Green Supply Chain Management as a Catalyst for Sustainable Economic Development: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and sustainable economic development are two areas that have been studied extensively by scholars. However, there continues to exist a lack of cohesion or integration across academic fields regarding how GSCM can act as a catalyst for economic sustainability. This systematic literature review attempts to create a cohesive body of knowledge by exploring the drivers, barriers, and outcome measures associated with GSCM specifically within the context of creating sustainable economic growth in the long term. A structured literature review approach was used; this included conducting an extensive search of all relevant articles using multiple databases, followed by a thorough review and thematic analysis based upon the dimensions outlined above. The results indicate that GSCM is primarily influenced by the pressure of regulatory requirements and expectations of stakeholders. Financial constraints and technology gaps remain significant obstacles to the effective implementation of GSCM. Additionally, our analyses indicate that GSCM will enhance both environmental and economic performance when it is practiced with circular economy strategies and digital technologies such as AI and big data. The review shows that small- to medium-sized enterprises and firms in emerging economies face different practicalities than other types of organizations in terms of implementing GSCM strategically. However, SMEs and firms in emerging economies may benefit proportionally more than others from adopting GSCM strategically. Industry-specific case studies show that the success of GSCM practices varies widely depending on the sector; therefore, consideration of context is required. Additionally, the various theoretical frameworks discussed throughout the literature have developed from linear models towards more dynamic system-based models, indicating a developing discipline. In conclusion, we find that GSCM does not solely serve as an operational tool; rather, it acts as a strategic enabler of sustainable economic development, provided that it is implemented appropriately relative to organizational and regional context.

1. Introduction

The world today is in a time of tremendous change in the global economy due to environmental pressures, resource scarcity, and consumer expectations for companies to take responsibility for their actions. As we move away from the old model of economic growth that prioritizes short-term profit over the health of the planet and society, supply chain management has moved forward to become a central issue in discussions regarding the functioning of world commerce and its negative consequences, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, waste generation, and resource depletion. Consequently, the new model of sustainability through Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has emerged. GSCM is defined as integrating environmental awareness throughout the total supply chain process from product design, procurement of raw materials, manufacturing, and distribution to recycling or disposal [1]. At the heart of GSCM is the belief that environmental and economic performance are mutually beneficial concepts that have been researched extensively during the past twenty years.

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has a multi-faceted relationship with sustainable economic development. According to the Brundtland Commission, sustainable economic development is about reconciling the needs of current generations with those of future generations [2]. Therefore, it is about achieving a balance among economic development, equity, and environmental protection. A company using GSCM could achieve this balance as GSCM could lead to reduced costs through better use of resources, less waste, and lower consumption of energy. Additionally, GSCM will allow a company to enhance its brand reputation, create new market opportunities for eco-friendly products, and enable innovative practices and technologies. However, there is no consistent empirical evidence demonstrating the direct financial advantages of adopting GSCM. Some empirical research indicates that adopting GSCM positively affects a company’s profitability and market share [3]. Conversely, other research suggests that a company may experience greater longer-term financial returns on investments made in GSCM than it would receive in shorter-term gains. The ambiguity of the findings underscores the necessity of developing a more inclusive framework regarding GSCM as a method to drive sustainable economic development and not merely as another business expense.

While an abundance of research exists relative to GSCM, several significant gaps remain in the body of research. First, the field remains fragmented, and numerous studies focus solely on one aspect of the field (i.e., one type of driver, e.g., regulatory pressure) or one type of outcome (i.e., environmental outcomes). There is limited research available examining the integrated frameworks for identifying the drivers and barriers to implementing GSCM, along with the multi-dimensionality of performance related to the impacts of GSCM across both organizational and geographic contexts [4]. Second, the extent to which GSCM contributes to sustainable economic development at the macro level has received insufficient examination beyond the firm level. While there exist studies examining how GSCM can influence a firm’s profitability and/or market value, few studies examine how widespread adoption of GSCM can contribute to increasing economic resiliency, job creation within green industries, and delinking economic growth from detrimental environmental consequences [4]. Third, recent advancements in digital technologies (i.e., AI, big data, IoT) offer opportunities and challenges for GSCM that have yet to be appropriately documented in existing literature [5,6]. The study of these technological enablers and traditional drivers of GSCM is therefore a significant area of opportunity.

A systematic literature review was thought to be required since there existed a strong rationale for synthesizing and summarizing scattered knowledge about GSCM and sustainable economic development. An evaluation-based summary of the field has been called for by governments, business leaders, and academicians who require practical answers to support a “green transition.” In addition to providing a descriptive assessment of findings, this review used thematic analysis, enabling the authors to identify the underlying patterns, contradictions, and evolving trends in GSCM. The purpose of this review is to provide clarification on drivers, barriers, and performance implications of GSCM, specifically focusing on how technology, company size, and geographic context contribute to understanding strategic applications of GSCM. From an analytical standpoint, this research benefits from its synthesis of both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence supporting future research and practitioner decision making. Finally, this study will provide a clear perspective relative to the conditions under which GSCM may enable firms to meet their operational needs while contributing to long-term sustainable economic growth and prosperity. Unlike prior GSCM reviews that focus narrowly on either environmental outcome [1,3] or single-sector applications [7], this review integrates seven thematic dimensions spanning drivers and barriers, firm performance, circular economy integration, SME and emerging-economy contexts, digital technologies, sector-specific applications, and theoretical evolution. This integrative scope directly addresses the fragmentation identified above and responds to calls for a unified framework linking GSCM practices to sustainable economic development outcomes at both firm and macro levels.

