Supply

Instructions for the Article Review

Locate a peer-reviewed article (related to the course content) published within the last 12 months in a peer-reviewed journal from the online library, then present at least a 15 (title and reference slides do not count) slide power point presentation assessment comprising of a precise and critical evaluation. Do not summarize the article. Evaluate the information presented in the article. Use bulletized statements on your slides and then put within the notes what you would say as if you were presenting the article to the class.  Remember the reader would not see the notes section so your slides need to have the proper title of what the slides is going to discuss.  Refer the the attached rubrics. 

Title slide – with the standard title page information

Introductory Slide — Discuss the author’s thesis. Include article and author name in this paragraph. -1 slide

The Facts – discuss three important facts the author uses to support thesis. – 3 slides

Explain or correlate the facts with facts from course content. – another 3 slides or put in the facts from the article slides

Use in text citation from course reading to show connections to this article.

Evaluate the resources provided with the article. – 1 slide

Are their resources provided with the article?  Are they recent? – 1 to 2 slides

Strengths /Weaknesses/Discussion to the profession – Describe the strengths of the information presented as it applies to the professions. Critically evaluate the information in the article.- up to 3 slides

 Is there bias or faulty reasoning? Evaluate the information for truth. – 1 to 2 slides

Bring in outside sources to support your analysis and review. – 1 slide

What are others saying about the same topic? – 1 slide

You must support claims of both fact and faulty reasoning. – 1 slide

Conclusions – Provide concluding remarks regarding your review/evaluation of the article. – 1 slide

Reference Slide

APA formatting, in-text citations and referencing will be needed for more than one reference.

Power PointArticle Review

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Green supply chain management in construction: A systematic
literature review and future research agenda

Sulafa Badi a, *, Niamh Murtagh b

a Faculty of Business & Law, The British University in Dubai (BUiD), Dubai, United Arab Emirates
b Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 August 2018
Received in revised form
17 January 2019
Accepted 11 March 2019
Available online 16 March 2019

Keywords:
Construction industry
Green supply chain management
Sustainable supply chain management
Systematic literature review

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Sulafa.badi@buid.ac.ae, s.badi@u

ucl.ac.uk (N. Murtagh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.132
0959-6526/

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

The construction industry is responsible for significant environmental impact. Mounting ecological and
societal concerns are driving construction to ‘go green’. Green supply chain management offers the
potential of a systemic approach to facilitate transformation of the sector. Research on green supply chain
management in construction has been growing in recent times but to date has not been systematically
brought together. A systematic literature review (SLR) is presented, applying the high standards of rigour
and transparency required by the methodology. From an initial search result of 207 papers, 44 were
included in the detailed analysis. The papers are described in terms of publication outlet, date of pub-
lication, geographic setting, methods used, tools and techniques, conceptual definition, the role of
stakeholders and practical implications. The findings are synthesized to propose a categorization of
approach and a comprehensive definition of green supply chain management in construction. An agenda
for future research is outlined which emphasizes the need for an end-to-end perspective, engagement
with the unique characteristics of the industry, a focus on the ultimate goals of environmental sus-
tainability, and on gaps in practical guidance, use of insights from relevant theoretical perspectives, and
expansion to include critical stances.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Societies across the globe are experiencing unprecedented cir-
cumstances as a direct consequence of environmental degradation,
resource depletion and climate change. As a result, there are
growing calls around the world for transformative change in how
humans and businesses interact with the natural environment. The
construction industry is a major consumer of the world’s resources
and energy (Lucon et al., 2014), used for the delivery of the built
environment and in the operation of buildings and infrastructure.
The construction sector is seen as amongst the most environmen-
tally damaging of industries, accountable for 30% of solid waste in
the European Union (European Union, 2015). Construction and
demolition waste is particularly damaging to the environment due
to its large volume, weight and heterogeneous nature. Globally, the
construction industry is also responsible for consuming about one-
third of the world’s resources which includes consuming 36% of its

cl.ac.uk (S. Badi), n.murtagh@

energy and producing 39% of greenhouse gases (GHG) (UN
Environment, 2017). Embodied carbon emissions are found to
contribute an increasing share of a project’s whole life carbon
emissions, as work to reduce operational emissions bears fruit (Ibn-
Mohammed et al., 2013). Furthermore, the energy consumption of
buildings and the resources used are ‘locked-in’, potentially for
decades (Lucon et al., 2014), before the building is taken out of use,
demolished, and its constituent elements either become available
for re-use or recycling, or end up as waste.

The negative environmental impacts of the construction in-
dustry have been recognised around the world and strict environ-
mental regulations have been introduced by governments to curb
the environmental damage caused by construction operations. A
regional example of such governmental efforts is that of European
Union directives on waste reduction, while a national example is
found in the UK’s energy efficiency requirements in building reg-
ulations. Exemplary initiatives globally include the United Arab
Emirates’ ambitious Masdar project of developing a city that is
powered exclusively by clean energy, as well as New York City’s
emissions caps for large buildings (Martin, 2017). A key target of
Construction 2025), the UKGovernment’s strategy for construction,

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322 313

is a 50% reduction in GHG emissions from the built environment by
2025, compared to a 1990 baseline (HM Government, 2013). In-
ternational environmental management systems standards such as
ISO 14001, and environmental performance assessments such as
BREEAM, LEED and Estidama have also witnessed wider adoption
across the world as guidelines for constructing and operating
buildings more sustainably. More than 70 national Green Building
Councils have been established worldwide to offer advice to the
stakeholders involved, as well as to coordinate sustainability efforts
and provide leadership. Innovative environmental products and
processes such as laminated timber products, lime mortar and
render, natural insulation materials and pre-fabrication processes
are also gaining popularity and wider use. In addition, and highly
pertinent to today’s construction industry is the Paris Agreement at
the United Nations Climate Change Conference, signed by 195
countries as of July 2018 (Climate Analytics, 2018), establishing the
first legally binding global climate deal with the objective of
holding global average temperature increase to “well below 2 �C
above pre-industrial levels” (United Nations, 2015). This has sig-
nificant implications for the construction industry, particularly the
need for construction firms to meet sectoral, national and inter-
national GHG reduction commitments.

Underpinned by a construction improvement agenda (HM
Government, 2013) and innovative management practices, supply
chain management (SCM) has increasingly been pursued by firms
in the construction industry (Fulford and Standing, 2014). A con-
struction supply chain encompasses all of the organizations
involved in the delivery of the built asset to the client. These or-
ganizations are engaged in upstream and downstream flows of
products, services, finances, and information, from the manufac-
turer through to the supplier, subcontractor, main contractor, client
and in some cases to the construction end user, and the building
occupant (Pryke, 2009). SCM is a management approach that is
dedicated to developing processes, practices, tools and techniques
that increase operational efficiency and effectiveness throughout
this delivery chain (Irizarry et al., 2013; Saad et al., 2002). SCM in
construction has tended to be driven by main contractors pursuing
long-term relationships with large construction clients, with the
benefits to main contractors including managing market volatility
and enhancing profitability (Alderman and Ivory, 2007; Ive and
Murray, 2013).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stressed
the need for methods to enhance collaboration across the con-
struction supply chain, in order to expedite progress (IPCC, 2012)
and Green SCM offers such a system-level approach. Driven by
awareness of environmental impact and policy pressures as
described above, the concept of Green SCM has emerged in
research and practice. The development of Green SCM research
began in the 1990s with scholarly work such as that of Walton et al.
(1998) and has been developing alongside other environmental
ideas such as that of the circular economy adopted from industrial
ecology (Ehrenfeld, 1995). Green SCM is fundamentally about the
integration of environmental considerations into the supply chain,
including the reduction of material flows and the minimization of
inadvertent negative consequences of the processes of production
and consumption (Sarkis et al., 2011). The embedding of environ-
mental objectives alongside the concepts from SCM of inter-firm
collaboration, process integration and relationship management
offers a conceptual approach which could facilitate the trans-
formation required of the industry.

