Improving the Efficiency of Supply Chains to Reduce Environmental Impacts

Article Reviews on Ethics in Supply Chain Management

Today, supply chain management has assumed new importance and relevance as global supply networks are challenged on multiple fronts. Against this backdrop, there is a corresponding need to ensure ethical supply chain management practices. To gain some new insights into this growing need, the purpose of this paper is to provide a review of two selected peer-reviewed articles concerning ethics in supply chain management. First, a synthesis of the authors’ position is followed by an evaluation of the accuracy of the information they present. Second, an analysis concerning any discernible biases or instances of faulty reasoning is followed by an assessment about the extent to which the respective authors agree. Finally, the paper presents a summary of the reviewed articles and important findings concerning ethics in supply chain management in the conclusion.

Synthesis of Articles

The authors of both articles make the point that supply chain managers at all levels are well situated to take advantage of the multiple opportunities that are available to improve their environmental ethical approach to doing business. In addition, although not specifically stated, the authors also agree that far too many supply chain practitioners are reluctant to pursue novel and innovative supply chain practices since it would require moving from their routine and comfort zone, as well as some concern on their part over what environmentally ethical practices involve. In sum, both articles generally describe various strategies to help supply chain managers gain a better understanding of the terms and innovative approaches that define environmentally ethical supply chain practices.

Given the need to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized marketplace, the above-described constraints to the uptake and implementation of environmentally responsible business practices are understandable but they also overlook the multiple benefits and opportunities that accrue to environmentally ethical supply chain practices. For example, a study by Wong et al. (2020) notes that there are two primary types of green innovation with relevant to supply chain management, green process innovation and green product innovation. According to Wong and his associates, “Green product innovation uses cleaner materials and product technologies to (re)design products and packaging. Green process innovation uses green sourcing, production and logistics technologies without changing the product design” (2020, p. 4589).

Although both of these types of “green” practices have some environmentally ethical implications, green process innovation stands out as having the most potential impact on developing more efficient supply chain operations. This outcome suggests that supply chain managers would be interested in anything that could save them time and money, but the fact that green process innovations also represent an important environmental ethical solution for supply chain ethics is also significant even if they are is not fully recognized as such. In this regard, Wong et al. point out that, “Green process innovation is defined as the modifications made to manufacturing processes and systems in an effort to ensure energy savings, pollution prevention, and waste recycling” (2020, p. 4590).

While green process innovations do not always have a corresponding direct benefit to consumers, all of the planet’s eight billion people will realize some indirect benefits by virtue of cleaner supply chain operations. For example, Wong et al. concede that a narrow view of supply chain operations may exclude both types of green processes, each has its respective environments benefits that may be difficult to quantify but which are nevertheless significant contributions to reducing the carbon emissions that are believed responsible for accelerating climate change. As Wong et al. (2020) conclude, “While the term ‘manufacturing

processes and systems’ can be viewed narrowly as green production, we widen the scope of green process innovation by considering green or ethical sourcing and green logistics” (p. 4590).

Likewise, a study by Shadab et al. (2021) cites the need to improve the efficiency of supply chain operations in order to reduce companies’ carbon footprints. Similar to the key points made by Wong and his colleagues (2020), Shadab et al. (2021) also emphasize that it is possible to improve the efficiency of virtually any supply chain by taking into account and integrating relevant social, economic and environmental concerns. While the Wong et al. (2020) study focused primarily on strategies that could reduce the environmental impact of supply chain operations through changes to the supporting processes, Shadab et al. (2021) assessed the impact of congested points along the supply chain to identify opportunities for improvement. In other words, both articles maintain that ethical supply chain operations require a view towards eliminating waste and streamlining the supply network to reduce logistical costs and fossil fuel emissions.

Evaluation of the accuracy of the information presented in the articles

The information presented in the Wong et al. (2020) study was fully supported by a comprehensive and systematic review of the relevant peer-reviewed literature, the theoretical framework and their methodology were described in sufficient detail to make the results reliable and valid. In addition, the Wong et al. (2020) study also used a robust sample of 1,000 firms in Hong Kong that were drawn from the Dun & Bradstreet database to develop their hypotheses and provide justification for their findings. Further, Wong et al. (2020) are meticulous in reporting the results of their statistical analyses through tabular and graphic means.

Although the Shadab et al. (2021) study relied on arcane mathematical formulas to generate and support its findings, the authors also use an empirical sample of 100 real-world businesses competing in the resin and polymers sector in Iran to apply their statistical methodology. In addition, Shadab et al. (2021) also provide extensive tabular and graphic interpretations of their data analyses to facilitate understanding and applicability to supply chain operations.

Is there bias or faulty reasoning?

Although there was no bias or faulty reasoning identified in either article, the findings that emerged from the Wong et al. (2020) study were based on a sample of Hong Kong business practitioners and these results may not be fully generalizable to other populations.

What are both authors saying the same topic? Do they agree, or is there conflicting information?