Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Performance of Lime Mortar Coatings for Rehabilitation of Masonry Elements in Old and Historical Buildings
Next Article in Special Issue
Embedding Sustainability in the Consumer Goods Innovation Cycle and Enabling Tools to Measure Progress and Capabilities
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing the Intention to Preview Learning Materials and Participate in Class in the Flipped Classroom Context through the Use of Handouts and Incentivisation with Virtual Currency
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Policy Making in Supply Chains under Ambiguity and Competition: A Fuzzy Stackelberg Game Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/su13063280
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains

by
Sebastjan Lazar
1,
Dorota Klimecka-Tatar
2 and
Matevz Obrecht
1,*
1
Faculty of Logistics, University of Maribor, Mariborska Cesta 7, 3000 Celje, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, al. Armii Krajowej 19b, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3280; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063280
Submission received: 23 February 2021 / Revised: 10 March 2021 / Accepted: 12 March 2021 / Published: 16 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain Development and Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable development, logistics, and supply chain are being combined into three increasingly connected and topical global research areas. Therefore, this paper’s novelty identifies and defines the priorities of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development dimensions in supply-chain- and logistics-management-related studies in the last decade. Knowing logistics and supply chain sustainability focus and orientation is valuable information for researchers and managers to adapt and mitigate their business logistics according to the forecasted trends. The paper provides a systematic and comprehensive review of the literature and is based on 116 scientific papers published between 2010 and 2020 in 73 international journals in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The study defines focus with integrating environmental, social, and economic sustainability for logistics- and supply-chain-related studies. It emphasizes primary and secondary links of investigated studies with 17 United Nations sustainable development goals. The bibliometric analysis also examined keyword relations. One of the main contributions is that economic sustainability was identified as the most represented one-dimensional sustainability focus. It was revealed that supply chain studies integrated all three sustainability dimensions more frequently (50.60%) than logistics studies, which were equally related to studying two- or three-dimensions of sustainability (39.39%). The most significant findings are also that studies were identified to be oriented primarily towards “responsible consumption and production”, “industry, innovation, and infrastructure” and “affordable and clean energy” and secondary especially on “sustainable cities and communities”.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The environment around the world needs to be protected to ensure economic and social development for the benefit of different generations [1]. This is only one of the reasons why sustainable development has gained worldwide attention in recent years [2] and its role is still growing [3], enabling us to solve current and future fundamental challenges of humanity [4] not only for the sustainability of natural resources and the environment but also the sustainable well-being of people and the happiness of the population [5]. Sustainable development has become a very popular slogan of modern development discourse [6] and since the emergence of the concept in the 1980s [7] when it was defined as a way of meeting the needs of the current population without jeopardizing the ability of successors to meet their needs. It now appears in almost every sector of our life and economy [8]. Shortly after the mentioned definition, it was found [9] that many non-governmental and also government organizations have accepted sustainable development as a kind of new development paradigm.

1.2. Literature Review

Many scientists [10,11,12,13] warning that current climate changes, which are one of the main threats of the modern age, additionally empowers its implementation. One of the primary reasons for this is the high global dependence on fossil fuels for production, transport, etc. [14] with logistics and supply chains as an integral part. Some scientists [15] highlight that cleaner modes of transportation, sustainable production, logistics, and supply need to be developed to address the challenge of increasing population and limited natural resources. The authors of [16] primarily emphasize the confrontation of supply chains with environmental sustainability. The authors of [17] exposed that governments worldwide have introduced regulations for industries to produce sustainable items, consequently increasing the demand for environmentally friendly materials in various industries [18]. It was also mentioned [19] that companies are increasingly adopting a strategy that includes a positive sustainability aspect, for example, with various inputs in the production process and logistics and supply chain operations [20]. The importance of sustainable development in companies is also mentioned [21] as it is expected to become one of the critical conditions for international competitiveness even in the strongly related field of supply chains and logistics. There are many different definitions for both areas. One of many supply chain definitions [22] says that a supply chain is a system of activities (cooperating organizations) dealing with design, coordination, and controlling of materials, components, and finished products from the supplier to end customer and back in case of wastes. On the other side, it was, for example, mentioned [23] that in 1991, the Logistics Management Council defined logistics as the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficiency of the flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the company to the consumption of them and is, therefore, more oriented on one company. Some of the scientists [24] state that both logistics and supply chain, through previous and current development, have moved to the level of an important business function in companies, which further confirms that research about sustainable development in this area increases its importance. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental [25]. There are also 17 sustainable development goals (SDG), defined by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [26] with the aim and goal of achieving a better and more sustainable future. Sustainability dimensions and SDG are becoming more and more relevant to be incorporated in business logistics and supply chain management. Due to limited resources in organizations, such transition priorities must be studied so that they enable appropriate business decisions on different levels of national and international organizations.

1.3. Research Gap, Question, and Goals

It was found out that current studies concerning the three research areas are dealing with separate partial issues only, for example: how far customers of logistics services are willing to consider aspects of sustainable development [27], the logistics service provider’s approach to supporting SDGs [28], sustainable development through waste recycling in supply chains [29], and sustainable development in global supply chains [30]. Studies on a systematic review of the literature in the indicated fields were detected only in, for example, the following areas: performance measurements and metrics in logistics and supply chain management in the specified period [31], understanding the role of logistics capacity in achieving supply chain flexibility [32], green supply chain management [33], theories in the field of sustainable supply chain management [34], and research of supply chain with petroleum and biofuels [35]. With respect to reviewed literature, lack of studies in a systematic review of research trends in sustainable development in general but especially sustainable development perspectives and goals in logistics and supply chains was detected. The research gap was also identified in examining research studies regarding their focus on specific sustainable development dimensions—economic, social, and environmental as well as their combinations to see whether, for example, environmental sustainability is ranked higher than, for example, social sustainability. Therefore, this paper aims to review and analyze sustainability orientation according to SDG and define sustainability focus for studies published from 2010 to 2020 (until the beginning of October).
Based on the gap, the following research questions were investigated in this study: (1) Which of the three SD dimensions are integrated into logistics- and supply-chain-related studies and to what extent? (2) Which SDG priorities can be related to logistics- and supply-chain-related studies and which are of secondary importance? (3) What are the differences between logistics and supply chain-related studies in sustainability orientation and focus?
The goal of this research is to reveal research relations of sustainability in logistics- and supply-chain-related studies separately since supply chain is more related to cooperation among numerous parties in the supply chain and logistics is more pertaining to activities within a single organization. This research focuses on analyzing primary and secondary research orientation in relation to 17 SDGs regarding international recognition and devotion of science to SDGs. The contribution of the research is to reduce the gap and provide new insights into sustainability orientation and focus in logistics and supply chain research, which also reflects the future of business logistics.
The study is structured as follows: (a) materials and methods; (b) results section, divided into sustainability perspective focus, sustainability orientation related to SDG and constructing, visualizing, and analyzing bibliometric networks of studied papers with VOS viewer; (c) discussion and interpretation; and concluding remarks in (d) conclusion.

