Sustainabletwo-thirds(69percent)scanningatfiveormorelevels.Onlyfivefrom45 (11percent)reported scanning at three or fewerlevels.supply chainsThedata in Table II indicate that all respondents scan at the societal level, with thenetwork levelbeing theleast scanned.Scanning targets within thechain,function andpeoplelevels werementioned bymorethan75percentof respondentsand thoseinthefirmlevelwerecitedby69percent.A further aim was to identify how far the framework tiers are inter-related and, to673dothis,wenotedwhereindividual targetscalledforanalysisatmorethanonelevel.Asindicated in Table II, the coding process found that - in 76 percent of the interviews -at least two scanning targets at different levels referred to the same topic, therebydemonstratinghowthelevelsareinter-related.Bywayof example,respondentLSP(seeAppendix1)monitorstechnologyinnovations e.g.forproducinggreenenergiesor saving energy,at the societal level,while also scanning at the chain level for newtechnologies being adopted or developed bytruck suppliers.Further,at thefunctionlevel, they scan those technologies likely to impact directly on their operations,e.g. silent trucks for night urban distribution.Respondent OS4 monitors GESemissionregulationsatthesocietallevelthewaycompaniesmeasureGESemissionsatthefirmlevelandtheresultsofprofessionalassociationstudiesonthistopicatthenetworklevelFor RQ1,thefocus group reinforced the interview results and contributed additionalfindings as follows:Theimportanceof the societal level wasgenerallyacknowledged.Thenetworklevelwasinitiallylesswell supported,withfewergroupmemberssuggesting that organizations scan at this level However, it was widelyconsidered tobea more complex concept tograspthan theothers.Thegroupdiscussion (unhindered by researcher input) facilitated clarification of thenetwork level (with examples of targets related totheinterconnectedness ofchains,andtoindirectrelationshipswithinabusiness)andhowrelevantitcouldbefor scanningpurposes,potentiallyresulting inmoresurprisinginformationthanatthefirmand chainlevelThe importance of the chain level was confirmed, on the basis that individualfirmscannotachieveSSCMalone.Whilethe firmlevel was generallyrecognized,itdid not attractfurtherdiscussion.Levels of scanningNumber of interviewsthat mentioned% of interviews(see Figure 1)scanningtargetatthislevel (total=45)Societal451002964Network9844Chain318Firm3987Function3476PeopleTable II.3476Inter-related levelsaThe framework levelsNote:"Numberof interviewsmentioning at leasttwotargets at different levels,referring to thesamementioned inthetopicinterviews
two-thirds (69 percent) scanning at five or more levels. Only five from 45 (11 percent) reported scanning at three or fewer levels. The data in Table II indicate that all respondents scan at the societal level, with the network level being the least scanned. Scanning targets within the chain, function and people levels were mentioned by more than 75 percent of respondents and those in the firm level were cited by 69 percent. A further aim was to identify how far the framework tiers are inter-related and, to do this, we noted where individual targets called for analysis at more than one level. As indicated in Table II, the coding process found that – in 76 percent of the interviews – at least two scanning targets at different levels referred to the same topic, thereby demonstrating how the levels are inter-related. By way of example, respondent LSP1 (see Appendix 1) monitors technology innovations e.g. for producing green energies or saving energy, at the societal level, while also scanning at the chain level for new technologies being adopted or developed by truck suppliers. Further, at the function level, they scan those technologies likely to impact directly on their operations, e.g. silent trucks for night urban distribution. Respondent OS4 monitors GES emission regulations at the societal level, the way companies measure GES emissions at the firm level, and the results of professional association studies on this topic at the network level. For RQ1, the focus group reinforced the interview results and contributed additional findings as follows: . The importance of the societal level was generally acknowledged. . The network level was initially less well supported, with fewer group members suggesting that organizations scan at this level. However, it was widely considered to be a more complex concept to grasp than the others. The group discussion (unhindered by researcher input) facilitated clarification of the network level (with examples of targets related to the interconnectedness of chains, and to indirect relationships within a business) and how relevant it could be for scanning purposes, potentially resulting in more surprising information than at the firm and chain level. . The importance of the chain level was confirmed, on the basis that individual firms cannot achieve SSCM alone. . While the firm level was generally recognized, it did not attract further discussion. Levels of scanning (see Figure 1) Number of interviews that mentioned scanning target at this level (total ¼ 45) % of interviews Societal 45 100 Network 29 64 Chain 44 98 Firm 31 69 Function 39 87 People 34 76 Inter-related levelsa 34 76 Note: a Number of interviews mentioning at least two targets at different levels, referring to the same topic Table II. The framework levels mentioned in the interviews 673 Sustainable supply chains Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 03:58 25 June 2015 (PT)
