Next Article in Journal
Strength Variation of Rocks Surrounding Road Tunnel Entrance/Exit in High–Altitude Mountain Areas under Freeze–Thaw Cycles
Next Article in Special Issue
Three-Pillar Sustainability and Brand Image: A Qualitative Investigation in Thailand’s Household Durables Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Social Perception of Riparian Forests
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing the Prospect of Corporate Sustainability via Brand Equity: A Stakeholder Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159304
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review

by
Monrudee Theeraworawit
1,
Suparak Suriyankietkaew
2,* and
Philip Hallinger
2,3
1
ASEAN Center for Sustainable Development Studies and Dialogue, College of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
2
Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership, College of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
3
Department of Educational Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9304; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 25 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Corporate Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since the mid-2010s, the circular economy has emerged as a key conceptual lever in corporate efforts to achieve greater environmental sustainability. Corporations have increasingly drawn upon the circular economy perspective in efforts to rethink sustainable supply chain management practices. This new corporate approach to sustainable supply chain management is evident in an emerging literature that has yet to be fully documented. In this systematic review of research, bibliometric methods were applied to a database of 709 Scopus-indexed documents. Author co-citation analysis identified four schools of thought comprising the intellectual structure of this literature: Sustainable Production and Environmental Management, Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Reverse Supply Chain Management, and Circular Economy. Synthesis of these themes suggests that the adoption of a circular economy perspective is transforming sustainable supply chain management in two important ways. First, this perspective reorients supply chain management away from a narrow focus on efficiency and waste reduction and towards a new paradigm of redesign, reuse, and product transformation. Second, adoption of the circular economy highlights and leverages reverse cycles in the supply chain. Thus, circular economy business models enable supply chain management to enhance corporate contributions to sustainable production and consumption. Drawing upon this framing of supply chain management within a circular economy, the review proposes a new framework for accelerating corporate sustainability.

1. Introduction

A recent meta-analytic review of sustainability management research identified supply chain management as the most influential corporate management strategy used to address economic, social, environmental, and economic sustainability [1,2]. Sustainable supply chain management relies on co-operation among diverse actors in the supply chain working together to achieve effective management of materials, data, and financial resource flows [3]. Both research and practice in sustainable supply chain management have made impressive gains over the past 25 years [4]. This has resulted in the development of a well-documented knowledge base concerning both the nature and effects of different supply chain management models and strategies (e.g., [5,6,7,8]).
In recent years, however, growing acceptance of the “circular economy” concept has begun to transform conceptualizations of “sustainable supply chain management” [9]. The circular economy concept posits connections between the four economic roles that the environment plays in corporate sustainability: providing amenity value, serving as a resource base, functioning as a source of economic activities, and acting as a life-support system [10]. Geissdoerfer and colleagues (2017) [11] defined the circular economy as, “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. Through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling” (p. 759).
Integration of a circular economy perspective implies a need for sustainable supply chain management (S-SCM) to place greater emphasis on product transformation and reverse loops in the supply chain [11]. With an aim for waste and pollution elimination, material circularity, and natural regeneration under the circular economy concept, Industry 4.0 technologies have been studied as the enablers for sustainable operations and sustainable supply chain management [12,13,14]. The adoption of advanced technologies such as additive manufacturing, big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain for supply chain reconfiguration enhance flexibility in responding to demand, as well as facilitating planning and forecasting, and optimization [15,16,17]. Thus, we assert that conjoint application of these sustainability concepts offers potential for up-scaling corporate contributions to environmental sustainability [7,9,14].
Indeed, this conceptual reframing of sustainable supply chain management through a circular economy lens has been a catalyst for the emergence of a new literature. To date, two published reviews of research have examined the links between S-SCM and circular economy [7,18]. These integrative reviews were, however, based on relatively small document databases (i.e., <80), and focused on identifying critical factors that impact supply chain management in a circular economy context. The current review was designed to build on these reviews by employing a bibliometric review method for the purpose of analyzing the evolving conceptual landscape of published research on this topic. More specifically, this review assesses the conceptual and practical value added by analyzing sustainable supply chain management within the context of a circular economy. The research questions (RQs) guiding the review were as follows.
  • How does the distribution of documents across time, geographies, and subject areas offer insights into the production of knowledge on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy?
  • What do the top-cited documents reveal about key topics, conceptual themes, and interdisciplinary collaboration in the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy?
  • What is the intellectual structure of the published knowledge base on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy?
The review examined 709 Scopus-indexed documents on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy. Descriptive statistics, document citation analysis, and author co-citation analysis were used to analyze bibliographic data associated with the document database. These analyses were designed first to document the literature and second to analyze its intellectual or conceptual structure.
This review seeks to contribute to both research and practice concerning supply chain management in a circular economy, with particular attention to the COVID-19 era. The review presents the theoretical background on supply chain management and circular economy in Section 2, research methods used in the review in Section 3, results related to the research questions in Section 4, interpretation of the findings in Section 5, and conclusions in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Background