2. Materials and Methods

In preparing the research, the methodology of conducting a systematic literature review was constructive [36]. This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive review of available literature on logistics and supply chains with a focus on their relations with sustainable development. This research included published papers in Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2010 to October 2020. Mentioned bases were used because they are most often used (in comparison to other bases) and at the same time differ in coverage [37]. Consequently, the use of both databases expands the quality of research and findings. After reviewing different combinations of terms and keywords, it can be concluded that the focus of research is most covered if the search is by title. The paper selection process and research process are presented in Figure 1.
A database of studied material and analysis represented by 116 references [16,20,27,28,29,30,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147] are included in the Supplementary Materials which is submitted as a separate file due to too large a volume of data. Papers from the Supplementary Materials were analyzed according to:
  • The geographical area of research, to investigate national vs. global studies;
  • Three dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental [25] to investigate which dimension is most covered and how well sustainable development in logistics and supply chain is investigated from all three perspectives;
  • The 17 SGDs defined by the United Nations (for achieving a better and more sustainable future): (1) No poverty, (2) Zero hunger, (3) Good health and well-being for people, (4) Quality education, (5) Gender equality, (6) Clean water and sanitation, (7) Affordable and clean energy, (8) Decent work and economic growth, (9) Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, (10) Reducing inequalities, (11) Sustainable cities and communities, (12) Responsible consumption and production, (13) Climate actions, (14) Life below water, (15) Life on land, (16) Peace, justice and strong institutions, (17) Partnerships for the goals [26] with the aim and goal to define priorities in research studies orientation. According to the mentioned goals of sustainable development, the research was divided into primary and secondary perspectives. If the research was strongly related and focused on a specific goal, it was considered as the primary perspective. Otherwise (if for example, only partly related to one SDG) then as a secondary perspective.
  • Main findings to identify the research emphasis application.
Further, the research focuses on constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks with VOSviewer, enabling a wide variety of bibliometric analyses [148,149,150]. In this case, results of network connectivity (sustainable development, logistics, and supply chain) were investigated as well as citations to assess the most influential research studies.
After detailed data processing, the results were analyzed and interpreted in the following structure:
  • Relations to journals of publication.
  • Focus on separate sustainable development dimensions.
  • Priority orientation of investigated studies in relation to SDGs.
  • Secondary orientation of investigated studies related to SDGs.
  • Bibliometric analysis and network connectivity based on VOSviewer.

3. Results

3.1. Relations to Journals of Publication

In this article, 116 studies published in 73 international journals in the period between 2010 and 2020 were taken into consideration. In the year 2020, only studies published from January to the beginning of October were taken into consideration. According to the geographical orientation, there were 29 international studies, 63 national, and the rest (24) of the studies were not specified. The fact which is interesting is that in the years 2019 and 2020, there is a much bigger focus on international studies than in the previous period range (48.28% of all international studies were published between these two years). Most studies related to sustainability issues related to logistics and supply chain were published in 2019, namely 29, representing 25% of all studies. A total of 74 out of 116 studies (63.79%) were published in 2018, 2019, and 2020 which shows that this research field is gaining scientific attention and is really topical. Published studies by year and scope are shown in Figure 2.
Analyzed studies were most present in four international journals: International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production and Business Strategy and the Environment (30.17% of studies). Distribution among journals can be seen in Table 1.
Out of 116 articles, 11 were included in Web of Science, 37 in Scopus, and 68 were included both in the Web of Science and Scopus databases.

3.2. Focus on Sustainable Development Dimensions

To define the focus of sustainability perspectives, different partial sustainability dimensions were analyzed. At least one dimension of sustainability (separately, in a combination of two or all three dimensions together) was identified 266 times meaning that most of the papers included multiple sustainability dimensions. In total, 55 studies (47.41% of all) were related to all three dimensions; 34.48% were a combination of two dimensions—40 studies and 21 studies (18.10%) were related to one sustainability dimension only. Most represented was the economic dimension, defined in 97 cases (83.62% of all studies), followed by the environmental dimension in 90 cases (77.59% of all studies) and social dimension in 79 cases (68.10% of all studies).
Figure 3 clearly shows that supply-chain-related research is more focused on integrating all three dimensions of sustainability than those related to logistics. Within “logistics” related studies, 13 were identified to be related with all three dimensions, 13 with two dimensions (39.39% of all), and 7 studies with one dimension only (21.21% of all). In supply-chain-related studies, 42 studies (50.60% of all) were identified to be related to all three dimensions. 27 studies (32.53% of all) were related to a combination of two dimensions, and 14 studies (16.87% of all) with one separate dimension only.

3.3. Priority Orientation of Investigated Studies towards Specific SDGs

Among the 17 SDGs, primary orientation was defined 193 times for all 116 studies since some studies’ primary orientation can be related to multiple SDGs. A separate analysis of results was made for logistics (33 studies—41 SGD relations) and supply chain (83 studies—152 SDG relations). In Figure 4, the primary orientation towards specific SDGs is presented. Presented data were analyzed (1) as a relation to one SDG only (light blue—logistics and light green—supply chain) or (2) as a relation to multiple SDGs (dark blue—logistics and dark green—supply chain). In total, six goals were defined as being the top priority, out of which three: ‘‘Responsible consumption and production” (especially for supply chain perspective), ‘‘Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure”, and “Affordable and clean energy” stand out. These three appeared 27 times. The other three: “Reducing inequalities” (again especially important for supply chain perspective), “Decent work and economic growth” (entirely related with supply chain perspective), and “Partnerships for the goals” appeared in 22 cases. Among logistics studies, primary orientation towards “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure” (appeared 10 times) and “Affordable and clean energy” (appeared 9 times) stands out. In the primary orientation of supply chain studies, two SDGs stand out but not the same SDGs as in the case of logistics studies. Here, “Responsible consumption and production” and “Decent work and economic growth” were identified 22 times. In total, 14 studies (12.07% of all studies) are primarily related to “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure,” which is the most represented SDG among studies with an orientation towards a single SDG. Among studies with single SDG orientation, these were followed by: “Partnerships for the goals” (in a total of 12 out of 116—10.34% of all studies) and “Responsible consumption and production” (in a total of 11 out of 116—9.48% of all studies). In logistics-related studies, it was found out that most of them (24.24%) are primarily related only to the goal “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure”. The most represented single SDG among 83 supply-chain-related studies was identified as “Decent work and economic growth” which was related to supply chain studies only.