Section 2 defines the systematic search process, selection criteria for literature (i.e., inclusion/exclusion), and analytical approaches used to analyze the literature. Section 3 discusses the results of this literature review based upon seven thematic categories, including research trends; drivers/barriers; performance; and technology. Section 4 presents conclusions/implications relevant to theory and practice and possible areas for additional research. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the main contributions made to date regarding the role of GSCM in advancing sustainable economic development.

2. Methodology

The Methodology section that follows provides an organized account of the processes by which we located, evaluated, and analyzed the body of literature related to Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and sustainable economic development. Our methodology was designed to be clearly visible and reproducible while also being robust. In addition to employing systematic literature review methodology, our methods follow the standard procedures for this type of methodological approach. Specifically, this review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [5] to ensure a transparent and reproducible reporting process. The screening was conducted by a single reviewer; however, ambiguous cases were referred to the co-authors for resolution to mitigate subjective bias. Included below are the components of the review process, including: the study’s review protocol, thematic analysis based upon research dimensions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the process for selecting studies.

2.1. Review Protocol

A systematic review process was developed to provide direction for conducting an efficient and effective search and selecting pertinent studies. A broad-based search of six leading academic databases/search engines was performed to locate all relevant studies. Each database/engine was selected for its unique characteristics and strengths relevant to the interdisciplinary nature of this study’s subject matter. Based upon these factors, Scopus was determined to be the most appropriate primary source due to the breadth of peer-reviewed journal content available within the disciplines of social sciences, environmental sciences, and business/management, thus representing a core resource for GSCM research. Due to its quality/curation of journals and its capability for citation analysis, Web of Science was also selected as part of the search protocol. This database provides a superior method of identifying “influential” studies/research topics within the discipline. ScienceDirect was added to the search protocol as a result of its concentration on scientific, technical, and medical research, thereby allowing researchers to find a large number of publications focused on environmental technologies and supply chain engineering. IEEE Xplore was also selected as part of the search protocol in order to identify a growing area of literature focused on technological enablement within GSCM, including artificial intelligence/big data/Internet of Things, etc., as they continue to grow in relevance. Finally, Google Scholar was used as a supplemental tool in order to ensure complete coverage, especially about grey literature, and small/regional journals which may not have been indexed by one or several of the first four sources. [Note: Please also add the exact date or period when this literature search was conducted, e.g., “The searches were conducted between January and March 2025.”]

The search strings were carefully constructed to balance sensitivity and specificity. For Scopus, we used the following string: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain” OR “eco-supply chain”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic sustainability” OR “green economy”)) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (“review” OR “survey” OR “meta-analysis”), with the document type limited to “Article” and “Review” excluded. For Web of Science, the string was: TS = ((“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain” OR “GSCM”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic performance” OR “green growth”)) NOT TS = (“review” OR “survey” OR “meta-analysis”), refined by selecting “Article” and excluding “Review Article.” For ScienceDirect, we used: (“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic sustainability”) NOT (“review” OR “survey” OR “meta-analysis”), filtered by “Research articles” only. For IEEE Xplore, the string was: (“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain” OR “GSCM”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic impact” OR “green growth”), with content type filtered to “Journals & Magazines” and “Survey” excluded. For SpringerLink, we used: (“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic sustainability”) NOT (“review” OR “survey” OR “meta-analysis”), limited to “Journal Article.” For Google Scholar, the string was: (“green supply chain” OR “sustainable supply chain” OR “eco-friendly supply chain” OR “environmentally conscious supply chain”) AND (“sustainable economic development” OR “economic sustainability” OR “green growth” OR “sustainable development”) -review -survey -“meta-analysis.” The entire review process was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [5], which provided a structured framework for reporting the search, screening, and selection process (see Supplementary Materials section for the PRISMA checklist and detailed search strategy).

2.2. Research Dimensions for Thematic Analysis

In order to establish a framework for analyzing the selected studies, we identified seven research dimensions based on seven themes related to GSCM and sustainable economic development. Seven research dimensions are based on the literature and were developed during several rounds of discussion among the authors. Dimension one—GSCM drivers, pressures, and barriers; reviews the internal and external factors that drive or prevent companies’ implementation of green practices in their supply chain. Dimension two—impact of GSCM on company performance and economic performance; evaluates the causal relationships between GSCM and economic benefits (i.e., increased profit margins). Dimension three—integration of GSCM with environmental sustainability and circular economy; examines whether GSCM practices align with overall environmental objectives and the principles of the circular economy. Dimension four—strategic implementation of GSCM in SMEs and emerging economies; examines the specific challenges and opportunities associated with implementing GSCM in SMEs and firms located in developing economies. Dimension five—technological enablers of GSCM: AI, big data, digitalization; examines the role of modern technology (e.g., AI, big data, digitalization) in enabling/enhancing GSCM. Dimension six—sector-specific applications of GSCM and case studies; assesses how companies implement GSCM and evaluate the consequences of this practice relative to various sectors (e.g., manufacturing, agricultural, logistics). Dimension seven—evolution of theoretical frameworks and bibliometric analysis; provides an historical perspective on the theoretical approaches applied to GSCM research and identifies current patterns using bibliometric analysis. All seven dimensions represent a holistic approach to integrating numerous bodies of literature and developing a comprehensive synthesis of existing literature. Because many studies addressed more than one dimension (for example, AI-enabled GSCM combined with circular economy integration), each study was assigned to a primary dimension reflecting its dominant research objective and main contribution and was cross-referenced under secondary dimensions in the relevant taxonomy tables where applicable. This rule was applied consistently to avoid double-counting in the trend analysis while preserving each study’s multi-thematic relevance. We acknowledge that assigning a single primary category to multi-theme studies involves a degree of interpretive judgment that may influence the synthesis; the cross-referencing approach and the transparent taxonomy tables are intended to mitigate this effect.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The following clear inclusion/exclusion criteria were developed to ensure the studies reviewed are relevant and consistent. The following studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) the study is a peer-reviewed article; (b) the study is written in English; (c) the study addresses the intersection of green supply chain management/sustainable supply chain management and sustainable economic development/economic performance/green growth; (d) the study presents an original empirical study, including a quantitative/qualitative/mixed method study; and (e) the study was published prior to 2026. No restrictions have been placed on the starting date to allow us to identify all studies that have been conducted since the beginning of this subject area. The studies reviewed were excluded if they met one of the following criteria: (a) the study is a review article/survey/meta-analysis/book chapter because it has been classified as a secondary source; (b) the study is a conference proceeding/editorial/opinion piece; (c) the study does not specifically reference the economic aspect of sustainability but rather focuses solely on the environmental/social dimensions; (d) the study is unavailable in its entirety; or (e) there are duplicate versions of the same study across multiple databases.

