Guest editorial: The social sustainability of global supply chains – a critical perspective on current practices and its transformative potential

Abstract

Social sustainability in supply chains: current challengesThe number of publications on social sustainability in the logistics, operations and supply chain management (SCM) fields has increased over the last years (e.g. Bubicz et al., 2019;Yawar and Seuring, 2017;Govindan et al., 2021). However, it can be questioned, whether scholars in these fields have done enough to critically challenge current practices, and proactively drive real, transformational changes (Matos et al., 2020). Indeed, there is still a limited use of critical perspectives on the social dimension in the supply chain sustainability (SCS) literature (Carter et al., 2019;Fritz and Silva, 2018;Glover and Touboulic, 2020). While the logistics, operations and SCM literature investigate actions and supply chain strategies used by firms to address a set of social issues, the impacts of intellectual outputs on real and transformative changes in the wider society remain unclear.Current literature is focussed on reporting what initiatives firms have done in terms of social sustainability and on showing up the difficulties to manage them (Huq et al., 2014;. However, little advancements exist defining transformation and impact. For instance, Mani and Gunasekaran (2018, p. 151) claimed that social SCS adoption relies on "products and process aspects in the whole supply chain that invariably affect the safety, health, and welfare of people." Such perspective shows some nuances and potential firms' initiatives in supply chains, but we do not have a clear view on what actions and decisions can transform the current thinking and practices amongst firms such that they actively drive social SCS. To this end, this special issue offers a critical perspective of research in SCS, which goes beyond figuring out what the main social sustainability issues/indicators/strategies/practices are from a focal firm perspective, by questioning how their actions can be transformed or reconfigured to improve social conditions and benefit the wider society.Another reflection provided in this special issue relates to a dominant reliance on the North-Western perspective in the SCS field (Gold and Schleper, 2017) with limited inclusion of perspectives from other regions of the world where serious social issues arise. To study social sustainability in global supply chains a more diverse perspective is necessary, shifting from simply focussing on buyers from the so-called "developed countries", to also acknowledge the role of suppliers in "developing/emerging countries" as these have different perspectives and mindsets to cope with social sustainability risks (Brix-Asala et al., 2021;Chen and Chen, 2019;Le on-Bravo et al., 2022). In this context, according to Touboulic and McCarthy (2020), interdisciplinary research (including management and other social sciences) is relevant to investigate how social sustainability, alone or combined with multiple sustainable development goals, can impact physical distribution, logistics, operations and SCM. Therefore, in this special issue we open th...

Measuring supplier diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI): scale development and empirical validation

“…Thus, this paper embraces supplier DEI to facilitate both scholars’ and practitioners’ efforts to understand, recognize and introduce a more inclusive approach. Hence, critical thoughts about marginalized voices are necessary and stimulated (McCarthy et al , 2018; Miguel and Tonelli, 2023; Silva et al , 2023).…”

“…Moreover, because a practice cannot emerge without clear meanings and design, social sustainability needs to be supported by clear delimitations on each SC member’s role. The pool of publications related to social sustainability in SCs has grown over time (Abbasi, 2017; Bubicz et al , 2019; Carter et al , 2019; Govindan et al , 2021); however, researchers continue primarily reporting rather than pursuing real and transformative practices (Silva et al , 2023).…”

“…For instance, according to McCrudden (2004, p. 258), even though “the attempts to link social [sustainability] issues with procurement mostly originate[d] in the 19th century” in England, the USA and France, those attempts were not often related to marginalized groups, such as women, children and disabled people (McCarthy et al , 2018). A review of the literature highlights the need for more diversity in SCM, which should be examined in more detail (Carter et al , 2019; Esper et al , 2020; Richard et al , 2015; Silva et al , 2023; Tang, 2023; Yawar and Seuring, 2017; Zinn et al , 2018). However, the need for supplier diversity cannot be addressed simply through sourcing strategies intended to solicit a diverse pool of suppliers that includes underrepresented groups (Bateman et al , 2020; Sordi et al , 2022).…”

“…As the supplier diversity concept narrowed due to multiple concept overlaps (e.g. diversity and inclusion; Miguel and Tonelli, 2023; Tang, 2023; Yawar and Seuring, 2017), we adopted supplier DEI as a new frontier within SC social sustainability studies (Silva et al , 2023). Morais and Silvestre (2018) mentioned that supplier DEI should be a target of social sustainability initiatives in SCs.…”

“…In this research, supplier DEI as a social sustainability initiative refers to how firms and their SC partners share responsibility for fostering a diverse workplace by ensuring equity through the guarantee of human rights and including those who are often excluded from society to manage their supplier base and integrate the SC (Mani et al , 2016; Silva and Ruel, 2022; Silva et al , 2023; Sordi et al , 2022; Tang, 2023; Yawar and Seuring, 2017). The existing literature focuses on “supplier diversity” (Adobor and McMullen, 2007; Bateman et al , 2020; Worthington et al , 2008), but we argue that this concept is not sufficient to cover the complexity of DEI.…”