1 Introduction

In today’s global economy, the complexity of supply chains has escalated, with suppliers spread across multiple tiers and diverse geographies. The intricate webs of production have resulted in companies losing control over their lower-level suppliers (Vurro et al., 2009). This lack of oversight fosters practices that can hide serious environmental and humanitarian problems. Without proper supervision, upstream actors engage in practices such as poor working conditions, discrimination, child labor, slavery and environmental pollution. The consequences of such unregulated supply chains are far-reaching, as evidenced by various incidents around the world.

The Rana Plaza catastrophe in Bangladesh, which claimed more than 1,132 lives, predominantly women and girls, and wounded over 2,500, is a striking reminder of the human cost of negligent supply chain management (ILO, 2017). Similarly, child labor in cacao farms in Burkina Faso, cobalt mines in Congo, and cotton fields in India (UNICEF, 2020; Whoriskey et al., 2019), as well as forced labor and modern slavery in Thailand’s fishing industry (Dow, 2019), exemplify the widespread exploitation enabled by these opaque systems. In addition to these human rights violations, environmental degradation is a significant concern. Practices such as the burning of fossil fuels, pollution of water sources by textile factories in South Asia (ILO, 2022) and deforestation and habitat destruction in the Amazon rainforest due to agribusiness supply chains (OECD, 2022) are exacerbating the climate crisis.

The economical sustainability of the companies is challenged by the wider scale and scope of risks in global markets (Begum et al., 2022). Thus, preserving the competitive advantage by social and environmental sustainability drivers, in addition to economical sustainability has become a key to overall competitive success of the company (Amjad et al., 2022). To effectively tackle the pressing challenges of social and environmental sustainability, organizations must prioritize increasing transparency and sustainability in their supply chains. As highlighted in studies by Qorri et al. (2018), Panigrahi et al. (2018), and Manupati et al. (2020), this increased scrutiny forces companies to proactively assess, regulate, and disclose not only their own sustainability but also those of their suppliers.

Assessing the sustainability performance of a supply chain is an intricate and demanding process that encompasses a range of stakeholders (Ahi & Searcy, 2015). The complexity of this task is heightened by the absence of universally accepted standards for measuring and integrating sustainability into corporate strategies (Mani et al., 2016; Stindt, 2017; Almanza & Corona, 2020). Despite these obstacles, the use of performance measurement emerges as a viable solution, offering a way to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of sustainability efforts (Neely et al., 1995). Quantitative indicators are particularly crucial in this context due to their measurability and reduced susceptibility to bias compared to qualitative metrics (Giannakis et al., 2020; Govindan et al., 2021). Furthermore, the importance of such quantitative metrics in facilitating informed decision-making is underscored by Taticchi et al. (2015).

While existing literature extensively explores various dimensions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), there remains a significant gap in the quantitative assessment of the environmental and social sustainability in these supply chains (Popovic et al., 2018; Saeed & Kersten, 2020; Neri et al., 2021). Most studies have focused on qualitative analyses or case-specific assessments, and there is a perceived lack of comprehensive frameworks using quantitative methods for cross-sectoral applicability. This research aims to fill this gap by developing a quantitative and semi-quantitative framework for assessing environmental and social sustainability in SSCM, thus addressing an important missing piece in the existing body of knowledge. The study aims to answer the following question: What are the common quantitative and semi-quantitative environmental and social sustainability indicators applicable for cross-industry performance assessment in the SSCM literature?

By focusing on quantitative indicators, this research aims to provide a more objective and measurable approach to sustainability assessment, facilitating better decision-making and accountability in supply chain management. This framework is crucial for understanding the current state of sustainability in supply chains and instrumental in guiding improvements and tracking progress over time, thereby advancing progress towards sustainable development.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, a brief review of the existing literature on environmental and social sustainability assessments in SSCM is presented. Second, the methodology applied in this study is elaborated, outlining the approach to framework development and data collection. Subsequently, the research results and discussion on the quantitative sustainability framework are presented, including its practical application and potential limitations. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the research findings and provides recommendations for future research to improve the measurement of environmental and social sustainability in SSCM.

2 Literature review

The concept of sustainability, along with the notion of sustainable development, gained significant recognition following the release of the Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. The seminal report defined sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 37). Building on this foundation, Elkington, in 1994, invented the phrase “triple bottom line (TBL)” to present a framework for businesses to simultaneously evaluate their social and environmental impact, alongside financial performance. The TBL framework comprises three fundamental pillars of sustainability: social development, environmental preservation, and economic development, commonly referred to as people, planet, and profit (Elkington, 1994). Tate and Bals (2018) note that while the economic dimension of TBL is frequently emphasized by organizations, the environmental and social aspects are often underrepresented, mainly due to assessment challenges.

