global competitions and environmentally
conscious customers have created challenges and pressure for the organizations to focus on
environmental impact of their organizational practices (Carter and Jennings, 2002). The effect
and awareness of carbon emission and global warming along with other environmental and
economic issues made organizations to focus on more capable sustainable supply chain
(Govindan et al., 2019). One of the main concerns for the worldwide manufacturers is green
legislation (Ninlawan et al., 2011).
The supply chains are essential parts of a nation’s economy. A favorable supply chain will
give benefits like improved market accessibility, reduced production cost, improved
customer expectation and experience, improved risk management, more ease of doing
business etc. Indian manufacturing sector is growing rapidly and is among fastest growing
industrial sector globally (Jasti and Kodali, 2016). The gross value added (GVA) at basic
current prices from the Indian manufacturing sector grew at a compound annual growth rate
of 5% in recent past as per annual national income published by Government of India in the
year 2020. The Indian manufacturing sector has capability to achieve US$ 1 trillion by 2025.
With execution of Goods and Services Tax, India is expected to become common market with
a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$ 2.5 trillion along with 1.32 billion people, which is a
huge opportunity for investors. Recent government initiatives like “Make in India” have
placed India on the map of the world as global manufacturing hub. Such initiatives are giving
global recognition to Indian economy. At the same time, these are putting an ethical challenge
in front of Indian manufacturing organizations, and the ethical challenge is imbibing
sustainability aspect in all manufacturing related activities including supply chain. India is a
dynamic market in the present economic scenario. The sustainability of any business here
does not just depend on the innovative and anticipatory approach but majorly on the supply
chain management. Researchers have estimated Indian economy to grow multifold by 2025
(Niti Aayog, 2021). They are expecting it to become more heterogeneous with unique
opportunities as well as challenges. To meet this expectation, Indian organizations must
work on their supply chain strategy on multiple factors. To achieve the goal of becoming a
trillion US$ economy, India is incorporating various reforms in its economic structure. Such
reforms must be calibrated on all aspects. Despite demonetization and implementation of
Goods and Services Tax (GST), CO2 emission of India increased to about 2.4 billion tons
(Choudhary and Sangwan, 2019). On one hand, Indian market is opportunity for
manufacturing of solar panels, electric cars and related supply chain, but on the other
hand, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic halts the growth and increases friction
in supply chain. Such situations drag the attention of industrialists and researchers to work Sustainable
on taking remedial action on such byproducts of economic reforms. In consecutive years after supply chain
pandemic, an improved supply chain strategy can help in quick recovery. In the similar way,
fusion of big data and Internet of things etc. with conventional supply chain management
management
approach can change the face of customer demand and need fulfillment process. Developing framework
economies like India are always more susceptible to market risks. Hence, there is a high need
for better approach toward managing all the production activities including the supply chain.
SSCM can be one such versatile supply chain management approach. Globally numerous 867
organizations have visualized benefits of SSCM; it claims that the organization have
incorporated in their supply chain management (Panigrahi et al., 2019). But among the
industries, there is absence of complete knowledge and proper implementation strategy
about sustainability in supply chain management.
Manufacturing-based countries like India and China have delayed considering
environmental concerns. Environmentally incompatible manufacturing activities create
socio-economic concerns (Sartal et al., 2020) due to elevated levels of aerial pollution resulting
in substandard rainwater quality (Adegunwa et al., 2020). Manufacturing companies keep
focusing on higher return on their investments without taking care of its environmental
impact (Machado et al., 2020). The waste generated by the manufacturing activities is a
serious concern for the organization as well as for the society if it is not handled properly.
Organizations aim at handling the generated waste in a least expensive way without thinking
about the environmental impact (Jaria et al., 2022). Small lead time processes like casting are
easy to benchmark for environmental sustainability (da Silva et al., 2020), but the processes
like mining leave significant impact on the environment if not executed in a judicious way
(Famiyeh et al., 2020). It is evident to observe that the food and agriculture industries which
are hugely influenced by environment do not pay much attention on the environmental
impact of their processes (Selvaraj et al., 2021; Milano and Cazella, 2021). Not just the methods
of manufacturing but an efficient supply chain also can contribute to environment protection,
for example low CO2 emissions (Shamsuzzoha et al., 2020). To protect environment, switching
to green energy resources alone is not sufficient, but managing green energy resources in a
sustainable way is also important (Sangroya et al., 2020). By seeing recent conflicts of nations
on different issues, it can be said that the environmental sustainability is beyond the reach of
only organizations, and the governments and their policies also play a major role in guarding
environmental sustainability (Crawley and Dinica, 2021). In the recent past, India has started
incorporating environmental concerns in corporate policies, but proper implementation of
those is another concern (Dubey et al., 2017). There are strict norms induced on the industries
by the government mainly focusing on environment only. It has been observed that many
Indian smart manufacturing industries assume to follow SSCM practices, but they are
concentrating in a limited portion of the manufacturing division, and thus, the
implementation status of SSCM is isolated rather than integrated in the entire
organization. The aim of sustainability cannot be achieved without considering
interrelation among its pillars. An organization cannot just concentrate on economic
aspect by ignoring other aspects of sustainability. The environmental and social awareness
has been increasing among the consumers due to government policies in India (Sangwan,
2011). Sustainable development trends, world class environmental measures and sharp inter
organizational competition indicate that the organizations must start implementing SSCM
practices (Sahay and Mohan, 2003). Certainly, all the organizations are now forced to ensure
balance among their environmental, economic and social priorities (Malviya and Kant, 2015).
The obvious reasons behind such enforcements are regulatory, community or competitive
pressure (Schuster and Holtbr€ ugge, 2012); recently, automobile sector in India has struggled
with low demand in the market due to the environmental policies. But there are organizations
performing much better in terms of sales irrespective of the new policies. Such organizations
MEQ are anticipating all the environment policies and working to meet customer’s demand by
34,4 applying sustainable practices, because of customer’s awareness about sustainable products
and services. In the present global scenario, not only the firms need to work in fulfilling the
customer requirement with respect to cost, but quality and delivery are also required to meet
the stringent policies and develop eco-friendly products with recyclable materials (Taylor
and Taylor, 2013; Yu and Ramanathan, 2015). Hence, there is a keen need to develop
appropriate solutions to address the present difficult scenario of the Indian smart
868 manufacturing industry. Despite volumes of research on sustainability, very few research
works were done to find and analyze main reason of failure of implementation of SSCM
practices in organizations. Those works are restricted to particular fields of manufacturing
sector instead of considering entire production processes all together (Jasti et al., 2022). The
aim of this study is to identify the implementation status of SSCM practices in Indian smart
manufacturing organizations by selecting the existing SSCM frameworks from the literature
and finding out the most appropriate one for the implementation in Indian smart
manufacturing organizations.
The article is structured as follows: Section 2 gives information on literature review of
SSCM, Section 3 deals with the research methodology adapted to complete the current study,
Section 4 is dedicated to the findings from the validity and reliability analysis, Section 5 has
detailed discussion and implications and at last Section 6 is dedicated to conclusions and the
future directions.