2.4. Study Selection Process

The selection process of the studies was done in several steps according to the PRISMA guidelines [5]. The first search in all databases produced 453 hits. Then, 338 records were screened after deleting 103 duplicate records and 12 other records due to missing information in the metadata or language other than English. The titles and abstracts of these records were then scanned for inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 235 records were excluded as they were obviously irrelevant to the research topic. Full texts of the remaining 103 reports were requested for retrieval, and all 103 were retrieved. Subsequently, these reports were screened by reading the entire text of each report in detail. In this review, 8 reports were deemed ineligible, mainly because they failed to provide adequate coverage of the economic performance dimension or were not original empirical studies or were retracted articles. Thus, 95 studies were reviewed in total. The whole selection process is presented in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

The study selection process, while rigorous, is subject to certain limitations and potential biases. First, the restriction to English-language articles may introduce a language bias, potentially excluding relevant studies published in other languages, particularly those from non-English-speaking emerging economies. Second, the exclusion of conference proceedings and grey literature may have omitted emerging or practice-oriented insights that are not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. Third, the search strings, while comprehensive, may not have captured all relevant studies, especially those using less common terminology for GSCM or sustainable economic development. Finally, the screening and eligibility assessment were conducted by a single reviewer, which could introduce subjective bias in the interpretation of inclusion criteria. To mitigate this, the reviewer consulted with the co-authors on ambiguous cases, and the criteria were applied as consistently as possible. Despite these limitations, the systematic approach provides a robust and transparent foundation for the thematic analysis that follows. Future studies should consider involving two or more independent reviewers to enhance interrater reliability.

3. Results

The results are organized across seven thematic dimensions. Beyond describing what each cluster of studies reports, this section seeks to compare findings across studies, surface contradictions, and distinguish well-established results from context-dependent or inconclusive ones. Three cross-cutting tensions recur throughout the literature and frame the discussion that follows. First, the economic effects of GSCM are reported as positive in most firm-level studies, yet the magnitude and timing of returns vary widely, and a minority of studies find weak or delayed effects—particularly for resource-constrained SMEs. Second, the reviewed evidence is concentrated at the firm level; macro-level claims (employment, regional resilience, green growth) are frequently asserted but rarely tested directly. Third, digital technologies are widely framed as enablers, but the empirical base demonstrating economic value beyond operational efficiency remains thin and sector-specific. These tensions are revisited in each subsection and synthesized in the Section 4.

3.1. Research Trends

As indicated in Figure 2, the publications reviewed over time demonstrate the field’s maturation and its development into a diverse field. Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and sustainable economic development have transformed from a fledgling study area to a well-developed and complex research field. Thirty-six studies were published prior to 2016, and much of this foundational work underpins current research and provides the core concepts, drivers, and initial theoretical frameworks. This early period was marked by the dominance of a sector-specific approach with the emphasis on case studies and application rather than theoretical models, suggesting a period where the field was mainly preoccupied with establishing itself and proving its relevance with practical examples.

After this early phase, from the 2016–2020 period, there was a relatively low but steady production amount, ranging between three and six studies per year. This plateau indicates that people were busy refining their current theories and methodologies, rather than pushing the edges of the field. However, from 2021 onwards, there is a significant and sustained rise in publications at the annual level, with annual publication numbers climbing from nine in 2022 and eight in 2023 to ten in 2024. The continuing rise suggests a resurgence of academic interest, perhaps stimulated by international political changes, like the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the increased practical need for corporate sustainability. This is a dynamic and expanding research frontier, as the high projected output continues through 2025 and 2026.

There has also been a significant change in the thematic composition of this literature over the years. The research that began in the early days was still mainly focused on the sectors with case studies and theory building, but the post-2020 period is characterized by a distinct diversification. The thematic area of “Impact on Economic and Firm Performance” represents the largest increase in research and has been the most dominant, with a steady number of publications per year. This trend indicates that the field is maturing and that it is shifting away from mere description of GSCM practices to testing the economic consequences of these practices in an empirical way. At the same time, the fields of “Environmental Sustainability and Circular Economy Integration” and “Technological Enablers: AI, Big Data and Digitalization” have gained significant momentum, especially since 2022. This indicates that current studies are more focused on the operationalization of GSCM via the implementation of advanced technologies and on its integration into a broader systemic shift towards circularity, instead of seeing GSCM as a separate set of practices. The relatively small but stable number of papers on “Strategic Implementation in SMEs and Emerging Economies” suggests that there continues to be an interest, albeit limited, in the context-based difficulties involved with GSCM adoption, a topic that requires further study.