Sustainable supply chain management is defined as “the management of supply chain operations, resources, information, and funds in order to maximize the supply chain profitability while minimizing the environmental impacts and maximizing the social well-being” (Hassini et al., 2012, p. 71). Key SSCM principles of transparency, supplier evaluation, and collaboration are achieved through the adoption of relevant sustainability assessment and management methods (Beske-Janssen et al., 2015). The roots of sustainability assessment and management in organizations trace back to the evolution of corporate responsibility and corporate social responsibility concepts (Winter & Lasch, 2016). Companies often employ sustainability standards like SA8000, EMAS, ISO 26,000, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to assess supply chain sustainability. Yet these standards, while comprehensive, do not entirely encapsulate the multifaceted nature of sustainable development, a gap highlighted by Chardine-Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz (2014).

The academic field offers extensive research on sustainability performance assessment. Erol et al. (2011) propose a quantitative approach using the fuzzy entropy method for evaluating supply chain performance, while Popovic et al. (2018) focus on indicators specific to social sustainability. Giannakis et al. (2020) provide an analytical method for assessing quantifiable sustainability parameters applicable across industries. Furthermore, Saeed and Kersten (2020) synthesize existing standards, guidelines, and literature to compile 89 metrics for corporate sustainability assessment. Table 1 shows the matrix of environmental sustainability indicators frequently mentioned in the literature from 2011 to 2018.

Table 1 Matrix of commonly used environmental sustainability indicators in the literature
Full size table

During the initial phase from 2011 to 2014, foundational research emerged, exemplified by studies such as those by Erol et al. (2011) and Shen et al. (2013). These early studies were pivotal in setting the groundwork for future research in sustainability indicators. A characteristic feature of this period was the encompassing approach adopted in these studies. They covered a wide array of indicators spanning the three primary categories: natural resources, pollution management, and environmental management systems.

The period from 2015 to 2018 witnessed a significant evolution in the field, as evidenced by the works of Ahi and Searcy (2015), GRI (2016), and Winter and Lasch (2016). This era was characterized by a noticeable increase in the detail and specificity of the indicators studied. Researchers began to delve into more specialized areas within each main category, such as recycled/reused water, land use and biodiversity, greenhouse gas emission, pollution, and life cycle assessment. This shift suggests a trend in research towards greater detail and possibly a move towards industry-specific studies.

In the most recent phase spanning from 2020 to 2022, there seems to be a resurgence of a holistic approach towards sustainability indicators. Studies by Giannakis et al. (2020), Neri et al. (2021) and Carvalho et al. (2022) exemplify this trend. There was a notable focus on environmental training, policies and objectives alongside supplier assessment. These studies highlight an increased recognition of the interconnectedness of various sustainability aspects. There is an observable shift towards considering broader impacts, particularly in supply chains, suggesting a systemic view of sustainability beyond the confines of individual organizations.

Figure 1 offers a structured overview of the environmental sustainability indicators frequently cited in academic literature from 2011 to 2022. The chart highlights the key areas of focus in sustainability research while also pointing to the potential for further work on these less often mentioned topics.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Commonly used environmental sustainability indicators in the literature (2011–2022)

Full size image

Within the category of Natural Resources, the indicators ‘Energy consumption’, ‘Renewable energy’, ‘Water consumption’, and ‘Recycled/ reused materials’ are prominent. The prominence of these indicators in scholarly discussions underscores a collective understanding of the importance of resource efficiency and conservation. Such a focus suggests a concerted effort within the sustainability field to promote practices that ensure the longevity and renewability of vital natural resources.

The Pollution and Waste Management category reveals a strong emphasis on emission-related and waste indicators. The frequent references to ‘Air pollution’, ‘Greenhouse gas emission’, ‘Hazardous waste’, ‘Solid waste’, and ‘Wastewater’ reflect a concerted academic and societal concern regarding the impact of pollution on both the environment and public health. The attention given to these indicators points to the urgency of addressing climate change and the critical need for effective waste management and pollution control strategies.

Regarding the Environmental Management System category, ‘Environmental management system’ notably stands out, indicating an increased scholarly focus on the structures and processes organizations use to manage their environmental impacts. This is complemented by the frequent mention of ‘Product recyclability’ and ‘Green packaging and labeling’, suggesting a shift towards sustainable product life cycles and consumer-facing sustainability efforts.