Over the last three decades, supply chain management has become a key management discipline within the broader literature on managing for sustainability [1,2,3]. Sustainable supply chain management (S-SCM) addresses external pressures and incentives set by different stakeholder groups (e.g., government regulators, environmental and social movements, community members, and consumers) with respect to the production and consumption activities of companies and societies [3]. In this review, we adopted Seuring and Müller’s (2008) definition of sustainable supply chain management as, “the management of material, information, and capital flows as well as co-operation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, into account” (p. 1700).
The pressing need for sustainable consumption and production requires systems change with actions from all sectors—governments, financial institutions, and businesses—and geographies [19]. The circular economy concept has recently gained increased priority from policymakers, as evidenced by the European Circular Economy Action Plan and the Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China [20,21]. Moreover, since 2017, the conjoint application of supply chain management and the circular economy has gained interest from scholars in several disciplines [22].
Endorsement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the United Nations in 2015, with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) at its center, has driven the exponential growth in S-SCM publications [3,5,6,23]. From a business perspective, S-SCM and circular economy practices such as recycling have been identified as key strategies for achieving corporate sustainability [24,25,26,27,28]. By developing standards governing relationships with suppliers and service providers within the supply chain, firms are able to have a positive impact on a wide range of environmental and social issues including gas emissions, water management, waste management and reduction, skill enhancement, and workplace safety [29,30,31,32,33]. Furthermore, enabled by reverse logistics, circular economy practices such as reuse and end-of-life recovery can be employed to facilitate responsible consumption [34,35,36].
The increasing adoption of a sustainability perspective towards supply chain management has involved the integration of various environmental management concepts [37]. In this review, we examine four related conceptualizations of supply chain management that have evolved over the past 15 years: green, sustainable, closed loop, and circular supply chain management for analysis and comparison (see Table 1).
Each of these conceptualizations of supply chain management has distinctive features when considered from the perspective of a circular economy (see Table 2). For example, the integration of forward and reverse supply chains is the focus of green supply chain management [38]. Both closed-loop and circular supply chain management emphasize value creation and maximization through product recovery and waste reduction [39,40]. Sustainable supply chain management is distinguished from the other conceptualizations through its explicit incorporation of stakeholder theory [3]. Among the four approaches, only sustainable supply chain management and circular supply chain management explicitly aim to impact all three elements of the triple bottom line.
Table
Table 1. Four definitions of supply chain management.
Table 1. Four definitions of supply chain management.
Author(s)Definitions
Srivastava, 2007 [38]Green Supply Chain Management: “Integrating environmental thinking into supply-chain management, including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery of the final product to the consumers as well as end-of-life management of the product after its useful life” (p. 54).
Seuring and Müller, 2008 [3]Sustainable Supply Chain Management: “The management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while integrating goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements” (p. 1700).
Guide Jr and Van Wassenhove, 2009 [40]Closed-loop Supply Chain Management: “The design, control, and operation of a system to maximize value creation over the entire life cycle of a product with dynamic recovery of value from different types and volumes of returns over time” (p. 10).
Batista, Bourlakis, Smart and Maull, 2018 [39]Circular Supply Chain Management: “The coordinated forward and reverse supply chains via purposeful business ecosystem integration for value creation from products/services, by-products and useful waste flows through prolonged life cycles that improve the economic, social and environmental sustainability of organizations” (p. 446).
Nimsai et al.’s (2020) review of research found exponential growth in publications on S-SCM since 2010 [23]. However, the Nimsai et al. (2020) review was concluded prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic which challenged organizations to rethink their management strategies not only during the pandemic, but also in the post-pandemic era [41,42]. Thus, the global pandemic can be viewed as a new demarcation in the evolution of corporate sustainability strategies. This suggests the relevance of examining changes in sustainable supply strategies during this period of global economic disruption and highlights the need for identifying innovative approaches to existing management practices.
A review of research conducted by Türkeli and colleagues [43] found that the circular economy concept has been associated with related concepts such as industrial ecology [44], green and bio-economies [45], and sustainability [11]. The reverse supply chain, which emphasizes recovery of after-use products is at the interconnection of the circular economy and supply chain management concepts [9,46,47]. Value recovery at the end-of-product life can be performed by either original producers or other parties for the purposes of reuse, refurbishment, and recycling. This conceptual integration of supply chain management with the circular economy concept frames the review of research conducted in this article.

3. Research Method

In this review, bibliometric methods were employed to quantify and synthesize bibliographic data extracted from research documents on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy. A strength of bibliometric reviews lies in their ability to synthesize patterns in knowledge production across a large body of documents [48]. Although previous bibliometric reviews have been published on sustainable supply chain management [4,23,49] and the circular economy [11,50], this method has not yet been applied to the conjoint literature on these complementary concepts.

3.1. Identification of Sources

Scopus was chosen as the document source rather than the Web of Science, based on its wider coverage of social science and management literature [48,51]. This research focused on peer-reviewed journal articles due to their more rigorous vetting of document quality. The conceptual scope of the review was defined as “sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy” without regard to date of publication, sector, industry, or geography.
The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, or PRISMA [52], was used to guide the document search and selection process. An open-ended Scopus search was initiated in October 2021 by using the keywords “supply chain” and “circular economy” within article titles, abstracts, and keywords. The Scopus search resulted in an initial document list comprising 982 articles published from 2006 to October 2021 (see Figure 1). Application of Scopus filters limited documents to journal articles and reviews published in English, resulting in the exclusion of 245 documents. The authors then screened out additional articles that were either identified as duplicates or irrelevant. At the end of the selection process, the review database included 709 journal articles and reviews.

3.2. Data Analysis

Metadata associated with the list of 709 documents were exported from Scopus to an Excel file for data analyses performed in Excel, Tableau, and VOSviewer [53]. Disambiguation of the meta-data was carried out to ensure accuracy in the bibliometric analyses [48]. For example, an author’s name could be expressed as Jones, P. and Jones, P.R. in different articles. VOSviewer and Excel were used in tandem to create a thesaurus file that replaced multiple forms of an author’s name with a single form (i.e., Jones, P. replaced by Jones, P.R.). A similar process was used to “disambiguate” document titles and keywords.
The first research question was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Scopus analytical tools were used to document the growth trajectory and the subject area distribution of the knowledge base. Tableau software was used to visually illustrate the geographical distribution of authors who published the 709 documents.
Document citation analysis and author co-citation analysis, performed with VOSviewer software version 1.6.8 [53], were used to address the second and third research questions. Document citation analysis was used to identify the most influential journal articles among the 709 documents in our Scopus-indexed database. Though not without limitations, citation analysis is the most widely used method of measuring scholarly impact [48]. In this review, citation analysis was used to determine the number of times each journal article had been cited by all other Scopus documents. Thus, we refer to this frequency metric as “Scopus citations”.
Co-citation analysis is a complementary form of bibliometric analysis that was used to analyze the intellectual structure of the literature on S-SCM in a circular economy. Using VOSviewer, co-citation analysis was conducted in a three-step process [53]. In the first step, VOSviewer identified the frequency with which different authors had been cited in the reference lists of the 709 review documents [54]. Zupic and Čater (2015) noted that, “co-citation connects documents, authors, or journals according to the way the writers use them. This is a rigorous grouping principle repeatedly performed by subject-matter experts who cited publications they deem valuable and/or interesting” (p. 431). Author co-citation analysis was applied in order to gain insight into the theoretical foundations of scholarship on S-SCM in a circular economy [48].
In the second step, VOSviewer tracked the frequency with which “pairs of authors had been cited” in the reference lists of the review documents. Each time that a pair of authors (e.g., Seuring and Sarkis) was found in the same reference list, VOSviewer assigned a “co-citation link” to them. Authors who are repeatedly cited together by other scholars are assumed to share an intellectual similarity [54]. Thus, VOS actually stands for “visualization of similarities”.
In the third step, VOSviewer built an author co-citation matrix comprising data describing the links between pairs of authors [53,54]. Using this co-citation matrix, VOSviewer is able to generate a social network map, referred to in bibliometric analysis as a “science map” [53]. This review employed the author co-citation map (ACA) to visualize associations among authors in the literature on S-SCM in a circular economy. ACA maps are widely used to identify the “intellectual structure” of a discipline or line of inquiry [1,4,23,48].

4. Results

The presentation of results is organized in response to three research questions.

4.1. Growth Trend, Subject Areas, and Geographical Distribution of the Literature

The first documents that explicitly linked S-SCM and circular economy were published in 2006 [55,56]. However, 2018 marked the beginning of exponential growth in articles that address the conjoint topics (see Figure 2). One of the drivers explaining this pivot point is the adoption of sustainable development goals as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by United Nations member states in 2015 [19]. This agenda prioritized the circular economy and supply chain management as crucial means of achieving the 17 sustainable development goals.
Analysis of the subject domains encompassed in the 709 articles revealed a highly interdisciplinary knowledge base focusing on the dual concepts driving this review (see Figure 3). Notably, scholarship from environmental sciences, business, management and accounting, engineering, and energy accounts for more than two-thirds (68%) of the literature. This suggests potential for significant innovation through the cross-fertilization of theoretical perspectives and interdisciplinary solutions.
The heat map in Figure 4 highlights concentrations of scholarship originating in particular countries/regions as well as the global reach of this literature. Scholars from the United Kingdom, Italy, United States, India, and China have made the largest contributions to this literature. More broadly, scholars from Europe and Asia have been particularly active contributors to this knowledge base. Indeed, the aggregated literature published by all European Union countries and the United Kingdom comprises slightly more than 50% of the database. This interest among European scholars may be explained by the European Commission’s 2015 endorsement of circular economy-related actions as a priority mode of response to sustainability challenges [57]. Increasing interest from scholars in China is similarly policy-related, driven by the enforcement of China’s Circular Economy Promotion Law which was established in 2009 [58].

4.2. High Impact Documents on Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy

The most highly cited documents in this knowledge base have focused on the conceptual integration of the core concepts (e.g., [50,59]), as well as on identifying relevant drivers, barriers, business models, practices, and strategies (e.g., [7,60]). We noted a pattern of interdisciplinary collaboration among the authors of 13 of the top-cited articles. This collaboration was evident in articles that drew upon management and production engineering [13], economics and marketing [22], and corporate sustainability, business, economics, and industrial design engineering [60]. Moreover, there has been a high level of collaboration not only among scholars from different geographic areas but also between developed and developing countries (e.g., [13,59,60,61,62]).
The top-cited articles evidence a balance towards empirical studies (11 articles), when compared with conceptual (4) and review (4) articles. This suggests room for more conceptual development and reviews of research in this literature. For example, Winkler (2011) [63] introduced the sustainable supply chain network (SSCN) concept by moving from isolated applications of waste management in the production process to a closed-loop production system in which interacting companies work together to create a network for collecting and conditioning waste to be reused as resources. Winkler (2011) [63] emphasized that companies within an SSCN should involve those outside the same industry who can benefit from waste and use it as materials, as well as those providing know-how, technologies, and services in collecting, conditioning, or exchanging waste material. As the proposed network is built within the circular economy context, the supply chain network is extended to the end-of-life stage when products are recovered effectively from customers for reuse, remanufacture, or recycling [63].
The review conducted by Lüdeke-Freund et al., (2019) [60] consolidated key ideas emerging from the literature. They proposed that a supply chain with reverse loops represents the backbone of the circular economy, and identified 26 business models that derive from the integrated concepts (see also [14,59]). These include, for example, a product-service system, take-back management, and waste handling and management [64,65].
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [7] identified 34 practices carried out by enterprises after adopting a circular economy perspective on supply chain management. For example, they highlighted the increased eco-efficiency in production that results from integrating 6R—reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, redesign and remanufacture—into the production process [21,46,62,65]. They also identified efficiencies gained through corporate collaboration within industrial parks [66], as evidenced in China, Japan, India, the European Union, and the United States. This strategy leverages resource exchange in the form of by-products, materials, and energy [46], as well as the potential of shared recycling [21].
The review conducted by Kalmykova and colleagues (2018) [67] identified 45 circular economy strategies that can be applied by different actors in the value chain. These include material sourcing, design, manufacturing, distribution and sales, consumption and use, collection and disposal, recycling and recovery, remanufacturing, and circular inputs. Their analysis further highlighted the role played by community stakeholders with respect to sustainable consumption and usage [67].
These business models, practices, and strategies share similarities in terms of their enablers. However, these business models require clear performance measurement metrics in order to achieve desired systemic effects on the triple bottom line of corporate outputs. Notably, the literature suggests a current imbalance with social sustainability impact receiving less attention.
The empirical studies contained in the list of top-cited articles address production and consumption in a wide range of industries including aluminum, chemical, leather, building, construction, food, furniture, fashion, and electronics (see Table 3). Notably, however, only a single study focused on consumers [68]. Wang and Hazen (2016) examined the effect of remanufactured product knowledge on consumers’ perceptions and their purchase intent in China. They found that quality knowledge had the strongest effect on perception and purchase intention when compared with cost and green attributions.
On the production side, empirical evidence captured by case studies and interviews underpins the integration of supply chain and circular economy concepts. For instance, Genovese et al. (2017) [9] provided evidence on emissions reduction through supply chain carbon mapping. Through four case studies, Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) [59] identified opportunities to reduce negative environmental and social impact through proactive multiple stakeholder management. These included supply chain network development for product recovery at the end of product life, use of recycled material mix to reduce the raw material import dependency, and alternate modes of transportation in order to reduce traffic-related pollution.
In addition, advanced technologies were studied as key enablers for sustainable production and supply chain management. For example, Pan et al. (2015) [8] reviewed waste-to-energy technologies and proposed strategies to implement waste-to-energy supply chains in a circular economy context. These included policy formation, economic schemes, performance evaluation measures, programs for social acceptance, and investment mobilization. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2018) [13], Nascimento et al. (2019) [14], and Despeisse et al. (2017) [12] examined the applications of Industry 4.0 technologies such as additive manufacturing to manufacture products with 3D printers and treatment of waste for use as raw material.