Given the importance of addressing the construction industry’s
adverse effects on the environment, and in the wake of the Paris
Agreement, the paper provides a state-of-the-art review of existing
research on Green SCM in construction to ask: where are we now
and what needs to be done? The construction sector is unique

structurally and relationally (as discussed further below) and a
systematic review of Green SCM in construction remains to be
published. The aim of this paper is twofold: First, it presents a
systematic review of the literature on Green SCM in the construc-
tion industry considering papers published up to August 2017, to
provide a description and synthesis of their findings. Second, based
on the gaps identified in the extant literature, an agenda for future
research is proposed.

The structure of the paper is as follows. The methodology of the
systematic literature review is first described, followed by a
descriptive analysis of the core set of papers is presented. A syn-
thesis of findings is developed and finally an agenda for future
research is proposed.

2. Research methodology

To identify the state-of-the-art in Green SCM in construction,
and to integrate published scholarly work on the topic, a systematic
literature review was conducted. Originating in health research,
systematic literature reviews are increasingly employed in other
research domains where a comprehensive review can contribute to
knowledge (Briner and Denyer, 2012). A systematic review may be
distinguished from a non-systematic or expert review by its focus
on transparency and rigour. An expert review may lack an explicit
statement of the search strategy or the protocol used to identify the
relevant literature. An expert reviewmay provide limited clarity on
the processes of selection of papers, evaluation of the quality of
papers, and of the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of specific
studies. As Gough et al. (2012) noted, this means that it can be
unclear in a non-systematic review if a particular paper has been
omitted through oversight or through conscious exclusion on an
unexplained basis. Where an expert review is not always compre-
hensive or methodical, a systematic review is a structured, trans-
parent and reproducible method for reviewing researchwhich uses
specified and documented processes in the identification, selection
and critical assessment of the searched literature (Gough et al.,
2012). The approach supports a high level of objectivity, in both
method and analysis, as well as replicability, and can provide a
comprehensive account of published scholarly work in a field of
study.

In their book developed from extensive experience of systematic
reviews across a range of domains, Gough et al. (2012) recommend
a set of stages for an SLR. We adopted their recommendations for
the study. Table 1 summarizes the protocol for the current review.

It is worth noting the distinction between Green SCM and
Sustainable SCM: the two terms are sometimes used interchange-
ably (and so were used in initial selection), but the meanings are
not synonymous. Green SCM considers the impact of supply chains
on the natural environment, in terms of the energy they consume,
the materials they use and the waste they generate. Sustainable
SCM encompasses a wider perspective, which considers not only
environmental issues, but also social and economic (Ahi and Searcy,
2013; Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014). Here the topic was Green SCM
e amore focused concern but one fromwhich the findingsmay also
be valuable to the broader sustainability agenda. The study began
with an initial definition of Green SCM in construction as all ini-
tiatives aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the supply
chain for the built environment. This definition is refined and
elaborated below.

To ensure the widest range of possible sources, a structured
keyword search was conducted using Explore, a proprietary front-
end populated with meta-data from over 500 sources, including
major publishers, learned societies and institutional repositories
such as Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, National Academy of
Sciences, Elsevier, Palgrave Macmillan, Taylor & Francis, Springer

Table 1
Systematic review protocol.

Stage Stage Description for the current study

1 Define the research questions and definitions What is the status of research on Green SCM in construction?
What are the key theoretical and practical insights?

2 Define the exclusion/eligibility criteria a) Paper in English
b) Published in a peer-reviewed journal
c) Published before 31st August 2017
d) Paper topic is green supply chain management
e) The paper focus is the construction sector

3 Define search terms and sources Search terms: supply chain AND (green OR sustainable) AND construction IN subject
Sources: see below

4 The map Search, screen and compile set of included studies
5 The analysis Code and critically evaluate included studies. Table 2 presents the coding structure.
6 The synthesis Integrate patterns across key themes; formulate future research agenda.

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322314

Link, Nature, Sage and Academic Press, together with institutional
repositories including the Universities of California, Cambridge and
Edinburgh,. An additional search was also made in a specialist
construction database compiled by ARCOM (Association of Re-
searchers in Construction Management).

Initial screening of papers showed the fuzzy boundaries of the
topic of Green SCM in the literature which presented a challenge in
determining the final dataset. For example, are waste management,
cement production, green procurement or reverse logistics within
the domain? The default decision was ‘inclusion’ if the paper was
found from the search terms above, as the original authors deemed
their work as relevant to Green SCM in construction through their
choice of keywords or phraseology. Where a paper focused on a
particular construction material, the decision was to include it
provided that the research or discussion crossed stakeholder
boundaries and included the perspectives of different supply chain
actors. This applied also to studies focusing on waste management.
Papers on lifecycle analysis (LCA) of materials or products were
included as the technique examines different stages along the
supply chain. The focus on Green SCM meant excluding related
topics such as environmental management systems, environmental
performance and the social aspects of sustainability. The initial
search yielded 207 papers with 44 papers finally selected for
detailed analysis. These 44 papers are referred to as the core dataset
below.

The initial coding structure comprised: location, focus, method,
aim and findings. Emergent themes were added as the analysis
progressed and comprised: tools and techniques, definition,
stakeholders, practical implications and stage of supply chain).
Analysis proceeded by coding themes: a summary was produced
for each theme. The themes of aim and findings were highly varied
and detailed, and the summaries were inadequate to represent the
range and detail. The remaining themes however permitted useful
abstraction of the main contribution of the papers and analysis was
continued on the themes listed in Table 2. The summaries were
then integrated into an initial synthesis which drew out the main
topics, gaps and areas for future research. This overview was then
checked back to the papers in a second, detailed review. The

Table 2
Coding structure.

1 Location – date, geographic settin

2 Method – case study, mixed, qua
3 Tools & techniques e e.g. decisi
4 Definition of SCM, Green SCM or
5 Stakeholders – including respons
6 Practical implications
7 Paper focus – construction indus
8 Stage – planning, design, procure

thematic summaries were extended, the overview findings were
refined, and the future agenda was expanded into greater depth to
provide the final synthesis.

To ensure rigour, several strategies were adopted. Relying only
on the judgments made by a sole researcher may weaken the val-
idity and reliability of the review (Brewerton and Millward, 2001).
Hence, the involvement of two or more analysts is recommended,
particularly during the data collection and analysis stages (Gough
et al., 2012). To improve validity and consistency, both authors
independently conducted the search and assessed the papers for
inclusion in two stages: (a) reviewing title, keywords and abstract;
and (b) skim reading of the paper. At each stage, the two re-
searchers compared their decisions for agreement and any dis-
crepancies were either resolved or the default invoked of inclusion
to the next stage. The cross-validation continued during the anal-
ysis and synthesis stages. To ensure transparency and account-
ability, there was a priori specification of the research questions,
the search criteria, criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and the
stages in analysis and synthesis.

3. Descriptive analysis

This section discusses the findings of coding themes 1 to 6 (see
Table 2).

3.1. Distribution across time, geographic locations and journals

Scholarly interest in Green SCM in general has been traced back
to the early 1990s (Zhu and Sarkis, 2006). However, the findings
indicate that the importance of the topic has lagged in construction
management research, with the earliest paper in the dataset being
published as recently as the year 2000. Since then, the concept has
steadily gained momentum from only 16% of the papers being
published up to and including 2011, interest increasing in 2012, and
a more dramatic upturn in 2016 and 2017 (see Fig. 1).