3.4. The Secondary Orientation of Investigated Studies towards Specific SDGs

Because some studies’ primary and secondary orientations differ, a separate analysis of the secondary orientation of studies towards separate SDGs was performed. Even though studies can be inter-related with multiple SDGs they were divided based on primary and secondary orientation. If the study’s focus is related to more SDGs, these were defined as a primary orientation. Suppose the emphasis (content) of one study is related to one or more SDG and the same study is related to a specific sector, which cannot be identified as a primary focus of the study, this was identified as the secondary orientation of the paper. The primary focus of one study is identified to be, for example, “Responsible consumption and production”, but since the study investigates the impact of sustainable consumption in different urban communities of the future, its secondary focus is related to “Sustainable cities and communities”. Secondary orientation was therefore analyzed separately. In secondary orientation, 9 out of 17 SDGs were identified 125 times in 116 examined studies, meaning that fewer studies had a secondary orientation defined. Orientation towards multiple goals was rare here. In 33 logistics-related studies, secondary relations to SDGs were identified 37 times, and in 83 supply-chain-related studies 88 times (see Figure 5).
One SDG prevailed strongly among all so it can be concluded that secondary orientation is focused mainly towards: “Sustainable cities and communities” (97 cases). It stands out in logistics (23 times) and supply chain (74 times) related studies. In total, 80.17% of studies’ secondary orientation can be linked with “Sustainable cities and communities” as the only secondary orientation. This means that logistics and supply chain studies are strongly related to this SDG. Even though not among primary priorities, most of the studies addressed sustainable cities and communities as a secondary orientation, which can lead to the conclusion that this might be one of the top future priorities not just for scientists but also for politics, supply chain, and logistics managers as well as different public stakeholders.

3.5. Bibliometric Analysis of Reviewed Literature Network Connectivity

Several different bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer according to the Scopus database: (1) Overview of the number of studies which have at least five quotes regarding citation; (2) Network connectivity of all keywords which were repeated at least twice (with nine clusters); and (3) Network connectivity of keywords which were repeated at least twice with all three main topics/keywords of this research: sustainable development, logistics, and supply chain (also upgraded with two standard weight attributes).
By far the most recognized and cited is currently the study of the authors Brandenburg et al. [54] with 609 citations followed by the study of Isaksson et al. [38] with 65 citations defining a big gap among most cited and all others. In Figure 6, a visualization of the citation’s network with at least five quotes is presented. As expected, studies published before 2018 dominate. Newer studies will probably gain more citations in the following years however, due to a significant increase in the number of published papers in 2018, 2019, and 2020 future citation networks could be more dispersed instead of focused mainly on one widely known study.
More related to the study content orientation was an analysis of keyword connectivity. VOSviewer identified 809 keywords, and when the minimum number of occurrences was set to repeat at least twice, 139 keywords met the threshold. The most frequently identified keyword was “sustainable development”, which occurred in 69 cases followed by “sustainability”, which was repetitive in 32 cases. Till seventh place follow supply chain management, planning, logistics, supply chains, and sustainable supply chains. Figure 7 shows the network connectivity’s visual presentation regarding minimal keyword occurrence with all identified keywords. The circle and letter sizes point to the number of occurrences of the keyword, and the links show which keywords appear together in studied literature. Based on VOSviewer analysis, nine clusters of keywords were formed that had common means and content. The most prominent clusters that occur are (1) the red one (named “Sustainable supply chain management”), which has in common 29 keywords out of 139 that repeated at least twice. The keyword focus is sustainable development, supply chain management, and green supply chain management. (2) The second, and (3) the third most occurred clusters are the green one (named “Food supply and supply chain decisions”) and dark blue (named “Smart and resilient communities”). The green cluster is formed by keywords such as supply chains, food supply, and decision-making. The dark blue cluster is defined by keywords such as, for example, smart city, urban development, and climate change. Both have 20 common keywords. (4) The fourth is the yellow cluster (named “Green logistics”) which has 19 common keywords. This cluster is constructed on keywords such as logistics, green logistics, and environmental protection. (5) The fifth cluster is purple, which has in common 15 keywords (named “Environmental optimization of supply”) like sustainable supply chain, environmental sustainability, and optimization. Slightly less represented are clusters visualized with the following colors: light blue (6), orange (7), brown (8), and pink (9) that have altogether 36 keywords in common; therefore, their connection is slightly less significant.
The next analysis was made to assess the network connectivity of keywords that were repeated at least twice within all three main topics of this research: sustainable development, logistics, and supply chain with the same nine clusters mentioned in the previous paragraph. This part of the study was also upgraded with two standard weight attributes regarding VOSviewer: (1) links attribute and (2) the total link strength attribute. Mentioned attributes indicate the number of links of an item with other items and the full strength of the ties of an item with other items [150]—in this case, the item presents other keywords. The total number of links in this analysis is 1438, and the total number of link strength attributes is 2167. A visualization of the relations of “sustainable development” is revealed in Figure 8. The keyword sustainable development is part of the red cluster (“Sustainable supply chain management”) and is related to 134 links and has 419 link strength attributes. It was also possible to find keywords for sustainable development: “sustainable development goal” and “sustainable development goals” in the same red cluster. In Figure 9, as previously presented, connectivity is separately shown for relations focusing on logistics (Figure 9a) and on supply chain (Figure 9b). The keyword “logistics” is part of the yellow cluster related to 63 links and having 128 link strength attributes. Regarding the keyword “logistics”, it was also possible to find green keyword logistics in the same yellow cluster. On the other side, the keyword “supply chain” is part of the light blue cluster and is related to 36 links and has 57 link strength attributes. It should be emphasized that the keyword “supply chain” was also found in different forms (e.g., green supply chain management, responsible supply chain management, supply chain sustainability, supply chains, green supply chains, sustainable supply chain management, etc.). In total, the keyword “supply chain” appeared in 17 different forms, which were part of 6 clusters (red, green, dark blue, purple, light blue, and brown).

