Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update the work of Carter and Easton (2011), by conducting a systematic review of the sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature in the primary logistics and supply chain management journals, during the 2010–2018 timeframe. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology which follows the methodology employed by Carter and Easton (2011). An evaluation of this methodology, using the Modified AMSTAR criteria, demonstrates a high level of empirical validity. Findings The field of SSCM continues to evolve with changes in substantive focus, theoretical lenses, unit of analysis, methodology and type of analysis. However, there are still abundant future research opportunities, including investigating under-researched topics such as diversity and human rights/working conditions, employing the group as the unit of analysis and better addressing empirical validity and social desirability bias. Research limitations/implications The findings result in prescriptions and a broad agenda to guide future research in the SSCM arena. The final section of the paper provides additional avenues for future research surrounding theory development and decision making. Originality/value This SLR provides a rigorous, methodologically valid review of the continuing evolution of empirical SSCM research over a 28-year time period.

Firms increasingly use human crowds to solve their innovation related needs. Innovation sourcing managers who sponsor innovation contests seek to maximize crowd size to increase the chance of creative outcomes. One strategy they use is to set an award size. Although many studies have examined the influence of award size on crowd size in innovation contests, the empirical findings are inconsistent and suggest further empirical study is needed. Drawing from expectancy‐value theory, we propose that award size and crowd size are related to one another in the form of an inverted U‐shape, namely that moderate awards maximize crowd size. Additional propositions cover contingencies around the number of awards and task difficulty of an innovation contest. Based on data representing 5342 programming innovation contests, our empirical analyses confirm the inverted U‐shaped relationship and indicate that the number of awards and task difficulty steepen the inverted U‐shaped relationship. These results add nuanced, theoretical understanding of how innovation contests work. The findings indicate that innovation sourcing managers should set award sizes at moderate levels, and that they should experiment with slightly larger or smaller awards to see if it impacts crowd size in their context.