The growing recognition of the topic is also evidenced by the
wide range and multi-disciplinary nature of the publication outlets
of the 44 papers in the dataset. Papers were published in journals

g, journal

ntitative, qualitative or other
on-making, environmental regulation
Sustainable SCM
ibilities of stakeholders

try generic or specific (e.g. road maintenance, residential)
ment, construction, operation, demolition, disposal

Fig. 1. Distribution of reviewed papers according to year of publication.
Note: the 2018 total is partial (up to 31st August 2081).

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322 315

such asWasteManagement, Resource Policy, and Building Research
and Information. In total, thirty-one (31) journals published the
core papers, with only four publications including multiple papers
on the topic: ten papers were published in the Journal of Cleaner
Production, three papers in Sustainability (Switzerland), two pa-
pers in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
and two papers in WIT Transactions on Ecology and Environment.

The papers also provided a wide geographic spread (see Fig. 2).
However, it is notable that only one study was undertaken in South
America and there is a paucity of research representing sub-
Saharan Africa. This points to a gap in empirical evidence in the
global south.

The coding for focus and stage (codes 2 and 3 in Table 2) showed
wide heterogeneity and, rather than a brief description in this
section, are analyzed in Section 4.

3.2. Methods applied

Avariety of methods were used to examine the concept of Green
SCM, offering a generally strong methodological grounding for
their findings. Specialised quantitative methods were applied in 15
papers, including Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) (Kucukvar et al., 2014),
material flow analysis (Chen et al., 2017), and organizational envi-
ronmental footprint (Neppach et al., 2017). The work of
Balasubramanian (2014) is notable in that the rigorous quantitative
approach of structural modelling was employed to ascertain the
factors driving the organizational adoption of Green SCM in the
UAE construction industry. A variety of other research methods
were adopted across the core papers, including survey question-
naires (6 papers) qualitative interviews (5), case studies (6), and

Fig. 2. Geographic distribution.

mixed methods (5). Those adopting a survey approach collected
between 39 and 455 responses suitable for analysis. In most of the
papers applying a qualitative method, the number of cases was
sufficient for robust analysis, with up to 31 interview participants
involved. Case study research can be particularly valuable in
exploring Green SCM in construction as it can shed the light on
contextual issues to a greater extent than other empirical ap-
proaches and six studies adopted this method. Although action
research could yield particularly interesting insights into environ-
mental issues in SCM (Seuring and Gold, 2013), offering the po-
tential for mutual learning between practitioners and academics, it
is noteworthy that only one paper from the core set adopted this
approach (Uttam & Le Lann Roos, 2015).

The studies reviewed, therefore, were mostly based on robust
empirical data. There were a few exceptions, however, that made it
difficult to assess the methodological rigor of the studies, including
two qualitative studies with low numbers of interviewees: 4 and 6
respectively in Bohari et al. (2017) and Elbarkouky and Abdelazeem
(2013), and a paper that did not provide information on the number
of interviews upon which the results are based (Zuo et al., 2009).

3.3. Tools and techniques for Green SCM in construction

Specialised tools and techniques were proposed in nearly one
third of the papers, including lifecycle analysis (LCA) (7), complex
decision-making techniques (3) such as Choosing by Advantages
(CBA) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS), Sankey diagrams (1) and organizational envi-
ronmental foot printing (1). External frameworks (environmental
certification, regulation) were discussed in three (3) papers and
internal organizational or management approaches were the focus
of a further five (5). These papers considered the business model
(1), alliances and supplier integration (2), critical success factors
and performance measures (1) and lean methods such as 3R and 5S
(1). In addition to the tools and techniquesmentioned, a few papers
provided extensive lists of what they termed ‘enablers’
(Balasubramanian (2014; Seth et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2016). These
listed terms such as ‘process management’ and ‘corporate factors’
such as management commitment. However, no clear definition
was found of what constitutes ‘enablers’ and their distinguishing
characteristics.

3.4. Definitions of Green SCM in construction

The majority of papers in the dataset did not attempt to define
Green SCM in construction. Most of the papers that focused on
secondary SCM concepts offered definitions of these, for example:
green manufacturing (Seth et al., 2016), green procurement (Shen
et al., 2017), sustainable supply mix and sustainable materials
management (Chen et al., 2017), sustainable or lean construction
(Sertyesilisik, 2016), waste management (Kucukvar et al., 2016),
and reverse logistics (Chileshe et al., 2016). Balasubramanian (2014)
proposed that Green SCM in construction is based on three di-
mensions: environmental, economic and operational performance,
and these may also be interpreted as dimensions for evaluation.
Where definitions of Green SCM were provided by the authors, the
majority assumed an operational stance, describing the processes
involved. Adawiyah et al. (2015:1020) for example proposed that
Green SCM comprises “green purchasing, green manufacturing,
green distribution (marketing) and reverse logistics”. Taking a
broader perspective, Da Rocha and Sattler (2009) drew on defini-
tions of SCM from Ballou et al. (2000) as the activities involved in
the flow of goods or services from primary source to the end-client.
The same paper also included reference to Lambert and Cooper’s
(2000) definition of SCM as the integration of the main processes

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322316

between suppliers and end clients to add value for stakeholders.
The latter usefully draws attention to a strategic business objective
of SCM e that of adding value. However, the definition is quite
narrow in its limitation to integrated processes: this omits critical
aspects of SCM such as developing inter-organizational
relationships.

Several papers, though not all, considered the objectives of
Green SCM. These were argued to be: increasing the competitive
advantage of a firm (Woo et al., 2016), providing stakeholders with
added value (Da Rocha and Sattler, 2009), improving the perfor-
mance of a supply chain ecologically, economically and opera-
tionally (Balasubramanian, 2014), enhancing the sustainability of
supply, improving service and increasing market share (Adawiyah
et al., 2015), increasing the efficiency of operations, reducing
costs and risks, and for ethical considerations (Dadhich et al., 2015),
and reducing adverse environmental effects (Balasubramanian &
Shukla, 2017b).

Unexpectedly, only a limited number of papers in the core
sample took a more conceptual viewpoint of Green SCM. A few
authors recognised the holistic, end-to-end conceptualisation of
green supply (Da Rocha and Sattler, 2009; Balasubramanian and
Shukla, 2017a) and underlined the role of greater client-supplier
process integration (Da Rocha and Sattler, 2009; Zhou et al.,
2013), as well as green practices being assimilated into business
processes (Balasubramanian, 2014; Balasubramanian and Shukla,
2017b; Nasir et al., 2017) and inter-organizational SCM (Ketikidis
et al., 2013). The findings here of a failure in construction man-
agement research to consider business sustainability principles
mirror those of an earlier paper. Specifically, Ahi and Searcy (2013)
underlined the lack of emphasis on stakeholders and the absence of
a long-term view to greening the supply chain in the wider Green
SCM literature.

3.5. Stakeholders

The construction supply chain is diverse, complex and could
involve not only hundreds but thousands of actors engaged in
dyadic, short-term supply chain relationships. The core papers
generally reflected this complexity to some extent, with reference
made to a variety of supply chain actors including construction
clients and developers (10), construction professionals including
architect/designers, engineers, project managers and specialist
subcontractors (15), main contractors (4), as well as the expected
suppliers and logistics operators mentioned by most. However,
one-third of the core papers failed to consider the role of stake-
holders – a notable weakness in the literature reviewed. The papers
in the review reflected a divergent view on the level of commit-
ment and motivation of the multiple stakeholder roles. The role of
the construction client/developer as a catalyst for environmen-
talism was argued by some (Udawatta et al., 2015). The role of
designers was underlined as important given their influence over
the choice of material and the final product design (Albino and
Berardi, 2012; Arroyo et al., 2016; Sertyesilisik, 2016), although
Wong et al. (2016) noted that designers may have limited in-
centives to collaborate fully in green supply chains.