4.3. Intellectual Structure of the Literature

The intellectual structure, or theoretical pillars of the literature, was analyzed through author co-citation mapping (see Figure 5). The size of an author node on the co-citation map suggests the frequency with which a scholar was cited in the reference lists of the review documents [48]. The proximity of nodes reflects the relative degree of intellectual affinity of the corresponding authors [48]; authors located close together (e.g., Van Wassenhove and Guide) are, therefore, considered to be closely affiliated. The lines connecting author nodes represent co-citation “links” between the two scholars; the density of the lines reflects their co-citation frequency [53]. The colored clusters represent “schools of thought” consisting of authors whose publications tend to share a common lineage [53,54].
The author co-citation map in Figure 5 visualizes four schools of thought, which we have labeled Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Circular Economy, Sustainable Production and Environmental Management, and Reverse Supply Chain Management. The coherence of the clusters highlights the clarity of the literature’s conceptual structure.
Though the smallest of the four schools of thought, the central location and numerous links to other schools suggests that Sustainable Supply Chain Management is the conceptual anchor of this literature. Based on his influence across all four schools, Joseph Sarkis is the key “boundary-spanning” scholar in this literature. His contributions span a wide range of conceptual foci including sustainable operations, environmental management, green supply chain management strategic decision frameworks, and performance measurement methodologies [69,70,71]. Sarkis’s collaborations with Zhu and Geng in China cover a wide range of research including system pressures, operational practices, measurement models, and S-SCM in a circular economy in the Chinese context [72,73,74].
Sarkis’ most recent contributions include a performance measurement framework for resilient supply chains, analysis of social sustainability impact from technologies under a circular economy approach, and assessment of corporate sustainability standards in tier-based supply chains [75,76]. Recent studies published by Seuring focus on social sustainability, uncertainty management, resilience, collaboration, and supply chain management in a circular economy [77,78,79].
The Circular Economy school, comprising 42 authors, is the largest of the four clusters. Key scholars in this cluster (e.g., Bocken, Geng, Ulgiati, Geissdoerfer, Ghisellini, Genovese) represent diverse fields including engineering, environmental science, science and technology, business and management, and sustainable development. Their published works focus on conceptualizing the circular economy, identifying drivers and constraints, developing new business models, and developing applications as a vehicle for sustainability transition [9,11,46,80,81]. Their research highlights the importance of measurement when seeking to bring to bring about systems change in circular economy practices [11,46,80].
The collaboration between Ulgiati and Ghisellini yielded an extensive review of the circular economy at micro, meso, and macro levels of implementation. The Ghisellini et al. (2016) [46] review identified need for more research on measurement indicators for circular economy application. Ulgiati’s research in the EU identified opportunities and challenges concerning the transition into a circular economy [82,83]. Bocken, Geissdoerfer and Evans emphasized conceptualizing circular economy through product design and business models with empirical studies focusing on the passage of the model from linearity to circularity [25,59,80,84,85].
The Sustainable Production and Environmental Management school comprises 18 authors, with key scholars including Mangla, Luthra, Jabbour, Gunasekaran and Kannan. Their research has focused on sustainable production, green manufacturing, production planning, optimization, and sustainable operations as well as environmental management. Recent publications have applied the circular economy concept explicitly to the production process [86,87,88,89].
Mangla and Luthra evaluated barriers and challenges of the circular supply chain, building frameworks for supplier selection, and providing practical implications based on studies in India [90,91]. Jabbour and colleagues proposed a framework that integrates the circular economy concept and human resource management from a change management perspective [92]. Jabbour and Gunasekaran focused on the adoption of advanced digital technologies (Industry 4.0) as a means of integrating the circular economy with production and supply chain management. These technologies have included big data, cloud manufacturing, internet of things, additive manufacturing, and blockchain [13,93,94].
The last cluster, Reverse Supply Chain Management, consists of 32 authors, led by Govindan, Van Wassenhove, Wang, Liu, and Guide. These authors span engineering, social sciences, business, and management. Their research has concentrated on reverse supply chain management, circular supply chains, waste management, and integrated reverse loop practices including reuse, remanufacturing, recycling, and product-service systems [34,95,96]. Notably, authors in this school have also focused on the consumption side of supply chain management.
Govindan has examined reverse supply chain management from the perspectives of network development, decision marking models, forecasting, provider selection criteria, and performance measurement metrics [34,97,98]. Van Wassenhove and Wang’s research has sought to assess reverse-loop circular economy practices including return, leasing, renting, sharing, and remanufacturing [68,95,99]. Research within this school has also examined consumer knowledge, perceptions, preferences, adoption criteria, and purchase intention toward products and services under the circular economy concept [68,99,100,101].