2. Literature review of SSCM

Traditionally, supply chain was limited within the concepts of reducing expenditure along
with improving services (Simpson et al., 2007; Sarkis et al., 2011). Environmental and other
concerns were optional priorities. Over a period, various factors, namely, internal and
external pressure, global competition, customer environmental consciousness etc. have
pressurized the organizations to consider environmental factor also into the supply chain
(Srivastava, 2007; Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012). Sustainability, as an expression,
evolved in Germany in mid 1990s. Since then, it is being continuously explored by
academicians, professionals and researchers. Companies were insisted to account with green
regulations of European market to effectively establish an efficient global manufacturing
standard (Bylinsky, 1995). In past two decades supply chain management evolved as SSCM
or GSCM by getting integrated with sustainability philosophy. SSCM came into existence due
to focus on draining natural resources and environmental depletion (Srivastava, 2007). Now
SSCM is a universally accepted standardized organizational philosophy, which combines
environmental aspects with the conventional supply chain management. It combined raw
material procurement, processing, warehousing, distribution and reuse all together. Various
supply chain strategies can be implemented in different phases of the product life cycle
(Vonderembse et al., 2006).
Over a period of time, researchers, academicians and professionals have understood and
introduced SSCM in their own way. Supply chain management was always an interest for the
researchers, but the specific focus on SSCM increased during early 2000s (Mitra and Dutta,
2014). Narasimhan and Carter (1998) considered it as a purchasing philosophy that is guided
by perspectives, namely, reuse and recycle of materials. SSCM is combination of practices
performed by a company with supply chain collaborators for clean manufacturing (Beamon,
1999). Many researchers explored new, different and more beneficial aspects of SSCM. Gilbert
(2001) added the value of redesign of purchasing policies and supplier involvement in
procurement processes along with environmental integration of conventional supply chain.
Additional aspects kept coming to increase dimensions of the SSCM. Importance of reverse
logistics was focused by Sarkis (2003). The investigations and literature on SSCM
kept increasing along with its beneficial outcomes on the organizations (Zhu et al., 2005). Sustainable
Vachon and Klassen (2006) considered SSCM helpful for decreasing waste in the supply supply chain
chain. Srivastava (2007) focused on integration of other important factors in SSCM like
material characterization as well as its sourcing and selection, product design aspect,
management
manufacturing process, delivery and end-of-life aspects. SSCM is about taking values from framework
reuse and recycling and thus about the close loop supply chain networks (Guide and Van
Wassenhove, 2009). With increased globalization and competition in global market, the
perspective of SSCM further changed. Gunasekaran and Spalanzani (2012) considered SSCM 869
as an organizational philosophy to provide a competitive edge to an organization. SSCM then
was considered as a tool to help organizations in strategic perspectives (Schrettle et al., 2014).
The influencing factors that transform conventional supply chain management from SSCM
are termed as pressures (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014). Currently, worldwide manufacturing
organizations are facing intense pressure from its stakeholders to practice sustainable
practices (Mitra and Dutta, 2014). Jabbour et al. (2013) discussed organizational factor that
encourages or discourages an organization from implementing SSCM. Legislative pressure,
conscious customer, top management commitment and interdisciplinary collaborators can be
the issues that encourage an organization for environmental thinking (Govindan et al., 2013).
Influential pressure of SSCM in Indian automotive companies was highlighted by
Mathiyazhagan and Haq (2013) with help of statistical tools. Implementations of
environmental regulations and motivations were among important pressures as per their
findings from automotive industries. There is a need of integrated environmental approaches
throughout the supply chain to gain optimum benefit from SSCM practices (Linton et al.,
2007). Many researchers worked on SSCM practices and performances in consecutive years.
They have targeted selected industries as well as countries to unfold various aspects of
SSCM. Regulatory requirements and customer exert maximum pressure for implementation
of factors like, eco-design, green packaging, improvement practices, green supplier selection
practices (Drohomeretski et al., 2014) etc. A meaningful relationship was identified among all
the aspects of SSCM, i.e. environmental and social performance with economic performance
by Gopal and Thakkar (2016). The authors have also visualized considerable benefits of the
Indian automobile industry by practicing SSCM.
Regulatory pressure does not confirm adaptability of SSCM practices among industries
(Choudhary and Sangwan, 2019). Indian smart manufacturing organizations are willingly
adopting SSCM practices and its attributes (Mitra and Dutta, 2014). Numerous research
works are done to find connection of SSCM practices with the organizational behaviors (Zhu
and Sarkis, 2004; Rao and Holt, 2005). But in most of the cases, some or the other attributes are
missing or ignored. It was also observable from the literature that the economic benefits of the
SSCM practices were not explained (Seuring and M€ uller, 2008). Zhu et al. (2005) find that
the main reason behind lapses or deviations in findings of various SSCM literature is the
heterogeneity of the working or corporate environment in which industries are trying to
implement SSCM. Based on an intensive literature survey, Javed and Desai (2020) identified
that many industries are not able to practice sustainable principles in their organizations for
the products as well as in their processes. Without understanding the real sense and
advantages of sustainability, it is nearly impossible for any organization to adapt it. SSCM
principles are diverse, and it consists of large number of attributes within. To understand and
practice SSCM, always there is requirement of appropriate guidance. There is shortage of
such literature which gives guidelines for complete adaption of SSCM in an organization.
There is a need of literature which can give proper direction and motivation to the
organizations for implementation and maintenance of SSCM principles. Without proper
guidance, it is difficult for an organization to make balance among social, economic and
environmental attributes while following SSCM. There was plenty of research performed at
micro and macro levels, but there is a complete absence of a clear comprehensive framework
MEQ to analyze various parameters of SSCM and their effect on organizational behavior (Chen and
34,4 Paulraj, 2004; Jacobs, 2013). Hence, there is a need of a proper framework in the area of SSCM
for easy implementation and everlasting benefits to the organizations. This study considers
that rather than proposing a new framework it is convincing to evaluate if the existing
frameworks are completing the need in Indian smart manufacturing industries. The study
found out many frameworks from the existing literature. Hence, the study attempts to
identify the existing SSCM frameworks in the literature and perform empirical investigation
870 to check its adaptability in Indian smart manufacturing industries. The study also stresses to
recognize shortcoming of the existing SSCM frameworks that will contribute to future
researchers to take care of these shortcomings.

2.1 Identification of existing SSCM frameworks

Framework is an established term in the field of operations management. Many researchers
wrongly use the term model instead of framework due to the lack of clarity about the
definition of framework. In order to achieve organizational goals, frameworks are used as
tools that discuss about important methodologies as well as organizational business
objectives (Aalbregtse et al., 1991). A framework is considered as tool, technique and set of
elements and guides the way as it should be utilized to implement in an organization (Popper,
1994). The framework also attempts to show the condition of an organization, what is the
organization aiming to improve in the current situation and how it will be implemented and
the plan of action. Framework is reported as guiding path in organizational management for
the managers to achieve organizational objectives by implementing various elements and
defining relationship between them (Soni and Kodali, 2011). As per Soni and Kodali (2011),
attributes of a framework are indicated in Figure 1.
A framework helps in identifying weaknesses and provides corrective measures
(Herrmann et al., 2021). To apply SSCM principles in an organization, various researchers,
consultants and practitioners have put forward many SSCM frameworks. These frameworks
are helping to achieve the organizational goals in the field of SSCM. In total, 39 SSCM
frameworks were identified based on the literature survey of SSCM articles from various
online publishing portals. List of these frameworks is given in Appendix 1. In this study, all
the SSCM frameworks are not covered due to constraints such as resource availability. Thus,
this work considered the most used SSCM frameworks to perform validation in the Indian
smart manufacturing organizations. Hence, this study is not claiming the identified 39
frameworks as absolute collection of SSCM frameworks. These are illustrative sample of
frameworks considered in SSCM literature. The taxonomy of SSCM frameworks is shown in
Table 1.

Figure 1.
The attributes of a
framework
Taxonomy Frameworks
Sustainable
supply chain
Researcher/academician based Ali et al. (2013) management
Al-Sheyadi et al. (2019)
Aslinda et al. (2019) framework
Bastas and Liyanage (2018)
Brandenburg and Rebs (2015)
Br€omer et al. (2019) 871
Chen and Kitsis (2017)
Colicchia et al. (2011)
Dubey et al. (2017a)
Dubey et al. (2017b)
Esfahbodi et al. (2016)
Green et al. (2012)
Holt and Ghobadian (2009)
Kazancoglu et al. (2018)
Kumar and Garg (2017)
Kusi-Sarpong et al. (2019)
Li and Mathiyazhagan (2018)
Luthra et al. (2018)
Malviya and Kant (2017)
Mathiyazhagan and Haq (2013)
Mitra and Dutta (2014)
Mohanty (2018)
Mollenkopf et al. (2010)
Namagembe et al. (2019)
Perotti et al. (2012)
Queiroz (2019)
Rao (2002)
Raut et al. (2019)
Ravi et al. (2005)
Sarkis (2012)
Seuring and M€ uller (2008)
Shang et al. (2010)
Simonov et al. (2016)
Stindt (2017)
Thakker and Rane (2018) Table 1.
Vijayvargy et al. (2017) Taxonomy of
Xie and Breen (2012) sustainable
Zhu et al. (2005) manufacturing
Zhu et al. (2010) frameworks

3. Research methodology
SSCM principles are a great point of interest among the consultants, professionals,
academicians and researchers in different categories of organizations and especially in the
manufacturing industries and within research field. Currently, a lot of theoretical findings are
available on SSCM principles in various operations and manufacturing management
journals. It is not possible to access all the SSCM-related articles from all the resources. This
study is conducted on literature survey from various online publishing portals, namely.
Science Direct, Emerald Online, Springer Link, Sage Publication, Taylor & Francis and
Google search portals with open access. The articles published from 2001 to 2019 were
considered in this work for identifying the SSCM frameworks from the existing literature.
A questionnaire survey methodology was used to perform cross-sectional analysis on
preferred multi-sectoral industries of Indian smart manufacturing sector by gathering
MEQ empirical data. The Indian smart manufacturing industries targeted for the collection of
34,4 empirical data are machinery equipment industry, automobile industry and process industry
textile industry as well as electrical and electronics industry. The Confederation of Indian
Industry’s (CII) directory database of the year 2011 was used to collect the addresses of
various industries for the questionnaire survey (Sharma and Kodali, 2008). Responses were
collected from various industries. The respondents were preferably production managers,
quality managers and other personnel from top- to middle-level managers from various
872 departments.
A questionnaire survey was prepared using the five-point Likert scale. This scale
consisted of response values 1 to 5, where 1 indicates not important, 2 means less important, 3
stands for important, 4 means more important and 5 signified for most important. The
questionnaire is shown in Appendix 2. It consisted of two parts, namely, Part A and Part B. In
the questionnaire, Part A was prepared to know about the respondents and the details of their
organizations. The Part B in the questionnaire was planned to collect the significance of the
considered frameworks through their respective elements or contrasts. This study followed a
systematic methodology to gather the empirical data from the respondents as followed by
Jasti and Kodali (2014a). Initially, the work was discussed with the professionals and
specialists in the field of empirical studies and SSCM. The main focus of the discussion was
the configuration of the questionnaire to ensure high number of unbiased responses. As the
next step of the systematic approach, the draft questionnaire was directed to panel of
professionals, academicians and consultants. The improvements suggested by the panel
were incorporated in the questionnaire with the aim of enhancing the response rate. Pilot
study is essential to the content validity analysis of a questionnaire. This work also
performed a pilot study in one of the well-known Indian automotive industries. Ultimately,
the questionnaire was finalized by incorporating suggestions from panel of experts and the
pilot study.
Finally, the questionnaire was circulated among 753 manufacturing organizations
situated at various locations across India. Along with the questionnaire, the organizations
were communicated about the objective of this study as well as usefulness of this study for
Indian smart manufacturing organizations. Secrecy of the respondent’s personal information
was ensured. Frequent reminders to and encouragement of non-respondents contributed to
collection of 413 responses in approximately 10 weeks duration. Finally, this study has
considered 388 responses which were found complete in all respects as per the questionnaire
survey. Thus, this empirical study has acquired 51.5% response rate. Large sample sizes help
in valid results compared to small sample sizes (Costello and Osborne, 2005). Table 2 shows
the statistics of responses from individual sectors. After finalizing the valid number of
responses, the reliability and validity analysis of the SSCM frameworks was done. The
empirical data were further analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) v.26.0.