In coding for stakeholders in the analysis, the core papers were
assessed on how they engaged with and reflected upon the
particular characteristics of the construction industry. Nearly all the
papers introduced their research topic by first underlining the
considerable negative environmental impacts of the construction
industry, but it is notable that only a few of the papers extended
this to build a picture of the unique nature of the industry. Frag-
mentation was mentioned by Dainty and Brooke (2004) and Aho
(2013), while Arroyo et al. (2016) and Neppach et al. (2017)
considered the complexity of projects and the multiple

stakeholders involved. A few papers considered the structure and
processes of construction systems (Sertyesilisik, 2016; Wong et al.,
2016). Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a, b) discussed the
project-based operational processes of construction and the large
number of firms involved in short-term, dyadic contractual re-
lationships. In addition, the inherent uncertainty, instability, and
slowness of change in the construction industry were underlined
by Albino and Berardi (2012). The industry’s contractual arrange-
ments were seen as deficient from the ideal models of SCM,
particularly as contractors and suppliers are often reluctant to
develop and adopt innovative approaches because benefits of these
are perceived to be realized exclusively by clients (Albino and
Berardi, 2012).

3.6. Practical implications of Green SCM in construction

Several practical recommendations for managers and policy
makers were offered by the papers reviewed. Supply chain man-
agers in construction can lower environmental impact through
operational changes such as eco-design (Sertyesilisik, 2016),
adopting environmental standards (Bohari et al., 2017), purchasing
sustainably (Shen et al., 2017), and adopting practices that include
recycling and closed-loop systems (Chileshe et al., 2016), as well as
considering environmental impact in measuring their performance
and in managing risk (Zou and Couani, 2012).

Amendments to construction contracts are needed to support
green procurement such as the inclusion of green requirements in
tendering for design and in selecting contractors and operators, as
well as including environmental elements in bid evaluation and
pre-qualification criteria (Sertyesilisik, 2016). Warranties which
cover green innovations that may entail greater risks may be
required (Albino and Berardi, 2012). Green SCM also necessitates
the availability of sufficient strategic and operational management
capabilities and extended commitment in overseeing the successful
transition to new ways of working (Dainty and Brooke, 2004), in
addition to cultural change (Sertyesilisik, 2016). Sustainability
expertise is vital (Chen et al., 2015) and could be contracted for a
project (Bohari et al., 2017). In alignment with understanding in the
general literature on SCM on the importance of relationships, a
small subset of the core papers addressed the management of re-
lationships in construction supply chains. The potential was
considered for greater integration among supply chain actors
through the establishment of strong relationships that can enhance
trust, such as alliances (Dainty & Brooke, 2004; Da Rocha and
Sattler, 2009), and co-makership (Albino and Berardi, 2012).
There has been a discussion too of the need for greater alignment of
perceptions of value and performance among supply chain firms
(Aho, 2013).

Greater understanding of contextual issues when implementing
Green SCM was emphasized by several papers, including the
geographic context (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010), and the social
and economic contexts (Da Rocha and Sattler, 2009). New business
models could be introduced that enable greater alignment between
pricing and the value accrued by clients and the wider society (Aho,
2013). The role of regulation and standards have been described as
pivotal in driving change with regulation signalling the commit-
ment of governments to the environmental agenda, and standards
offering guidance and benchmarks (Bohari et al., 2017). To support
Green SCM in construction, comprehensive green procurement
standards have been argued to be necessary as well as industry
certification programs, and publicly available databases could
facilitate accessibility to product environmental performance data
as well as exemplars of successful Green SCM in construction
(Wong et al., 2016).

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322 317

4. Synthesis

Having presented the main findings under theme headings in
Section 3, this section advances three topics for further discussion:
systematic classification of the literature, comprehensive definition
of Green SMC in construction, and theoretical framing. The three
topics emerged from the foregoing analysis as important for further
development of the domain.

Table 3
Coverage scorecard.

Holistic Functional

Generic
construction

Zou and Couani (2012)
Aho (2013)
Elbarkouky and
Abdelazeem (2013)
Ketikidis et al. (2013)
Zhou et al. (2013)
Balasubramanian (2014)
Adawiyah et al. (2015)
Sertyesilisik (2016)
Neppach et al. (2017)
Nasir et al. (2017)
Balasubramanian and
Shukla (2017a)
Balasubramanian and
Shukla (2017b)

Ofori (2000) [A]
Dainty and Brooke (2004) [B]
Sarkis et al. (2012) [C]
Mahamadu et al. (2013) [E]
Kucukvar et al. (2014) [B]
Ruparathna and Hewage (2015) [A]
Udawatta et al. (2015) [B]
Chileshe et al. (2016) [B]
Wong et al. (2016) [A]
Ahmadian et al. (2017) [A]
Bohari et al. (2017) [A]
Chen et al. (2017) [D]
Shen et al. (2017) [A]

Construction
subdomain

Hendrickson and
Horvath (2000) [xi]
Albino and Berardi
(2012) [xii]
Dadhich et al. (2015) [x]
Faleschini et al. (2016)
[ix]
Abdul Ghani et al. (2017)
[xi]

Irland (2007) [I-iii] Da Rocha and
Sattler (2009) [G-ii]
Zuo et al. (2009) [H-iii]
Blengini and Garbarino (2010) [G-
iv]
Hsueh and Yan (2013) [F-i]
Rizzi et al. (2014) [H-viii]
Chen et al. (2015) [F-iv]
Uttam & Le Lann Roos (2015) [H-v]
Arroyo et al. (2016) [F-vi]
Seth et al. (2016) [I-vii]
Kim et al. (2016) [K-i]
Kucukvar et al. (2016) [G-v]
Salzer et al. (2016) [F-ii]
Woo et al. (2016) [J-i]

4.1. Classification

The wide range of journals in which the papers were published
indicates the heterogeneous nature of the studies. To aid descrip-
tion and analysis of the field, we sought an appropriate classifica-
tion of the papers. Based on the themes of focus and stage (the final
two themes in Table 2), we created a two by two matrix which
offered a useful scorecard to assess coverage. The first dimension on
thematrix consideredwhether the paper addressed Green SCM as a
holistic concept (‘Holistic’), considering multiple management
processes around materials, information and financial flows, versus
focusing on a specific process such as procurement or waste
management (‘Functional’). The second dimension considered
whether the paper addressed the construction industry in general
(‘Construction generic’) versus a focus on a specific subdomain such
as amaterial (cement, aggregate, etc.), subsector (e.g. residential) or
stakeholder (e.g. a major contractor).

Papers which addressed generic construction at a functional
level examined:

A. procurement (6 papers),
B. waste management including reverse logistics (4),
C. decision-making in purchasing (1),
D. materials management (1) and
E. information exchange (1)

Papers taking a functional view on a construction subdomain
investigated:

F. decision-making in purchasing (4 papers),
G. waste management (3),
H. procurement (3),
I. manufacture and product certification (2),
J. information exchange (1) and
K. supplier environmental capability (1).

The subdomains comprised:

i. Major contractors and suppliers (3 papers),
ii. Residential construction (2),
iii. Timber (2),
iv. Aggregate and minerals (2),
v. Specific projects (2),
vi. Ceiling tiles (1),
vii. Cement (1) and
viii. Roads (1).

The papers which took a holistic view of Green SCM in a
particular subdomain examined:

ix. Aggregate (1 paper)
x. Plasterboard (1)
xi. Comparison of GSMC by subsector within construction (2)

and
xii. Residential construction (1).