4. Discussion

The chosen research field is gaining international attention and is identified as extremely topical. Regarding the number of published scientific papers, they can be seen mostly from 2018 onwards. In any case, the fact that the year 2020 was taken into research for only the period from January to the beginning of October should be emphasized. It is expected that the trend of interest in this area will continue to grow in the following years, and relating SDGs with specific sectors will add value to research and policy implications. Currently, national studies are strongly represented and prevailing because there are many analyses on studies in only one country or even a city. However, it was evident that the importance of integrating the international perspective of research areas is growing. Internationally oriented studies were well represented already by 2014. After that, an unexpected decline was perceived and, from 2018, the increasing importance of the international perspective is seen again (48.28% of international studies). The international perspective and comparison among different countries, cultures, and nations can bring additional insight to achieving SDGs even more efficiently by applying specific approaches in different environments as proposed by Knez et al. [151] for country-specific policies promoting zero-emission vehicles in three different EU Member States.
The field of research needs to be considered in multiple sustainability dimensions. On one side, 81.90% of all studies were related to at least two, and 47.41% were related to all three sustainable development dimensions. The potential in sustainable supply chain competitiveness is seen especially if it is operationally, environmentally, and socially successful [72]. When analyzing sustainability dimensions, all the dimensions considered individually or together, most studies are still primarily related to the economic dimension (83.62%), meaning that the economic perspective is still the primary force that designs supply chains. Despite that, the increasing integration of the environmental dimension (detected at 77.59%) shows that environmental issues might not yet be equally crucial to economic ones but can be foreseen to be on the way to maybe even succeeding them. Reasons for this could be seen in the political focus towards decarbonization (recently also in China and USA), tackling climate change on a global as well as business level, the post-COVID transition to a greener industry (e.g., European Green Deal), and increasing consumer environmental awareness (e.g., controversial palm oil supply chain and avoiding of palm oil by numerous responsible users). The least represented was the social dimension (68.10%). The social dimension is understudied and will follow the environmental dimension in priority in the next five years [152]. It is already increasing in importance among socially responsible companies that assess and monitor social responsibility not just for themselves but also for their Tier-1, Tier-2, Tier-n sub-suppliers, recently being practiced in food supply chains and some clothing manufacturers. However, the social dimension is not yet integrated into the supply chain and logistics sector sustainability. Greater focus on supply chain reliability, responsiveness, and avoiding supply disruptions with shorter supply chains might also increase supply chain transparency to a higher level and enable more reliable monitoring of supply chain sustainability metrics.
Being confirmed by all United Nations member states [115], the 17 SDGs offer opportunities that current and future generations impose on current leaders, governments, and the business world, to enable long-term sustainable prosperity. Since sustainability dimensions need to be monitored comprehensively in different parts of the globalized processes, supply chains, as well as globalized logistics processes, get an important role as they become the initiators of the necessary changes and at the same time become the operators of interconnected, sustainable systems based on SDG application [133]. This is one reason why new research in the area of SDGs with a purpose and goal to find new insights, regardless of the study area, is crucial. This research focuses on the logistics and supply chain sector but might also be related to other cases, for example, stakeholder perception towards hydrogen energy [153], electric vehicles [154], etc.
When examining logistics and supply chain’s primary and/or secondary relations to SDGs, studies are often related to multiple SDGs, meaning that they are interdisciplinary. Both in logistics- and supply-chain-oriented papers, specific SDGs can appear alone or in combination with other goals in one individual study; however, there are slightly more logistics studies related with one SDG only, contrary to supply chain studies that are more often related with multiple SDGs. This is valid also from the supply chain complexity perspective since supply chain partners need to adapt to multiple variables and partner goals. The most represented are three primary SDSs: (1) Responsible consumption and production, (2) Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, and (3) Affordable and clean energy. This is again in accordance with the proposed long-term sustainable development paradigm, focused on cleaner production, circular economy, and reduced consumption; decarbonization of the energy sector and promoting innovative solutions for the transition towards a more sustainable future, especially in the EU but partly also in China and the USA as the most important global players shaping the sustainable development agenda. Within secondary SDGs, the priority is identified to be “sustainable cities and communities” which can be related to 80.17% of all studies. This is not surprising since urban living is becoming a prevailing way of life. Projections of 68% of the global population living in cities in the future by 2050 [155] require sustainable cities and communities, and this critical global challenge is appropriately addressed as an indirect, secondary focus of most of the studied papers. This goal also appears as part of the combination with other goals, but in smaller examples than in primary goals (even when it appears, “sustainable cities and communities” is again in the foreground). Applicability of the results in practice is seen especially in gaining better insight on which sustainability priorities matter in logistics and supply chain research at the moment and using these finding to foresee future trends related to the development of sustainable logistics and supply chains as supportive sectors, for example, for the development of sustainable cities, infrastructure, sustainable food supply, energy transition. Since supply-chain-related studies are more interconnected with all three sustainability dimensions simultaneously as well as with the SDGs than logistics studies, it could be speculated that just individual logistics companies’ activities are not enough for achieving sustainable development. The sum of a comprehensively active network of supply chain partners leads to achieving a more sustainable future and specific SDGs.
Bibliometric analysis has revealed that several authors usually produce the studies as it is the current practice due to a higher degree of interdisciplinarity in sustainability research. The most cited papers were published in the high-ranked Journal of Cleaner Production, which has been rapidly growing in recent years. This is in accordance with the best-ranked primary SDG orientation in this study—“Responsible production and consumption” directly related to the journal’s scope.
“Sustainable development” and “sustainability” network connectivity analyses revealed that all three main topics of this research: SD, logistics, and supply chain, are connected with nine clusters. The majority of connections are focused on “Sustainable supply chain management”, “Food supply and supply chain decisions”, “Smart and resilient communities”, “Green logistics”, and “Environmental optimization of supply”. These research results can be a valuable insight for forecasting future trends in the development of logistics and supply chain managerial decisions and business focus since strong relations with sustainable development priorities can be seen as one of the top business management as well as global policy priorities. It does not matter if SD dimensions or SDGs are studied, a clear trend is seen. On the one side, the current trend shows that all SD dimensions together are quite well represented with social perspective slightly lagging behind and on the other side, some SDG relations are much more highlighted than others. Monitoring current trends is a valuable tool for change management, enabling SD implementation in all types of logistics processes and supply chain organizations more efficiently and on-time. The practical perspective of research findings is the social implication of valuable information for managers in the logistics and supply chain segment and will enable them to implement new insights into future business operations. It is supposed that along with helping managers to make specific decisions on supply chain strategy and the strategic focus of their companies and to avoid risky situations related to unsustainable business practice by following top SDG priorities, this paper also provides a new understanding of more sustainable business logistics and develops social wellbeing worldwide with equalizing the importance of all three pillars of sustainability.