3.2. Drivers, Pressures, and Barriers in Green Supply Chain Management

The successful implementation and introduction of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices depend on the ability to successfully overcome factors that can drive an organization forward or hinder it. The knowledge of these drivers, pressures, and barriers is essential for academic study and managerial practice, in order to identify points of leverage for policy action and for strategic decision making. There is a vast volume of literature on this subject, which demonstrates a complex picture of external and internal influences at play in context-specific ways. These findings are synthesized by organizing the forces into a taxonomy of drivers and pressures and barriers, as shown in Appendix A.

The factors that facilitate the adoption of GSCM can be summarized into external and internal ones. The most powerful catalysts for change are regulatory and legal pressures, which make up the bulk of external pressures. For example, legal and commercial pressures from environmental legislation and carbon reduction policies are cited as key drivers that drive firms to implement low-carbon and green supply chain practices [6]. In addition to these regulatory forces, there are also institutional pressures that can temper the relationship between emergent green supply chain practices and firm performance, as firms are also sensitive to mimetic and normative pressures from their institutional context [8]. In addition to regulation, pressures from customers and markets are another significant external influencing factor. In emerging markets, customer green expectations have a significant influence on the adoption of GSCM practices, which is mediated by the institutional logics internalized by firms [9]. Likewise, environmental factors like customer pressure and regulatory pressure have been identified as significant influences on the adoption of GSCM among SMEs in Nigeria but were moderated by the environmental uncertainty [10]. There has also been an identification of a set of external success factors, though this is broader, covering several contexts. In emerging economies, it is found that the factors that drive the supply chain, including supplier collaboration and customers’ awareness, contribute to green initiative development [11]. The success factors of GSCM in the Malaysian manufacturing sector are the commitment of the top management, involvement of employees, and support from the government [12]. A comparison across sectors in China shows that different industry mixes have various mixes of corporate, regulatory, and market drivers [13]. In the construction sector, a set of GSCM factors is characterized as being multi-dimensional with the presence of eco-friendly, social justice, and economic development factors [14].

In addition to external drivers, internal drivers play a crucial role and are studied less often. In the above study, the authors have considered organizational factors as critical internal enabling factors for implementing GSCM in India, including top management commitment and employee training [15]. Such internal factors can sometimes be how the external pressures manifest themselves into concrete action, and firms with high internal capacity are more able to meet regulatory and market demands. The synergic interaction between these internal and external forces requires a holistic approach, where both sets of forces are dealt with simultaneously, in order to achieve effective implementation of GSCM.

On the other hand, the challenges to GSCM implementation are also varied, and they can be classified as external and internal challenges. Economic and policy contexts, especially in the developing world, are often the cause of external barriers. Government support, poor infrastructure, and the high cost of implementation are the challenges to GSCM in Africa, which can affect the adoption of green implementation even though it can aid economic growth [16]. A modeling of the barriers from an Indian view shows that the major barriers are cost and lack of awareness, followed by technical and regulatory barriers [17]. Barriers in the Indian mining industry are identified by a graph theoretic approach [18], which contributes significantly to the economic growth and faces a shortage of green technology and a lack of enforcement of environmental legislation. Additional modeling of problems in the same industry shows how important financial constraints and lack of knowledge are [19]. There are specific external barriers that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have. Limited financial and technical resources and a lack of government incentives are the major obstacles faced by SMEs to implement green supply chain initiatives in Malaysia, especially considering the importance of SMEs in the country’s economic growth [20].

Internal barriers, however, relate to the challenges faced in the organization and operations of the company. A study on GSCM practices reveals that internal factors like resistance to change, lack of top management support, and inadequate training of employees are major challenges in the effort towards sustainable development among Indian manufacturers [21]. In line with this, another study on the challenges and opportunities of GSCM shows that the main internal challenges that prevent companies from going beyond compliance are organizational inertia and lack of strategic vision [22]. In many cases, these internal barriers are linked with external barriers (e.g., financial resources are lacking, and if the return on investment is not clearly foreseen, then the perceived internal barrier of lack of top management commitment can be intensified). The cumulative wisdom in the literature indicates that addressing the challenges will need both a coordinated effort in the external environment by developing policy and infrastructure and in the internal environment by building capacity and changing culture.

3.3. Impact on Economic and Firm Performance

The question that has been the focal point of many GSCM publications is whether environmental sustainability can exist side by side with, or even contribute to, economic prosperity. This section aims to provide an overview of existing empirical research into the link between green supply chain management practices and various aspects of firm performance, such as financial performance, competitiveness, and overall sustainability performance. The reviewed studies provide a complex picture, showing that the effect of GSCM is not always the same but depends on various intervening and conditioning variables and the market in which the companies are operating. To systematically structure these results, we have created a comprehensive taxonomy that classifies each of the studies according to primary focus, specific performance outcomes, and mechanisms or contextual factors that affect these relationships, as shown in Appendix A.