Industry No. of valid responses received Sample size Response rate

Automobile 148 202 73.2

Machinery equipment 84 152 55.2
Table 2. Electrical and electronics 79 190 41.6
The statistics of the Process 54 150 36.0
individual sector Textile 23 59 38.9
responses Total 388 753 51.5
3.1 Reliability Sustainable
Reliability is considered as a measure of consistency or the frequency by which the supply chain
measuring entity or the questionnaire is giving the same results after repeated attempts
(Toke et al., 2012). Reliability is classified into four categories, namely, test-retest reliability,
management
alternate forms reliability, split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability (Walsh and framework
Betz, 2001). Identifying the interrelation of elements in an individual framework is among
objectives of this study. Internal consistency reliability method is the reasonable way to check
interrelation between the elements which is reliability of the framework (Sureshchandar et al., 873
2001). Cronbach’s alpha value is the prime indicator of internal consistency. Numerous
researchers have mentioned that Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.7 is acceptable indicator of
internal consistency reliability (Morgan et al., 2007). Thus, the frameworks having
Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.7 only are considered in this study.

3.2 Validity
To know whether the research tool is actually measuring what it was expected to measure,
validity analysis is carried out (Joppe, 2000). Validity analysis is implemented to check to the
extent to which the values from a measure represent the variable they are intended to
measure. In the first instance, the validity analysis is categorized in to four different methods
as follows: content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity and construct validity
(APA, 1954). Later, the same research institute proposed criterion-related validity by
combining concurrent validity and predictive validity. To analyze the validity of
questionnaire tool, it should be reliable, but an instrument can be reliable without being valid.
(1) Content validity is the standardized approach to check the content to determine if it
acquires all the aspects of the study to be measured (Anastasi and Urbina, 1997).
Expert’s opinion will be helpful on performing content validity. No statistical test is
available to analyze qualitative data as it is impossible to measure by implementing
quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis methodologies can be implemented. Thus,
the judgment of experts from the same area of research can be a measuring tool for
content validity.
(2) Criteria validity is utilized for comparison between well-established measurement
procedures with newly developed measurement methodology. This type of validity
gives confirmation about the performance of the data collection tool supported by the
previous surveys or questionnaires instruments. Criteria validity is coincident when
the scores of a test instrument and criteria variable are found at the same time
(Sharma and Kodali, 2008).
(3) Construct validity gives the idea and witnesses if a particular engagement of a
construct efficiently indicates what is analyzed by theoretical account of the construct
being evaluated. For construct validity, factor analysis is employed. Using factor
analysis, we can find whether all contemplate elements or constructs inside summed
scale are appearing on common constructs. This work validates the
unidimensionality of the scales with reference to a particular construct (Sharma
and Kodali, 2008).

4. Results
In this study, validity analysis is carried out on 39 considerable SSCM frameworks to
examine if the existing SSCM frameworks have importance for further consideration. At first,
in two stages, content validity of the questionnaire was done. The framed questionnaire was
MEQ directed to the experts from the field of SSCM. Modifications indicated by them were
34,4 implemented in the questionnaire. The second stage was the pilot study conducted in an
Indian automotive industry, and in total, 30 were the sample responses. In the final format, all
the suggestions and modifications were incorporated. After the content validation was done,
the questionnaire was circulated to respondents. The target respondents were working
professionals from various manufacturing organizations.
As a second step, based on validity analysis procedures, criterion validity of the
874 framework have to be conducted. If the study has data with reference to the level of SSCM
excellence in the particular organization, then criterion validity can be done. This work did
not inspect the level of SSCM implementation in the respondent organization. Thus, this
study is assuming that the respondents performed criterion validity in their manufacturing
on each individual framework. Sharma and Kodali (2008) also performed similar kind of
validity analysis in their manufacturing excellence frameworks-related research study.
Lastly, on existing SSCM frameworks the construct validity was performed. Two
conditions must be fulfilled by the scale if any scale is set to perform construct validity. The
first condition is the unidimensionality of the scale (Flynn et al., 1990; Gerbing and Anderson,
1988), and the second condition is that the scale should be statistically reliable (Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988). Unidimensionality was checked for the frameworks in this study by
performing factor analysis. The factor analysis revealed that out of 39 SSCM frameworks
only 5 has shown unidimensionality. The factors extracted from each framework are
displayed in Table 3. Component matrix of one such SSCM framework, which has shown
unidimensionality, is shown in Table 4. This framework was proposed by Brandenburg and
Rebs (2015). It has resulted unidimensionality in principal component analysis after factor
extraction. The respondents of this study have signified the elements of this framework, as
they considered these elements crucial for the implementation of SSCM framework. This
study has recognized that the picked elements played main role to get high reliability to
reflect unidimensionality to the respective framework. Thus, the study considers that these
elements are dominant to be considered in future SSCM frameworks proposed by the
researchers. Sharma and Kodali (2008) also followed the similar procedure to filter a set of
prime elements in the area of manufacturing excellence.
The frameworks which displayed unidimensionality are Stindt (2017), Colicchia et al.
(2011), Brandenburg and Rebs (2015), Mollenkopf et al. (2010) and Xie and Breen (2012).
Inter-item analysis can be done to find out reliability of the framework. The internal
consistency valuation can be obtained through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicator. More
than 0.7 Cronbach’s alpha value ensures acceptable reliability of the framework (Pallant,
2005). In this work only five frameworks have shown unidimensionality, but none of the
frameworks have exhibited reliability more than 0.7, while they are reflecting mean more
than 3. The mean and reliability analysis results of the selected SSCM frameworks are shown
in Table 5. Reliability analysis for the framework of Brandenburg and Rebs is shown in
Tables 6–8. This study has used the frequency distribution analysis to extract the liveliest
elements out of these selected five SSCM frameworks. The elements were selected depending
on the mode value of four or more and the mean value of more than 3.5 of respective construct
from these five frameworks considered. As reference, the frequency analysis details for
Brandenburg and Rebs framework are shown in Table 9. From the frequency analysis, it was
obtained that the majority part of the constructs in each framework have shown high value of
mode, but finally none of the elements could be selected from the five considered frameworks.

5. Discussion
There are a huge number of SSCM frameworks proposed by researchers across the world, but
very few frameworks were validated using various tools that too in a particular scenario; so
Sl. No. Name of the framework No. of factors extracted
Sustainable
supply chain
1 Mitra and Dutta (2014) 2 management
2 Holt and Ghobadian (2009) 6
3 Stindt (2017) 1 framework
4 Kusi-Sarpong et al. (2019) 8
5 Simonov et al. (2016) 3
6 Colicchia et al. (2011) 1 875
7 Kumar and Garg (2017) 7
8 Brandenburg and Rebs (2015) 1
9 Dubey et al. (2017a) 4
10 Perotti et al. (2012) 3
11 Mollenkopf et al. (2010) 1
12 Xie and Breen (2012) 1
13 Rao (2002) 2
14 Raut et al. (2019) 3
15 Luthra et al. (2018) 6
16 Ravi et al. (2005) 5
17 Al-Sheyadi et al. (2019) 2
18 Aslinda et al. (2019) 3
19 Br€omer et al. (2019) 4
20 Sarkis (2012) 2
21 Shang et al. (2010) 3
22 Ali et al. (2013) 2
23 Li and Mathiyazhagan (2018) 7
24 Mohanty (2018) 7
25 Zhu et al. (2005) 8
26 Zhu et al. (2010) 2
27 Green et al. (2012) 2
28 Namagembe et al. (2019) 2
29 Thakker and Rane (2018) 3
30 Malviya and Kant (2017) 3
31 Vijayvargy et al. (2017) 3
32 Mathiyazhagan and Haq (2013) 3
33 Queiroz (2019) 4
34 Esfahbodi et al. (2016) 2 Table 3.
35 Seuring and M€ uller (2008) 3 Number of factors
36 Chen and Kitsis (2017) 3 extracted from each
37 Dubey et al. (2017b) 4 sustainable
38 Bastas and Liyanage (2018) 3 manufacturing
39 Kazancoglu et al. (2018) 3 framework

Brandenburg and Rebs Framework elements Component

Sustainable supplier management 0.668 Table 4.

Manage sustainability risks 0.661 Component matrix for
Manage pressure and incentives 0.744 the framework of
Note(s): Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Brandenburg and Rebs

most of the frameworks in the field of SSCM were not validated. On other side of the coin,
Indian smart manufacturing organizations need to implement sustainable practices in the
organizational activities to meet the Indian Government regulations, but these were
struggling to implement sustainable practices due to lack of appropriate implementation
MEQ strategy. Hence, the present study has tried to fulfill the gap by finding the suitable SSCM
34,4 frameworks to implement in the Indian smart manufacturing scenario. These kinds of studies
are useful to researchers, practitioners and professionals to help finding suitable SSCM
frameworks. It is also useful to assess the existing SSCM frameworks validity and reliability
in the context of Indian manufacturing. The study was conducted in a structured approach
similar to Jasti and Kodali (2014b) that validated the lean manufacturing framework in the
Indian smart manufacturing context. The study has performed a comprehensive literature
876 across international journals and Internet sources by collecting 903 research articles that
focused on sustainable strategy. Subsequently, 401 research articles focused on SSCM
were filtered. The study has identified 39 SSCM frameworks from these 401 articles. Finally,

Table 5.
Mean and reliability
analysis results for the Framework name Stindt Colicchia et al. Brandenburg and Rebs Mollenkopf et al. Xie and Breen
selected sustainable
manufacturing Overall mean 3.216 2.944 3.061 3.141 3.003
frameworks Cronbach’s Alpha 0.421 0.451 0.454 0.226 0.439

Table 6. Max./
Reliability analysis Summary item statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Min. Variance No. of items
from the framework of
Brandenburg and Rebs Item mean 3.061 2.655 3.332 0.678 1.255 0.129 3
(Summary item Item variance 1.846 1.664 2.086 0.421 1.253 0.047 3
statistics) Inter-Item correlation 0.218 0.163 0.248 0.085 1.518 0.002 3

Squared
Item-total Scale mean if Scale variance Corrected item multiple Cronbach’s alpha
Table 7. statistics item deleted if item deleted total correlation correlation if item deleted
Reliability analysis
from the framework of SSCMF8.1 5.99 4.287 0.262 0.073 0.390
Brandenburg and Rebs SSCMF8.2 5.85 4.830 0.255 0.070 0.396
(Item-total statistics) SSCMF8.3 6.53 4.358 0.321 0.103 0.279