5. Conclusions

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of sustainability focus and orientation in supply-chain- and logistics-related studies in the last decade to clearly and unequivocally define which sustainable development UN goals and sustainability dimensions stand out.
After 2018, there was a notable increase in studies (especially international ones), proving that SD became an inevitable, relevant, and topical trend on the worldwide level in contemporary life. Detailed insight into the current SD situation enables predicting future trends in logistics and supply chains.
Overall findings indicate that further activities about SD in practical and theoretical research areas should show attention to multiple SDGs. Some of the primary goals stand out, especially: “Responsible consumption and production”, “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure”, and “Affordable and clean energy”. Prioritization enables logistics companies to understand the meaning of individual goals and focus on the most important as well as on their impact on the companies’ business structure. Among secondary SDGs “Sustainable cities and communities” clearly stands out, showing logistics companies that more attention should be given to smart and sustainable cities. It is also not surprising that all three SD dimensions are very well represented (individually and collectively) since SD is multifaceted. The economic dimension stands out in terms of occurrence.
Nevertheless, this paper is not without its limitations, and this could definitely serve as encouragement and also an exceptional opportunity for future work and discovering new insights in the area of supply chain and logistics. The progress of this paper enlights sustainability focus and orientation. Because implementation of the sustainability concept remains the biggest challenge globally [156,157,158], it is, consequently, even more important to understand which goals and dimensions special attention should be given to. Focusing on investigating relations to SDGs and sustainability dimensions on a micro-level in real-time, for example, based on daily operations, short-therm plans, logistics processes, strategic and operational management, would be very beneficial for a sustainable future for all. Therefore, especially, the mitigation of supply chains to climate change, the impact of clean energy in logistics processes, responsible consumption and production, logistics in smart cities, etc. should be further investigated to provide new knowledge for the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3280/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization (S.L. and M.O.); Formal analysis (S.L.); Funding acquisition (M.O. and D.K.-T.); Methodology (S.L. and M.O.); Visualization (S.L.); Writing—original draft (S.L.); Writing—review and editing (M.O. and D.K.-T.). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding for publishing in a journal from the University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics (Slovenia) and the Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Management (Poland).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the large volume of data, this paper’s database is submitted as Supplementary Materials in a separate file which is a supplement/extension of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tomsana, A.; Itoba-Tombo, E.F.; Human, I.S. An analysis of environmental obligations and liabilities of an electricity distribution company to improve sustainable development. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bombiak, E.; Marciniuk-Kluska, A. Green human resource management as a tool for the sustainable development of enterprises: Polish young company experience. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Yan, Y.; Wang, C.; Quan, Y.; Wu, G.; Zhao, J. Urban sustainable development efficiency towards the balance between nature and human well-being: Connotation, measurement, and assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mensah, J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brundtland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 20 March 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2020).
  8. Powe, N. Sustainable development, sustainability and research within the Journal of environmental planning and management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 1523–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lélé, S.M. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Dev. 1991, 19, 607–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cramer, W.; Guiot, J.; Fader, M.; Garrabou, J.; Gattuso, J.; Iglesias, A.; Lange, M.A.; Lionello, P.; Llasat, M.C.; Paz, S.; et al. Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 972–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Raheem, A.; Prinsen, P.; Vuppaladadiyam, A.K.; Zhao, M.; Luque, R. A review on sustainable microalgae based biofuel and bioenergy production: Recent developments. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arora, N.K. Environmental sustainability—Necessary for survival. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Wang, J.; Mao, Y. Pains and gains of environmental management system certification for the sustainable development of manufacturing companies: Heterogeneous effects of industry peer learning. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2092–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dobrotă, D.; Dobrotă, G. An innovative method in the regeneration of waste rubber and the sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3591–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Andersson, A.; Winslott Hiselius, L.; Adell, E. Promoting sustainable travel behaviour through the use of smartphone applications: A review and development of a conceptual model. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 11, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pohlmann, C.R.; Scavarda, A.J.; Alves, M.B.; Korzenowski, A.L. The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: A Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, P.K.; Sarkar, P. A framework based on fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL for sustainable product development: A case of Indian automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thyavihalli Girijappa, Y.G.; Mavinkere Rangappa, S.; Parameswaranpillai, J.; Siengchin, S. Natural fibers as sustainable and renewable resource for development of eco-friendly composites: A comprehensive review. Front. Mater. 2019, 6, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Robaina, M.; Madaleno, M. The relationship between emissions reduction and financial performance: Are Portuguese companies in a sustainable development path? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 27, 1213–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cai, Y.; Choi, T. A United Nations’ sustainable development goals perspective for sustainable textile and apparel supply chain management. Transp. Res. Part E 2020, 141, 102010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ji, H.; Sui, Y.; Wang, H. Sustainable development for shipping companies: A supply chain integration perspective. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 98, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stevens, G.C. Integrating the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Mater. Manag. 1989, 19, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Wood, D.F. Logistics. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logistics-business#ref528537 (accessed on 18 July 2020).
  24. Grant, D.B.; Trautrims, A.; Wong, C.Y. Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2nd ed.; Kogan Page Limited: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chow, W.S.; Chen, Y. Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the Mainland Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 519–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. United Nations. About the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 6 October 2020).
  27. Large, R.O.; Kramer, N.; Hartmann, R.K. Procurement of logistics services and sustainable development in Europe: Fields of activity and empirical results. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2013, 19, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mehmann, J.; Teuteberg, F. The fourth-party logistics service provider approach to support sustainable development goals in transportation—A case study of the German agricultural bulk logistics sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jafari, H.; Hejazi, S.R.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. Sustainable development by waste recycling under a three-Echelon supply chain: A game-theoretic approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2252–2261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kannegiesser, M.; Günther, H. Sustainable development of global supply chains—Part 1: Sustainability optimization framework. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 2013, 26, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gunasekaran, A.; Kobu, B. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: A review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 2819–2840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gligor, D.M.; Holcomb, M.C. Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17, 438–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 16–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. An, H.; Wilhelm, W.E.; Searcy, S.W. Biofuel and petroleum-based fuel supply chain research: A literature review. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3763–3774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal cover-age of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Isaksson, R.; Johansson, P.; Fischer, K. Detecting Supply Chain Innovation Potential for Sustainable Development. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yildiz, T.; Yercan, F. Environmental reporting of industrial and supply chain business processes within the context of sustainable development. Bus. Theory Pract. 2011, 12, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bajdor, P. Comparison between sustainable development concept and green logistics—The Literature Review. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 5, 236–244. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fleury, A.; Davies, B. Sustainable supply chains—Minerals and sustainable development, going beyond the mine. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boons, F.; Baumann, H.; Hall, J. Conceptualizing sustainable development and global supply chains. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Rabenasolo, B.; Zeng, X. A risk-based multi-criteria decision support system for sustainable development in the textile supply chain. In Handbook on Decision Making; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Cucchiella, F.; Koh, L. Green supply chain: How do carbon management and sustainable development create competitive advantage for the supply chain? Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lintukangas, K.; Hallikas, J.; Kähkönen, A. The role of green supply management in the development of sustainable supply chain. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 22, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kannegiesser, M.; Günther, H.; Gylfason, Ó. Sustainable development of global supply chains—Part 2: Investigation of the European automotive industry. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 2013, 26, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hornibrook, S.; May, C.; Fearne, A. Sustainable development and the consumer: Exploring the role of carbon labelling in retail supply chains. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 24, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reefke, H.; Trocchi, M. Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: Design and development guidelines. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 805–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Campbell, A.M.; MacRae, R. Local food plus: The connective tissue in local/sustainable supply chain development. Local Environ. 2013, 18, 557–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muduli, K.; Barve, A. Establishment of a sustainable development framework in small scale mining supply chains in India. Int. J. Intell. Enterp. 2013, 2, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davies, W.; Baines, R.; Batt, P. Sustainable development of supply chains through public-private partnerships: Evaluating university project contributions. Acta Hortic. 1006 2013, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Komar, N.; Grabara, I. Supply chain including sustainable developments elements, for the enterprises dealing with the waste management obtained from the mines operation. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 309, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Prause, G. Sustainable development of logistics clusters in green transport corridors. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues 2014, 4, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 233, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oelze, N.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Habisch, A.; Millington, A. Sustainable development in supply chain management: The role of organizational learning for policy implementation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2014, 25, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yan, B.; Shi, S.; Ye, B.; Zhou, X.; Shi, P. Sustainable development of the fresh agricultural products supply chain through the application of RFID technology. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2014, 16, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martínez-Guido, S.I.; González-Campos, J.B.; Del Río, R.E.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M.; Nápoles-Rivera, F.; Serna-González, M.; El-Halwagi, M.M. A Multiobjective optimization approach for the development of a sustainable supply chain of a new fixative in the perfume industry. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 2380–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gopal, P.; Thakkar, J. Development of composite sustainable supply chain performance index for the automobile industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2014, 8, 366–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Steele, B.; Feyerherm, A. Loblaw sustainable seafood: Transforming the seafood supply chain through network development and collaboration. Build. Netw. Partnersh. 2014, 101–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singhry, H.B. An Extended Model of Sustainable Development from Sustainable Sourcing to Sustainable Reverse Logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 4, 115–125. [Google Scholar]
  61. Battini, D.; Calzavara, M.; Persona, A.; Sgarbossa, F. Sustainable packaging development for fresh food supply chains. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015, 29, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sun, Q. Research on the influencing factors of reverse logistics carbon footprint under sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 24, 22790–22798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Manea, D.; Titan, E.; Boboc, C.; Anoica, A. Logistic Regression in Modelling Some Sustainable Development Phenomena. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2016, 50, 83–100. [Google Scholar]
  64. Dupal, A.; Richnak, P.; Gubova, K. Reingeneering of reverse logistics in context of sustainable development in production businesses in Slovakia. J. Interdiscip. Res. 2016, 6, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zuzek, D.K.; Mickiewicz, B. Sustainable Development: A Challenge for Logistics Processes in Modern Enterprises. Ekonomista 2016, 6, 893–905. [Google Scholar]
  66. Alshubiri, F.N.; Hussein, M.A. Investigating the Impact of Sustainable Development Supply Chain on Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of Sultanate of Oman. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2016, 5, 69–81. [Google Scholar]
  67. Jardas, M.; Dundović, Č.; Badurina-Tomić, P. Supply chain—A key factor of the sustainable development of city centers. Sci. J. Marit. Res. 2016, 30, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Rakhmangulov, A.; Sladkowski, A.; Osintsev, N.; Muravev, D. Green Logistics: Element of the Sustainable Development Concept. Part 1. Naše More 2017, 64, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sun, Q. Empirical research on coordination evaluation and sustainable development mechanism of regional logistics and new-type urbanization: A panel data analysis from 2000 to 2015 for Liaoning province in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14163–14175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Malá, D.; Sedliacikova, M.; Dušak, M.; Kaščáková, A.; Musová, Z.; Klementová, J. Green logistics in the context of sustainable development in small and medium enterprises. Drv. Ind. 2017, 68, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, C.; Ho, H.; Luo, S.; Lin, T. An integrated approach to evaluating and selecting green logistics providers for sustainable development. Sustainability 2017, 9, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Das, D. Development and validation of a scale for measuring sustainable supply chain management practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1344–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wong, C.W.; Wong, C.Y.; Boon-itt, S. How does sustainable development of supply chains make firms lean, green and profitable? A resource orchestration perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 27, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jarrett, C.; Cummins, I.; Logan-Hines, E. Adapting Indigenous agroforestry systems for integrative landscape management and sustainable supply chain development in Napo, Ecuador. Adv. Agrofor. 2017, 283–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ha-Brookshire, J.; McAndrews, L.; Kim, J.; Freeman, C.; Jin, B.; Norum, P.; LeHew, M.; Karpova, E.; Hassall, L.; Marcketti, S. Moral education for sustainable development: Exploring morally challenging business situations within the global supply chain context. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Mishenin, Y.; Koblianska, I.; Medvid, V.; Maistrenko, Y. Sustainable regional development policy formation: Role of industrial ecology and logistics. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2018, 6, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pamucar, D.S.; Tarle, S.P.; Parezanovic, T. New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL-MAIRCA model: Sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2018, 31, 1641–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Straka, M.; Rosova, A.; Malindzakova, M.; Khouri, S.; Culkova, K. Evaluating the waste incineration Processfor sustainable development through Modelling, Logistics, and Simulation. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 2739–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pourjavad, E.; Mayorga, R.V. A fuzzy rule-based approach to prioritize third-party reverse logistics based on sustainable development pillars. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 35, 3125–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cao, C. Measuring sustainable development efficiency of urban logistics industry. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9187541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Averkyna, M.F.; Shulyk, Y.V. Financial and logistic coordination in the context of providing sustainable urban development in terms of decentralization in Ukraine. Financ. Credit Act. Probl. Theory Pract. 2018, 3, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dembińska, I.; Jedliński, M.; Marzantowicz, L. Logistic support for a rescue operation in the aspect of minimizing the ecological footprint as an environmental requirement within sustainable development on the example of a natural disaster. LogForum 2018, 14, 355–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, Y.; Wang, S.; Yao, J.; Li, Y.; Yang, S. Socially responsible supplier selection and sustainable supply chain development: A combined approach of total interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytic network process. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1708–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Andalib Ardakani, D.; Soltanmohammadi, A. Investigating and analysing the factors affecting the development of sustainable supply chain model in the industrial sectors. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 26, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stranieri, S.; Orsi, L.; Banterle, A.; Ricci, E.C. Sustainable development and supply chain coordination: The impact of corporate social responsibility rules in the European Union food industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 26, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sreekumar, V.; Rajmohan, M. Supply chain strategy decisions for sustainable development using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 27, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Bastas, A.; Liyanage, K. ISO 9001 and supply chain integration principles based sustainable development: A Delphi study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Patidar, R.; Agrawal, S.; Pratap, S. Development of novel strategies for designing sustainable Indian agri-fresh food supply chain. Sādhanā 2018, 43, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Zhang, D.; Wang, C.; Zheng, D.; Yu, X. Process of innovation knowledge increase in supply chain network from the perspective of sustainable development. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 873–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mirghafoori, S.H.; Morovati Sharifabadi, A.; Karimi Takalo, S. Development of causal model of sustainable hospital supply chain management using the Intuitionistic fuzzy cognitive map (IFCM) method. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2018, 11, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tong, Y.; Li, Y. External intervention or internal coordination? Incentives to promote sustainable development through green supply chains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Patel, A.B.; Desai, T.N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent developments in sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018, 22, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Leksono, E.B.; Suparno Vanany, I. Development of performance indicators relationships on sustainable healthcare supply chain performance measurement using balanced scorecard and DEMATEL. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Mishra, S.S.; Muduli, K.; Dash, M.; Parida, U.C.; Pumwa, J. When sustainable development matters in health care supply chain: An analysis of influential factors of waste management. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2018, 9, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Srinita, S. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Quantitative Framework: Developments, Directions and Economic Analysis in Indonesia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 409–417. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hamdan, K.H. Auditing Water Management to Achieve Sustainable Development in Supply Chain. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 697–710. [Google Scholar]
  97. Dong, J.; Xu, Y.; Hwang, B.; Ren, R.; Chen, Z. The impact of underground logistics system on urban sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Mesjasz-Lech, A.; Michelberger, P. Sustainable waste logistics and the development of trade in recyclable raw materials in Poland and Hungary. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Lee, C.K.; Zhang, S.; Ng, K.K. In-plant logistics simulation model for the catering service industry towards sustainable development: A case study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Boonlua, S. Learning and growth for sustainable development of logistics companies in Thailand. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 20, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Milewska, B. The e-commerce logistics models of Polish clothing companies and their impacts on sustainable development. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. Szczec. 2019, 60, 140–146. [Google Scholar]
  102. Russo, F.; Pellicano, D.S. Planning and sustainable development of urban logistics: From international goals to regional realization. Sustain. City XIII 2019, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pongpanit, P.; Sornsaruht, P. The critical nature of road logistics industry process capability’s role in sustainable tourism development. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019, 8. [Google Scholar]
  104. Asian, S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; John, J.J. Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: A pathway to sustainable development. International. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 218, 322–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cole, R.; Aitken, J. Selecting suppliers for socially sustainable supply chain management:post-exchange supplier development activities as pre-selection requirements. Prod. Plan. Control 2019, 30, 1184–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mair, S.; Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. Higher wages for sustainable development? Employment and carbon effects of paying a living wage in global apparel supply chains. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jawaad, M.; Zafar, S. Improving sustainable development and firm performance in emerging economies by implementing green supply chain activities. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 28, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fantazy, K.; Tipu, S.A. Exploring the relationships of the culture of competitiveness and knowledge development to sustainable supply chain management and organizational performance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019, 32, 936–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sherafati, M.; Bashiri, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Pishvaee, M.S. Supply chain network design considering sustainable development paradigm: A case study in cable industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 366–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yakavenka, V.; Mallidis, I.; Vlachos, D.; Iakovou, E.; Eleni, Z. Development of a multi-objective model for the design of sustainable supply chains: The case of perishable food products. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 294, 593–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Al-Nory, M.T. Optimal decision guidance for the electricity supply chain integration with renewable energy: Aligning smart cities research with sustainable development goals. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 74996–75006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Elias Mota, B.A.; Cerqueira de Sousa Gouveia Carvalho, A.I.; Azevedo Rodrigues Gomes, M.I.; Ferreira Dias Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Business strategy for sustainable development: Impact of life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment steps in supply chain design and planning. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 29, 87–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wu, A.; Li, T. Gaining sustainable development by green supply chain innovation: Perspectives of specific investments and stakeholder engagement. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 29, 962–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zhuo, N.; Ji, C. Toward livestock supply chain sustainability: A case study on supply chain coordination and sustainable development in the pig sector in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Alexander, A.; Delabre, I. Linking sustainable supply chain management with the sustainable development goals: Indicators, scales and substantive impacts. Green. Ind. Netw. Stud. 2019, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Aliakbari Nouri, F.; Shafiei Nikabadi, M.; Olfat, L. Sustainable service supply chain practices (SSSCPs): A framework development. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2019, 69, 813–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Delabre, I.; Alexander, A.; Rodrigues, C. Strategies for tropical forest protection and sustainable supply chains: Challenges and opportunities for alignment with the UN sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Muzaffar, A.; Khurshid, A.; Malik, M.N.; Azhar, A. Sustainable development across the supply chain: The missing link of socio-environmental effect. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Gaur, A.; Vazquez-Brust, D.A. Sustainable development goals: Corporate social responsibility? A critical analysis of interactions in the construction industry supply chains using externalities theory. Green. Ind. Netw. Stud. 2019, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rosado, L.; Kalmykova, Y. Combining industrial symbiosis with sustainable supply chain management for the development of urban communities. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2019, 47, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Mehrjerdi, Y.Z.; Lotfi, R. Development of a Mathematical Model for Sustainable Closed-loop Supply Chain with Efficiency and Resilience Systematic Framework. Int. J. Supply Oper. Manag. 2019, 6, 360–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jermsittiparsert, K.; Pintobtang, P.; Jumnianpol, S. Ensuring Green Environment through Sustainable Development Goals in Thailand: Mediating Role of Supply Chain Integration. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 635–646. [Google Scholar]
  123. Yudhia Kurniawan, B.P.; Sundari, S.; Wardat, I. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Development of a Supply Chain Management for Creating Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Coffee production in Jember Indonesia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 610–621. [Google Scholar]
  124. Setiawan, M.I.; Abdullah, D.; Sri Lestari, V.N.; Yuniningsih, Y. Supply Chain and Sustainable Fisheries Development of Portable Inflated Solar Power Cold Storage House Technology in Indonesia, Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 1133–1143. [Google Scholar]
  125. Varchenko, O.; Utechenko, D.; Khakhula, L.; Slobodeniuk, O.; Byba, V.; Portyan, M.; Shepel, T. Key Components of Sustainable Supply Chain Development of the Agricultural Sector of Ukraine. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 874–884. [Google Scholar]
  126. Xu, X.L.; Chen, Y.J. A comprehensive model to analyze straw recycling logistics costs for sustainable development: Evidence from biomass power generation. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, e13394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lv, Y.; Xiang, S.; Zhu, T.; Zhang, S. Data-driven design and optimization for smart logistics parks: Towards the sustainable development of the steel industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Khan, M.; Sarmad, M.; Ullah, S.; Bae, J. Education for sustainable development in humanitarian logistics. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 10, 573–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ostapenko, O.; Savina, N.; Mamatova, L.; Zienina-Bilichenko, A.; Selezneva, O. Perspectives of Application of Innovative Resource-Saving Technologies in the Concepts of Green Logistics and Sustainable Development. 2020. Available online: http://natal.uern.br/periodicos/index.php/RTEP/article/view/1261/1202 (accessed on 3 October 2020).
