Paper I: Literature
2.7 Appendix: Summary of Research Themes in all Papers Reviewed
Author(s) Performance Strategy Organisational culture Transparency Risk management Developing economies Supplier's perspective Relationship between practices and performance Sustainability measures / indicators Ethical standards Codes of conduct Reporting Multi- stakeholder's perspective 1 Ageron et al. (2012) * X 2 Amaeshi et al. (2008) X
3 Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen (2009) * X
4 Andrews et al. (2009) * X
5 Awaysheh & Klassen (2010) * X X X
6 Baden et al. (2009) * X X
7 Baden et al. (2011) * X X
8 Bai & Sarkis (2010)
9 Becker et al. (2010) X X
10 Belal (2002) X
11 Beske et al. (2008) * X X X
12 Birkin et al. (2009) * X X X
13 Boyd et al. (2007) X
14 Brammer & Walker (2011) * X
15 Burchielli et al. (2009) * X X X
16 Carbone et al. (2012) X
17 Carter & Easton (2011) X
18 Carter & Jennings (2002a) * X X X
19 Carter & Jennings (2002b) *
20 Carter & Jennings (2004) * X X
21 Carter & Rogers (2008) X X
107
23 Carter (2000b) * X X
24 Carter (2004) * X
25 Castka & Balzarova (2008a) X
26 Castka & Balzarova (2008b) X
27 Ciliberti et al. (2008a) * X X X
28 Ciliberti et al. (2008b) X X 29 Ciliberti et al. (2009) * X 30 Collison et al. (2008) X 31 Colwell et al. (2011) * X 32 Cooper et al. (1997) * X 33 Cooper et al. (2000) * X X
34 Crespin-Mazet & Dontenwill (2012) * X
35 De Bakker & Nijhof (2002) X
36 De Brito et al. (2008) * X
37 Eadie et al. (2011) * X
38 Ehrgott et al. (2011) * X
39 Eltantawy et al. (2009) * X X
40 Erridge & Hennigan (2012) * X
41 Fassin (2008) * X
42 Font et al. (2008)* X X X
43 Forsman-Hugg et al. (2013) * X
44 Fukukawa & Teramoto (2009) * X
45 Gimenez & Tachizawa (2012) X X X X
46 Gimenez et al. (2012) * X
47 Goebel et al. (2012) * X
48 Gopalakrishnan et al. (2012) * X
49 Graafland (2002) * X X X X
50 Gugler & Shi (2009) X X
51 Hall & Matos (2010) * X
52 Hall et al. (2012) * X
53 Harwood & Humby (2008) * X X X
108
55 Hoejmose & Adrien-Kirby (2012) X X
56 Hollos et al. (2011) * X
57 Holt (2004) * X
58 Hutchins & Sutherland (2008) X
59 Illge & Preuss (2012) * X X
60 Isaksson et al. (2010) X X
61 Jiang (2009a) * X X X X
62 Jiang (2009b) * X X X X
63 Joo et al. (2010) X
64 Jorgensen & Knudsen (2006) * X X
65 Kaptein (2004) X
66 Keating et al. (2008) * X X
67 Ketola (2010) X X
68 Klassen & Vereecke (2012) * X X X X
69
Kleindorfer et al. (2005)
70 Kogg & Mont (2012) * X X
71 Kolk & Tulder (2002a) X X
72 Kolk & Tulder (2002b) X
73 Kolk & Tulder (2004) X X
74 Kolk (2012) * X
75 Koplin et al. (2007) * X X
76 Kortelainen (2008) * X X X
77 Krause et al. (2009) X
78 Krueger (2008) X X
79 Kudla & Klaas-Wissing (2012) * X X X
80 Lamberti & Lettieri (2009) * X
81 Lee & Kim (2009) * X X X X
82 Lehtinen (2012) *
109
84 Lillywhite (2007) * X X X
85 Lim & Phillips (2008) * X X X X
86 Lozano & Huisingh (2011) * X
87 Luken & Stares (2005) * X X X X
88 MacCarthy & Jayarathne (2012) * X X X X
89 Maignan et al. (2002) X X
90 Maloni & Brown (2006) X
91 Mamic (2005) * X X X
92 Manning (2013) X
93 Manning et al. (2006) X
94 Markley & Davis (2007) X
95 Meehan & Bryde (2011) * X
96 Mueller et al. (2009) X X
97 New (1997) X
98 Nikoloyuk et al. (2010) * X
99 Ntayi et al. (2013) * X
100 Oruezabalaa & Rico (2012) * X
101 Pagell & Wu (2009) * X
102 Pagell et al. (2010) * X
103 Panapanaan et al. (2003) *
104 Park (2005) * X
105 Park-Poaps & Rees (2010) * X
106 Pedersen (2009) * X X
107 Perez-Aleman & Sandilands (2008) * X X X
108 Polonsky & Jevons (2009) X
109 Pretious & Love (2006) * X X
110 Preuss & Walker (2011) X
111 Preuss (2007) * X X
110
113 Preuss (2009b) X X
114 Prieto-carrón (2008) X
115 Pullman & Dillard (2010) * X X