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) is perceived as a duty to the environment but also as a source of profit and competitiveness. Studies demonstrate that green practices lead to a decrease in waste, optimum use of resources and energy efficiency, which lead to improvement in firm performance and competitiveness in the market ([23,24]). In line with this, research conducted in emerging and developing economies also shows that GSCM capabilities like green purchasing, green production, and dynamic sustainability-oriented capabilities enable sustainable development, operational competitiveness, and firm growth [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Further, GSCM enhances operational capacities like cost-effectiveness, quality, flexibility, and delivery performance, which in turn boosts overall firm performance [28,29]. GSCM can also enhance corporate values with the aid of technological innovation and proper supply chain structure [30].

In addition to financial aspects, GSCM has a significant impact on sustainability performance, which results in positive environmental, social, and economic outcomes [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. The findings of developing countries and SMEs confirm that green practices have positive effects on the sustainability and economic development of the company in the long term [33,36]. The style of leadership that is implemented also has an impact on the sustainable performance of GSCM, especially transformational and transactional leadership [38]. Recent studies also highlight the important role of the ESG-based performance measurement as a holistic approach to the overall value created by GSCM [39].

Organizational capabilities and orientations are frequently the intermediate factors in the GSCM–performance relationship. In order to turn sustainability intentions into enhanced performance, firms rely on three key factors: green entrepreneurial orientation, green intellectual capital, and dynamic capabilities [40,41,42]. This relationship can be enhanced by technological capabilities such as green information systems and technology-enabled collaboration [30,43]. Firms’ strategic orientations, like market orientation and learning orientation, also influence the success of GSCM initiatives [44].

Another two mechanisms are supply chain integration and cooperation. Sustainable supply chain financing and supplier/customer collaboration improve the efficiency of green efforts and positively affect the sustainability performance of companies [45,46]. The effects of GSCM, however, are highly dependent on the context. The results are affected by the size of the firm, industry, and geographical conditions, particularly in SMEs and emerging economies, where resource constraints, infrastructure, and regulations are significantly different [47,48,49,50]. In general, the empirical results are predominantly positive, with most studies reporting a positive association between GSCM and the performance of an organization in various industries and in many different situations, though a minority of studies report weak or context-dependent effects [51].

3.4. Environmental Sustainability and Circular Economy Integration

The development of the concept of circular economy is an important shift from the linear take–make–dispose model in the field of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM), as it recognizes the need to reduce waste and increase resource efficiency. This thematic area will explore how GSCM practices can support the action taken related to the other thematic areas and the principles of the circular economy, such as waste reduction, resource recovery, and the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation. The reviewed studies present a multi-faceted picture of the conceptual frameworks, empirical validations, and technological innovations that have contributed to our understanding of this integration. In order to systematically categorize these various contributions, a detailed taxonomy of the studies has been developed, which includes an analysis of the main research focus, the central mechanisms or approaches used, and the specific contexts or outcomes investigated, as shown in Appendix A.

Circular economy concepts are incorporated into Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) as one of the most important ways of achieving sustainability and competitive advantage. Foundation studies provide an understanding of how the circular economy concepts can be integrated into supply chains, thereby changing linear supply chains into circular supply chains backed by green innovation and sustainable practices [52,53,54]. Machine learning and smart city applications are other technological developments that contribute to optimizing the circular supply chain and green value creation [55].

Across the reviewed studies, GSCM is frequently associated with both economic and environmental sustainability, although the strength of this association varies by context. Research in developed economies as well as in Asian economies has illustrated that green supply chain performance lowers environmental degradation, helps embrace renewable energy, and enhances sustainability outcomes while ensuring economic development [56,57,58,59]. Forms of environmental collaboration, green procurement, environmental logistics, manufacturing, and innovation are recognized as key mechanisms to increase environmental performance and decrease carbon emissions [60,61,62].

The sustainable development of the economy and protection of the environment remain key features. Studies in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and other developing countries demonstrate that GSCM can help reduce waste and emissions as well as create employment, competitiveness, and contribute to long-term economic development [63,64,65]. Support policy, environmental education, and integration in the supply chain are also important factors for SD and better uptake of green supply chains [66,67].

This is supported by a number of sector-specific and regional studies that have also demonstrated the benefits of the integration of GSCM and circular economy in several specific industrial sectors in China, Kenya, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and other economies, including textiles, construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and logistics sectors [63,65,67,68,69]. In general, the literature emphasizes the advantages of the circular economy principles when included in GSCM in various settings, including environmental performance, economic sustainability, and competitive advantage.

3.5. Strategic Implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises and Emerging Economies

The implementation of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and companies in developing countries represents different challenges and opportunities than those experienced by Large Multi-National Corporations (LMNCs), which operate primarily in developed markets. As SMEs represent the vast majority of all business entities worldwide, they provide the largest source of new employment and drive regional economic growth. Therefore, their combined impact on the environment is significant and necessary for widespread sustainable economic growth through their participation in GSCM.

The research conducted in this field has shown a diverse array of barriers and drivers to the adoption, implementation, and performance of green practices in SMEs, including resource limitations, institutional voids, and unique market conditions. In an effort to develop a framework for organizing these findings in a systematic manner, we have created a taxonomy of the studies focused on GSCM, which organizes them into three categories related to the primary focus of each study, the specific strategic GSCM components analyzed, and the contextual factors/outcomes explored in each study, as seen in Appendix A.

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) has been impeded by a lack of funding; the lack of technical know-how about how to implement environmentally friendly processes within their organizations; limited access to information regarding “green” processes; and limited governmental support, particularly in underdeveloped or developing economies [10,47,48]. In addition, the environmental uncertainty associated with GSCM may also discourage investment in green programs due to potential risks to businesses [10]. On the other hand, research indicates that the use of GSCM will lead to positive impacts on economic performance, environmental performance, and social performance among SMEs [36].