As the field develops, it may be useful to further categorize
within construction subdomains but a simple two by two matrix
appeared adequate at this stage to map coverage and identify the
quadrant(s) with less research attention to date. Table 3 presents
the scorecard, with papers listed in chronological order, indexed in
square brackets with reference to the classification lists above. Cell
1 requires no indexes as the papers address holistic approaches
across construction generically.

4.2. A comprehensive definition of Green SCM in construction

Section 3.4 discussed the limitations in definitions of Green SCM
in the core papers. To address this gap, we offer a comprehensive
definition of Green SCM in construction. This is grounded in the
definitions summarised in Section 3.4 and a sample reference is
providing for each point.

For an organization in construction, Green SCM comprises the
management of all activities related to minimizing the environ-
mental impact of all its supply chains which contribute to its final
products (Da Rocha and Sattler, 2009), with the aim of achieving
zero net harm to the environment (United Nations Environment,
2017). The objectives of Green SCM consist of improved environ-
mental performance (Balasubramanian & Shukla, 2014), and
improved business performance through greater efficiency,
increased competitiveness and increased value to stakeholders
(Woo et al., 2016). The activities comprise, at a minimum:

1. Green purchasing and procurement (Shen et al., 2017): using
environmental criteria and assessment tools in evaluating and
choosing products and services based on their environmental
performance.

For different actors in the supply chain, Green SMC in con-
struction can additionally include:

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322318

2. Green design (Sertyesilisik, 2016): designing environmentally-
friendly construction products in terms of the material used,
the production process, and the product-in-use consumption of
resources and toxicity.

3. Green manufacturing (Seth et al., 2016): limiting the adverse
environmental effects of the manufacturing process through
consideration of energy use, water consumption, and toxicity
with consideration of the design of the production process and
packaging of goods.

4. Green logistics (Adawiyah et al., 2015): reducing transportation-
related environmental impacts by considering the distance
travelled, the number of journeys, the volume and weight of
goods, and fuel consumption.

5. Waste management (Kucukvar et al., 2016): reducing the use of
resources and increasing the re-use of recycled material.

6. Green operation (Balasubramanian, 2014): reducing environ-
mental harm during the product’s use by considering its energy
and water efficiency.

7. End-of-life management (Chileshe et al., 2016): maximizing a
product’s materials’ re-use through reverse logistics and circular
economy principles.

Green SCM in construction requires management of these ac-
tivities to achieve the required objectives (Sertyesilisik, 2016), that
is, strategic direction, planning, control, measurement, monitoring
and evaluation. The activities, objectives andmanagement of Green
SCMwill vary by the role of the firm, as discussed below. Successful
Green SCM requires relationship management as part of the greater
integration of business processes and systems along supply chains
(Ahi and Searcy, 2013).

The work of Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a) pointed to the
value in mapping between role and activities. Their research linked
detailed green practices, drivers and barriers to four roles: de-
velopers, contractors, architects/consultants and suppliers. Noting
from Da Rocha and Sattler (2009) the importance of consideration
of sub-contractors and from work on materials (e.g. Seth et al.,
2016), the importance of manufacturers, we extended the list of
roles to six. Based on our reading of the core papers, Table 4 pre-
sents a proposed alignment between supply chain roles and Green
SCM activities.

4.3. Theoretical framing

Given that Green SCM is a form of SCM (Ahi and Searcy, 2013),
our expectation was that the research papers would draw exten-
sively on established SCM work to inform their studies theoreti-
cally. However, this was not the case. Use of the SCM literature was
generally limited although a few papers harnessed previous in-
sights, including an end-to-end perspective and the importance of
trust to facilitate inter-firm integration (Da Rocha and Sattler,
2009), issues of supply chain integration (Ofori, 2000) and the
importance of co-makers in innovation (Albino and Berardi, 2012).
Beyond the limited use of previous work on SCM, the absence of

Table 4
Construction supply chain role and primary Green SCM activities.

Client Major contractor Design team

Green purchasing

X

X X
Green design X
Green manufacturing
Green logistics
Waste management X
Green operation X x
End-of-life management X

theoretical frameworks for Green SCM was a visible weakness in
the literature surveyed, with a few exceptions. Where studies
examined ancillary concepts such as green procurement and
reverse logistics, some frameworks were suggested. Sertyesilisik
(2016) proposed extending Porter’s diamond framework of fac-
tors influencing competitiveness (Porter, 1998) to include re-
quirements of future generations and broader ‘sustainability
conditions’ Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a) critiqued earlier
theoretical frameworks of Seuring andMüller (2008a, b) and Carter
and Rogers (2008) as not comprehensive and no longer up-to-date.
They went on to offer the only new theoretical framework pro-
posed for Green SCM in the papers reviewed (Balasubramanian,
2014; Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017a). Deriving first a
quadrant-based categorization of enablers of Green SCM, based on
an extensive review of the Green SCM literature (Balasubramanian,
2014), Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a) proposed and tested a
nine-construct structural model, in which they demonstrated the
relationship between internal and external drivers and barriers to
core and facilitating green practices, and the relationship between
core and facilitating green practices and environmental, economic
and organizational performance. Further, they tested these re-
lationships for four main roles in construction (developer/client;
architect/designer; major contractor; material suppliers). In our
view, this represents an important step forward in the literature by
offering a tested framework which future research can seek to
apply or extend.

5. Future research agenda

The preceding sections have described and analyzed existing
research on Green SCM in the construction industry. In this section,
the second objective of the study is addressed: drawing from the
core set of papers and the wider literature, an agenda for future
research is proposed. The subheadings present a succinct aim for
future work which is then expanded in the subsection text.

5.1. Engage with the unique characteristics of the construction
industry

The complexity of supply chains in construction speaks to the
need for both detailed, subdomain specific and sector generic
research. The coverage scorecard in Table 3 points to the need for
more research in all areas but particularly in taking a holistic
approach and addressing relevant subdomains within the sector
(lower left quadrant). For example, it remains unknown whether
the same principles or the same priorities in operational processes
apply to all types of projects. Are there differences between man-
aging the supply chains for residential development where high
numbers of units of similar design will be constructed and man-
aging the supply chains for a hospital development, for example?
Similarly, there is limited knowledge of the approaches that should
be taken for different components and materials e are the pro-
cesses necessary for the supply chain for steel beams the same as

Sub-contractors Materials suppliers Materials manufacturers

X X X
X
X

X X X
X X X

X

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322 319

those for the supply chains of window systems? In addition, studies
are required which consider issues by the size of the focal
organization.

The construction industry and its constituent supply chains
exhibit unique characteristics that differentiate it from other in-
dustries. The project-based nature of construction which contrasts
with long-term alliances in manufacturing, for example, means
that relationships between commissioning firms and suppliers are
often one-off, short-term, and potentially adversarial (Ofori, 2000).
This works against the SCM ideal of deepening relationships with
suppliers to pursue integration of processes (Seuring and Gold,
2013). An organization in isolation cannot achieve a sustainable
product (Loorbach et al., 2010). In particular, the development of
trust between firms, which has been identified as crucial to
stronger inter-organizational relationships (Loorbach et al., 2010),
takes time to develop (Pomponi et al., 2015): If projects are ulti-
mately time-limited undertakings, and contracts are likely to be
short-term or renegotiated frequently, the context does not
encourage the growth of trust (Lu et al., 2016). Within construction,
it has been noted that partnering and alliances do not necessarily
bring trust and absence of competition (Bossink, 2007; Bresnen and
Marshall, 2000). Indeed, previous research has shown that SCM in
construction is often promoted by main contractors in collabora-
tion with large construction clients. Their pursuit of profitability is
often to the detriment of other supply chain members, mostly Tier
2 subcontractors who may suffer from opportunistic behaviour by
main contractors (Alderman and Ivory, 2007). Any effort towards
greening the construction supply chain is, thus, first tasked with
understanding and resolving those deeply seeded conflicts among
supply chain actors to enable the establishment of a more ‘collab-
orative paradigm’ (Vachon and Klassen, 2006) for superior envi-
ronmental performance. Mechanisms to resolve such conflicts
among green supply chain actors warrant further investigation. The
sheer number of construction supply chain actors is a further
challenge (Rezgui and Miles, 2009). With potentially thousands of
suppliers on a large construction project, it is difficult for a single
contractor to manage the development of relationships and over-
lapping processes. These challenges, which characterize the con-
struction sector, merit a specific research focus.