116 Reuter et al. (2010) * 117 Reuter et al. (2012) * X 118 Rimmington et al. (2006) * 119 Roberts (2003) X 120 Robinson (2010) * X X X 121 Sarkis et al. (2010) X
122 Schneider & Wallenburg (2012) X
123 Seuring & Muller (2008a)
124 Seuring & Muller (2008b) * X
125 Sobczak (2003) X
126 Spekman & Davis (2004) X
127 Spence & Bourlakis (2009) * X X X X X
128 Stigzelius & Mark-Herbert (2009) * X X X
129 Strand (2009) X
130 Svensson & Wagner (2012) *
131 Svensson (2009) * X X 132 Taplin et al. (2006) * X X 133 Tate et al. (2010) X X X 134 Tencati et al. (2008) * X X 135 Teuscher et al. (2006) X X X 136 Tsoi (2010) * X X X
137 Van Hoek & Johnson (2010) * X
138 Van Tulder & Kolk (2001) X
139 Van Tulder et al. (2009) * X
140 Vasileiou & Morris (2006) *
141 Vurro et al. (2009) X
111
(* Contributions based on primary data)
143 Walker & Brammer (2012) * X
144 Walker & Jones (2012) * X X
145 Walker & Preuss (2008) * X
146 Wang & Sarkis (2013) X
147 Welford & Frost (2006) * X X X X
148 Wiese & Toporowski (2013) * X X
149 Wild & Zhou (2011) * X
150 Winstanley et al. (2002) * X X X X X
151 Winter & Knemeyer (2013)
152 Wittstruck & Teuteberg (2012) * X X
153 Worthington (2009) * X 154 Wu & Pagell (2011) * X 155 Yakovleva et al. (2011) * X 156 Yu (2008) * X X X 157 Zailani et al. (2012) * X X Total 14 8 74 33 32 31 8 8 21 17 12
112
Chapter 3 – Paper II:
"Social Sustainability in Developing Country Suppliers:
An Exploratory Study in the Readymade Garments Industry of Bangladesh"
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, (2014), Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 610-638.
3(i) Background
While working on the literature review – Paper I, it was noticed that most studies on social sustainability were in a developed country context and many contributions were focused exclusively on the perspective of the buying firm. It was also found that relatively few researchers have used theory when studying social sustainability. It therefore followed that there was a need to conduct further research in the context of developing country suppliers to MNCs. Thus, an exploratory case study of 4 Bangladeshi suppliers in the Ready Made Garments (RMG) industry was undertaken, supplemented by the Bangladeshi buying houses of 2 major UK retailers. The main research objectives were to understand: (a) the reasons why developing country suppliers are adopting socially sustainable practices; and, (b) how the implementation process is both impeded and facilitated.
Initial versions of this paper were presented as posters at the Lancaster University Management School Annual Research Conference (2012) and the Cardiff Sustainable Supply Chain Management workshop (2012), where helpful comments and suggestions were received from Professor Stefan Seuring (Department of Supply Chain Management, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany) and Professor Craig Carter (Supply Chain Management Department, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, USA). This paper is a collaboration between me and my
113 supervisors - Mark Stevenson and Marta Zorzini. It was decided by us that we would target the International Journal of Operations & Production Management (IJOPM)’s special issue on Sustainable Operations Management with this article. As the submission deadline was 31st of October 2012, the completion of this paper became the priority and the literature review paper (Paper I) took a back seat. For this reason Paper II was submitted to IJOPM before Paper I, and subsequently accepted and published before Paper I. Professors Helen Walker, Stefan Seuring, Joseph Sarkis and Robert Klassen were the guest editors of this special issue.