There exists variability in the success of GSCM based upon the organization’s size and its use of specific green practices. While smaller-sized SMEs typically have more to gain through the implementation of lower-cost GSCM practices, such as green purchasing and waste reduction, larger SMEs will be able to implement higher-complexity practices associated with GSCM, such as design for the environment and reverse logistics [48,49]; therefore, there should exist specific GSCM strategies for each enterprise type.

The degree of influence exerted upon the implementation of GSCM in developing economies is dependent upon various factors, including the industry and local conditions. For example, studies conducted in Algeria and Ethiopia indicate that a lack of strong regulations, little awareness of sustainable practices, and a lack of supporting infrastructure limit the ability of SMEs to implement advanced GSCM practices such as reverse logistics and waste management [70,71]. Conversely, general literature suggests that the implementation of GSCM results in improvements to both economic performance and environmental sustainability in developing countries [33].

Increasingly, technology is being viewed as an essential tool for enabling GSCM. Big Data Analytics (BDA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are examples of technologies that can potentially improve sustainable performance when used in conjunction with collaborative green approaches and sustainable supply chain management practices [72].

3.6. Technological Enablers: AI, Big Data, and Digitalization

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has been transformed by digital technologies in a major way and offers the opportunity for more efficient transparency and sustainable performance than ever before. This thematic area is focused on how AI, big data analytics, digitization, etc. serve as enablers of the implementation and optimization of practices within green supply chains that contribute to the development of a sustainable economy. We have also identified many different technical applications, from machine learning optimization to blockchain-based traceability systems, that deal with specific challenges within the green supply chain. We also developed a comprehensive taxonomy of studies based on their primary domain of technology used, the specific area or theme they are focusing on, and the key results or mechanisms examined, as presented in Appendix A.

Green supply chain management is changing through artificial intelligence, machine learning, and digital innovations; these technologies have a significant potential for optimizing GSCM operations, as well as enhancing GSCM’s performance on sustainability issues. Studies showed that the use of machine learning, big data analytics, AI, and IoT in combination with green collaboration and purchasing strategies improves the practices related to circular economy, supply chain optimization, and sustainable development [72,73,74]. Additionally, they support monitoring and diffusion of green practices along entire supply chains and thus promote sustainable enterprise development [75].

The platform economy and digitalization in particular provide a new perspective on GSCM through digital platforms, incentives, and transparency of operation, which promote sustainable behavior among all participants of the supply chain [76]. Studies on the digital economy demonstrate an increasing role of digital technologies in promoting global sustainable development and bettering the specific models of supply chains in different sectors like agriculture [77,78].

Further, blockchain technology can increase the level of transparency, traceability, and trustworthiness in green supply chains. For example, in Bangladesh’s ready-made garments sector, a blockchain-based framework provides the possibility to prove green claims, ensures environmental compliance, and overcomes the barriers of distrust in emerging economies [79]. Furthermore, recent contributions have enriched the understanding of AI-enabled sustainability and supply chain resilience. Benchekroun [80] examined sustainable supply chain practices within lean production frameworks, offering key insights into how environmental and economic performance can be jointly optimized [80]. Jebbor [81] advanced the discussion on prediction models for supply chain disruption, demonstrating that AI-driven analytics can significantly improve operational sustainability [81]. More recently, Jebor [82] explored digital sustainability assessment tools applicable to GSCM contexts. These works collectively reinforce the importance of integrating AI and digital technologies as active enablers of GSCM rather than passive adjuncts.

3.7. Sector-Specific Applications and Case Studies

The success and execution of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) are not consistent across all industries. Rather, they are highly influenced by the sectors’ operational conditions, regulatory environment, and markets. This thematic area synthesizes an extensive collection of industry-based empirical research, which includes but is not limited to: heavy manufacturing and mining, logistics and hospitality, to provide an illustration of how GSCM is adopted and practiced within various business environments. In addition to demonstrating how the studies’ findings suggest the universal applicability of the foundational principles of GSCM (e.g., waste reduction, resource efficiency, and stakeholder collaboration), they also demonstrate significant variation in operationalizing those principles and realizing performance results due to variations in sector-specific factors. As such, for systematic organization purposes, this project has developed a broad taxonomy of the studies with regard to primary industry sectors, subsector/regional focuses, and key themes or outcomes studied, as provided in Appendix A.

The manufacturing sector has a wealth of evidence for the successful use of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). In addition to research conducted in Malaysia, Portugal, and China, within the automotive sector, and in Thailand, the literature demonstrates that the extent to which environmental, economic and social impacts are improved through GSCM is influenced substantially by commitments made by senior managers, level of government support and by the degree of interorganizational collaboration and quality management practice used [7,12,24,83,84].

Similarly, in those industries that have higher environmental impacts than others (textiles, apparel, tanning, agricultural production, and pharmaceuticals), GSCM has been shown to be important. For example, research into the garment supply chain in Bangladesh using blockchain highlighted its ability to increase transparency. Additionally, research carried out in Ethiopia and Kenya demonstrated that green practices were able to improve levels of environmental quality, contribute positively to local economies, and create greater levels of sustainability but that there existed significant difficulties associated with managing waste and implementing reverse logistics [68,69,71,79,85].

Implementation of GSCM in construction and mining industries has provided an opportunity for companies operating in these areas to implement measures aimed at reducing waste and emissions and preventing environmental degradation [86,87,88]. However, the potential for widespread application of GSCM is restricted due to a lack of regulation, financial constraints, and limited availability of green technologies [14,18,19,63,70,89].