5. Discussion

This bibliometric review of research on sustainable supply chain management (S-SCM) in a circular economy builds upon prior reviews by explicitly linking the related but conceptually distinct concepts of S-SCM and circular economy. The main contribution of the review is to provide insights into how the conceptualization of S-SCM is enriched through integration with the circular economy.
This bibliometric review confirmed that S-SCM in a circular economy is an emergent field of study. Moreover, we believe that stakeholder pressure for achieving the UN SDGs will continue to generate interest in this interdisciplinary field of research, policy, and practice [19,102,103,104]. This conclusion is supported by the current growth trajectory of the literature (see Figure 2), as well as by the policy-driven contributions to this literature by scholars from the European Union, United Kingdom, and China [57,58]. Indeed, the literature already evidences unusually strong collaboration among scholars from different geographies.
Analysis of the top-cited documents in this literature highlighted the means through which the concept of the circular economy has transformed sustainable supply chain management strategies. This transformation is enabled by six reverse cycles of the circular economy: (1) repair and maintenance, (2) reuse and redistribution, (3) refurbishment and remanufacturing, (4) recycling, (5) cascading and repurposing, and (6) resource extraction [46,60]. Furthermore, these documents suggests that reframing supply chain management from a circular economy perspective has the potential to yield benefits at several levels.
At the macro level, countries can expect to achieve more rapid progress towards sustainable development goals related to resource security, emissions reduction, and landfill usage when supply chain management adopts circular economy principles [46]. At the meso level, industry collaboration can reduce resource scarcity and price volatility [13,22,64,66], lower harmful emissions [9,105], and increase support from communities through green operations and supply chain collaboration [46,60,66]. Collaboration creates the possibility for achieving the critical mass in operations that makes sustainable supply chain management economically viable for individual firms. At the micro level, adopting circular economy principles enables companies to position themselves with the right to operate in global markets, build brand reputation, create new revenue streams, and reduce business risks resulting from inventory and supply shortages [18,46,60,62].
The top-cited studies also point towards the potential that Industry 4.0 technologies hold for leveraging circular economy principles in supply chain management. Technologies such as additive manufacturing, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and cloud computing can be used to enhance resource recovery, reduce virgin material exploitation, and lower carbon emissions [12,13,14]. These technologies enable firms to gain greater precision in supply-demand forecasting, secure sustainable resources through circularity, and create new revenue streams from innovative products and services derived from circular economy strategies. Therefore, sustainable supply chain management enabled by advanced technologies has the potential to accelerate the transformation from linear to circular economy, and progress toward sustainable consumption and production [106,107].
Moreover, the examination of the highly cited documents indicated that the business models, strategies, and practices associated with managing supply chains in a circular economy may require a shift in the use of performance metrics. More specifically, the nature of the circular economy is such that performance measurement metrics will be needed for each actor engaging in this multi-level, systemic process. At the micro-level, relevant metrics are reflected in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals that organizations develop and report. However, more attention needs to be given to the aggregation of corporate metrics at the meso-level in the form of industry indexes and benchmarks, and in articulating linkage to the UN SDGs at the macro-level.
The author co-citation map revealed four schools of thought comprising the intellectual structure of the knowledge base on S-SCM in a circular economy. The first school, Sustainable Supply Chain Management, conceptualizes supply chain management for sustainable development [3,70]. Notably, this school’s location in the center of the map highlights its role as the conceptual anchor of this literature. The Circular Economy, the second school, has focused on process reconfiguration, product redesign, and new business models that are grounded in a regenerative conceptualization of sustainable consumption and production [9,11,81]. The third school, Sustainable Production and Environmental Management examines how government and corporate policies and practices reorient operations and manufacturing to reduce harmful environmental effects while supporting economic growth [87,88,89]. The last school, Reverse Supply Chain Management, highlights the role that “reverse loops” associated with a circular economy can play in extending our understanding of sustainable supply chain management [7,68,108].
The map reframes sustainable supply chain management by connecting corporate practices to both production and consumption [47,99,100,109]. Nascimento et al. (2019) [14] asserted that supply networks must be circular in order to achieve sustainable production. Winkler (2011) [63] emphasized the need for all actors along the supply chain to co-operatively implement circular economy practices from production to consumption. The vital interdependency among circular economy, sustainable operations, and sustainable consumption is visualized on the map where sustainable supply chain management is located in the center linking the three concepts (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).
On the production side, studies revolve around the integration of circular economy and sustainable production and operations. The goal is to create self-sustaining production systems minimizing virgin material exploitation through waste recovery, reuse, and transformation [22,90,93]. In a circular economy, supply chain management practices recover waste which can be transformed into raw material for use in newly designed materials, products, and supply chains [94,110]. Such systems are enabled by cascading, repurposing, and extraction processes that are, in turn, driven by renewable energy [9,11,46].
Studies have also uncovered circular-economy-related supply chain practices that support sustainable consumption. These include infrastructure enabling maintenance and repair, redistribution and reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment, and recycling services, education to change consumer attitudes and behaviors, and incentives in the form of competitive pricing achieved [68,96,99,100,108]. Both self-sustaining production systems and infrastructure that increases consumer awareness, involvement, and responsibility also offer possibilities for moving toward more sustainable consumption.
Over the last 30 years, studies of sustainable supply chain management have tended to adopt an isolated view towards forward and reverse flows [3,4,5] However, as Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2019) [60] emphasized, the circular economy implementation posits the reverse loop supply chain as its backbone. All 26 business models captured by Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2019), 34 circular economy practices identified by Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [7], and 45 circular economy strategies proposed by Kalmykova et al. (2018) ride along the 6R reverse loops of the supply chain [46]. Adoption of a circular economy perspective emphasizes the long-lasting design and reduction concept which involves upstream collaboration with suppliers and forward flow providers.

6. Conclusions

The interplay among the four schools of thought identified in this review highlights the value gained by considering supply chain management in tandem with the circular economy. Over the past 30 years, scholars and practitioners in sustainable production, operations, and supply chain management increasingly integrated environmental management principles in order to reduce harmful effects on the environment. Yet, predominant conceptualizations of S-SCM continued to operate on a take–make–dispose linear economy model. This paradigm does not address the loss of valuable materials in landfills, resource scarcity, and over-consumption. The circular economy concept challenges production and supply chain management to adopt a “systems view” of sustainability solutions. When a circular economy perspective is adopted, managers begin to think in terms of product design, as well as processes for reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, redesign and remanufacture. Putting these reverse loop processes into practice, however, requires more proactive engagement and collaboration among a broad set of stakeholders. In this closing section of the paper, we highlight limitations of the review, and discuss implications of the findings.

6.1. Limitation of the Findings

Two limitations deserve attention. First, as discussed earlier, bibliometric reviews are designed to analyze knowledge base attributes in lieu of examining specific findings from a body of literature. Therefore, despite the fact that this review did discuss theoretical trends in this emerging literature, this was based primarily on inferences drawn from co-citation analyses of bibliographic data associated with the Scopus-indexed database of documents. Future reviews may draw upon our findings in order to guide closer examination of findings using more fine-grained review methods.
Second, to enable closer reading of selected documents, the authors chose to exclude articles published in languages other than English. We do wish to note, however, that China, Brazil, and Italy were identified as particularly active in producing research on this topic. Reviews of the local language literatures in these countries could provide a useful complement to our own research.