IJOPMThefunctional level wasacknowledgedasaseparatetierintheframework,andthe participants further noted that the targets typically scanned at this level34,5seem to bemore shortterm-oriented than others towhich theymayhave links,e.g.atthesocietal level.Theimportanceof scanning atthepeoplelevel was strongly emphasized.Given theevolving nature of sustainabledevelopment and SSCM infirms, SCs674and society,scanning of peoples'interests,commitmentandbehaviors wasregarded as essential.In summary, the experts expressed considerable support for the notion of scanninglevels,since the unit of analysis is differentforeach,and leads toafocus on differentbut connectedtargets.Theyfound value inthe conceptualframework forcing themtostep back from current concerns in order to consider the wider picture and drivers forSSCM.They were in agreement with its underlying structure and representation.4.2RQ2RQ2sought tocomparethetargets monitored inpracticeto thosederived fromtheliterature (Fabbe-Costes et al,2011).Incorporating over 900 individual targetsspanning allframework levels,theprimarydata supports both breadth and depthinfirms'scanning activities.While these were often specific and business dependent(even anecdotal),our coding process classified them according togeneral categorieswhichdevelopedaspartoftheanalysis.Asanexample,withintheresulting societalcategory“existing and developing technological trends and innovations potentiallyimpacting supply chain"individual targets included intelligent terminals to piloturban storage or delivery zones, newhandling equipment to limit repetitive straininjury and smartphone's progressive applications for logistics.The categories thatemerged from coding theprimary data are shown in column 2 of TableIIl, whichcombines theresultsfromall framework tiers to allowbetween-level comparison.The results indicate the volume and diversity of society-level targets scanned,including those associated with the field of logistics operations, constraints andpotential levers.The network level is less populated although it demonstrates thatboundary-crossing initiatives (such as by territory or SC) drive network-widesustainable scanning activity.In addition, other businesses (e.g.IT and consultancy)thatareableto support or inspiresustainablelogisticspracticesaremonitored.Whileawide varietyof targets were articulated at the chain level,fewer emergedfor the firmThe data suggest that when organizations scan firms,they focus primarily on targetsrelating to corporate behavior,attitudes,initiativesand needs concerning sustainablelogistics.At the next level, the results indicate numerous targets concentratinggenerally on the logistics function. Nevertheless, several issues concerning designproduction, supply and sourcing also emerged, thereby indicating the pivotal role ofoperations managementmoregenerally.Finally,atthelowest level, emerging categoriesrelatetopeopleregarded as sourcesof inspiration oras levers for sustainablelogisticsdevelopment.Employees of all types representthemaintargets,whileconsumersarerarely mentioned.For the comparative analysis,whereby the empirical categories were evaluatedagainst those derived from the literature (shown in Table Il, column 3), targets werematched accordingtotheirmeaning,albeitthephrasing was slightlydifferent in somecases.Thecomparisonallowed ustoenrichthetargetsetsandtoclarifythelevel ofsome,withfourtargetsbeing re-coded.(Theseareitalicized in TableIll, with matching
. The functional level was acknowledged as a separate tier in the framework, and the participants further noted that the targets typically scanned at this level seem to be more short term-oriented than others to which they may have links, e.g. at the societal level. . The importance of scanning at the people level was strongly emphasized. Given the evolving nature of sustainable development and SSCM in firms, SCs and society, scanning of peoples’ interests, commitment and behaviors was regarded as essential. In summary, the experts expressed considerable support for the notion of scanning levels, since the unit of analysis is different for each, and leads to a focus on different but connected targets. They found value in the conceptual framework forcing them to step back from current concerns in order to consider the wider picture and drivers for SSCM. They were in agreement with its underlying structure and representation. 4.2 RQ2 RQ2 sought to compare the targets monitored in practice to those derived from the literature (Fabbe-Costes et al., 2011). Incorporating over 900 individual targets, spanning all framework levels, the primary data supports both breadth and depth in firms’ scanning activities. While these were often specific and business dependent (even anecdotal), our coding process classified them according to general categories which developed as part of the analysis. As an example, within the resulting societal category “existing and developing technological trends and innovations potentially impacting supply chain” individual targets included intelligent terminals to pilot urban storage or delivery zones, new handling equipment to limit repetitive strain injury and smartphone’s progressive applications for logistics. The categories that emerged from coding the primary data are shown in column 2 of Table III, which combines the results from all framework tiers to allow between-level comparison. The results indicate the volume and diversity of society-level targets scanned, including those associated with the field of logistics operations, constraints and potential levers. The network level is less populated although it demonstrates that boundary-crossing initiatives (such as by territory or SC) drive network-wide sustainable scanning activity. In addition, other businesses (e.g. IT and consultancy) that are able to support or inspire sustainable logistics practices are monitored. While a wide variety of targets were articulated at the chain level, fewer emerged for the firm. The data suggest that when organizations scan firms, they focus primarily on targets relating to corporate behavior, attitudes, initiatives and needs concerning sustainable logistics. At the next level, the results indicate numerous targets concentrating generally on the logistics function. Nevertheless, several issues concerning design, production, supply and sourcing also emerged, thereby indicating the pivotal role of operations management more generally. Finally, at the lowest level, emerging categories relate to people regarded as sources of inspiration or as levers for sustainable logistics development. Employees of all types represent the main targets, while consumers are rarely mentioned. For the comparative analysis, whereby the empirical categories were evaluated against those derived from the literature (shown in Table III, column 3), targets were matched according to their meaning, albeit the phrasing was slightly different in some cases. The comparison allowed us to enrich the target sets and to clarify the level of some, with four targets being re-coded. (These are italicized in Table III, with matching 674 IJOPM 34,5 Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 03:58 25 June 2015 (PT)