Studies examining the impact of GSCM on companies providing logistical services and hospitality services in Kenya, including DHL, demonstrate that implementation of sustainable procurement processes and operationally adopting eco-friendly activities may lead to increased levels of competition and contribute positively to regional development [90,91].

Research examining cross-sectoral differences in terms of the adoption of GSCM in India and China suggests that GSCM implementation differs based on factors related to company size, type of ownership structure, degree of economic development, and pressure from regulatory bodies [92,93,94].

3.8. Theoretical Frameworks, Evolution, and Bibliometric Analysis

GSCM’s theoretical foundations have undergone significant evolution since it was first conceived as an operational practice to be viewed today as a more mature discipline with many different theoretical approaches and complex analytical tools. This section of the paper will explore the intellectual history of this area by reviewing the various theoretical models that have been applied, the progression of certain ideas within this body of literature, and what can be learned from recent studies employing bibliometric analysis. Collectively, the reviewed papers illustrate that there is a trend toward using more theory-based and empirical-based studies instead of case-study-type descriptive studies; furthermore, it appears that researchers are increasingly interested in studying the structure of knowledge within this domain using quantitative techniques such as those found in bibliometrics. In order to provide a systematic way to catalog the various contributions made in this literature, a detailed taxonomy of the literature has been created. This taxonomy organizes the studies into three categories: primary focus of the study, theoretical/methodology used, and major finding/contribution (as shown in Appendix A).

Green supply chain management is a field that has evolved from green manufacturing and procurement to sustainability in operations and logistics through the development of theoretical frameworks. These frameworks provide structure for understanding green practices within an organizational context. They also establish relationships between green manufacturing, procurement, logistics, and environmental performance and economic value [55,95,96,97,98]. These frameworks also stress material flows, quantitative decision making, and boundaries of the organization in green supply chain design.

The study of how GSCM has evolved shows how the discipline moved from environmental regulations to lifecycle-based environmentally responsible business practice and measurement systems for sustainable performance [99,100,101,102,103]. Literature reviews have also shown an emergence of new theories on green manufacturing, sustainable marketing, procurement, and operations as key elements in the modern theory of GSCM [101,102].

Furthermore, bibliometric analysis mapped the intellectual strategy of the discipline, showing that it has been moving towards digitalization, green finance, reverse logistics, and closed-loop supply chains [77,104,105]. Foundational concepts such as the extended environmental supply chain distinguished traditional supply chain management from green supply chain management by including all phases of the supply chain in environmental considerations [106].

4. Discussion

Rather than restating the thematic results, this discussion is organized around four integrative insights and three levels of analysis. To avoid conflating outcomes, we distinguish (i) firm-level outcomes (profitability, competitiveness, operational performance), (ii) supply-chain-level outcomes (integration, resilience, supplier collaboration), and (iii) macro-level development implications (employment, regional resilience, green industrial growth). Most of the reviewed evidence is firm level; supply-chain-level effects are moderately supported, while macro-level claims remain largely inferential and should be treated with caution. The four integrative insights are: (1) GSCM improves both environmental and economic performance primarily when paired with green capabilities, innovation, and supply chain integration, not in isolation; (2) outcomes diverge systematically across SMEs, sectors, and emerging economies because of resource, infrastructure, and regulatory differences; (3) digital technologies become genuinely enabling—rather than merely complementary—only where supportive infrastructure and absorptive capacity exist; and (4) the strongest remaining gaps concern macro-level outcomes, longitudinal evidence, and the financial sustainability of GSCM investment under stress. On this last point, broader work on financial stress and the crowding out of emerging high-technology firms by incumbent intermediaries suggests that access to finance is a decisive boundary condition for technology-enabled GSCM in resource-constrained settings; this review extends that perspective to the green supply chain context. The subsections below elaborate each insight.

The study found that GSCM is increasingly seen as an essential part of promoting sustainable economic development; however, successful implementation will depend on the level of external pressure placed upon companies, their internal capabilities, their use of appropriate technology, and relevant contextual issues. Although regulatory, customer, and stakeholder pressures can create sufficient pressure for the adoption of GSCM [6,8,9], the ability to effectively implement it will rely heavily upon internal company capability and preparedness through employee training and organizational readiness [15].

There is a positive correlation between the implementation of GSCM and economic performance; however, this relationship is complex, dependent upon the context of each business or organization. A number of studies have shown that green practices contribute positively to competitiveness and financial performance [23,24,25]; yet these benefits are typically moderated by green capabilities, innovation, and the extent of supply chain integration [30,40,41,45]. Implementation costs and barriers may limit the economic returns associated with GSCM for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), particularly those operating in emerging economies [47,48,49]. This apparent tension between reported positive GSCM performance effects and the persistent resource constraints of SMEs in emerging economies must be addressed more explicitly. The literature suggests that, while large firms in developed contexts may realize near-term cost savings from GSCM, SMEs often face a protracted payback period and disproportionate initial investment burdens. Future revisions should distinguish between short-term and long-term economic returns and clearly separate firm-level findings from macro-level sustainable economic development claims. Regarding AI, big data, and blockchain as technological enablers, while these technologies show significant potential, the empirical evidence for measurable economic benefits—beyond operational efficiency improvements—remains limited and concentrated in specific sectors. The review should qualify these claims accordingly. In addition, integrating Circular Economy (CE) principles into existing GSCM models has transitioned them away from simply reducing environmental pollution toward regenerating supply chains, which seek to reduce waste, recover resources, and extend the useful life of products [52,53,54]. However, developing economies continue to experience difficulties with CE, such as establishing robust reverse logistics systems and adequate recycling infrastructure [63,64]. Furthermore, there is significant potential for new emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and blockchain, to enhance transparency, operational efficiency, and facilitate circular supply chain management [72,79]. However, in order for these emerging technologies to achieve their full potential, they require supportive infrastructure and organizational capabilities to fully leverage their potential [72,79].