Table 8.
Reliability analysis Reliability statistics Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items No. of items
from the framework of
Brandenburg and Rebs 0.454 0.455 3

Sustainable supplier Manage sustainability Manage pressure and

N management risks incentives
Table 9.
Statistics of the Valid 388 388 388
frequency analysis Missing 0 0 0
carried out for the Mean 3.20 3.33 2.65
framework of Median 3.00 4.00 2.00
Brandenburg and Rebs Mode 5 4 2
these 39 SSCM frameworks were considered to perform validity and reliability analysis and Sustainable
identify the suitable frameworks to implement Indian smart manufacturing organization. supply chain
To perform the reliability and validity analysis, a cross functional team with eight
members (three academicians, three practitioners and two professional consultants) was
management
formed. The team has developed a survey questionnaire that was validated through a pilot framework
study. The pilot study was conducted in an auto-ancillary industry with a sample of 25. The
pilot study has suggested several improvements to capture the right data from the
respondents. Jasti et al. (2020) have applied a similar approach to reinforce the robustness of a 877
questionnaire. The cross functional team has reviewed the developed questionnaire after the
corrections made as per the pilot study. Finally, the survey questionnaire was circulated
across the industry professionals and received 413 responses, from which partially filled
questionnaires were removed and 388 questionnaires were found to be filled in all aspects.
According to Soni and Kodali (2012), a sample size of 200 responses can be considered as a
good response rate, and will it be helpful to bring robust conclusions.
Validity analysis was performed through principal component analysis by validating
unidimensionality of a particular framework. The study needs to perform three different
types of validity analysis. Content validity through a cross functional team and pitot study
performed necessary corrections to enhance the readability and easy of understanding to the
respondent based on the feedback received during cross functional team meetings and pilot
study. Subsequently, criteria validity analysis was done through individual respondents
during filling the questionnaire. Sharma and Kodali (2008) have implemented a similar
strategy to perform criteria validity analysis in the field of manufacturing excellence
frameworks. Finally, the construct validity analysis was performed with the help of factor
analysis. In the factor analysis, the study has identified the SSCM framework that shows
unidimensionality characteristic. In the process, it has been observed that five SSCM
framework has shown unidimensionality through the principal component analysis. These
SSCM frameworks were as follows: Stindt (2017), Colicchia et al. (2011), Brandenburg and
Rebs (2015), Mollenkopf et al. (2010) and Xie and Breen (2012). Jasti and Kurra (2017) have
reported that around nine lean supply chain management frameworks have shown
unidimensionality characteristic in Indian smart manufacturing organization context. In that
study, around 30% frameworks were shown unidimensionality in the considered sample of
the lean supply chain management frameworks. The Indian researchers also significantly
contributed to develop the frameworks in the field of lean supply chain management. It
helped in implementing lean practices effectively in the early 21st century in Indian smart
manufacturing organizations. However, the contributions of Indian researchers in the
considered sample SSCM frameworks were negligible. It may be one of the reasons a few
SSCM frameworks exhibit unidimensionality in the Indian smart manufacturing
organization context.
The objective of reliability analysis is to identify interrelationships among the elements in
a particular SSCM framework. According to Jasti et al. (2020), the internal consistency
reliability method is the right approach to solve this kind of scenario. The present study has
considered Cronbach’s alpha value as a prime indicator for internal consistency of the
framework. According to Morgan et al. (2007), Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.7 is a good
indicator of internal consistency reliability. Hence, the present study has considered SSCM
frameworks having Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.7 to perform further analysis. Seven
frameworks showed Cronbach’s alpha value more than 0.7, and five SSCM frameworks were
shown to have unidimensionality characteristics. A reliability analysis was performed on
these five SSCM frameworks. Out of 39 frameworks, 5 SSCM frameworks’ Cronbach’s alpha
value is less than 0.7. According to Morgan et al. (2007), any framework showing Cronbach’s
alpha value less than 0.7 indicates that the framework failed in the aspect of reliability.
Finally, the present study has concluded that the five SSCM frameworks were not suitable to
MEQ implement in the Indian smart manufacturing context. Similar kind of analysis was
34,4 conducted by Sharma and Kodali (2008) and Jasti and Kodali (2014b) in the field of
manufacturing excellence frameworks and lean manufacturing frameworks, respectively.
Sharma and Kodali (2008) reported that only 7 manufacturing excellence frameworks out of
35 frameworks were shown better reliability in the Indian smart manufacturing organization
context. Similarly, Jasti and Kodali (2016) have performed validity and reliability analysis on
lean supply chain management frameworks. The study has reported that only nine lean
878 supply chain managements were suitable to implement in the Indian smart manufacturing
industry context according to the statistical analysis. However, Sharma and Kodali (2008)
and Jasti and Kodali (2016) have reported that in both fields of frameworks have different
shortcomings in the aspect of proposed elements in the respective frameworks. Hence, both
the studies reported that none of the frameworks were suitable to be implemented in the
Indian smart manufacturing organization context. Sharma and Kodali (2008) and Jasti and
Kodali (2016) reported that the selected frameworks in manufacturing excellence and lean
supply chain management were unidimensional, and subsequently, the same set of
frameworks were also shown to have good Cronbach’s alpha value. But in the present
research work, five frameworks were shown unidimensionality. However, none of the
frameworks shows high reliability.
Finally, the present study has reported that the existing SSCM frameworks are not
suitable to be implemented in Indian smart manufacturing organizations. India is one of the
fast-developing countries, and it needs to maintain eco-friendly manufacturing systems in the
long run. To maintain same growth rate along ecofriendly manufacturing systems, India
needs to implement SSCM strategy effectively. The present study has shown that none of the
existing SSCM frameworks were suitable to be implemented in Indian smart manufacturing
organizations and thus a requirement of developing new SSCM framework that can be
suitable to be implemented in Indian smart manufacturing organization context. Jasti and
Kodali (2016) have performed a similar kind of analysis in the field of lean manufacturing
framework. The same study has reported that there are no lean manufacturing frameworks
suitable to implement in the Indian smart manufacturing context. After this study, there is a
significant change in terms of proposing and validating lean manufacturing frameworks in
the field of operations management. The present study also will become as an ignition point
toward the development of novel and adapted SSCM framework in the Indian smart
manufacturing context.

5.1 Implications
The present study has a lot of theoretical and managerial implications. In the aspect
theoretical implications, the study has given a clear strategy to identify and propose a
framework in the fields of SSCM. This strategy will be helpful for future researchers in
recognizing an SSCM framework as well as in proposing a new framework for SSCM. The
present study findings are encouraging to develop a new SSCM framework in the Indian
smart manufacturing organization context. This finding can be considered as one of the main
research implications drawn from the study. Additionally, this study has collected a huge
number of existing SSCM frameworks from the literature, which can help the researchers in
various types of studies. This study is helpful to future researchers to identify gaps in the
present existing SSCM frameworks and to perform validity and reliability analysis after
proposing a framework. The study has stressed the need of proposing and validating the
proposed SSCM framework in the Indian smart manufacturing context. The study has also
identified high-impact SSCM elements in the aspect of Indian smart manufacturing
organizations, which helps the researchers to assess these in future. This will be helpful in
two aspects: know whether the proposed SSCM framework addresses all the significant
elements and validation of the proposed elements by comparing significant elements that Sustainable
came out from the present study. supply chain
In the aspect of managerial implications, this study is helpful to the managers and
organization leadership team to identify an SSCM framework to implement in their
management
manufacturing organization context. Outcomes of this research give convenient information framework
to the practitioners and the managers about various elements of SSCM. The study has also
revealed significant SSCM elements to implement in the Indian smart manufacturing
organization context. The practitioners were able to understand the significance of 879
developing a new SSCM framework in the aspect of Indian smart manufacturing context.
Accordingly, the practitioners and professionals will contribute to conduct future research
studies through their knowledge and experience in the field of SSCM.

6. Conclusion
In this study, validity and reliability analysis was performed on existing 39 SSCM frameworks.
These frameworks are collected from various existing literature by intensive literature survey.
Through a survey questionnaire, empirical data were collected for this research work. Top
management personnel from various Indian industries were the respondents. Validity analysis
of the empirical data showed that only five frameworks have shown unidimensionality.
Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated for these frameworks to evaluate their reliability. None
of the frameworks have shown the value more than 0.8, which is considered as minimal for
reliability of the empirical data. This indicates that there is lack of a suitable SSCM framework
for Indian smart manufacturing industries. Though there are numerous SSCM frameworks
suggested by various researchers, they are lagging in implementation and effectiveness. The
study also investigated that there are various frequently occurring elements in the existing
SSCM frameworks, but those are less popular in actual implementation. Sustainable product
cost reduction, legislative pressure, sustainable supplier management, sustainable product
design, top management support, etc. are few among numerous elements that are frequently
included in these frameworks, but their actual implementation needs strict guidelines and clear
understanding. Due to such constraints, these constructs are less popular among organizations
while implementing SSCM frameworks. On the other hand, elements like customer
environmental cooperation, emission minimization, education of employees and career
development, manage pressure and incentives, etc. are well-recognized elements in the
organizations practicing SSCM philosophy. But these are among unrecognized elements from
our study. Such elements need additional focus from researchers so that the manufacturing
organizations can get benefited ultimately. This research finds that green purchasing,
environmental management system, environmental attitude, collaborative relationship with
suppliers, etc. are few SSCM framework elements are well shouted by researchers and are
equally popular in industries for SSCM implementation. In present scenario, Indian as well as
global manufacturing organizations is facing multiple challenges. Few among such are limited
availability of natural resources, technology shift, variable costs of raw material and finished
products, waste management and various global phenomena. Apart from all such constraints
on implementation of SSCM, the manufacturing organizations only are considered responsible,
which is impossible without proper framework. However, the main aim of this work is to
analyze suitability of existing SSCM frameworks in Indian smart manufacturing organizations
rather than development of a new SSCM framework, which may be proposed as future scope
based on the outcome of this work. It is evident from this work that there is acute need of a
comprehensive SSCM framework for the Indian smart manufacturing organizations.
The present study has considered a restricted number of sample size and specific domains
of the organization sector. Collection of empirical data was done only from the employees of
higher- and middle-level management, which can be considered as one limitation of this work.
MEQ The responsibility and knowledge of an employee at a lower level is also equally important
34,4 for successful implementation of SSCM practices in an organization. The study has mostly
focused on large scale organization by considering infrastructure limitations of small and
medium-scale industry. However, there is a need to consider small and medium-scale
industries for the collection of the empirical data in the future research studies, as majority of
the firms in India are small and medium-scale industries. Additionally, such a validation of
frameworks can be done globally by the future researchers instead of limiting it to the
880 boundaries of a country. This work will help manufacturing organizations to choose a
suitable SSCM framework for their organization.