6.2. Implications and a Proposed Model toward Sustainable Futures

The first implication from this review lies in the conceptual sphere. Drawing upon our findings, we have adapted Rebs, Brandenburg and Seuring’s (2019) [111] model of sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy model (see Figure 6). The original model included three key elements: circular supply chain, stakeholder engagement, and triple bottom line benefits.
Our proposed model (see Figure 6) expands the original Rebs et al. (2019) [111] model to adopt a strategic perspective drawn from Suriyankietkaew and Petison’s (2020) [42] review of the literature on strategic management for sustainability. The integrated model incorporates macro-level environmental constituencies and pressures (e.g., global SDG movement, changing market demands, institutional policies) that can be viewed as drivers of change in sustainability policies and practices (i.e., balance, resilience, sustainable development) toward sustainable futures. The proposed framework may become a sustainable business model that provides pragmatic guidance toward corporate sustainability.
Based on the enduring barriers identified in transitioning to a circular economy from supply chain management perspective [7,8,82], we identify several implications for policymakers. First, the most urgent tasks are the issuance of circularity policies, empowerment of enforcement bodies, and development of stronger, relevant performance management metrics. The launch of top-down initiatives in the forms of subsidies and tax benefits can reduce the burden of capital investment on eco-innovation for product/service redesign, production, and supply chain reconfiguration with reverse loops, and the deployment of advanced technologies.
Second, along with these initiatives, a platform is needed that supports collaboration among different actors within and outside supply chains, enhances information sharing, and enables clearer benchmarking of progress and results. The launch of consumer education programs is needed to overcome attitudinal and behavioral barriers to the use of eco-products. As Ghisellini and Ulgiati (2020) [82] pointed out, recycling remains by far the dominant practice among the “6Rs”. Within corporate supply chain management, this highlights both the urgency and potential of diversifying circular economy practices. This suggests a need to reprioritize financing, and build infrastructure that supports reduction, reuse, recovery, remanufacture and redesign practices.
Third, for practitioners, the proposed framework provides guidelines for evaluation of environmental impact, assessment of demand, and development of innovative strategies. Practitioners should seek to increase alignment between headquarters’ ESG goals and local ESG initiatives, particularly in multinational companies. The review provides evidence that can support managers in building a business case to secure budget for leveraging reverse loop practices in the supply chain.
Findings from this review also suggest several directions for future research. First, future research can test and further refine the proposed framework. With the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, different countries and industries have their own challenges and priorities. It is imperative to validate the environment and consider different theories such as stakeholder theory and complexity theory.
Second, this review found a geographical imbalance in the global literature, with limited research from developing countries. Yet, developing societies are critical actors in global trade and supply chains. Thus, future studies should place greater emphasis on how developing nations are incorporating circular economy principles to refine supply chain management practices.
Third, collaboration among actors within and outside supply chain has been highlighted as a crucial factor driving systems change [6,22,25,60]. Future research should look more in depth into the duties and obligations of various supply chain participants. The complexity of global supply chain networks, different stages in implementing circular economy policies and growth agenda might cause the deviation when defining roles and responsibilities.
Finally, future studies are needed that examine the use of performance measurement metrics employed at micro, meso, and macro levels of sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy context. For example, research could investigate how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals align with actions and how they are measured in relation to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Factors such as business structures, sizes, and geographies should be taken into consideration. For example, multinational corporations might centralize performance measurement activities and report at the corporate level without the breakdown by geography. This research could also examine how this would impact the way each country reports progress toward UN SDGs.