5.2. Take an end-to-end perspective

As argued above, a holistic, end-to-end and long-term
perspective is needed which in practical terms should look for
the greatest impacts along the supply chain in order to achieve the
greatest and/or most rapid improvement. Although
Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a) suggested that the failings of
any one link in the supply chain weaken the supply chain’s overall
performance, we argue that not all supply chain roles are equal.
Supply chain actors may vary dramatically with respect to their
environmental impact. Construction supply chains are by no means
monolithic, and efforts to green the supply chain cannot be
managed as such. Several supply chain actors may adopt green
practices faster – either because the benefits of going ‘green’ are
more tangible, or because green practices are readily adaptable and
cost-effective – while others may lag behind. Further, although
much valuable work has been and is being undertaken on sys-
tematic methods for complex decision making (Chen et al., 2015;
Arroyo et al., 2016), feedback from practitioners demonstrated that
the demands in the sector meant that few organizations have the
time to develop expertise or time for project team members to
apply such expertise (Arroyo et al., 2016). We contend that re-
sources (finance, expertise, time) are best applied to the most
damaging aspects across the chain. This points to the value of a
‘hotspot’ analysis along the whole of the supply chain (Dadhich

et al., 2015) to facilitate the most effective commitment of re-
sources and potentially quicker beneficial impact. A system of pri-
oritization may be a pragmatic approach to the allocation of
resources.

5.3. Harness other perspectives

In order to manage changes to supply chain processes, strategic
leadership is needed as well as setting operational goals and
increasingly challenging objectives (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Such
transitions depend on innovation, creativity and (usually) individ-
ual passion (Loorbach et al., 2010). Innovation for a sustainable
supply chain has been argued to be systematic, complex, collabo-
rative, and to require both internal and external dynamic capabil-
ities (Gao et al., 2017). Such innovations often seek to achieve a
positive performance on all three dimensions of sustainability:
economic, social and environmental, and look to move from small
incremental change to radical breakthrough changes in inter-
organizational optimization. At this point, a further conceptual
integration of innovation theory and SCM with Green SCM is
necessary so as to provide further insight into inter-organizational
processes, such as inter-organizational knowledge transfer,
learning and the development of collaborative relationships be-
tween supply chain actors. Research should particularly involve
small and medium size (SMEs) enterprises which constitute the
major share of construction firms. Research should also examine in
more detail the important role played by industry bodies (Wong
et al., 2016).

A resource-based view of the firm (Bowen et al., 2001) postu-
lates that environmental management systems and practices are
often adopted by firms in the pursuit of increased competitive
advantage (Gold et al., 2010). In this perspective, green supply is
seen to be shaped by the deployment of a firm’s internal supply
management capabilities and resources. Thus, greening the supply
chain should be supported by sufficient competencies, capabilities,
and resources. A resource-based view of the firm could illuminate
future research on Green SCM.

A focus on inter-firm capabilities could be informed by a rela-
tional view (Gold et al., 2010) which argues that sustainable SCM
can bring about sustained inter-firm competitive advantage
through the idiosyncratic combination of Inter-firm resources and
capabilities emerging from collaborative relationships across an
entire supply chain. The development of such novel, complex and
difficult-to-imitate inter-firm capabilities through interaction and
value co-creation relationships may yield green supply chains
which offer a competitive advantage. Hence, this perspective rep-
resents an important component of the future research agenda,
particularly if examined by adopting rich case study methods that
are capable of shedding further light on the interrelated and highly
complex relationships between supply chain actors. Empirical
exploration and testing could focus on the analysis of how effective
supply chain relationships are established, how they can be
encouraged, how risk and rewards are distributed, and the condi-
tions that ultimately lead to successful value co-creation and sus-
tained competitive advance across the supply chain through
greater environmental performance.

5.4. Make it practical

Despite the recommendations for practice, the studies in the
review showed little insight into the management competencies,
organizational culture, or strategic and operational approaches to
managing change over time. The literature has, as yet, relatively
little practical guidance to offer organizations seeking to green their
supply chain. Scholarly work that is beneficial to practitioners is

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322320

that which can offer guidance onwhere to begin Green SCM efforts
and the priorities that need to be considered. Bossink (2007) 8-
stage sustainable innovation model offers one such work. Practical
guidance could also be developed for practitioners on building
more collaborative relationships with their suppliers that ulti-
mately support effective communications flow, system integration,
and trust. Considerations should be given to the complexity of
these relationships, including the volume of products that a sup-
plier may manage, the amount of up-to-date information that is
accessible and maintainable, as well as legal issues such as ‘who
owns this information?’ and ‘who is liable in cases of error?‘. Future
research also needs to address the dynamic nature of change: or-
ganizations and supply chains cannot change overnight. Guidance
on incremental approaches to change is likely to be helpful to
practitioners.

5.5. Keep the ultimate goals in mind

The concept of ‘true sustainability’ of Pagell and Wu (2009) was
absent from the construction research reviewed here. Pagell and
Wu (2009) argue that to be truly sustainable, a supply chain
should be able to perform profitably indefinitely, with no envi-
ronmental impact, and with the potential of net environmental
benefit as the ideal. Greening a supply chain is a continuous process
and the management of greening is ongoing. As one area improves,
changing issues, standards, expectations, technologies, data and
potential in other areas will warrant attention. Rather than Green
Supply Chain Management, it may be more appropriate to refer to
Greening the Supply Chain (GtSC) in order to place the emphasis
differently, on the challenges of making incremental progress.
Given the scale and urgency of environmental problems, radical
change may be ideal but in a system as complex as construction
supply chains, with hundreds of actor-organizations and thousands
of actor-individuals, radical change is rare and most change is
progressive and incremental. It is this progressive change that re-
quires active management.

The research reviewed also fell short of considering the wider
set of societal stakeholders. Referring to the original definition of
sustainable development (Bruntland, 1987), the stakeholders
affected by and affecting the environmental performance of con-
struction supply chains include not only today’s communities.
Inevitably, the ability of future generations to meet the needs of
their lifestyle and quality of life is impacted by today’s supply
chains’ consumption of resources and pollution of the environ-
ment. Nevertheless, none of the papers in the core sample
considered future generations as key stakeholders or contemplated
how their needs could be addressed through effective Green SCM.
Hence, in future research, consideration must be given not only to
clients, construction professionals, labourers, and occupants of the
built environment, but also to local and distant communities, future
generations and the natural world.