References
Aalbregtse, R.J., Hejka, J.A. and McNeley, P.K. (1991), “TQM: how do you do it?”, Automation, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 30-32.
Adegunwa, A., Adebiyi, F.M. and Asubiojo, O. (2020), “Evaluating aerial pollution using rainwater
chemistry for sustainable environmental development”, Management of Environmental Quality,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 713-739, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-07-2019-0146.
Al-Sheyadi, A., Muyldermans, L. and Kauppi, K. (2019), “The complementarity of green supply chain
management practices and the impact on environmental performance”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 242, pp. 186-198, ISSN 0301-4797, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.
2019.04.078.
Ali, D., Khodaverdi, R. and Olfat, L. (2013), “An exploration of green supply chain practices and
performances in an automotive industry”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Heidelberg, Vol. 68 No. 1-4, pp. 949-961, doi: 10.1007/s00170-013-
4955-4.
Anastasi, A. and Urbina, S. (1997), Psychological Testing, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, New York.
APA (American Psychological Association) (1954), “Technical recommendations for psychological
tests and diagnostic techniques”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 201-238.
Aslinda, N., Seman, A., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zakuan, A., Saman, M.Z.M., Hooker, R.E. and
Ozkul, S. (2019), “The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green
supply chain management and environmental performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 229, pp. 115-127, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.211.
Bastas, A. and Liyanage, K. (2018), “Sustainable supply chain quality management: a systematic
review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 181, pp. 726-744, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.01.110.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Designing the green supply chain”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Brandenburg, M. and Rebs, T. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling
perspective”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 229, pp. 213-252, doi: 10.1007/s10479-015-
1853-1.
Br€omer, J., Brandenburg, M. and Gold, S. (2019), “Transforming chemical supply chains toward
sustainability—a practice-based view”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 236, doi: 10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2019.117701.
Bylinsky, G. (1995), “Manufacturing for reuse”, Fortune, pp. 60-65, February 6.
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework”,
Journal of Business Logisttics, Vols -23, pp. 145-180.
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, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-11-2016-0265.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and Sustainable
measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-150.
supply chain
Choudhary, K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2019), “Adoption of green practices throughout the supply chain:
an empirical investigation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6,
management
pp. 1650-1675, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0293. framework
Colicchia, C., Melacini, M. and Perotti, S. (2011), “Benchmarking supply chain sustainability:
insights from a field study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 705-732,
doi: 10.1108/14635771111166839. 881
Corbett, C.J. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending the horizons: environmental excellence as key to
improving operations”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Crawley, S. and Dinica, V. (2021), “Institutionalising environmental sustainability transitions in New
Zealand and Australia: introduction to the special issue”, Political Science, Vol. 73 No. 2,
pp. 85-102, doi: 10.1080/00323187.2022.2037440.
da Silva, H.G., Ferreira, J.C.E., Kumar, V. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2020), “Benchmarking of cleaner
production in sand mould casting companies”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 1407-1435, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0272.
Drohomeretski, E., da Costa, S.G. and de Lima, E.P. (2014), “Green supply chain management drivers,
barriers and practices within the Brazilian automotive industry”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1105-1134, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-06-2014-0084.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0011.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017a), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0011.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Shibin, K.T. and Wamba, S.F. (2017b),
“Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 1119-1130, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
03.117.
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 No. Part B, pp. 350-366, ISSN 0925-5273, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.
02.013.
Famiyeh, S., Kwarteng, A., Darko, D.A. and Osei, V. (2020), “Environmental and social impacts
identification for small-scale alluvial mining projects”, Management of Environmental Quality,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 564-585, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-07-2019-0160.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. and Flynn, E.J. (1990), “Empirical research
methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 250-284.
Gerbing, D. and Anderson, J. (1988), “An updated paradigm for sales development in corporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 186-192.
Gilbert, S. (2001), Greening Supply Chain: Enhancing Competitiveness through Green Productivity,
Report of the Top Forum on Enhancing Competitiveness through Green Productivity, Tapei,
pp. 1-6, May 25-27.
MEQ Gopal, P.R.C. and Thakkar, J. (2016), “Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical investigation
on Indian automobile industry”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 49-64,
34,4 doi: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1060368.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2013),
“Analysing green supply chain management practices in Brazil’s electrical/electronics industry
using interpretive structural modelling”, International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 477-493, doi: 10.1080/00207233.2013.798494.
882 Govindan, K., Kadzinski, M., Ehling, R. and Miebs, G. (2019), “Selection of a sustainable third-party
reverse logistics provider based on the robustness analysis of an outranking graph kernel
conducted with ELECTRE I and SMAA”, Omega, Vol. 85, pp. 1-15.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 290-305,
doi: 10.1108/13598541211227126.
Guide, V.D.R. Jr and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2009), “OR FORUM-the evolution of closed-loop supply
chain research”, Operations Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012), “Sustainable of manufacturing services: investigation for
research and applications”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 35-47.
Herrmann, F.F., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Butturi, M.A., Marinelli, S. and Sellitto, M.A. (2021), “Green
supply chain management: conceptual framework and models for analysis”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13, p. 8127, doi: 10.3390/su13158127.
Holt, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2009), “An empirical study of green supply chain management practices
amongst UK manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 933-956, doi: 10.1108/17410380910984212.
Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Salgado, M.H. and Zanon, C.J. (2013),
“Factors affecting the adoption of green supply chain management practices in Brazil: empirical
evidence factors affecting the adoption of green supply chain management practices in Brazil:
empirical evidence”, International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 302-315,
doi: 10.1080/00207233.2013.774774.
Jacobs, M.A. (2013), “Complexity: toward an empirical measure”, Technovation, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 111-118.
Jaria, G., Calisto, V., Esteves, V.I. and Otero, M. (2022), “Overview of relevant economic and
environmental aspects of waste-based activated carbons aimed at adsorptive water
treatments”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 344, 130984, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.130984.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2014a), “A literature review of empirical research methodology in lean
manufacturing”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 1080-1122.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2014b), “Validity and reliability of lean manufacturing frameworks: an
empirical study in Indian manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 361-391.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2016), “An empirical study for implementation of lean principles in Indian
manufacturing industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 183-207,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2013-0101.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kurra, S. (2017), “An empirical investigation on lean supply chain management
frameworks in Indian manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 699-723.
Jasti, N.V.K., Kota, S. and Kale, S.R. (2020), “Development of a framework for lean enterprise”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 431-459.
Jasti, N.V.K., Jha, N.K., Chaganti, P.K. and Kota, S. (2022), “Sustainable production system: Sustainable
literature review and trends”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 692-717,
doi: 10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0246. supply chain
Javed, M. and Desai, T.N. (2020), “A systematic literature review to map literature focus of sustainable
management
manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256, p. 120345, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. framework
120345.
Joppe, M. (2000), “The research process”, available at: www.ryerson.ca/mjoppe/rp.htm (accessed 25
February 1998). 883
Kazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I. and Sagnak, M. (2018), “A new holistic conceptual framework for green
supply chain management performance assessment based on circular economy”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 1282-1299, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.015.
Kumar, D. and Garg, C.P. (2017), “Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using fuzzy AHP:
case of Indian automotive industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 1742-1766, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2015-0111.
Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H. and Sarkis, J. (2019), “A supply chain sustainability innovation framework
and evaluation methodology”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 7,
pp. 1990-2008, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1518607.
Li, Y. and Mathiyazhagan, K. (2018), “Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential
indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing
sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 2931-2941, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.11.120.
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, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.012.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Shankar, R., Garg, C.P. and Jakhar, S. (2018), “Modelling critical success
factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context using Grey-DEMATEL”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 705-728, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2018.
1448126.
Machado, C.G., Winroth, M.P. and da Silva, E.H.D. (2020), “Sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0:
an emerging research agenda, International”, Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 1462-1484, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1652777.
Malviya, R.K. and Kant, R. (2015), “Green supply chain management (GSCM): a structured literature
review and research implications”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2014-0001.
Malviya, R.K. and Kant, R. (2017), “Modeling the enablers of green supply chain management: an
integrated ISM – fuzzy MICMAC approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 536-568, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2015-0082.
Mathiyazhagan, K. and Haq, A.N. (2013), “Analysis of the influential pressures for green supply chain
management adoption—an Indian perspective using interpretive structural modeling”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology; Heidelberg, Vol. 68 Nos 1-4,
pp. 817-833, doi: 10.1007/s00170-013-4946-5.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K. and Haq, A.N. (2014), “Pressure analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 188-202, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2013.831190.
Milano, M.Z. and Cazella, A.A. (2021), “Environmental effects of geographical ndications and their
influential factors: a review of the empirical evidence”, Current Research in Environmental
Sustainability, Vol. 3, p. 100096, ISSN 2666-0490, doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100096.
Mitra, S. and Dutta, P.P. (2014), “Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their
impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 2085-2107, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.849014.
MEQ Mohanty, M. (2018), “Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using total interpretive structural
modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis”, Management of Environmental Quality,
34,4 Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 216-239, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0027.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2,
pp. 14-41, doi: 10.1108/09600031011018028.
Morgan, G.A., Leach, N.L., Gloeckner, G.W. and Barrett, K.C. (2007), SPSS for Introductory Statistics:
884 Use and Interpretation, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Namagembe, S., Ryan, S. and Sridharan, R. (2019), “Green supply chain practice adoption and firm
performance: manufacturing SMEs in Uganda”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 5-35, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-10-2017-0119.
Narasimhan, R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Linking business unit and material sourcing strategies”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 155-171.
Ninlawan, C., Seksan, P., Tossapol, K. and Pilada, W. (2011), “The implementation of green supply
chain management practices in electronics industry”, Proceedings of the International
Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 3.
Niti Aayog (2021), “Arth Niti”, GOI, National Monetisation Pipeline, Vol. 8, available at: https://www.
niti.gov.in/documents/arth-niti.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 2nd ed.,
Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.
Panigrahi, S.S., Bahinipati, B. and Jain, V. (2019), “Sustainable supply chain management: a review of
literature and implications for future research”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 1001-1049, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0003.
Perotti, S., Zorzini, M., Cagno, E. and Micheli, G.J.L. (2012), “Green supply chain practices and
company performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 640-672, doi: 10.1108/09600031211258138.
Popper, K.R. (1994), “The myth of the framework”, in Defence of Science and Rationality”, Routledge,
London.
Queiroz, M.M. (2019), “A framework for sustainable supply chain in emerging economies”,
Environmental Management Quality, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 7-15, doi: 10.1002/tqem.21618.
Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia”, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 632-655, doi: 10.1108/
01443570210427668.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,
pp. 898-916.
Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narwane, V.S., Gardas, B.B., Priyadarshinee, P. and Narkhede, B.E. (2019),
“Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability practices for sustainable business
management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 224, pp. 10-24, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.181.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “Productivity improvement of a computer hardware
supply chain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54
No. 4, pp. 239-255, doi: 10.1108/17410400510593802.
Sahay, B.S. and Mohan, R. (2003), “Supply chain management practices in Indian industry”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 7,
pp. 582-606, doi: 10.1108/09600030310499277.
Sangroya, D., Kabra, G., Joshi, Y. and Yadav, M. (2020), “Green energy management in India for
environmental benchmarking: from concept to practice”, Management of Environmental
Quality, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1329-1349, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-11-2019-0237.
Sangwan, K.S. (2011), “Development of a multi criteria decision model for justification of green Sustainable
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Green Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 285-305.
supply chain
Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
management
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”, Supply
framework
Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216, doi: 10.1108/13598541211212924.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain 885
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejıas, A.M. and Garcıa-Collado, A. (2020), “The sustainable manufacturing
concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: a literature review”, Advances in
Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 5, doi: 10.1177/1687814020925232.
Schrettle, S., Hinz, A., Scherrer-Rathje, M. and Freidli, T. (2014), “Turning sustainability into action:
explaining firms’ sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147 No. Part A, pp. 73-84.
ugge, D. (2012), “Market entry of multinational companies in markets at the
Schuster, T. and Holtbr€
bottom of the pyramid: a learning perspective”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 817-830.
Selvaraj, A., Gautam, J., Verma, S., Verma, G. and Jain, S. (2021), “Life cycle sustainability assessment
of crops in India”, Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 3, 100074, ISSN 2666-
0490, doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100074.
uller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
Seuring, S. and M€
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1699-1710.
Shamsuzzoha, A., Ndzibah, E. and Kettunen, K. (2020), “Data-driven sustainable supply chain
through centralized logistics network: case study in a Finnish pharmaceutical distributor
company”, Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 2, p. 100013, ISSN 2666-0490,
doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100013.
Shang, K.C., Lu, S.C. and Li, S. (2010), “A taxonomy of green supply chain management capability
among electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1218-1226, ISSN 0301-4797, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.016.
Sharma, M. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Validity and reliability of applying manufacturing excellence
frameworks to Indian industries”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 222 No. 6, pp. 723-739.
Simonov, K.S., Sarkis, J. and Wang, X. (2016), “Assessing green supply chain practices in the
Ghanaian mining industry: a framework and evaluation”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 181 No. Part B, pp. 325-341, ISSN 0925-5273, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.002.
Simpson, D., Power, D. and Samson, D. (2007), “Greening the automotive supply chain: a relationship
perspective”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 28-48.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2011), “A critical review of supply chain frameworks: proposed framework”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 263-298.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2012), “Evaluating reliability and validity of lean, agile and leagile supply
chain constructs in Indian manufacturing industry”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23
Nos 10-11, pp. 864-884.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: a state of the art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Stindt, D. (2017), “A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management - how to
integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability?”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 153, pp. 146-163, ISSN 0959-6526, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.126.
MEQ Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001), “A holistic model for total quality
service”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 378-412.
34,4
Taylor, A. and Taylor, M. (2013), “Antecedents of effective performance measurement system
implementation: an empirical study of UK manufacturing firms”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 18, pp. 5485-5498.
Thakker, S.V. and Rane, S.B. (2018), “Implementation of green supplier development process model in
Indian automobile industry”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 938-960,
886 doi: 10.1108/MEQ-03-2018-0052.
Thamsatitdej, P., Boon-itt, S., Samaranayake, P., Wannakarn, M. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2017),
“Eco-design practices towards sustainable supply chain management: interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) approach, International”, Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 326-337, doi: 10.1080/19397038.2017.1379571.
Toke, L.K., Gupta, R.C. and Dandekar, M. (2012), “An empirical study of green supply chain
management in Indian perspective”, International Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 372-383.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the
package printing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 6-7, pp. 661-671.
Vijayvargy, L., Thakkar, J. and Agarwal, G. (2017), “Green supply chain management practices and
performance: the role of firm-size for emerging economies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 299-323, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2016-0123.
Vonderembse, M.A., Uppal, M., Huang, S.H. and Dismukes, J.P. (2006), “Designing supply chains:
towards theory development”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 100 No. 2,
pp. 223-238.
Walsh, W.B. and Betz, N.E. (2001), Tests and Assessment, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Xie, Y. and Breen, L. (2012), “Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a cross
boundary approach”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 40-53, doi: 10.1108/
13598541211212195.
Yu, W. and Ramanathan, R. (2015), “An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green
operations practices and environmental performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 53 No. 21, pp. 6390-6407.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468, doi: 10.1108/01443570510593148.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T. and Hashimoto, S. (2010), “Green supply chain management in leading
manufacturers: case studies in Japanese large companies”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380-392, doi: 10.1108/01409171011030471.