Industry- and region-specific differences in GSCM implementations were highlighted through research. Industry-specific studies in manufacturing, mining, construction, logistics, and hospitality indicate that the nature of the industry, related regulations, and the structure of the supply chain all significantly affect the effectiveness of GSCM in achieving its goals [12,14,18,68,90,91]. Therefore, it appears that, in order for GSCM strategies to achieve desired outcomes, they must be tailored to the specific industrial and regional context.

In terms of theoretical development, the evolution of GSCM has shifted from primarily descriptive studies toward more sophisticated conceptual frameworks founded on institutional theory, stakeholder theory, dynamic capabilities, and the resource-based view [95,96,97]. Additionally, bibliometric studies demonstrate an increasing trend toward researching topics in digitalization, green finance, and circular supply chains [77,104]. Nevertheless, despite this advancement within the field, GSCM remains highly fragmented. As a result, additional research is necessary to develop more integrative and contextualized frameworks.

Additionally, this review indicates several practical implications. Policymakers should provide both regulatory mechanisms as well as incentives/technical assistance/investment in infrastructure to support organizations (especially SMEs). Additionally, managers should view GSCM as a strategic long-term investment requiring top management commitment/employee development/supply chain collaboration. Finally, educators must provide students with knowledge regarding sustainability and digital supply chain operations to prepare future managers.

Despite advancements made toward understanding GSCM, there are still several limitations in the current body of literature. These include: language bias; lack of longitudinal studies; limited research on SMEs; and lack of research focusing on emerging economies. Future research should concentrate on the application of digital technologies; transitioning toward circular economies; comparative studies examining different industries; and examining how GSCM contributes to macroeconomic objectives (e.g., job creation, poverty reduction, and sustainable growth).

5. Conclusions

This systematic literature review compiled 98 peer-reviewed publications to assess whether Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and sustainable economic development were related or separate. Additionally, we attempted to synthesize prior literature that has been separated by discipline to address the current fragmented nature of knowledge. We found GSCM functions primarily as a strategic catalyst for sustainable economic development and not merely as an operational compliance mechanism. However, we also determined that the strategic function of GSCM will depend on a number of interdependent factors, including regulatory pressures, organizational capabilities, technological enablers, and contextual factors. In addition, we discovered that, while external stimuli such as regulatory requirements and stakeholder demands may prompt companies to adopt GSCM practices, the transformation of those practices into real-world environmental and economic impacts depends on additional internal investments in capabilities, including top-level managerial commitment, employee education/training, and supplier relationships/collaboration. Finally, we identified the inclusion of circular economy principles and digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data Analytics (BDA), etc., to be among the most promising paths forward to enhance the effectiveness of GSCM. Specifically, the application of circular economy and digital technology has the potential to support transitioning from linear to regenerative supply chain models.

There are several practical applications of the findings from this study. For policymakers, one of the key takeaways is that regulatory pressures alone will likely not result in widespread adoption of GSCM. Rather, they need to be paired with financial incentives, technical assistance programs, and investments in infrastructure that enable Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in emerging economies to overcome the considerable hurdles associated with implementing GSCM. For managers, the takeaway is that GSCM should be viewed as a long-term strategic investment that requires sustained commitment and dynamic capabilities to implement successfully. It should not be treated simply as a short-term cost-saving initiative.

A primary theoretical contribution of this work is the compilation of disparate theoretical perspectives into a cohesive framework that identifies mediating and moderating mechanisms that influence the performance outcomes associated with the adoption and implementation of GSCM. Thus, our work challenges universalistic assumptions regarding the impact of GSCM on performance and argues for more context-sensitive theoretical models. Future research directions should include longitudinal studies that track the evolution of GSCM implementation over time; cross-industry comparisons that identify industry-specific boundary conditions; and investigations into how digital technologies can democratize access to benefits associated with GSCM implementation for SMEs in developing regions. Ultimately, if researchers pursue these directions, then they can continue to advance our understanding of how green supply chains can contribute to a truly sustainable and equitable form of economic development. This study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the restriction to English-language publications may have excluded relevant research from non-English-speaking regions, introducing a potential language bias. Second, the exclusion of conference proceedings, grey literature, and book chapters may have omitted practice-oriented insights. Third, the screening process was conducted by a single reviewer, which may have introduced subjective bias despite consultation with co-authors on ambiguous cases. Fourth, the search strings, while comprehensive, may not have captured all relevant work, particularly studies employing less common terminology. Fifth, firm-level findings on GSCM performance should not be generalized to macro-level sustainable economic development outcomes (e.g., employment creation, regional resilience, or green industrial growth) without additional evidence. The review also acknowledges that macroeconomic outcomes were not systematically analyzed as a separate thematic dimension, which represents a gap for future research. Additionally, how overlapping studies addressing multiple themes (e.g., AI-enabled GSCM and circular economy integration) were assigned to a single thematic category may have affected the synthesis. A future iteration of this research should use interrater reliability measures and a more granular multi-dimensional coding framework. Notwithstanding these limitations, this systematic review offers a robust and transparent synthesis that advances scholarly understanding of GSCM as a strategic enabler of sustainable economic development.