It is worth noting that the empirical data for this paper was collected before the Tazreen fire (Nov’12) and Rana Plaza collapse (Apr’13), and the paper provided important insights into the process of social sustainability implementation. For example, a particularly novel finding of this study was the ‘ugly’ side of the implementation of socially sustainable practices in the global apparel supply chain. The ‘ugly’ side comprised of, among others, mock compliance by suppliers, e.g. hiding violations, and unethical behaviour by buyers, e.g. turning a ‘blind eye’ to such violations. These issues were identified as barriers to the implementation process, however, nothing could have prepared us for the scale of the social failures that occurred between November 2012 and April 2013 resulting in the deaths of almost 1400 apparel industry workers in Bangladesh – critical events, which ‘fortunately’ and ‘unfortunately’ became the focus of the final longitudinal study -Paper III.
I am the first author of this paper. I travelled to Bangladesh twice to collect the data for this paper. The entire interview data was recorded, translated from Bengali to English and transcribed by me. All the sections of the paper were drafted and revised by me. My co-authors gave me guidance in all the stages and helped refine the
114 arguments before submission. Finally, I had taken the lead in addressing all of the reviewer comments in the three rounds of revisions.
Below, my co-authors of this paper have certified that they agree with my above claim as to my contribution in carrying out the research and preparing the paper for publication.
--- Dr. Mark Stevenson
Programme Director, MSc Management
Senior Lecturer, Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School
Lancaster, LA1 4YX Tel: +44 (0)1524 593847
Email: [email protected]
--- Dr. Marta Zorzini
Lecturer in Operations Management, Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School
Lancaster, LA1 4YX Tel: +44 (0)1524 593868
115
Social Sustainability in Developing Country Suppliers: An Exploratory Study in the Ready Made Garments Industry of Bangladesh
With Mark Stevenson and Marta Zorzini
Department of Management Science, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
3(ii) Abstract
Purpose: To investigate why developing country suppliers are adopting socially
sustainable practices and how the implementation process is both impeded and enabled.
Design/methodology/approach: A multi-case study approach is adopted based on
four Ready Made Garment (RMG) industry suppliers in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi buying houses of two large UK retailers. The primary mode of data collection is exploratory face-to-face interviews with 14 senior representatives. Findings are later interpreted using the Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) theory lens.
Findings: One factor motivating implementation is labour retention – a skilled labour
shortage means employees will migrate to other factories if suppliers do not improve certain social standards. Barriers to implementation include a misalignment between the requirements of Western codes of conduct and the cultural and socio-economic context in Bangladesh. Enablers include a shift from auditing and monitoring to more open dialogue and trust between buyers and suppliers. We also reveal evidence of mock compliance, e.g. suppliers keeping two sets of timesheets, and of the
116 complexities of social sustainability. For example, while some initiatives are unanimously positive, removing child labour from RMG industry suppliers has simply diverted it to other, less regulated and more hazardous industries like construction.
Research implications: An early, exploratory contribution is provided. The work
could be extended, e.g. to other stakeholders like third-party auditors and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
Practical implications: Being aware of the motivations, barriers and enablers will
help Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) promote good practice and anticipate the challenges they are likely to face in improving the social sustainability of their supply chains. Use of TCE leads to suggesting MNCs need to move beyond immediate suppliers and incorporate tier-two suppliers in their implementation efforts.
Social implications: Social sustainability improvements should benefit vulnerable
workers, help suppliers develop longer term relationships with MNCs, and contribute to economic growth.
Originality/value: Most prior studies have been in the context of developed countries
and focused on the perspective of the buying firm only.
Keywords: Social Sustainability; Developing Country Suppliers; Ready Made
Garments Industry; Bangladesh; Exploratory Case Study; Transaction Cost Economics.
117
3.1 Introduction
Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) face intense scrutiny on the sustainability of their economic, social and environmental performance. Interested parties range from employees, customers and trade associations to government agencies and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) (Meehan and Bryde, 2011; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Yakovleva et al., 2011). This scrutiny applies not only to their own performance, but to that of their upstream supply chain partners (Seuring and Müller, 2008b; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Walker and Jones, 2012). For example, companies like Nike, Disney, Benetton and Adidas have been held responsible for the behaviour of their suppliers, e.g. when they harm the environment (Preuss, 2001) or violate labour laws (Graafland, 2002). As a result, environmental and social sustainability considerations are now fundamental to the purchasing and sourcing decisions made in MNCs (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Pagell and Wu, 2009; Vachon and Klassen, 2008).
This paper presents an exploratory study of social sustainability – which is concerned with the human side of sustainability, including human rights (e.g. child labour and freedom of association), health & safety (e.g. safe working conditions and training), and community (e.g. charitable, philanthropic initiatives) – in the Ready Made Garments (RMG) industry of Bangladesh based on 4 Bangladeshi suppliers and the Bangladeshi buying houses of 2 major MNCs with headquarters in the UK. It is a timely study, given recent events in this sector in Bangladesh. On the 24th of April 2013, the Rana Plaza building that housed five Bangladeshi apparel factories making clothes for Western brands such as Primark and Benetton collapsed, killing 1,129 people (BBC, 2013a, Guardian, 2013, Huffington Post, 2013). This was by far the deadliest disaster in the history of the apparel industry and followed shortly after two fires in November 2012 and January 2013 that killed 112 workers and 7 workers,
118 respectively in Bangladeshi factories supplying Wal-Mart and SEARS (Bloomberg, 2012) and Inditex, the world's largest clothing retailer (New York Times, 2013).
Although there is a considerable literature on the environmental aspect of sustainability, work on the social aspect of sustainability lags behind (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Pullman and Dillard, 2010; Reuter et al., 2010; Sarkis et al., 2010; Seuring and Müller, 2008a). Social sustainability has only recently joined the mainstream management literature, driven by enhanced sensitivity in the developed world to ethical issues (Harrison and Freeman, 1999; Quazi and O'Brien, 2000) and the business case for social reform: improvements in social sustainability have been linked to an increase in competitiveness (Porter and Kramer, (2006, 2011). Yet many MNCs are struggling with the management of social sustainability issues in their supply chains (Klassen and Vereecke, 2012) and successfully implementing improved conditions in upstream suppliers is a key contemporary challenge (Matos and Hall, 2007).
The Operations and Supply Chain Management literature on social sustainability is extremely limited (Daugherty, 2011; Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). Most studies to date have been conducted in the context of developed countries (Hussain et al., 2012; Luken, 2006) despite the obvious relevance to developing countries, where the impact of businesses on the poor has been mixed (Dobers and Halme, 2009; Werner, 2009). Many contributions have also focused exclusively on the perspective of the buying firm; the supplier’s viewpoint requires further attention. It therefore follows that there is a need to conduct further research into social sustainability, particularly in the context of developing country suppliers to MNCs, as called for by Ehrgott et al. (2011) and (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). Studying developing country suppliers is particularly important as they often find it difficult to
119 incorporate Western style social standards in their factories, e.g. due to cultural differences (Gugler and Shi, 2009; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).
This exploratory study seeks to identify: (a) the reasons why developing country suppliers are adopting socially sustainable practices; and, (b) how the implementation process is both facilitated and impeded. In doing so, it makes three novel contributions to the field. First, it focuses on social sustainability, which is an under-researched area in general. Second, it provides an insight into the realities of implementing social sustainability in a developing country and in the context of a particularly labour intensive industry. And third, it provides not only the Western buyers’ perspective but also the developing country suppliers’ perspective, which is often neglected in the literature.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. A brief literature review is provided in Section 3.2 before the research method is outlined in Section 3.3. Findings are presented in sections 3.4-3.6 and relate to the: (i) key factors motivating implementation; (ii) social sustainability implementation process in which a number of barriers to implementation are highlighted; and, (iii) enablers or facilitators of successful implementation. In Section 3.7, we use Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) theory as a lens to interpret our findings – organised around three propositions on TCE from Grover and Malhotra (2003) – before the paper concludes with Section 3.8.