However, some indicators such as ‘Noise pollution’, ‘Hazardous material use’, ‘Life cycle assessment’, ‘Environmental education’ and ‘Environmental accidents’ are less frequently mentioned in the literature, which may indicate that they can be considered niche areas in the field of SSCM.

Table 2 illustrates the matrix of social sustainability indicators commonly mentioned in the literature from 2011 to 2018.

Table 2 Matrix of commonly used social sustainability indicators in the literature
Full size table

From the onset in 2011, foundational studies like those by Erol et al. (2011) provided a nascent look into a range of social sustainability indicators. This early stage was marked by an exploration of diverse indicators but with gaps in comprehensive coverage, as shown by the sparsity of filled boxes in the matrix.

As the research advanced into the period from 2014 to 2018, there was a noticeable trend towards labor practices and health and safety. Studies such as those by Chardine-Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz (2014), and Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2015) demonstrate a more concentrated focus on these areas, reflecting an increased academic and practical interest in the well-being of workers and the conditions of the work environment. Additionally, during this period, there is a visible expansion into the consideration of human rights and societal issues by Winter and Lasch (2016) and Fritz et al. (2017). This is evident in the increasing number of boxes filled in under categories such as freedom of association, child and forced labor, corruption, and consumer health and safety, indicating that the field is beginning to recognize and integrate a broader range of complex social issues.

The most recent phase from 2020 to 2022 showcases a holistic approach to social sustainability indicators in the literature. Almanza and Corona (2020), for instance, contribute to the expanding dialogue on human rights and societal issues, while Govindan et al. (2021) delve into aspects of promoting social responsibility, indicating a trend towards addressing the social issues collectively. Neri et al. (2021) further the discussion by exploring the themes of stakeholder engagement and empowerment indicating a recognition of the complex interplay between various social sustainability facets. The comprehensive approach adopted by studies in this period reflects an era in which integrating social sustainability concerns into business strategy is seen as increasingly important. This shift is driven by the global push for more ethical, transparent, and inclusive business practices, underscored by the growing societal demand for corporate accountability.

The Fig. 2 depicts the frequency of various social sustainability indicators cited in academic literature from 2011 to 2022, particularly highlighting the evolving priorities within the domain of social sustainability.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Commonly used social sustainability indicators in the literature (2011–2022)

Full size image

The Labor Practices category demonstrates a pronounced emphasis on ‘Employee training and development’, ‘Fair wage’, and ‘Social benefits’, which underlines the increasing scholarly attention to personal growth, fair compensation, and the comprehensive welfare of employees as integral to sustainable business practices. ‘Gender diversity’ and ‘Diversity among workforce’ are also focal points, reflecting the growing importance of inclusivity and representation in the workplace.

In the Health and Safety category, ‘Occupational health and safety’ and ‘Accidents’ are predominant, underscoring the paramount concern for ensuring the health and safety of employees. The frequency of these indicators signals a consensus on the need for rigorous health and safety standards as a pillar of social sustainability.

The Human Rights category shows a robust focus on ‘Freedom of association’ and ‘Collective bargaining agreements’ which points to the recognition of workers’ rights as a cornerstone of social equity within organizations. The emphasis on ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Child and forced labor’ in the literature reflects a critical stance against human rights violations and underscores the importance of ethical labor practices in SSCM.

Within the Society category, ‘Community development’ emerges as the most cited indicator, suggesting that the literature strongly advocates for the proactive role of organizations in contributing to the welfare and development of the communities in which they operate. The indicator ‘Corruption’ is also notable, highlighting the need for transparency and ethical conduct as key components of a socially sustainable business environment.

Lastly, the Product Responsibility category shows relatively less emphasis on indicators such as ‘Customer health and safety’, which could suggest a potential area for increased focus in future research. Similarly, ‘Full-time and part-time employees’, ‘Employee contract’, ‘Flexible working conditions’, and ‘Promoting social responsibility’ receive fewer mentions. This may indicate a need for a more in-depth exploration of how employment terms and corporate responsibility initiatives can further contribute to the social aspect of sustainability.

These scholarly contributions reveal a range of environmental and social sustainability indicators, some of which are emphasized more than others. However, a unified, standardized method for sustainability performance assessment remains elusive (Saeed & Kersten, 2020). Therefore, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive framework that incorporates quantitative environmental and social sustainability indicators to effectively measure supply chain sustainability performance.