Appendix 1

List of the SSCM frameworks

SSCMF1 Mitra, S. and Dutta, P.P. (2014), “Adoption of green supply chain management practices and
their impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 2085-2107.
SSCMF2 Holt, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2009), “An empirical study of green supply chain management
practices amongst UK manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 933-956.
SSCMF3 Stindt, D. (2017), “A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management - Sustainable
how to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability?”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 153, pp. 146-163, ISSN 0959-6526. supply chain
SSCMF4 Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H. and Sarkis, J. (2019), “A supply chain sustainability innovation
management
framework and evaluation methodology”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 framework
No. 7, pp. 1990-2008.
SSCMF5 Simonov, K.S., Sarkis, J. and Wang, X. (2016), “Assessing green supply chain practices in the
Ghanaian mining industry: a framework and evaluation”, International Journal of Production 887
Economics, Vol. 181 No. Part B, pp. 325-341, ISSN 0925-5273.
SSCMF6 Colicchia, C., Melacini, M. and Perotti, S. (2011), “Benchmarking supply chain sustainability:
insights from a field study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 705-732.
SSCMF7 Kumar, D. and Garg, C.P. (2017), “Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using
fuzzy AHP: case of Indian automotive industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1742-1766.
SSCMF8 Brandenburg, M. and Rebs, T. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling
perspective”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 229, pp. 213-252.
SSCMF9 Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218.
SSCMF10 Perotti, S., Zorzini, M., Cagno, E. and Micheli, G.J.L. (2012), “Green supply chain practices
and company performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 640-672.
SSCMF11 Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global
supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-41.
SSCMF2 Xie, Y. and Breen, L. (2012), “Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a
cross boundary approach”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 40-53.
SSCMF13 Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 632-655.
SSCMF14 Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narwane, V.S., Gardas, B.B., Priyadarshinee, P. and Narkhede, B.E.
(2019), “Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability practices for sustainable
business management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 224, pp. 10-24, ISSN 0959-6526.
SSCMF15 Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Shankar, R., Garg, C.P. and Jakhar, S. (2018), “Modelling critical
success factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context using Grey-
DEMATEL”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 705-728.
SSCMF16 Ravi, V., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “Productivity improvement of a computer
hardware supply chain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 239-255.
SSCMF17 Al-Sheyadi, A., Muyldermans, L. and Kauppi, K. (2019), “The complementarity of green
supply chain management practices and the impact on environmental performance”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 242, pp. 186-198, ISSN 0301-4797.
SSCMF18 Aslinda, N., Seman, A., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zakuan, A., Saman, M.Z.M., Hooker, R.E.
and Ozkul, S. (2019), “The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between
green supply chain management and environmental performance”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 229, pp. 115-127, ISSN 0959-6526.
SSCMF19 Br€omer, J., Brandenburg, M. and Gold, S. (2019), “Transforming chemical supply chains
toward sustainability—a practice-based view”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 236.
SSCMF20 Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
MEQ SSCMF21 Shang, K.C., Lu, S.C. and Li, S. (2010), “A taxonomy of green supply chain management
capability among electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental
34,4 Management, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1218-1226, ISSN 0301-4797.
SSCMF22 Ali, D., Khodaverdi, R. and Olfat, L. (2013), “An exploration of green supply chain practices
and performances in an automotive industry”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Heidelberg, Vol. 68 No. 1-4, pp. 949-961.
SSCMF23 Li, Y. and Mathiyazhagan, K. (2018), “Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the
888 influential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components
manufacturing sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 2931-2941, ISSN 0959-6526.
SSCMF24 Mohanty, M. (2018), “Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using total interpretive
structural modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis”, Management of Environmental
Quality, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 216-239.
SSCMF25 Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China:
pressures, practices and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-468.
SSCMF26 Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T. and Hashimoto, S. (2010), “Green supply chain management in
leading manufacturers: case studies in Japanese large companies”, Management Research
Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380-392.
SSCMF27 Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 290-305.
SSCMF28 Namagembe, S., Ryan, S. and Sridharan, R. (2019), “Green supply chain practice adoption
and firm performance: manufacturing SMEs in Uganda”, Management of Environmental
Quality, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5-35.
SSCMF29 Thakker, S.V. and Rane, S.B. (2018), “Implementation of green supplier development
process model in Indian automobile industry”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 938-960.
SSCMF30 Malviya, R.K. and Kant, R. (2017), “Modeling the enablers of green supply chain
management: an integrated ISM – fuzzy MICMAC approach”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 536-568.
SSCMF31 Vijayvargy, L., Thakkar, J. and Agarwal, G. (2017), “Green supply chain management
practices and performance: the role of firm-size for emerging economies”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 299-323.
SSCMF32 Mathiyazhagan, K. and Haq, A.N. (2013), “Analysis of the influential pressures for green
supply chain management adoption—an Indian perspective using interpretive structural
modeling”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Heidelberg,
Vol. 68 Nos 1-4, pp. 817-833.
SSCMF33 Queiroz, M.M. (2019), “A framework for sustainable supply chain in emerging economies”,
Environmental Management Quality, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 7-15.
SSCMF34 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 No. Part B, pp. 350-366, ISSN 0925-5273.
uller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
SSCMF35 Seuring, S. and M€
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1699-1710.
SSCMF36 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.
SSCMF37 Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Shibin, K.T. and Wamba, S.F.
(2017), “Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 1119-1130, ISSN 0959-6526.
SSCMF38 Bastas, A. and Liyanage, K. (2018), “Sustainable supply chain quality management: a Sustainable
systematic review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 181, pp. 726-744, ISSN 0959-6526.
supply chain
SSCMF39 Kazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I. and Sagnak, M. (2018), “A new holistic conceptual
framework for green supply chain management performance assessment based on circular
management
economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 1282-1299, ISSN 0959-6526. framework