  130. Nguyen, H.P. Sustainable Development of Logistics in Vietnam in the Period 2020–2025. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 11, 665–682. [Google Scholar]
  131. Russo, F.; Calabrò, T.; Iiritano, G.; Pellicanò, D.; Petrungaro, G.; Trecozzi, M. City logistics between international vision and local knowledge to sustainable development: The regional role on planning and on public engagement. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 15, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Grabara, J.; Dabylova, M.; Alibekova, G. Impact of legal standards on logistics management in the context of sustainable development. Acta Logist. 2020, 7, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zimon, D.; Tyan, J.; Sroufe, R. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with UN sustainable development goals. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2020, 14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ilyas, S.; Hu, Z.; Wiwattanakornwong, K. Unleashing the role of top management and government support in green supply chain management and sustainable development goals. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 8210–8223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Akbarian-Saravi, N.; Mobini, M.; Rabbani, M. Development of a comprehensive decision support tool for strategic and tactical planning of a sustainable bioethanol supply chain: Real case study, discussions and policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mastrocinque, E.; Ramírez, F.J.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Pham, D.T. An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 150, 113321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shan, H.; Li, Y.; Shi, J. Influence of supply chain collaborative innovation on sustainable development of supply chain: A study on Chinese enterprises. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Kalpande, S.D.; Toke, L.K. Assessment of green supply chain management practices, performance, pressure and barriers amongst Indian manufacturer to achieve sustainable development. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zhou, M.; Govindan, K.; Xie, X. How fairness perceptions, embeddedness, and knowledge sharing drive green innovation in sustainable supply chains: An equity theory and network perspective to achieve sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 120950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Pursuing supply chain sustainable development goals through the adoption of green practices and enabling technologies: A cross-country analysis of LSPs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 153, 119920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sherafati, M.; Bashiri, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Pishvaee, M.S. Achieving sustainable development of supply chain by incorporating various carbon regulatory mechanisms. Transp. Res. Part D 2020, 81, 102253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Jouzdani, J.; Govindan, K. On the sustainable perishable food supply chain network design: A dairy products case to achieve sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 278, 123060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hasan, H. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Direction of Economy and Civilization Development. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 671–681. [Google Scholar]
  144. Abadi, T.W.; Umar Balahmar, A.R.; Choiriyah, I.U. The Nexus of Local Government Involvement and Marine Sustainable Ecotourism Development: Mediating Role of Supply Chain Management. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 642–648. [Google Scholar]
  145. Chandra, D.; Kumar, D. Identifying Key Performance Indicators of Vaccine Supply Chain for Sustainable Development of Mission Indradhanush: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Omega 2020, 102258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kongtana, J.; Khasasin, R.; Khasasin, K.; Nualkaw, S. The Impact of Training and Career Development, Information Sharing and Diversity on Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain Strategy. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 553–561. [Google Scholar]
  147. Martoyo, M.; Elyta, E.; Herlan, H.; Arifin, S. Economic Development and Sustainable Human Resources by Supply Chain Managament in Government Towards in West Kalimantan Indonesia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 1054–1063. [Google Scholar]
  148. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  149. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. Meas. Sch. Impact 2014, 285–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual. 25 November 2020. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.16.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2021).
  151. Knez, M.; Jereb, B.; Jadraque Gago, E.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Obrecht, M. Features influencing policy recommendations for the promotion of zero emission vehicles in Slovenia, Spain, and Poland. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Obrecht, M.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Denac, M. Integrating social dimensions into future sustainable energy supply networks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Ingaldi, M.; Klimecka-Tatar, D. People’s attitude to energy from hydrogen—From the point of view of modern energy technologies and social responsibility. Energies 2020, 13, 6495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Omahne, V.; Knez, M.; Obrecht, M. Social aspects of electric vehicles research: Trends and relations to sustainable development goals. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. United Nations. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 6 February 2021).
  156. Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Sarkar, B.; Ahmed, W.; Kim, N. Joint effects of variable carbon emission cost and multi-delay-in-payments under single-setup-multiple-delivery policy in a global sustainable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 421–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Staniszewska, E.; Klimecka-Tatar, D.; Obrecht, M. Eco-design processes in the automotive industry. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2020, 26, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 03280 g001 550
Figure 1. Paper identification and selection process within the research process.
Figure 1. Paper identification and selection process within the research process.
Sustainability 13 03280 g001
Sustainability 13 03280 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of published studies by year and scope.
Figure 2. Number of published studies by year and scope.
Sustainability 13 03280 g002
Sustainability 13 03280 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequency of studies with identified one-, two- or three-dimensional integration of Sustainable Development dimensions.
Figure 3. Frequency of studies with identified one-, two- or three-dimensional integration of Sustainable Development dimensions.
Sustainability 13 03280 g003
Sustainability 13 03280 g004 550
Figure 4. The identified primary orientation of logistics and supply chain studies towards specific UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Figure 4. The identified primary orientation of logistics and supply chain studies towards specific UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustainability 13 03280 g004
Sustainability 13 03280 g005 550
Figure 5. Identified secondary orientation of logistics and supply chain studies towards specific UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Figure 5. Identified secondary orientation of logistics and supply chain studies towards specific UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustainability 13 03280 g005
Sustainability 13 03280 g006 550
Figure 6. Visualization of citation network (citation mapping).
Figure 6. Visualization of citation network (citation mapping).
Sustainability 13 03280 g006
Sustainability 13 03280 g007 550
Figure 7. Visual presentation of keyword co-occurrence network connectivity with nine identified clusters.
Figure 7. Visual presentation of keyword co-occurrence network connectivity with nine identified clusters.
Sustainability 13 03280 g007
Sustainability 13 03280 g008 550
Figure 8. Visual presentation of network connectivity for “sustainable development” according to relations with logistics AND supply chains divided into nine clusters.
Figure 8. Visual presentation of network connectivity for “sustainable development” according to relations with logistics AND supply chains divided into nine clusters.
Sustainability 13 03280 g008
Sustainability 13 03280 g009 550
Figure 9. Visual presentation of network connectivity (a) for the keyword “logistics” and (b) for the keyword “supply chain”, both according to the criterion repeated at least twice with two search conditions—1st: TITLE (sustainable AND development AND logistics) 2nd: TITLE (sustainable AND development AND supply AND chain).
Figure 9. Visual presentation of network connectivity (a) for the keyword “logistics” and (b) for the keyword “supply chain”, both according to the criterion repeated at least twice with two search conditions—1st: TITLE (sustainable AND development AND logistics) 2nd: TITLE (sustainable AND development AND supply AND chain).
Sustainability 13 03280 g009
Table
Table 1. Number of published studies by journals.
Table 1. Number of published studies by journals.
No.Studies Published in a JournalNumber of Studies
1International Journal of Supply Chain Management12
2Sustainability 9
3Journal of Cleaner Production 8
4Business Strategy and the Environment6
5Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management3
6Environmental Science and Pollution Research3
7International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management3
8Sustainable Development3
9Ecological Economics2
10Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal2
11Greening of Industry Networks Studies2
12Polish Journal of Management Studies2
13Other journals in which only one study was published61
Total116
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lazar, S.; Klimecka-Tatar, D.; Obrecht, M. Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063280

AMA Style

Lazar S, Klimecka-Tatar D, Obrecht M. Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lazar, Sebastjan, Dorota Klimecka-Tatar, and Matevz Obrecht. 2021. "Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063280

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