3 Data and methodology

A systematic literature review was undertaken following the guidelines of Moher et al. (2009). The literature review aimed to explore the current research on environmental and social sustainability indicators within supply chains, focusing specifically on peer-reviewed articles in English from the Scopus database. Scopus was selected for its extensive repository of sustainability and supply chain management literature (Ahi & Searcy, 2015; Govindan et al., 2021). The search utilized keywords of “sustainable supply chain”, “supply chain sustainability”, “green supply chain”, “environmental supply chain”, “social supply chain”, “indicators”, “measur*”, “metrics”, “assess*” and “evaluat*”, yielding 3,071 articles. The initial screening, involving the removal of duplicates and irrelevant papers, narrowed this to 227 articles. Further refinement was performed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on papers offering quantitative or qualitative environmental or social sustainability indicators and excluding industry-specific studies. This led to the selection of 23 articles for in-depth review and analysis, along with the inclusion of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework for its extensive indicator range. The article selection stages are illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Article selection stages for this paper

Full size image

Once the relevant articles were identified, the next step was to classify the indicators included in them. The environmental and social indicators mentioned in the 23 selected articles and the GRI framework were listed and then classified based on their content similarities. To develop a quantitative framework, two key criteria were used for indicator selection: an indicator must be recommended by at least three different authors, and it must possess a quantitative definition or description. Indicators failing to meet these requirements were excluded, leading to the identification of 36 environmental and 55 social sustainability indicators. For each of these metrics, a corresponding quantitative or semi-quantitative measurement was derived, either directly from mathematical formulas presented in the articles or inferred from the definitions of the indicators.

The literature review revealed a notable scarcity of articles providing quantitative formulas and definitions for sustainability indicators. This gap is especially pronounced in the social dimension, where indicators are often merely named without any quantitative formula or practical measurement guidance.

This study meticulously analyzed 23 articles alongside the GRI framework to extract the most commonly referenced environmental and social sustainability indicators. These indicators are systematically presented in Tables 1 and 2. The newly proposed quantitative framework, as illustrated in these tables, encompasses a comprehensive range of sustainability indicators frequently cited in prior research. This framework stands out for its inclusivity and depth, covering all the prevalent indicators, thereby offering a more holistic and detailed approach than its predecessors.

4 Findings

The study resulted in the development of a quantitative and semi-quantitative assessment framework to effectively measure the environmental and social sustainability performance of supply chain actors.

4.1 Environmental sustainability indicators

The environmental dimension of sustainability examines the impact of business activities on living and non-living systems (GRI, 2016). According to Hervani et al. (2005), the goal of environmental supply chain management is to eliminate or reduce harmful environmental consequences, such as pollution and waste, from the product’s raw materials to its final use and disposal. To assess the environmental sustainability, 36 environmental indicators have been developed and categorized into three groups: natural resources, pollution and waste management, and environmental management system (Table 3).

Table 3 Quantitative environmental sustainability performance indicators of the framework
Full size table

4.1.1 Natural resources

The natural resources category quantifies the impact of an organization’s operations on resources and ecosystems. It encompasses direct and indirect use of renewable and non-renewable energy—accounting for the consumption of energy in logistics, business travel, and product lifecycle—and material consumption (GRI, 2016). Energy efficiency, water, and material conservation are vital, achievable through design innovations and the use of recycled or used resources. For granular insight, the consumption of each material type is measured (GRI, 2016; Saeed & Kersten, 2020). Land use pertains to the allocation of land for organizational activities and its effect on natural habitats (Saeed & Kersten, 2020), while the biodiversity indicator considers the impact on ecosystems, necessitating measures to safeguard protected areas and species at risk (Carvalho et al., 2022).

4.1.2 Pollution and waste management

This category evaluates the generation and management of pollution and waste resulting from the company operations. Air pollution, quantified by the emission of air-polluting gases, includes greenhouse gases, which are implicated as a significant factor in climate change. Emissions sources include both company-owned facilities and indirect contributors (GRI, 2016). Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are integral to an organization’s sustainability initiatives. Contamination of soil and water through spills of hazardous materials like chemicals and fuels is addressed, alongside the regulation of noise pollution, which is considered problematic at thresholds above 65 decibels (WHO, 2022). Waste management strategies encompass the handling, recycling, and disposal of various waste types, classified into solid, hazardous, and wastewater categories (GRI, 2016; Fritz et al., 2017). Effective pollution and waste governance is crucial for minimizing detrimental environmental and health impacts.