Appendix 2
Survey questionnaire 889

Survey questionnaire for empirical study of sustainable supply chain

frameworks in Indian smart manufacturing industry
Introduction: Academic researcher/consultants/organizations have proposed various
frameworks for sustainable production practices, which are available in literature. The
frameworks for sustainable production are identified from existing literature. The
frameworks and their elements are prepared in this questionnaire. The questionnaire
consists of two parts: Part A consists of organization information and competitiveness,
whereas Part B consists of sustainable production frameworks and its elements.
Confidentiality: The responses given are confidential, and organization information
will not be disclosed at any time. Your input is critical for providing Indian smart
manufacturing industry with valuable information regarding sustainable production
practices and potential for improvement.

Part A: Organization information

(1) Organization name:
(2) Name and designation of respondent (optional):
(3) Total years of experience:
(4) Manufacturing plant location:
(5) Major products:
(6) Total turnover of the organization:
(7) What is the vision and mission statement of your organization?
(8) Please indicate the number of employees in your organization.
(a) 0–50 (b) 51–499 (c) 500–2000 (d) 2001–4999 (e) Over 5000
(9) Do you consider your organization as a . . .. . .(choose one) ?
(a) Small enterprise (b) Medium enterprise (c) Large enterprise
(10) Does your organization follow a sustainable production strategy? If not, please
specify your philosophy or practices
(a) Yes.
(b) No (please write practice your organization implementing)
(11) How long did your organization following the sustainable production practices?
(a) More than one month and less than 1 year; (b) more than 1 year and less than 5 years;
(c) More than 5 and less than 10 years; (d) more than 10 years
MEQ (12) Area of sustainable production practices applied in your organization
34,4 (a) Human resources;
(b) Product design and development;
(c) Manufacturing;
(d) Supply chain functions and
890
(e) Whole organization
(13) Indicate the growth of the organization in terms of revenue in last 3 years:
(a) Over 20% (b) Between 10–20% (c) Less than 10% (d) Negative growth
(14) Indicate the growth of the organization in terms of profit in the last 3 years:
(a) Over 20% (b) Between 10–20% (c) Less than 10% (d) Loss
(15) Please indicate your organization’s performance over the last 3 years compared to
your competitors:
(a) Excellent (b) Good (c) Average (d) Below average (e) Poor
(16) Please indicate the rank of priority for the objectives of your organization (1 for
highest and 6 for lowest). Please add any additional objective and its rank of priority
if not included below:

Organization objective Rank Organization objective Rank

Profit Global focus

Growth Maintain competitive advantage
Survival Social responsibility
Environmental responsibility Other (please specify)

(17) Please indicate the rank of competitive priorities of your organization (1

for highest and 10 for lowest). Please add any additional competitive
priority and its rank if not indicated below:

Competitive priority Rank Competitive priority Rank

Cost Delivery/availability
Flexibility Morale
Environmental consciousness Customer relations
Quality and reliability Productivity
Innovation Sustainability
Global focus Other (please specify)
Part B: Frameworks Sustainable
Guidelines for filling the questionnaire: supply chain
management
Please consider each framework in isolation/individually to achieve sustainable supply chain practices framework
excellence.
Please read the framework and its elements carefully and indicate/assign the actual level of importance of the
elements of the framework mentioned as per your expertise in your organization. 891
The level of importance is given for 1 to 5 wherein:
1: Unimportant 2: ordinary important 3: important 4: very important 5: absolutely important

SSCMF 1: Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their impact on performance: an
exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms. (Mitra and Dutta, 2014)
S.n. Elements

1 Collaborative relationships with suppliers

2 Environmentally sustainable product design and logistics
3 Economic performance
4 Competitiveness

SSCMF 2: An empirical study of green supply chain management practices amongst UK manufacturers. (Holt
and Ghobadian, 2009)
S.n. Elements

1 Green supply chain management operational responses

2 Development of industrial networks
3 Green logistics programmes (including reverse logistics)
4 Supplier education, mentoring, coaching and dissemination of best practice
5 performance evaluation and selection strategies
6 Supplier assessment
7 Process design and redesign (environmental operations management)
8 Environmental policy
9 Supply chain
10 Legislative
11 Societal
12 Environmental attitude
13 Competitive
14 Internal obstacles
15 Supplier obstacles
16 Internal factors

SSCMF 3: A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management – how to integrate concepts
and methods to address the issues of sustainability? (Stindt, 2017)
S.n. Elements

1 Sustainable product design

2 Product stewardship
3 Sustainable supply chain design

SSCMF 4: A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology (Kusi-Sarpong
et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Sustainable product cost reduction

2 Financial availability for innovation
3 Return on investment and investment recovery of products

(continued )
MEQ SSCMF 4: A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology (Kusi-Sarpong
34,4 et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

4 Enhanced sustainability value to customers

5 Investment in R&D for sustainable products
6 Designing sustainable products to reduce material consumption and cost
892 7 Inter- and intra-organization collaboration
8 Technical expertise availability and investment in R&D for green practices
9 Green logistics capabilities development
10 Green manufacturing and operational capabilities development
11 Environment management commitment and initiatives
12 Designing products to reduce their impact on environment
13 Conducting regular environmental audits
14 Implementation of socio-eco policies in organizations for sustainability
15 Quick response to high customers and market demand for sustainable products
16 Enhancing social image of the organization
17 Responding to stakeholders pressure for green and sustainable products
18 Corporate social responsibility initiatives
19 Occupational health, safety and rights of the employees
20 Cultural, social values and norms

SSCMF 5: Assessing green supply chain practices in the Ghanaian mining industry: A framework and
evaluation (Kusi-Sarpong et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Green information technology and systems

2 Strategic suppliers partnership
3 Operations and logistics integration
4 Internal environmental management
5 Eco-innovation practices
6 End-of-life practices

SSCMF 6: Benchmarking supply chain sustainability: insights from a field study (Colicchia et al., 2011)
S.n. Elements

1 Inbound supply chain

2 Green purchasing
3 Outbound supply chain
4 Warehousing
5 Product design and use

SSCMF 7: Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using Fuzzy AHP: Case of Indian automotive
industry (Kumar and Garg, 2017)
S.n. Elements

1 Emission minimization
2 Packaging improvements
3 Energy efficiency and renewable energy
4 Reverse logistics and waste minimization
5 Green purchasing
6 Reducing input material
7 Green designing and cleaner technology
8 Working conditions, safety and health
9 Rights to employees and fair wages
10 Education of employees and career development

(continued )
SSCMF 7: Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using Fuzzy AHP: Case of Indian automotive
Sustainable
industry (Kumar and Garg, 2017) supply chain
S.n. Elements management
11 Work and life balance framework
12 Social welfare and development, community connection and support
13 Women specific issues and ethical codes
14 Equity of employee, transparency and community 893
15 Asset utilization
16 Reduction in resource use
17 Cost reduction
18 Technological and financial ability
19 Cost and margin of products

SSCMF 8: Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective (Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015)
S.n. Elements

1 Sustainable supplier management

2 Manage sustainability risks
3 Manage pressure and incentives

SSCMF 9: Green supply chain management: theoretical framework and further research directions (Dubey
et al., 2017)
S.n. Elements

1 Product complexity
2 GSCM soft dimensions
3 GSCM hard dimensions
4 Process
5 Green intellectual capital
6 Organizational performance
7 Environmental uncertainty
8 Organization size

SSCMF 10: Green supply chain practices and company performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy (Perotti et al.,
2012)
S.n. Elements

1 Green supply
2 Distribution strategies and transportation
3 Warehousing and green building
4 Reverse logistics
5 Cooperation with customers
6 Investment recovery
7 Eco-design and packaging
8 Internal management

SSCMF 11: Green, lean, and global supply chains, (Mollenkopf et al., 2010)
S.n. Elements

1 Lean and global supply chain

2 Lean and green supply chain
3 Green and global supply chain

(continued )
MEQ
34,4 SSCMF 12: Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a cross boundary approach (Xie and
Breen, 2012)
S.n. Elements