5.6. Include critical stances

There is as yet little critical appraisal of Green SCM in con-
struction. Critical stances on SCM have argued that the notion
overlooks individual agency and context, in its assumptions that
supply chains can be designed or optimized without reference to
the people, cultures, and norms within which they operate
(Adamides et al., 2012). Issues of power e inherent in all social
interactions (Russell, 1938) e are not examined (Faria, 2004). The
assumption that goals among suppliers and the dominant organi-
zation are aligned is rarely discussed (Adamides et al., 2012). A
positivist approach underlies much previous work, with a default
assumption of instrumentalism e that GSMC is undertaken for

reasons of enhancing profit margins and/or reputation (Gold and
Schleper, 2017). Such a position reduces human actors to the one-
dimensional pursuit of ‘rational utility’, overlooking consideration
of ethics and societal good, including the understanding of ‘true
sustainability’ as discussed above. A recent paper, published after
the SLR, offers valuable development of theoretical framings of
Green SCM in construction from a realist perspective
(Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2018) but may nevertheless be
critiqued on its underlying theoretical paradigm. The notion of
drivers and barriers aligns with Lewin’s (1951) concept of force field
analysis but stops short of recognizing the forces as mutually
interdependent and constituent of norms of action (Burnes, 2004).
A binary differentiation of forces internal and external to a firm is
also problematic as the boundary between an organization and its
external environment is not distinct (Myers et al., 2012). The field of
Green SCM in construction will clearly benefit from drawing on
critical approaches to sustainable supply chain management to
broaden, deepen and enrich intellectual exploration of its applica-
tion and implications.

6. Conclusion

This study applied a systematic literature review to offer a
comprehensive and rigorous perspective on Green SCM research
published before the end of August 2017 in the construction in-
dustry. The scholarly work reviewed is of significant value in
advancing Green SCM in construction. The reviewed sources have
been described according to the publication outlet, date of publi-
cation, geographic setting, methods used, tools and techniques,
conceptual definition, and the role of stakeholders. The practical
implications deriving from the papers were also underlined. Syn-
thesis has resulted in a proposed categorization of research ap-
proaches and a comprehensive definition of Green SCM in
construction was also developed. The review opens interesting
opportunities for future research and underlines the need for an
end-to-end perspective, engagement with the unique characteris-
tics of the industry, a focus on the ultimate goals of environmental
sustainability, and on gaps in practical guidance, use of insights
from relevant theoretical perspectives, and expansion to include
critical stances.

Green SCM may hold the competitive edge in the 21st century’s
construction industry as increased ethical and environmental
awareness among communities as well as construction clients
grows. The pressure on the construction industry to transform itself
to address its role in environmental and climate damage will only
increase. It is hoped that the research agenda proposed some timely
insights and reminders which may prove useful in future research
in this vibrant and vital research domain.

References

Note: core papers included in the systematic literature review are indicated with*
* Abdul Ghani, N.M.A., Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Bhutta, M.K., 2017. From green

buildings to green supply chains: an integrated input-output life cycle assess-
ment and optimization framework for carbon footprint reduction. Manag. En-
viron. Qual. 28 (4), 532e548.

Adamides, E.D., Papachristos, G., Pomonis, N., 2012. Critical realism in supply chain
research: understanding the dynamics of a seasonal goods supply chain. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 42 (10), 906e930.

* Adawiyah, W.R., Pramuka, B.A., Najmudin, J.D.P., 2015. Green supply chain man-
agement and its impact on construction sector small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) performance: a case of Indonesia. Int. Bus. Manag. 9 (6), 1018e1024.

Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 329e341.

* Ahmadian, F.F.,A., Rashidi, T.H., Akbarnezhad, A., Waller, S.T., 2017. BIM-enabled
sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Eng. Construct. Archi-
tect. Manag. 24 (4), 668e695.

* Aho, I., 2013. Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery
of sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 41 (1), 110e114.

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322 321

* Albino, V., Berardi, U., 2012. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian
case studies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 21 (6), 387e400.

Alderman, N., Ivory, C., 2007. Partnering in major contracts: paradox and metaphor.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (4), 386e393.

* Arroyo, P., Tommelein, I.D., Ballard, G., 2016. Selecting globally sustainable ma-
terials: a case study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (2), 05015015.

* Balasubramanian, S., 2014. A structural analysis of green supply chain manage-
ment enablers in the UAE construction sector. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 19 (2),
131e150.

* Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., 2017a. Green supply chain management: an
empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Manag. 22 (1),
58e81.

* Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., 2017b. Green supply chain management: the case
of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Prod. Plan. Control
28 (14), 1116e1138.

Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., 2018. Environmental supply chain management in
the construction sector: theoretical underpinnings. Int. Res. Logist. Res. Appl. 21
(5), 502e528.

Ballou, R.H., Gilbert, S.M., Mukherjee, A., 2000. New managerial challenges from
supply chain opportunities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 29 (1), 7e18.

* Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin
(Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.
Prod. 18 (10e11), 1021e1030.

* Bohari, A., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Teo, M., 2017. Green-oriented procurement for
building projects: preliminary findings from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 148,
690e700.

Bossink, B.A.G., 2007. The inter-organizational innovation processes of sustainable
building: a Dutch case of joint building innovation in sustainability. Build. En-
viron. 42 (12), 4086e4092.

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2001. The role of supply
management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10 (2), 174e189.

Bresnen, M., Marshall, N., 2000. Partnering in construction: a critical review of is-
sues, problems and dilemmas. Constr. Manag. Econ. 18 (2), 229e237.

Brewerton, P., Millward, L., 2001. Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publica-
tions, London.

Briner, R.B., Denyer, D., 2012. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice
and scholarship tool. In: Rousseau, D.M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Evidence-Based Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 112e129.

Brundtland, G., 1987. Our Common Future: Report of the 1987 World Commission
on Environment and Development. United Nations, Oslo.

Burnes, B., 2004. Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal.
J. Manag. Stud. 41 (6), 977e1002.

Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5),
360e387.

* Chen, P.-C., Liu, K.-H., Ma, H.-W., 2017. Resource and waste-stream modelling and
visualization as decision support tools for sustainable materials management.
J. Clean. Prod. 150, 16e25.

* Chen, R.-H., Lin, Y., Tseng, M.-L., 2015. Multicriteria analysis of sustainable
development indicators in the construction minerals industry in China. Resour.
Pol. 46 (1), 123e133.

* Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M.R., Lehmann, S., Udeaja, C., 2016.
Analysis of reverse logistics implementation practices by South Australian
construction organisations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (3), 332e356.

Climate Analytics, 2018. Paris Agreement ratification tracker. http://
climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker.html. (Accessed 5 August
2018).

* Dadhich, P., Genovese, A., Kumar, N., Acquaye, A., 2015. Developing sustainable
supply chains in the UK construction industry: a case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
164, 271e284.

* Dainty, A.R.J., Brooke, R.J., 2004. Towards improved construction waste mini-
misation: a need for improved supply chain integration?. Struct. Surv. 22 (1),
20e29.

* Da Rocha, C.G., Sattler, M.A., 2009. A discussion on the reuse of building com-
ponents in Brazil: an analysis of major social, economical and legal factors.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (2), 104e112.

Ehrenfeld, J.R., 1995. Design for the environment: a new framework for strategic
decisions. Environ. Qual. Manag. 4 (4), 37e51.

* Elbarkouky, M.M.G., Abdelazeem, G., 2013. A green supply chain assessment for
construction projects in developing countries. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 179,
1331e1341.

European Union, 2015. Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Available online
from: http://bit.ly/1ERulE1.

* Faleschini, F., Zanini, M.A., Pellegrino, C., Pasinato, S., 2016. Sustainable manage-
ment and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size inte-
grated plant. Waste Manag. 49, 146e155.

Faria, A., 2004. Theorising networks from a critical realist standpoint: the discovery
of power and contextual issues within and outside ‘networks’. In: Fleetwood, S.,
Ackroyd, S. (Eds.), Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management
Studies. Routledge, London, pp. 211e233.

Fulford, R., Standing, C., 2014. Construction industry productivity and the potential
for collaborative practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (2), 15e326.

Gao, D., Xu, Z., Ruan, Y.Z., Lu, H., 2017. From a systematic literature review to in-
tegrated definition for sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI). J. Clean. Prod.
142 (4), 1518e1538.

Gold, S., Schleper, M.C., 2017. A pathway towards true sustainability: a recognition
foundation of sustainable supply chain management. Eur. Manag. J. 35 (4),
425e429.

Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and
inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Envi-
ron. Manag. 17 (4), 230e245.

Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., 2012. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage,
London.

* Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., 2000. Resource use and environmental emissions of
US construction sectors. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 126 (1), 38e44.

HM Government, 2013. Construction 2025. Industrial Strategy: Government and
Industry in Partnership. The Stationary Office, London, UK.

* Hsueh, S.-L., Yan, M.-R., 2013. A multi-methodology contractor assessment model
for facilitating green innovation: the view of energy and environmental pro-
tection. Sci. World J. 624340.

Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., Acquaye, A., 2013.
Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildingsda review of current trends.
Energy Build. 66, 232e245.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012. Special Report on
Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation online: https://
www.ipcc.ch.

Irizarry, J., Karan, E.P., Jalaei, F., 2013. Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual
monitoring of construction supply chain management. Autom. ConStruct. 31,
241e254.

* Irland, L.C., 2007. Developing markets for certified wood products: greening the
supply chain for construction materials. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 201e216.

Ive, G., Murray, A., 2013. Trade Credit in the UK Construction Industry: an Empirical
Analysis of Construction Contractor Financial Positioning Performance.
Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills, London.

* Ketikidis, P.H., Hayes, O.P., Lazuras, L., Gunasekaran, A., Koh, S.C.L., 2013. Envi-
ronmental practices and performance and their relationships among Kosovo
construction companies: a framework for analysis in transition economies. Int.
J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 14 (1), 115e130.

* Kim, M.G., Woo, C., Rho, J.J., Chung, Y., 2016. Environmental capabilities of sup-
pliers for green supply chain management in construction projects: a case study
in Korea. Sustainability 8 (1), 1e17. Switzerland.

* Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of
alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-
linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 32 (6), 500e508.

* Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2016. Life cycle assessment and optimization-
based decision analysis of construction waste recycling for a LEED-certified
university building. Sustainability 8 (1), 89.

Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 29 (1), 65e83.

Lewin, K., 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Row, New York.
Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J.C., Whiteman, G., Rotmans, J., 2010. Business strategies for

transitions towards sustainable systems. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 19 (2), 133e146.
Lucon, O., Urge-Vorsatz, A., Zain Ahmed, H., Akbari, P., Bertoldi, L.F., Al, E., 2014.

Buildings. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 5th Assess-
ment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge.

Lu, P., Qian, L., Chu, Z., Xu, X., 2016. Role of opportunism and trust in construction
projects: empirical evidence from China. J. Manag. Eng. 32 (2), 05015009.

* Mahamadu, A.M., Mahdjoubi, L., Booth, C.A., 2013. Challenges to digital collabo-
rative exchange for sustainable project delivery through building information
modelling technologies. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 179, 547e557.

Martin, C., 2017. New York City to Require Big Buildings to Cut Carbon Emissions.
Accessed. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-14/new-york-
city-to-require-big-buildings-to-cut-carbon-emissions. (Accessed 5 August
2018).

Myers, P., Hulks, S., Wiggins, L., 2012. Organizational Change: Perspectives on
Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

* Nasir, M.H.A., Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Koh, S.C.L., Yamoah, F., 2017. Comparing
linear and circular supply chains: a case study from the construction industry.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183 (Part B), 443e457.

* Neppach, S., Nunes, K.R., Schebek, L., 2017. Organizational environmental foot
printing in German construction companies. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (1), 78e86.

* Ofori, G., 2000. Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 6 (3e4), 195e206.

Pagell, M., Shevchenko, A., 2014. Why research in sustainable supply chain man-
agement should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 44e55.

Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag.
45 (2), 37e56.

Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L., Rossi Tafuri, S., 2015. Trust development and horizontal
collaboration in logistics: a theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain
Manag.: Int. J. 20 (1), 83e97.

Porter, M.E., 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition, Vol. 76, No. 6.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 77e90.

Pryke, S., 2009. Construction Supply Chain Management: Concepts and Case
Studies, vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Chester.

Rezgui, Y., Miles, J., 2009. Exploring the potential of SME alliances in the con-
struction sector. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (5), 558e567.

* Rizzi, F., Frey, M., Testa, F., Appolloni, A., 2014. Environmental value chain in green
SME networks: the threat of the Abilene paradox. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 265e275.

S. Badi, N. Murtagh / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 312e322322

* Ruparathna, R., Hewage, K., 2015. Sustainable procurement in the Canadian
construction industry: current practices, drivers and opportunities. J. Clean.
Prod. 109, 305e314.

Russell, B., 1938. Power: A New Social Analysis. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.
Saad, M., Jones, M., James, P., 2002. A review of the progress towards the adoption of

supply chain management (SCM) relationships in construction. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 8 (3), 173e183.

* Salzer, C., Wallbaum, H., Lopez, L.F., Kouyoumji, J.L., 2016. Sustainability of social
housing in asia: a holistic multi-perspective development process for bamboo-
based construction in the Philippines. Sustainability 8 (2), 151.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1e15.

* Sarkis, J., Meade, L.M., Presley, A.R., 2012. Incorporating sustainability into
contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. J. Clean.
Prod. 31, 40e53.

* Sertyesilisik, B., 2016. Embending sustainability dynamics in the lean construction
supply chain management. YBL J. Built Environ. 4 (1), 60e78.

* Seth, D., Shrivastava, R.L., Shrivastava, S., 2016. An empirical investigation of
critical success factors and performance measures for green manufacturing in
cement industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 27 (8), 1076e1101.

Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2013. Sustainability management beyond corporate bound-
aries: from stakeholders to performance. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 1e6.

Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008a. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management
e a delphi study. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 17 (8), 455e466.

Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008b. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699e1710.

* Shen, L., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., 2017. Key factors affecting green procurement in real
estate development: a China study. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 372e383.

* Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., 2015. Attitudinal and behavioural
approaches to improving waste management on construction projects in

Australia: benefits and limitations. Int. J .Cons. Mang. 15 (2), 137e147.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015. Adoption of the

Paris Agreement. Online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/
l09r01 .

United Nations Environment, 2017. Towards Zero-Emission Efficient and Resilient
Buildings: Global Status Report 2017. Available online: www.worldgbc.org.

* Uttam, K., Roos, C.L.L., 2015. Competitive dialogue procedure for sustainable
public procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 403e416.

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain.
The impact of upstream and downstream integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
26 (7), 795e821.

Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The green supply chain: integrating
suppliers into environmental management processes. J. Supply Chain Manag.
34 (2), 2e11.

* Wong, J., Chan, J., Wadu, M., 2016. Facilitating effective green procurement in
construction projects: an empirical study of the enablers. J. Clean. Prod. 135,
859e871.

* Woo, C., Kim, M.G., Chung, Y., Rho, J.J., 2016. Suppliers’ communication capability
and external green integration for green and financial performance in Korean
construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 1), 483e493.

* Zhou, P., Chen, D., Wang, Q., 2013. Network design and operational modelling for
construction green supply chain management. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 4 (1),
13e28.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2006. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain man-
agement in China: drivers and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (5), 472e486.

* Zou, P.X.W., Couani, P., 2012. Managing risks in green building supply chain. Ar-
chitect. Eng. Des. Manag. 8 (2), 143e158.

* Zuo, K., Potangaroa, R., Wilkinson, S., Rotimi, J.O., 2009. A project management
prospective in achieving a sustainable supply chain for timber procurement in
Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2 (3), 386e400.