4.1.3 Environmental management system

The environmental management system category focuses on the systematic management of an organization’s products and supply chain from an environmental standpoint. The eco-design subcategory considers the environmental ramifications of products or services, including factors like recyclability, eco-friendly material use, and the elimination of hazardous substances. Life cycle assessment is advocated for a comprehensive understanding of a product’s ecological footprint, with the aim of mitigating any adverse effects. The adoption of clean technologies, such as renewable energy and green transportation methods, is included within this subcategory.

Furthermore, the environmental management subcategory encompasses the organization’s environmental policies, objective setting, employee training, and performance evaluations. Policies articulate a commitment to environmental stewardship, while goal setting focuses on tangible sustainability targets. Employee education enhances understanding and engagement with environmental issues. Compliance with environmental standards, such as ISO 14,001 certification, serves as a benchmark for sustainability practices (Hervani et al., 2005). Monitoring environmental incidents is also vital for assessing the direct and indirect impacts of organizational activities. Lastly, evaluating supplier sustainability practices ensures that environmental standards are upheld throughout the supply chain.

4.2 Social sustainability indicators

The social sustainability dimension deals with the impact of company activities and products on the social systems in which it operates. Social systems consist of the organization’s employees, suppliers, customers, local community and society in general. To measure social sustainability, 55 social indicators have been developed and categorized into five groups: labor practices, health and safety, human rights, society, and product responsibility (Table 4).

Table 4 Quantitative social sustainability performance indicators of the framework
Full size table

4.2.1 Labor practices

The labor practices category examine the influence of organizational procedures on employment. Companies are encouraged to offer training programs to foster career growth, enhancing employees’ skills and knowledge as a fundamental part of career development (Siebert et al., 2018). Strong employee-organization relationships are crucial, with low turnover and limited part-time employment suggesting robust connections (Popovic et al., 2018). Clearly defined employee contracts are vital, detailing workers’ rights, responsibilities, and entitlements (Winter & Lasch, 2016; Fallahpour et al., 2017). Adhering to legal standards for working hours and offering flexible schedules and fair overtime are key to promoting work-life balance (Govindan et al., 2013; Siebert et al., 2018). Fair remuneration and equal employment opportunities, regardless of gender, disability, ethnicity, or age, are also imperative. Employee satisfaction and low sick leave rates are indicative of a positive working environment (Popovic et al., 2018).

4.2.2 Health and safety

Health and safety protocols are critical for safeguarding employee welfare within the workplace. Effective monitoring and prevention of workplace hazards and accidents are essential. Adherence to the ILO Occupational Health Management Systems Guidelines helps in instituting preventative measures (GRI, 2016; Tajbakhsh & Hassini, 2015). Indicators of a healthy work environment include proper emergency provisions, availability of protective gear, medical facilities, potable water, sanitation, and safe, comfortable workstations (Fritz et al., 2017; Almanza & Corona, 2020).

4.2.3 Human rights

The human rights category emphasizes the respect for fundamental rights within the supply chain. It involves the assurance that employees have the freedom to form unions and are free from discrimination, harassment, and coercion. Companies must eschew any association with child labor, forced labor, or the violation of indigenous rights, ensuring ethical interactions with stakeholders such as suppliers and customers (GRI, 2016).

4.2.4 Society

The society category assesses a company’s societal impact. Companies committed to social sustainability should not only create local employment opportunities but also actively contribute to community development through financial support. Meaningful stakeholder engagement in decision-making processes is essential for fostering inclusion and empowerment, as highlighted by Erol et al. (2011), Govindan et al. (2013), and Neri et al. (2021). Furthermore, compliance with social standards, often verified by SA8000 or ISO 26,000 certifications, is indicative of an organization’s adherence to social norms within the supply chain (Ahi & Searcy, 2015). Beyond compliance, companies are expected to avoid corrupt practices and monopolistic behavior, promoting social responsibility by guiding their suppliers in these areas as well (Chardine-Baumann & Botta-Genoulaz, 2014).

4.2.5 Product responsibility

Product responsibility pertains to the effect of products or services on consumer well-being and satisfaction. Companies must prioritize customer health and safety throughout the product life cycle, ensuring robust protection measures are in place (Chardine-Baumann & Botta-Genoulaz, 2014; GRI, 2016; Fritz et al., 2017). Additionally, customer privacy protection is crucial, reflecting a company’s dedication to information security. Ultimately, customer satisfaction metrics serve to evaluate if a company’s offerings meet and exceed user expectations, fulfilling their intended purpose.

5 Robustness of findings

The new quantitative framework for environmental and social sustainability offers a set of generic indicators suitable for supply chains across various sectors. Its main aim is to evaluate the sustainability performance of key players within the supply chain, including suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. These indicators are intentionally designed with flexibility to accommodate different temporal analyses — monthly, quarterly, or yearly — adaptive to the specific dynamics of each supply chain. For instance, while certain indicators may require frequent monitoring, others can be assessed at intervals corresponding to significant changes.

Organizations can leverage this framework to consistently monitor their supply chains, gain insights into their sustainability practices, benchmark progress over time, and pinpoint areas for enhancement. This tool also allows companies to transparently communicate their sustainability progress to stakeholders, such as customers, NGOs, and governmental bodies, potentially securing a competitive advantage. In addition, the framework is an asset in the supplier vetting process, ensuring that potential suppliers adhere to environmental and social standards.

The collection of metrics within the proposed sustainability framework serves as a diagnostic tool, casting light on the most urgent sustainability challenges faced by businesses across different sectors. By systematically gathering and analyzing these metrics, organizations can obtain a clear picture of where they stand in terms of environmental and social responsibility.

These insights are invaluable for policy-making as they provide empirical evidence that can inform the creation of targeted and effective policies. For instance, if the metrics reveal a pattern of high energy consumption or significant waste generation, policies can be tailored to address these specific issues, promoting energy efficiency and waste reduction initiatives. Additionally, investors can use this framework to mitigate risks, benchmark performance and improve due diligence to make more informed investment decisions in line with environmental and social governance (ESG) criteria.

Although the framework provides a robust structure for assessing sustainability, it is not an all-encompassing solution for decision-making. To effectively harness the framework’s full potential, it’s crucial to establish a clear interpretative threshold. This threshold would serve to shed light on a company’s sustainability data and measure progress towards sustainability targets. Developed with industry-specific sustainability risks in mind, this benchmark would allow companies to compile performance data across the supply chain. Such a comprehensive view enables the differentiation between more sustainable operations and those that are underperforming. Consequently, this distinction informs more strategic decision-making, guiding companies on a path to a sustainable future and ensuring the framework is not just a tool, but a catalyst for real change.

During the classification of indicators, it was noted that the ‘Animal treatment’ indicator received recognition from three or more authors, but the literature lacked a quantitative or semi-quantitative measure for this indicator. This gap highlights the need for future research to focus on creating a quantifiable metric for the ‘Animal treatment’ indicator, which is essential for its thorough evaluation.

6 Conclusion and implications

Today’s supply chains face significant environmental and social sustainability challenges. To effectively address these, organizations must embed sustainability into their core business operations and rigorously monitor and enhance their sustainability performance. Central to this effort is the development of robust methods for assessing and quantifying the impacts of supply chain activities on sustainable development. This necessitates the establishment and standardization of key performance indicators specific to environmental and social sustainability in SSCM.

This study introduces an innovative environmental and social sustainability framework with quantitative indicators to measure supply chain sustainability performance. The framework includes 36 environmental and 55 social sustainability indicators, each defined with precise quantitative or semi-quantitative descriptions for practical industry applications. The primary aim of this quantitative assessment framework is to encourage all supply chain actors to thoroughly evaluate their sustainability performance, thereby fostering accountability for their environmental and social impacts.

Serving as an invaluable tool for comprehensive sustainability assessments in supply chains, this framework enhances corporate accountability and transparency. It offers a holistic and systematic approach, adaptable across different industry sectors, for evaluating the environmental and social sustainability performance of supply chain entities. It can be used by policy makers and investors to guide strategic decisions, shape sustainable investment portfolios, and develop regulations that promote environmental stewardship and social responsibility.

While this framework is designed to be broadly applicable across various industry sectors, it may require additional tailoring for specific industry needs. Future research should consider incorporating sector-specific indicators to complement this framework. Moreover, to further enhance the effectiveness of sustainability assessments, the proposed framework can be integrated into a system that promotes standardized and streamlined assessments. Such a system would facilitate data exchange between supply chain stakeholders, record and compare sustainability assessments, set benchmarks, monitor progress and share information with relevant parties. Additionally, the system can leverage Industry 4.0 technologies such as AI, blockchain, IoT, and cloud computing to elevate the accuracy and efficiency of sustainability evaluations in supply chains.