1 Internal environmental management

2 External GSCM
894 3 Eco-design

SSCMF 13: Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia (Rao, 2002)
S.n. Elements

1 Environment initiative
2 Greening of suppliers
3 Environmental performance
4 Competitiveness
5 Economic performance

SSCMF 14: Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability practices for sustainable business
management (Raut et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Management and leadership style

2 Green lean practice
3 Quality management
4 Customer integration
5 Supplier integration
6 Internal business process
7 State and central government

SSCMF 15: Modeling critical success factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context
using Grey-DEMATEL (Luthra et al., 2018)
S.n. Elements

1 Government legalization
2 Top management support
3 Ecological considerations in organizations’ policies and missions
4 Societal considerations
5 Supply chain members’ collaborations
6 Technology development and process innovation
7 Communication and information technology
8 Training
9 Green design and purchasing
10 Reverse logistics and waste minimization
11 Ethical and safe practices
12 Customer involvement and encouragement
13 Community welfare and development
14 Economic considerations
15 Competitiveness and brand image considerations
16 Investment recovery

(continued )
 Sustainable
SSCMF 16: Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply Chain (Ravi et al., 2005) supply chain
S.n. Elements management
Green purchasing by companies framework
Regulations
Environmental concerns
State-of-art technologies 895
Top management commitment
Vertical co-ordination among supply chain partners
Recapturing value from used products
Resource reduction
Competitiveness
Proper disposal of end-of-life products
Customer benefits
Environmental benefits
Cost benefits
Green products
Productivity and performance

SSCMF 17: The complementarity of green supply chain management practices and the impact on
environmental performance (Al-Sheyadi et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Source-reduction
2 Eco-design
3 Environmental management systems
4 External environmental management
5 Environmental impact
6 Environmental cost savings

SSCMF 18: The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain
management and environmental performance (Aslinda et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Internal environmental management

2 Green purchasing
3 Customer environmental cooperation
4 Reverse logistics
5 Green product innovation
6 Green process innovation
7 Green material innovation
8 Green marketing innovation

SSCMF 19: Transforming chemical supply chains toward sustainability-A practice-based view (Br€omer et al.,
2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Design/innovation capability
2 Managerial operations toward sustainability
3 Focus on supply base continuity
4 Re-conceptualizing supply chain
5 Triple bottom line
6 Reward/incentives
7 Long term partnership
8 Partner selection

(continued )
MEQ SSCMF 19: Transforming chemical supply chains toward sustainability-A practice-based view (Br€omer et al.,
34,4 2019)
S.n. Elements

9 Partner development
10 Risk management
11 Pro activity
896
SSCMF 20: A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management (Sarkis, 2012)
S.n. Elements

1 Life cycle analysis

2 Product stewardship and extended producer responsibility
3 Environmental management system
4 Industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis
5 Eco-design and design for environment

SSCMF 21: A taxonomy of green supply chain management capability among electronics-related
manufacturing firms in Taiwan (Shang et al., 2010)
S.n. Elements

1 Green manufacturing and packaging

2 Environmental participation
3 Green marketing
4 Green supplier
5 Green stock
6 Green eco-design

SSCMF 22: An exploration of green supply chain practices and performances in an automotive industry (Ali
et al., 2013)
S.n. Elements

1 Internal environmental management

2 Green purchasing
3 Customer environmental collaboration
4 Investment recovery
5 Reverse logistics
6 Design for environment
7 Supplier environmental collaboration

SSCMF 23: Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable
supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector (Li and Mathiyazhagan, 2018)
S.n. Elements

1 Resource consumption rates

2 Embedded or embodied carbon
3 Quality of air, soil and water
4 Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources
5 Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development
6 Rate of complaints and how they have been addressed
7 Record of human rights and child labor complaints
8 Employee turnover rates and costs
9 Customer satisfaction (via surveys or tracking feedback and complaints)
10 Corporate social responsibility
11 Education, public awareness and training
12 Business efficiency (rate of adoption environmental management practices)

(continued )
SSCMF 23: Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable
Sustainable
supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector (Li and Mathiyazhagan, 2018) supply chain
S.n. Elements management
13 Productivity (gross domestic production per capita) framework
14 Rate of return and payback periods for capital investments
15 International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in countries and related domestic
policies 897
SSCMF 24: Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using total interpretive structural modeling approach
and fuzzy MICMAC analysis (Mohanty, 2018)
S.n. Elements

1 Top management support

2 Integration and collaboration in SC
3 Metrics for transportation system
4 Metrics for warehouse system
5 Inventory visibility
6 Demand visibility
7 Quality improvement
8 Increase in service level
9 Route selection and scheduling
10 Vehicle type and capacity
11 Reduction in average length of haul
12 Reduction in fuel consumption
13 Real-time information system
14 Adoption of green technology
15 Overall cost reduction
16 Reduction in noxious emission
17 Customer relationship management (CRM)
18 Sustainable environmental performance

SSCMF 25: Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices and performance (Zhu et al., 2005)
S.n. Elements

1 Providing design specification to suppliers that include

2 Environmental compliance and auditing programs
3 environmental requirements for purchased items
4 Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives
5 Environmental audit for suppliers’ internal management
6 Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification
7 Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice evaluation
8 Cooperation with customer for eco-design
9 Cooperation with customers for cleaner production
10 Cooperation with customers for green packaging
11 Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials
12 Sale of scrap and used materials
13 Sale of excess capital equipment
14 Design of products for reduced consumption of material/energy
15 Design of products for reuse, recycle, recovery of material, component parts
16 Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous of products and/or their processes
17 Commitment of GSCM from senior managers
18 Support for GSCM from mid-level managers
19 Cross functional cooperation for environmental improvements
20 Total quality environmental management
21 ISO 14001 certification
22 Environmental management systems exist
(continued )
MEQ
34,4 SSCMF 26: Green supply chain management in leading manufacturers Case studies in Japanese large
companies (Zhu et al., 2010)
S.n. Elements

1 Waste reduction
2 Recycling wastes discharged in the company
898 3 Recycling wastes discharged by other companies

SSCMF 27: Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance (Green et al., 2012)
S.n. Elements

1 Internal environmental management

2 Green information systems
3 Green purchasing
4 Cooperation with customers
5 Eco-design

SSCMF 28: Green supply chain practice adoption and firm performance: manufacturing SMEs in Uganda
(Namagembe et al., 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Green purchasing practices

2 Eco-design practices
3 Customer cooperation practices
4 Investment recovery practices
5 Internal environmental management practices

SSCMF 29: Implementation of green supplier development process model in Indian automobile industry
(Thakker and Rane, 2018)
S.n. Elements

1 Idea creation
2 Voice of suppliers and buyers
3 Strategy planning for green suppliers development
4 Implementation of green suppliers activities
5 Communication and cross functional team building
6 Performance measurement
7 Ranking of suppliers
8 Awards/recognition and long-term contracts

SSCMF 30: Modeling the enablers of green supply chain management: an integrated ISM – fuzzy MICMAC
approach (Malviya and Kant, 2017)
S.n. Elements

1 Strategic enablers
2 Organizational enablers
3 Social-cultural enablers
4 Buyer and supplier enablers
5 Legislation
6 Technical enablers

(continued )
 Sustainable
SSCMF 31: Green supply chain management practices and performance: the role of firm-size for emerging supply chain
economies (Vijayvargy et al., 2017) management
S.n. Elements
framework
1 Internal environmental management
2 Green purchasing
3 Eco-design 899
4 Customer environmental collaboration
5 Investment recovery

SSCMF 32: Analysis of the influential pressures for green supply chain management adoption—an Indian
perspective using interpretive structural modeling (Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013)
S.n. Elements

1 Central government regulation

2 Regional government regulation
3 Especial tax exemption for ISO 14001 certified firms
4 WTO entry
5 Increased scarcity of resources in India
6 High penalty for environmental pollution
7 Increased expected business benefits
8 Long-term profit
9 Carbon tax

SSCMF 33: A framework for sustainable supply chain in emerging economies (Queiroz, 2019)
S.n. Elements

1 Environmental risks analysis

2 Green supplier criteria
3 Climate change policies
4 Product/service life cycle
5 Waste reduction policies
6 Social policies–quality of life
7 Energy-efficient policies
8 Reverse logistics
9 Recycling programs
10 Water efficiency practices

SSCMF 34: Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies (Esfahbodi et al., 2016)
S.n. Elements

1 Sustainable procurement
2 Sustainable distribution
3 Sustainable design
4 Sustainable recovery

(continued )
MEQ
34,4 SSCMF 35: From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management
(Seuring and M€
uller, 2008)
S.n. Elements

1 Pressures
2 Moral and motives
900 3 Risk management
4 Communication
5 Collaboration
6 Information sharing
7 Trust building

SSCMF 36: A research framework of sustainable supply chain management: The role of relational capabilities
in driving performance (Chen and Kitsis, 2017)
S.n. Elements

1 External pressures
2 Incentives
3 Stakeholder
4 Customers
5 Government
6 Suppliers

SSCMF 37: Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions (Dubey et al.,
2017)
S.n. Elements

1 Economic stability
2 Green product design
3 Green warehousing
4 Supplier collaboration
5 Environment conservation
6 Continuous improvement
7 Enabling information technologies
8 Logistics optimization
9 Internal pressure
10 Institutional pressure
11 Social values and ethics
12 Corporate strategy and commitment

SSCMF 38: Sustainable supply chain quality management: A systematic review (Bastas and Liyanage, 2018)
S.n. Elements

1 Customer focus
2 Supply chain leadership
3 Engagement of people
4 Process approach
5 Evidence-based decision-making
6 Supplier relationship management
7 Reverse logistics management

(continued )
 Sustainable
SSCMF 39: A new holistic conceptual framework for green supply chain management performance assessment supply chain
based on circular economy (Kazancoglu et al., 2018) management
S.n. Elements
framework
1 Environmental performance
2 Economic/financial performance
3 Operational performance 901
4 Logistics performance
5 Organizational performance
6 Marketing performance

Corresponding author
Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti can be contacted at: jasti1982@gmail.com

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