Author Contributions

M.T. and S.S. conceptualized the study. M.T. gathered the document database. M.T., S.S. and P.H. worked on data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the ASEAN Center for Sustainable Development Studies and Dialogue.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hallinger, P. Analyzing the intellectual structure of the knowledge base on managing for sustainability, 1982–2019: A meta-analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hallinger, P. A Meta-Synthesis of Bibliometric Reviews of Research on Managing for Sustainability, 1982–2019. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 162, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ansari, Z.N.; Kant, R. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2524–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 278–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pan, S.-Y.; Du, M.A.; Huang, I.-T.; Liu, I.-H.; Chang, E.-E.; Chiang, P.-C. Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.L. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Andersen, M.S. An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular economy. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Despeisse, M.; Baumers, M.; Brown, P.; Charnley, F.; Ford, S.J.; Garmulewicz, A.; Knowles, S.; Minshall, T.H.W.; Mortara, L.; Reed-Tsochas, F.P.; et al. Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017, 115, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Godinho Filho, M.; Roubaud, D. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nascimento, D.L.M.; Alencastro, V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Lona, L.R.; Tortorella, G. Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 607–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bekrar, A.; El Cadi, A.A.; Todosijevic, R.; Sarkis, J. Digitalizing the Closing-of-the-Loop for Supply Chains: A Transportation and Blockchain Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cantini, A.; Peron, M.; De Carlo, F.; Sgarbossa, F. A decision support system for configuring spare parts supply chains considering different manufacturing technologies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int J Inf Manage 2019, 49, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Masi, D.; Day, S.; Godsell, J. Supply Chain Configurations in the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. UN. Sustainable Development Goals: The 17 Goals; Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations (UN): New York, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  20. European Environmental Agency. Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, COM/2015/614 Final. 2021. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/com-2015-0614-final (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  21. Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leising, E.; Quist, J.; Bocken, N. Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 976–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nimsai, S.; Yoopetch, C.; Lai, P. Mapping the knowledge base of sustainable sup-ply chain management: A bibliometric literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K. Applications of MCDM methods in research on corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Galvão, G.D.A.; Homrich, A.S.; Geissdoerfer, M.; Evans, S.; Ferrer, P.S.S.; Carvalho, M.M. Towards a value stream perspective of circular business models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kantabutra, S. Achieving Corporate Sustainability: Toward a Practical Theory. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ketprapakorn, N. Toward an Asian corporate sustainability model: An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 117995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wolf, J. The Relationship Between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Sustainability Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 119, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J.; Dou, Y. Corporate sustainability development in China: Review and analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 5–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Govindan, K.; Shaw, M.; Majumdar, A. Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Grimm, J.H.; Hofstetter, J.S.; Sarkis, J. Interrelationships amongst factors for sub-supplier corporate sustainability standards compliance: An exploratory field study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 240–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kafa, N.; Jaegler, A.; Sarkis, J. Harnessing Corporate Sustainability Decision-Making Complexity: A Field Study of Complementary Approaches. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Seuring, S. Linking capabilities to green operations strategies: The moderating role of corporate environmental proactivity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 187, 182–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Govindan, K.; Agarwal, V.; Darbari, J.D.; Jha, P.C. An integrated decision making model for the selection of sustainable forward and reverse logistic providers. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 273, 607–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hernández-Chea, R.; Jain, A.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Gurtoo, A. The Business Model in Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptualization. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hofmann, F. Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transitions? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Seuring, S. Industrial ecology, life cycles, supply chains: Differences and interrelations. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2004, 13, 306–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Batista, L.; Bourlakis, M.; Smart, P.; Maull, R. In search of a circular supply chain archetype—A content-analysis-based literature review. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guide, V.D.R., Jr.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. OR FORUM—The Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research. Oper. Res. 2009, 57, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lambert, H.; Gupte, J.; Fletcher, H.; Hammond, L.; Lowe, N.; Pelling, M.; Raina, N.; Shahid, T.; Shanks, K. COVID-19 as a global challenge: Towards an inclusive and sustainable future. Lancet Planet. Health 2020, 4, e312–e314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suriyankietkaew, S.; Petison, P. A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019. Sustainability 2020, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Türkeli, S.; Kemp, R.; Huang, B.; Bleischwitz, R.; McDowall, W. Circular economy scientific knowledge in the European Union and China: A bibliometric, network and survey analysis (2006–2016). J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1244–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Iritani, D.R.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Ometto, A.R. Theoretical contribution of industrial ecology to circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 170, 1514–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Leskinen, P.; Matthies, B.D.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 716–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Govindan, K.; Soleimani, H. A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: A Journal of Cleaner Production focus. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. de Oliveira, U.R.; Espindola, L.S.; da Silva, I.R.; da Silva, I.N.; Rocha, H.M. A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 537–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Homrich, A.S.; Galvão, G.; Abadia, L.G.; Carvalho, M.M. The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017, 111, 1053–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1973, 24, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Winkler, H.; Kaluza, B. Sustainable supply chain networks—A new approach for effective waste management. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 92, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zhu, H. Strategic green supply chain based on circular economy—A new view for sustainable manufacturing in China. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. China 2006, 28, 289–292. [Google Scholar]
  57. European Commission. First Circular Economy Action Plan. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/circular-economy/first-circular-economy-action-plan_en (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  58. The World Bank. China Circular Economy Promotion Law. 2020. Available online: https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/china-circular-economy-promotion-law (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  59. Geissdoerfer, M.; Morioka, S.N.; de Carvalho, M.M.; Evans, S. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Gold, S.; Bocken, N.M.P. A Review and Typology of Circular Economy Business Model Patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 36–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Moktadir, M.A.; Rahman, T.; Rahman, M.H.; Ali, S.M.; Paul, S.K. Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1366–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhu, Q.; Geng, Y.; Lai, K.-H. Circular economy practices among Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the performance implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1324–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Winkler, H. Closed-loop production systems—A sustainable supply chain approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 4, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Islam, M.T.; Huda, N. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: A comprehensive literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 48–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Park, J.; Sarkis, J.; Wu, Z. Creating integrated business and environmental value within the context of China’s circular economy and ecological modernization. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1494–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zeng, H.; Chen, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhou, Z. Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kalmykova, Y.; Sadagopan, M.; Rosado, L. Circular economy—From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, Y.; Hazen, B.T. Consumer product knowledge and intention to purchase remanufactured products. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2005, 12, 330–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Sarkis, J. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-H. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 130, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Geng, Y. Green supply chain management in China: Pressures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2005, 25, 449–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-H. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Grimm, J.H.; Hofstetter, J.S.; Sarkis, J. Corporate sustainability standards in multi-tier supply chains—An institutional entrepreneurship perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hervani, A.A.; Nandi, S.; Helms, M.M.; Sarkis, J. A performance measurement framework for socially sustainable and resilient supply chains using environmental goods valuation methods. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. de Lima, F.A.; Seuring, S.; Sauer, P.C. A systematic literature review exploring uncertainty management and sustainability outcomes in circular supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sudusinghe, J.I.; Seuring, S. Social Sustainability Empowering the Economic Sustainability in the Global Apparel Supply Chain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Sudusinghe, J.I.; Seuring, S. Supply chain collaboration and sustainability performance in circular economy: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 245, 108402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Geng, Y.; Sarkis, J.; Ulgiati, S. Sustainability, well-being, and the circular economy in China and worldwide. Science 2016, 6278, 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ghisellini, P.; Ulgiati, S. Circular economy transition in Italy. Achievements, perspectives and constraints. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Santagata, R.; Ripa, M.; Genovese, A.; Ulgiati, S. Food waste recovery pathways: Challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A systematic review and an assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Yang, M.; Smart, P.; Kumar, M.; Jolly, M.; Evans, S. Product-service systems business models for circular supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Cesur, E.; Cesur, M.R.; Kayikci, Y.; Mangla, S.K. Optimal number of remanufacturing in a circular economy platform. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 25, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Papadopoulos, T.; Helo, P. Supplier relationship management for circular economy: Influence of external pressures and top management commitment. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 767–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Rojas Luiz, J.V.; Rojas Luiz, O.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Caldeira de Oliveira, J.H.; Junior, F.H. Circular economy business models and operations management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1525–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yadav, G.; Mangla, S.K.; Bhattacharya, A.; Luthra, S. Exploring indicators of circular economy adoption framework through a hybrid decision support approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K. Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Sarkis, J.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Renwick, D.W.S.; Singh, S.K.; Grebinevych, O.; Kruglianskas, I.; Filho, M.G. Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the ‘human side’ of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 222, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Belhadi, A.; Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Mani, V. Analyzing the mediating role of organizational ambidexterity and digital business transformation on industry 4.0 capabilities and sustainable supply chain performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kamble, S.S.; Belhadi, A.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ganapathy, L.; Verma, S. A large multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing the big data-driven circular economy practices in the automobile component manufacturing industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 165, 120567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. van Loon, P.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. Assessing the economic and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool for suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 1662–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Tang, Y. Enhancing food security and environmental sustainability: A critical review of food loss and waste management. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 4, 100023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, Z.-S.; Zhang, X.; Govindan, K.; Wang, X.-J.; Chin, K.-S. Third-party reverse logistics provider selection: A computational semantic analysis-based multi-perspective multi-attribute decision-making approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 166, 114051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Soleimani, H.; Govindan, K. Reverse logistics network design and planning utilizing conditional value at risk. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 237, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gülserliler, E.G.; Blackburn, J.D.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. Consumer acceptance of circular business models and potential effects on economic performance: The case of washing machines. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 509–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, Y.; Hazen, B.T.; Mollenkopf, D.A. Consumer value considerations and adoption of remanufactured products in closed-loop supply chains. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 480–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Krikke, H.; Hazen, B. How product and process knowledge enable consumer switching to remanufactured laptop computers in circular economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Asif, M.; Searcy, C.; Zutshi, A.; Fisscher, O.A. An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W. Unsustainable business models—Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Seuring, S.; Gold, S. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: From stakeholders to performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Koh, S.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Mustapha, K.B.; Godsell, J.; Adamu, Z.; Babatunde, K.A.; Akintade, D.D.; Acquaye, A.; Fujii, H.; Ndiaye, M.M.; Yamoah, F.A.; et al. A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Suriyankietkaew, S.; Nimsai, S. COVID-19 Impacts and Sustainability Strategies for Regional Recovery in Southeast Asia: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wang, Y.; Yin, X.; Du, Q.; Jia, S.; Xie, Y.; He, S. Consumers’ green preferences for remanufactured products. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Manufacturing. ICSEE IMIOT 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Singapore, 2018; Volume 923, pp. 332–342. [Google Scholar]
  109. Jia, J.; Xu, S.H.; Guide, V.D.R., Jr. Addressing Supply-Demand Imbalance: Designing Efficient Remanufacturing Strategies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2016, 25, 1958–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Fiorini, P.D.C.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Queiroz, M.M.; Piato, É.L. Digitally-enabled sustainable supply chains in the 21st century: A review and a research agenda. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rebs, T.; Brandenburg, M.; Seuring, S. System dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and systems thinking approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1265–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 09304 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram detailing the search and selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram detailing the search and selection process.
Sustainability 14 09304 g001
Sustainability 14 09304 g002 550
Figure 2. Growth trajectory of articles on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy through October 2021 (n = 709).
Figure 2. Growth trajectory of articles on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy through October 2021 (n = 709).
Sustainability 14 09304 g002
Sustainability 14 09304 g003 550
Figure 3. Subject area distribution of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy (n = 709). Note. Subject areas (18) contributing less than 5% were grouped into “others”.
Figure 3. Subject area distribution of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy (n = 709). Note. Subject areas (18) contributing less than 5% were grouped into “others”.
Sustainability 14 09304 g003
Sustainability 14 09304 g004 550
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy, 2006–2021 (n = 709).
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy, 2006–2021 (n = 709).
Sustainability 14 09304 g004
Sustainability 14 09304 g005 550
Figure 5. Author co-citation map of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy, with a threshold of 80 co-citations (97 authors).
Figure 5. Author co-citation map of the literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy, with a threshold of 80 co-citations (97 authors).
Sustainability 14 09304 g005
Sustainability 14 09304 g006 550
Figure 6. Proposed framework for sustainable supply chain in circular economy in the COVID-19 era (Source: adapted from Rebs et al., 2019 [111], p. 1276 and Suriyankietkaew and Petison, 2020 [42], p. 18).
Figure 6. Proposed framework for sustainable supply chain in circular economy in the COVID-19 era (Source: adapted from Rebs et al., 2019 [111], p. 1276 and Suriyankietkaew and Petison, 2020 [42], p. 18).
Sustainability 14 09304 g006
Table
Table 2. Comparison of four conceptions of supply chain management in circular economy context.
Table 2. Comparison of four conceptions of supply chain management in circular economy context.
ConceptDistinctive FeaturesExpected Outcomes
Green Supply Chain ManagementIntegration of forward and reverse supply chainEnvironmental focus
Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementCustomer and stakeholder engagementHolistic triple bottom line
Closed-loop Supply Chain ManagementValue creation maximization throughout product life cycleEnvironmental and economic focus
Circular Supply Chain ManagementValue creation through business ecosystemHolistic triple bottom line
Table
Table 3. Top-cited documents in the Scopus-indexed literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy (n = 709).
Table 3. Top-cited documents in the Scopus-indexed literature on sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy (n = 709).
RankDocumentTypeScopus
Citations
1Genovese et al. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Emp407
2Kalmykova et al. (2018). Circular economy—From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Rev350
3Pan et al. (2015). Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system. Con264
4Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2018). Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Con258
5Geissdoerfer et al. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy.Emp241
6Govindan and Hasanagic (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. Rev239
7Zhu et al. (2010). Circular economy practices among Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the performance implications. Emp225
8Homrich et al. (2018). The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. Rev190
9Park et al. (2010). Creating integrated business and environmental value within the context of China’s circular economy and ecological modernization. Emp186
10Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2019). A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Rev179
11Nascimento et al. (2019). Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal. Emp161
12Despeisse et al. (2017). Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Con155
13Wang and Hazen (2016). Consumer product knowledge and intention to purchase remanufactured products. Emp141
14Hong et al. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic capabilities, and enterprise performance. Emp138
15Moktadir et al. (2018). Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. Emp130
16Nasir et al. (2017). Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Emp124
17Zeng et al. (2017). Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. Emp121
18Islam and Huda (2018). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: A comprehensive literature review. Rev119
19Winkler (2011). Closed-loop production systems-A sustainable supply chain approach.Con119
20Leising et al. (2018). Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool.Emp116
Con = conceptual; Emp = empirical; Rev = review.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Theeraworawit, M.; Suriyankietkaew, S.; Hallinger, P. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304

AMA Style

Theeraworawit M, Suriyankietkaew S, Hallinger P. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304

Chicago/Turabian Style

Theeraworawit, Monrudee, Suparak Suriyankietkaew, and Philip Hallinger. 2022. "Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304

APA Style

Theeraworawit, M., Suriyankietkaew, S., & Hallinger, P. (2022). Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability, 14(15), 9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop