Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Activities on Vegetation Dynamics Considering Time Lag and Accumulation Effects: A Case Study in the Three Rivers Source Region, China
Previous Article in Journal
Tall Building Design for Enhanced Wind Comfort in London
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062346
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding the Role of Supplier Involvement in the Link Between IT Integration and Sustainable Supplier Management Practices

by
Zhigang Fan
1,
Yewen Zhang
1,
Mingu Kang
2 and
Haengcheol Lee
3,*
1
Alibaba Business School, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310000, China
2
Graduate School of Technology and Innovation Management, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
3
East Asian Research Institute, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2346; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062346
Submission received: 22 January 2025 / Revised: 21 February 2025 / Accepted: 24 February 2025 / Published: 7 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Transformation and Sustainable Supply Chain Management (2nd Edition))
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the impact of information technology (IT) integration and supplier participation on the management and enhancement of supplier sustainability performance, addressing a research gap in understanding how collaborative IT systems and supplier involvement jointly influence sustainable practices. By analyzing a global dataset of manufacturing firms, we employ a quantitative research methodology to test a conceptual model that examines these relationships. The findings demonstrate that IT integration with suppliers significantly fosters sustainable management practices, which subsequently improve suppliers’ sustainability performance. Furthermore, the study reveals that the effectiveness of IT integration is significantly enhanced when suppliers are actively involved, underscoring the importance of collaboration in driving sustainability outcomes. These insights contribute to the literature on supplier sustainability management by highlighting the synergistic role of IT and supplier engagement. Future research should explore the long-term effects of IT integration on sustainability performance across diverse industries, investigate the role of emerging technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence in supplier collaboration, and examine the impact of cultural and organizational differences on the effectiveness of IT-driven sustainability initiatives. This study provides practical guidance for manufacturers aiming to optimize their sustainability efforts through strategic IT integration and supplier involvement.

1. Introduction

In recent years, organizations have faced increasing pressure to adopt sustainability practices, driven by regulatory frameworks, rising consumer expectations, and the need to underscore the urgency of tackling worldwide environmental and social issues. Among the various dimensions of sustainability, supplier sustainability performance (SSP) serves as a critical factor, particularly for manufacturing firms that rely heavily on complex supply chains [1]. Effectively managing suppliers’ ESG practices is crucial to ensuring the sustainability of supply chains [2,3]. However, managing SSP is inherently complex, requiring the coordination of diverse stakeholders across varying contexts and geographical regions. This complexity necessitates the deployment of robust systems and collaborative approaches to streamline efforts and improve outcomes.
The integration of information technology (IT) is widely acknowledged as a transformative enabler in managing supply chain operations, particularly in enhancing communication, data sharing, and decision-making capabilities [4,5,6]. IT integration facilitates real-time information exchange, increases transparency, and improves operational efficiency—essential elements for driving progress in sustainable supply chain management [7,8]. While IT integration’s role in general supply chain management is well-established, its specific impact on SSP requires further investigation. Existing research has highlighted IT’s capacity to optimize operational performance; however, its role in driving sustainability outcomes through enhanced supplier collaboration remains underexplored [9,10]. Supplier sustainability management (SSM) serves as an essential mechanism for transforming IT-enabled capabilities into tangible sustainability improvements [11]. SSM encompasses practices such as supplier monitoring, capacity building, and incentivization to promote better ESG performance among suppliers [12,13]. Acting as a bridge between IT integration and SSP, SSM translates the technological capabilities enabled by IT systems into actionable strategies and measurable outcomes. For instance, IT systems provide critical tools and data analytics that support the design and implementation of effective SSM programs, thereby fostering improvements in sustainability performance. Nonetheless, the degree to which SSM acts as a mediator in the connection between IT integration and SSP requires further empirical examination.
Moreover, the role of supplier involvement as a moderating factor in this dynamic warrant attention. Supplier involvement—described as the level to which suppliers engage in decision-making, planning, and process improvements—has been shown to significantly influence the effectiveness of collaborative practices [14,15]. High levels of supplier involvement can amplify the benefits of IT integration by fostering mutual trust, knowledge sharing, and joint problem-solving [16,17]. Despite this, limited research has examined how supplier involvement moderates the relationship between IT integration and SSM, leaving a gap in understanding how firms can optimize the synergy between technological and relational capabilities to enhance SSP [18,19]. Hence, grasping the moderating role of supplier involvement in the relationship between IT integration and SSM is essential for creating a holistic framework for effective sustainable supplier management [20].
This study aims to investigate two particular research questions to explore the mechanisms linking IT integration to SSP. First, what are the mechanisms through which IT integration influences SSP? Second, how do contingency factors such as supplier involvement affect the impact of IT integration? In addressing these questions, this research aims to make three key contributions to the current literature. First, it establishes the link between IT integration and SSP, thereby enhancing the understanding of IT integration’s performance implications. Second, it proposes the mediating role of SSM in the relationship between IT integration and SSP, offering a mechanism to explain how IT integration fosters SSP. Third, it identifies supplier involvement as a critical synergy factor, demonstrating its role in enhancing the effectiveness of IT integration. Additionally, our research addresses a critical gap in the literature by exploring how IT integration and supplier involvement influence sustainable practices. It provides practical guidance for manufacturers to optimize their sustainability efforts through strategic IT integration and supplier collaboration.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

In organizational information processing theory, organizations are viewed as information processing systems that support decision-making [21]. This theory emphasizes the mechanisms through which organizations utilize their information processing capacities to meet information processing demands [22]. It posits that organizations must possess specific information processing capabilities to analyze the volume and complexity of data required, thereby facilitating efficient data collection, storage, and transformation [23]. To enhance their information processing capacities, organizations can invest in information systems and establish horizontal relationships, effectively leveraging relevant resources to process new information more comprehensively and complete information-intensive tasks promptly [24]. From the standpoint of organizational information processing theory, the adoption of digital technologies can significantly improve the efficiency of information production and processing, enhance supply chain transparency, and thereby promote the sustainable performance of suppliers [25].
By optimizing supply chain structures, policies, and channels and by altering conditional barriers [26,27], IT integration with suppliers helps to eliminate structural obstacles that hinder enterprises from accessing information, opportunities, and resources. This enables the formation of strong relational and structural embeddedness, fostering trust, knowledge sharing, and collaborative actions between client and supplier firms [28,29]. Consequently, these efforts contribute to a stable community of shared interests among diverse supply chain stakeholders. Supplier sustainability performance, as further observed, heavily relies on inter-firm cooperation within the supply chain. Enhancing suppliers’ sustainable performance necessitates the establishment of strong collaborative relationships between client firms and suppliers. IT integration with suppliers empower supply chain enterprises by creating a digitized structure that facilitates coordinated risk management, operations, and transparency, ultimately improving suppliers’ sustainability outcomes. Moreover, IT integration with suppliers enable effective resource orchestration within supply chain networks, including resource sharing, transformation, and coordination. For example, Heering-Holland, an original equipment manufacturer providing solutions for poultry transportation, has chosen to utilize the Tradecloud platform to connect suppliers and customers, establishing a cloud-based IT platform for its supply chain system. By optimizing transportation routes and schedules through the IT platform, the company has reduced unnecessary mileage and energy consumption, lowered greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced the environmental sustainability performance of the entire supply chain. This initiative has also helped suppliers minimize their environmental footprint in the transportation process. Resources serve as the foundation for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) implementation and as a critical enabler of such efforts. Higher resource redundancy, especially in the form of non-sunk resources, positively influences firms’ willingness and capacity to implement ESG practices [30]. IT integration with suppliers provides digital resource empowerment across the supply chain, alleviating financing constraints faced by suppliers and promoting green innovation. This mitigates the financial constraints and green technology bottlenecks that suppliers, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, often encounter, thereby enhancing their sustainable performance [31]. In this context, IT integration plays a pivotal role in advancing suppliers’ sustainable performance. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. 
IT integration with suppliers is positively related to supplier sustainability performance.
SSM is defined as practices aimed at enhancing supplier sustainability performance, which specifically include compliance with sustainability-related standards, the capability of suppliers to meet these requirements, and the adoption of practices that incentivize sustainability. These initiatives align suppliers with the ESG objectives of their client companies, thereby creating a pathway that fosters sustainable development across the entire supply chain [32,33]. Today, IT integration has become a crucial element in supply chain management, providing the tools necessary for seamless information exchange and ensuring the timeliness of decision-making [34]. By strengthening IT integration with suppliers, companies can foster greater collaboration across the value chain, thereby creating opportunities to address sustainability challenges through technological resources. Leveraging IT systems, businesses are able to enhance monitoring of suppliers’ ESG compliance, analyze relevant data, and develop and implement targeted sustainability initiatives. IT integration improves transparency between upstream and downstream partners, driving continuous improvements in supplier sustainability performance [13,35]. IT integration with suppliers can play a pivotal role in enhancing SSM across various dimensions. First, IT systems provide real-time data analytics and tracking tools, enabling firms to monitor suppliers’ adherence to sustainability metrics. This capability ensures that non-compliance issues are promptly identified and addressed through corrective measures [36]. Second, IT systems facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity building by offering suppliers access to training resources and best practices tailored to sustainability objectives. This knowledge transfer equips suppliers with the skills and expertise required to improve their ESG performance [37]. Third, IT integration simplifies communication channels and automates incentive systems, encouraging suppliers to proactively adopt sustainable practices. By fostering collaboration and providing incentives, IT integration strengthens the alignment of supplier operations with corporate sustainability goals. Acting as a bridge between technological capabilities and actionable sustainability strategies, IT integration enables firms to implement SSM initiatives effectively [38]. The seamless integration of IT with supplier operations not only enhances ESG compliance, but also promotes long-term sustainability outcomes, reinforcing the broader sustainability goals of the organization. Therefore, it could be suggested that IT integration plays a pivotal role in advancing supplier sustainability management. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. 
IT integration with suppliers is positively related to supplier sustainability management.
SSM, as a fundamental element of sustainable supply chain practices, emphasizes the enhancement of ESG performance within the supplier network. Specifically, SSM encompasses practices such as supplier monitoring, capacity building, and incentivizing suppliers, all of which aim to improve the sustainability performance of suppliers [2,13,31]. These practices aim to mitigate ESG risks, improve resource efficiency, encourage sustainable behavior among suppliers, and address sustainability challenges across the entire supply chain [37]. SSM enables enterprises to establish clear expectations and benchmarks for sustainability performance. For instance, supplier monitoring involves evaluating whether suppliers meet ESG standards through audits, certifications, and performance reviews [31]. Capacity-building initiatives provide suppliers with the skills, tools, and resources necessary to meet these standards, typically achieved through training programs, workshops, and technical assistance [39,40]. Incentive mechanisms further encourage suppliers to enhance sustainability performance by linking rewards to ESG outcomes, thereby fostering a culture of sustainability [41]. SSM serves as the bridge between corporate sustainability ambitions and measurable performance outcomes. By translating broad sustainability goals into specific, supplier-centric strategies, SSM ensures that suppliers contribute effectively to the company’s broader ESG objectives [42]. Research indicates that firms adopting robust SSM practices achieve significant improvements in supplier sustainability performance, including reduced carbon emissions, improved labor practices, and enhanced resource efficiency [43]. The mechanisms underpinning the success of SSM lie in its ability to address systemic challenges within supply chains [44]. Monitoring practices identify gaps in suppliers’ sustainability efforts and provide actionable recommendations for improvement [45]. Capacity-building initiatives help suppliers overcome technical and operational barriers, enabling them to implement sustainable practices effectively. Incentivization creates a positive feedback loop, motivating suppliers to prioritize ESG goals and innovate to achieve sustainability. Collectively, these mechanisms drive suppliers toward excellence in sustainability performance. By fostering alignment between corporate ESG objectives and supplier practices, SSM plays a key role in reducing supply chain risks while simultaneously improving the overall sustainability of the supply network. Therefore, it could be suggested that supplier sustainability management plays a pivotal role in advancing suppliers’ sustainable performance. Accordingly, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Sustainable supplier management is positively related to supplier sustainability performance.
Supplier involvement is defined as the degree to which suppliers actively participate in decision-making and planning processes, and process improvements alongside their customers [46]. It is regarded as a crucial relational factor affecting the success of collaborative practices, particularly in sustainability initiatives. High levels of supplier involvement lay a solid foundation for mutual trust, knowledge exchange, and collaborative problem-solving—all of which are crucial for the effective implementation of sustainability practices [41]. Furthermore, supplier involvement strengthens communication, fosters the co-development of innovative solutions to sustainability challenges, and enhances both the environmental and social performance across the whole supply chain [32,47].
The beneficial effect of supplier involvement on collaborative practices is well-documented. For example, when suppliers are engaged early during the decision-making process, they are more inclined to take ownership of sustainability goals and align their practices with those of the company [33,48]. Supplier involvement also contributes to establishing enduring commitment grounded in trust, facilitating better communication and cooperation, thereby amplifying the impact of sustainability initiatives [16,49]. Although the direct relationship between IT integration and supplier sustainability management (SSM) has been established, the moderating role of supplier involvement in this dynamic remains underexplored. Supplier involvement can enhance the positive impacts of IT integration on SSM by fostering greater collaboration and engagement in sustainability efforts [50,51]. When suppliers are deeply engaged, they are more inclined to actively participate in the implementation of IT-driven sustainability programs, providing valuable insights, feedback, and expertise [9,43]. This involvement enhances the effectiveness of IT systems by ensuring that sustainability strategies are customized to address the unique requirements and capabilities of suppliers, thereby achieving better ESG outcomes.
Moreover, high levels of supplier involvement help overcome potential barriers to IT integration, such as reluctance to change or insufficient trust. By promoting collaborative relationships, companies can ensure that suppliers are more willing to adopt new technologies and practices, thereby expanding the benefits of IT integration for sustainability [16,28,44]. In contrast, when supplier involvement is low, companies may face challenges in effectively implementing IT-driven sustainability programs [40,52]. Without active supplier participation, IT systems may be underutilized, and sustainability initiatives may lack the necessary buy-in from key stakeholders, reducing their overall effectiveness. Therefore, the impact of IT integration with suppliers on supplier sustainability management is restrained when the level of supplier involvement is low. We put forward the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Supplier involvement moderates the relationship between IT integration and supplier sustainability management, such that the positive relationship would be strengthened when the level of supplier involvement is high.
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual research model. Specifically, it shows that IT integration with suppliers has a positive impact on supplier sustainability performance. Supplier sustainability management plays a mediating role in this relationship. Additionally, supplier involvement positively moderates the relationship between IT integration and supplier sustainability performance.

3. Methods and Results

3.1. Data and Measurements

The proposed hypotheses in this study were examined using a global dataset of manufacturing firms. Specifically, we utilized data from the High Performance Manufacturing (HPM) project, which is commonly applied in studies related to operations and supply chain management. This study utilized the 4th round of the HPM dataset, which includes responses from manufacturing firms operating in 15 countries and regions across the Americas, Asia, and Europe. These locations were specifically selected for their strong manufacturing industries [53], aligning with the objectives of this research. Firms in the machinery, electronics, and transportation industries were randomly selected in each country for data collection. Out of the 331 total responses in the dataset, we used 313 after excluding 18 responses due to data reliability concerns.
The questionnaire items measuring research variables of this study were mainly designed according to the existing literature. The integration of IT with suppliers was assessed using four components adapted from Subramani [54]. Informants were asked answer the degree to which organizations leverage information technology for communication with their critical suppliers for the following: (ITI1) processing orders, generating invoices, and settling financial accounts; (ITI2) sharing shipment and delivery details; (ITI3) overseeing warehouse inventory and stock levels; ITI4) analyzing sales patterns and customer preferences. Four indicators for assessing supplier involvement were modified from Luo et al. [55], including: (SIN1) suppliers are engaged early in the product design process; (SIN2) we collaborate with suppliers in the development of new products; (SIN3) suppliers are regularly consulted throughout the new product design process; (SIN4) suppliers play a crucial role in the development of new product designs. Supplier sustainability management was adapted from Fan and Kang, [56] and [57]. The four indicators for assessing supplier sustainability management include: (SSM1) promoting the enhancement of environmental performance in supplier processes; (SSM2) conducting visits to supplier facilities or ensuring the absence of sweatshop labor in their operations; (SSM3) sharing design specifications with suppliers that align with environmental standards; (SSM4) collaborating with suppliers in co-development efforts to minimize the product’s environmental impact. Following the guidelines from Maestrini et al. [58], supplier sustainability performance was measured by three items. The informants were asked to evaluate their satisfaction with the performance of their primary suppliers based on the following criteria: (SSP1) environmental certification, such as ISO 14001; (SSP2) reputation for corporate social responsibility; (SSP3) use of sustainability practices.
In addition, three control variables were used in this study to mitigate the effect of the other factors that might influence the analysis outcomes. Firm size (the natural logarithm of the number of employees), R&D investment (percent of sales spent on R&D, rated from 1 for strongly lower to 5 for strongly higher), and brand image (strategically positioning the firm’s products in comparison to top competitors, rated from 1 for strongly lower to 5 for strongly higher) were incorporated as control variables in our research model.

3.2. Reliability and Validity

To evaluate reliability of measurement components, we assessed internal consistency reliability, composite reliability, and item reliability through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha, and a composite reliability (CR) test. As shown in Table 1, EFA results confirm that questionnaire items designed to measure the same construct load significantly onto a single factor, with factor loadings exceeding 0.50, indicating strong relationships between items and their respective constructs. In Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha values varied between 0.742 and 0.858 and CR values varied from 0.802 to 0.884, both exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7 [59], thereby indicating acceptable reliability.
To assess construct validity, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluated convergent and discriminant validity. The CFA results show that all factor loadings raged from 0.583 to 0.892, and goodness of fit indices (e.g., χ2/d.f. = 1.735, CFI = 0.966, GFI = 0.942, NFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.049) met the acceptable thresholds [60], supporting construct validity. Convergent validity was supported, as all average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded the 0.50 threshold [61]. Additionally, discriminant validity was confirmed since the square root of each construct’s AVE was greater than its correlations with other constructs, following Fornell and Larcker’s criterion.

3.3. Analysis Results

To examine the proposed hypotheses, we conducted regression analyses. Table 3 presents the results of the regression analyses. H1, proposing the positive impact of IT integration with suppliers on supplier sustainability performance, was supported with a significant coefficient (ß = 0.225, p < 0.001, in Model 1). H2, proposing the positive impact of IT integration with suppliers on supplier sustainability management, was supported with a significant coefficient (ß = 0.144, p < 0.01, in Model 3). H3, proposing the positive effect of sustainable supplier management on supplier sustainability performance, was reinforced by a statistically significant coefficient (ß = 0.175, p < 0.001, in Model 2). Lastly, the hypothesis proposing the moderating effect of supplier involvement on the relationship between IT integration and supplier sustainability management was confirmed by a significant coefficient for the interaction term in the regression (ß = 0.170, p < 0.05, in Model 4), supporting H4.

4. Discussion

This study highlights the significant role of IT integration and supplier participation in enhancing supplier sustainability performance, thereby advancing the existing literature on improving supplier sustainability practices. Drawing on a global dataset, our findings provide strong empirical evidence that deepens the understanding of how technological and relational factors work together to drive supplier sustainability outcomes. This contribution not only advances the theoretical framework of sustainable supply chain management, but also offers practitioners valuable insights to enhance sustainability initiatives.

4.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study offers several contributions to the supplier sustainability management literature. First, the results of this study identify IT integration as a critical prerequisite for supplier sustainability performance, thus expanding the existing literature on this subject. While numerous studies have examined the contribution of digital technologies to the advancement of supplier sustainability performance, concentrating on the direct link between digital technologies and supplier sustainability [62], there is limited research on how and when IT integration with suppliers more effectively influences sustainability outcomes. From the viewpoint of organizational information processing theory, our findings underscore the crucial role of IT integration with suppliers in enhancing supplier sustainability performance. Specifically, IT integration with suppliers facilitates the optimization of supply chain structures, policies, and channels, while also altering conditions to eliminate structural barriers that hinder firms’ access to information, opportunities, and resources. This integration fosters stronger collaboration, knowledge sharing, and joint actions between client and supplier firms, ultimately improving supplier sustainability performance.
Beyond the direct impact of IT integration with suppliers, our research framework also enriches the understanding of the mechanisms that connect IT integration and supplier sustainability performance through supplier sustainability management. IT integration with suppliers enables seamless communication and real-time data exchange between client and supplier firms. This integration facilitates the tracking and monitoring of key sustainability metrics for supplier firms, mitigates risks associated with sustainability challenges, and ultimately enhances supplier sustainability management. Moreover, supplier sustainability management improves supply chain transparency and accountability, helping identify and mitigate risks related to sustainability issues, thereby fostering improved supplier sustainability performance. In other words, IT integration with suppliers promotes supplier sustainability performance through the mechanism of supplier sustainability management. Thus, our research framework further demonstrates that the beneficial effect of IT integration on supplier sustainability performance can be realized through the enhancement of supplier sustainability management practices.
Finally, the findings of this study suggest that increased levels of supplier involvement amplify the effectiveness of IT integration in boosting supplier sustainability performance through the management of supplier sustainability, thereby contributing to the literature on supplier sustainability [63]. While prior research has predominantly examined the isolated effects of IT integration or supplier collaboration on sustainability outcomes, our study provides a novel perspective by empirically validating their interactive influence. Distinct from studies that emphasize the direct role of IT systems in improving sustainability metrics [64], this study highlights the moderating role of supplier involvement in amplifying the impact of IT integration on supplier sustainability performance. Our research underscores the importance of active collaboration between manufacturers and suppliers, driven by mutual trust and commitment, which strengthens cooperation and knowledge sharing, ultimately improving sustainability outcomes. The study demonstrates that higher supplier involvement amplifies the benefits of IT integration. Specifically, through the use of a moderated mediation model, our findings reveal that when supplier involvement is higher, the indirect impact of IT integration on supplier sustainability performance through supplier sustainability management becomes more pronounced. In other words, supplier involvement plays as the boundary condition regarding the processes of IT integration impacting supplier sustainability performance. Therefore, by incorporating the degree of supplier involvement into our analysis, our results expand the understanding of how to effectively leverage IT integration to enhance supplier sustainability performance.

4.2. Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer practical implications. The findings emphasize the critical role of IT integration with suppliers in promoting supplier sustainability performance. Managers should prioritize the implementation of advanced IT systems within the supply chain. Real-time information exchange and data sharing enhance the understanding of suppliers. Furthermore, managers should place greater emphasis on supplier sustainability management to more effectively convert IT integration with suppliers to supplier sustainability performance. Additionally, managers should strengthen partnerships by involving suppliers in sustainability planning, goal-setting, and performance evaluation through initiatives such as establishing joint sustainability committees, organizing regular training sessions, and encouraging open dialog. These initiatives foster trust and alignment between companies and their suppliers, ensuring a unified commitment to shared sustainability objectives.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study provides important contributions, it also has several limitations that offer avenues for future research. Addressing these limitations would deepen the understanding of the interplay among IT integration, supplier involvement, and supplier sustainability management practices.
First, while this study relies on data from a global manufacturing firm, the findings may not completely reflect the complexities of particular industries or geographic regions. For instance, regulatory requirements, cultural differences, and technology adoption rates may vary across regions and sectors. Future research could explore these relationships within specific industries or compare results between developed and emerging economies to provide more context-specific insights.
Second, the study is based on cross-sectional data, which restricts its capacity to establish causal relationships among IT integration, supplier involvement, and supplier sustainability management practices. Longitudinal research could examine how these relationships evolve over time, particularly as firms and suppliers adapt to changing technological and sustainability standards.
Third, this study does not account for variations in supplier characteristics, such as size, technological capabilities, or strategic importance to buyers. Future research could investigate how these factors influence the effectiveness of IT integration and supplier involvement in achieving sustainability outcomes.
Finally, although this study highlights the importance of supplier involvement, it does not delve into behavioral aspects of engagement, such as trust, commitment, and conflict resolution. Future studies could examine how these relational dynamics mediate the relationship between IT integration and supplier sustainability performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.F. and H.L.; methodology, M.K.; validation, Y.Z.; formal analysis, M.K.; resources, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.L. and Z.F.; visualization, Y.Z.; supervision, H.L; funding acquisition, Z.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number 21BGL119.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Th authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Krause, D.R.; Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain management: Introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing management. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2009, 45, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tachizawa, E.M.; Yew Wong, C. Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 643–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhou, H.; Benton, W., Jr. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1348–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ganbold, O.; Matsui, Y.; Rotaru, K. Effect of information technology-enabled supply chain integration on firm’s operational performance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 34, 948–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Edwin Cheng, T.; Kamble, S.S.; Belhadi, A.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Lai, K.-H.; Kharat, M.G. Linkages between big data analytics, circular economy, sustainable supply chain flexibility, and sustainable performance in manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 6908–6922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chavez, R.; Yu, W.; Jacobs, M.A.; Feng, M. Manufacturing capability and organizational performance: The role of entrepreneurial orientation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 184, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kache, F.; Seuring, S. Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 10–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2009, 45, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nazir, S.; Zhaolei, L.; Mehmood, S.; Nazir, Z. Impact of green supply chain management practices on the environmental performance of manufacturing firms considering institutional pressure as a moderator. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stefanovic, N.; Radenkovic, M.; Bogdanovic, Z.; Plasic, J.; Gaborovic, A. Adaptive Cloud-Based Big Data Analytics Model for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Sustainability 2025, 17, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Foerstl, K.; Azadegan, A.; Leppelt, T.; Hartmann, E. Drivers of supplier sustainability: Moving beyond compliance to commitment. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2015, 51, 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wiredu, J.; Yang, Q.; Sampene, A.K.; Gyamfi, B.A.; Asongu, S.A. The effect of green supply chain management practices on corporate environmental performance: Does supply chain competitive advantage matter? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 2578–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vaka, D.K. Enhancing Supplier Relationships: Critical Factors in Procurement Supplier Selection. J. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. Data Sci. 2024, 2, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Strupinski, J.; Witek-Hajduk, M. Relationships between high-tech SME suppliers and foreign buyers: Effects of relational trust, relationship-specific investments and contract specificity on product innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Emon, M.M.H.; Khan, T.; Siam, S.A.J. Quantifying the influence of supplier relationship management and supply chain performance: An investigation of Bangladesh’s manufacturing and service sectors. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2024, 21, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Asante-Darko, D.; Osei, V. Sustainable supply chain management practices and firm performance: The mediating effect of firm capabilities. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2024, 35, 751–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iftikhar, A.; Ali, I.; Arslan, A.; Tarba, S. Digital innovation, data analytics, and supply chain resiliency: A bibliometric-based systematic literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2024, 333, 825–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zimmermann, R.; Soares, A.; Roca, J.B. The moderator effect of balance of power on the relationships between the adoption of digital technologies in supply chain management processes and innovation performance in SMEs. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2024, 118, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bai, C.; Satir, A. A critical content-analysis of sustainable supplier development literature and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Galbraith, J.R. Organization Design; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tushman, M.L.; Nadler, D.A. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 613–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Daft, R.L.; Lengel, R.H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al Mashalah, H.; Hassini, E.; Gunasekaran, A.; Bhatt, D. The impact of digital transformation on supply chains through e-commerce: Literature review and a conceptual framework. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022, 165, 102837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Srai, J.S.; Lorentz, H. Developing design principles for the digitalisation of purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2019, 25, 78–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2019, 11, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sun, Z.; Wang, W.; Wang, W.; Sun, X. How does digital transformation affect corporate social responsibility performance? From the dual perspective of internal drive and external governance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2024, 31, 1156–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Prajogo, D.; Olhager, J. Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tarigan, Z.; Mochtar, J.; Basana, S.; Siagian, H. The effect of competency management on organizational performance through supply chain integration and quality. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2021, 9, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chiu, S.-C.; Sharfman, M. Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1558–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carter, C.R.; Liane Easton, P. Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gualandris, J.; Kalchschmidt, M. Developing environmental and social performance: The role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–supplier trust. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 2470–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rai, A.; Patnayakuni, R.; Seth, N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yol Lee, S.; Rhee, S.K. The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Manag. Decis. 2007, 45, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Helander, N.; Bal, A.; Venkitachalam, K. Collaborative Strategies for Sustainable Smart City Development. In Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), Malé, Maldives, 4–6 November 2024; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Papadopoulos, T.; Fosso Wamba, S. World class sustainable supply chain management: Critical review and further research directions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2017, 28, 332–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Erdebilli, B.; Sıcakyüz, Ç. An Integrated Q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy (Q-ROF) for the Selection of Supply-Chain Management. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gonçalves, H.; Magalhães, V.S.; Ferreira, L.M.; Arantes, A. Overcoming barriers to sustainable supply chain management in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-H. Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their mediations on performance improvements. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 1377–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Eyo-Udo, N.L.; Odimarha, A.C.; Kolade, O.O. Ethical supply chain management: Balancing profit, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2024, 6, 1069–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bag, S.; Dhamija, P.; Bryde, D.J.; Singh, R.K. Effect of eco-innovation on green supply chain management, circular economy capability, and performance of small and medium enterprises. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 141, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ağan, Y.; Acar, M.F.; Neureuther, B. The importance of supplier development for sustainability. In Sustainable Freight Transport: Theory, Models and Case Studies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 63, pp. 165–178. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-H. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 130, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Extending green practices across the supply chain: The impact of upstream and downstream integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 795–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Handfield, R.B.; Bechtel, C. The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2002, 31, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gimenez, C.; Tachizawa, E.M. Extending sustainability to suppliers: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V.; Rodon, J. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dyer, J.H.; Cho, D.S.; Cgu, W. Strategic supplier segmentation: The next “best practice” in supply chain management. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1998, 40, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Blome, C.; Paulraj, A.; Schuetz, K. Supply chain collaboration and sustainability: A profile deviation analysis. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 639–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, L.; Zhao, X.; Tang, O.; Price, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, W. Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 194, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Morita, M.; Machuca, J.A.D.; Pérez Díez de los Ríos, J.L. Integration of product development capability and supply chain capability: The driver for high performance adaptation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 200, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Subramani, M. How Do Suppliers Benefit from Information Technology Use in Supply Chain Relationships? MIS Q. 2004, 28, 45–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Luo, C.; Mallick, D.N.; Schroeder, R.G. Collaborative product development: Exploring the role of internal coordination capability in supplier involvement. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 13, 244–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fan, Z.; Kang, T.-W. Linking sustainable supplier selection to Firm’s sustainable performance: The moderated mediating role of supplier development and leadership for functional integration. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Picasso, F.G.; Biazzin, C.; Paiva, E.L.; Beal Partyka, R. Socially responsible supply chain initiatives and their outcomes: A taxonomy of manufacturing companies. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2023, 28, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Maestrini, V.; Luzzini, D.; Caniato, F.; Maccarrone, P.; Ronchi, S. The impact of supplier performance measurement systems on supplier performance: A dyadic lifecycle perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 2040–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hahs-Vaughn, D.L. Applied Multivariate Statistical Concepts; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hu, L.-t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yu, Z.; Waqas, M.; Tabish, M.; Tanveer, M.; Haq, I.U.; Khan, S.A.R. Sustainable supply chain management and green technologies: A bibliometric review of literature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 58454–58470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. López-Cózar-Navarro, C.; Priede-Bergamini, T.; Cuello-de-Oro-Celestino, D. Sustainable Practices in Manufacturing SMEs: The Importance of Technological Collaboration between Supply Chain Partners. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schoenherr, T.; Speier-Pero, C. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: Current state and future potential. J. Bus. Logist. 2015, 36, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02346 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Sustainability 17 02346 g001
Table 1. Rotated component matrix.
Table 1. Rotated component matrix.
ItemsComponent
1234
SIN10.8640.1100.0030.117
SIN20.8410.0850.0690.041
SIN30.7960.1500.0650.124
SIN40.7800.1230.1310.079
SSM10.1000.8640.1320.129
SSM20.1350.7550.0000.067
SSM30.0840.7290.0340.191
SSM40.1410.8190.0720.011
SSP10.0010.2750.1400.701
SSP20.2010.0480.1380.807
SSP30.1240.0700.1300.831
ITI10.014−0.0020.7610.090
ITI20.077−0.0130.7920.240
ITI30.0550.1290.8440.144
ITI40.1150.1140.733−0.005
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
CunstructsItemsFactor
Loadings		Cronbach’s αCRAVE
Supplier involvementSIN10.8490.8580.8840.706
SIN20.784
SIN30.753
SIN40.721
Supplier sustainability managementSSM10.7350.8230.8150.573
SSM20.663
SSM30.673
SSM40.892
Supplier sustainability performanceSSP10.5830.7420.8150.675
SSP20.774
SSP30.767
IT integrationITI10.6350.8080.8020.563
ITI20.733
ITI30.853
ITI40.654
Table 3. Results of regression analyses.
Table 3. Results of regression analyses.
VariablesSSPSSM
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Firm size0.093 **0.064 *0.168 ***0.157 ***
R&D investment0.0500.0350.086+0.065
Brand image0.0620.0430.109 *0.081
ITI0.225 ***0.200 ***0.144 **0.136 *
SSM 0.175 ***
SIN 0.190 **
ITI * SIN 0.170 *
R20.1440.1840.1200.165
Adjusted R20.1330.1710.1080.149
F12.921 ***13.867 ***10.479 ***10.102 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. ITI = IT integration; SSM = supplier sustainability management; SIN = supplier involvement; SSP = supplier sustainability performance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, M.; Lee, H. Understanding the Role of Supplier Involvement in the Link Between IT Integration and Sustainable Supplier Management Practices. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062346

AMA Style

Fan Z, Zhang Y, Kang M, Lee H. Understanding the Role of Supplier Involvement in the Link Between IT Integration and Sustainable Supplier Management Practices. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Zhigang, Yewen Zhang, Mingu Kang, and Haengcheol Lee. 2025. "Understanding the Role of Supplier Involvement in the Link Between IT Integration and Sustainable Supplier Management Practices" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062346

APA Style

Fan, Z., Zhang, Y., Kang, M., & Lee, H. (2025). Understanding the Role of Supplier Involvement in the Link Between IT Integration and Sustainable Supplier Management Practices. Sustainability, 17(6), 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062346

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop