Information Technology and Management

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

Challenges and requirements for developing data architecture supporting integration of sustainable supply chains

  • Djoko Sigit Sayogo
  • Jing Zhang
  • Luis Luna-Reyes
  • Holly Jarman
  • Giri Tayi
  • Deborah Lines Andersen
  • Theresa A. Pardo
  • David F. Andersen


Information asymmetry between consumers and supply chain actors represents a major barrier to the expansion of sustainable consumption. Developing an interoperable data architecture that enables the integration of data regarding sustainability practices from disparate sources in sustainable supply chains is important for improving market transparency. This paper identifies main issues and requirements as perceived by the key stakeholders in the coffee supply chain for such development. The analysis reveals that building an interoperable data architecture necessitates awareness of several major challenges, including the difficulties of collecting accurate and creditable data, limited technological capabilities, complex data ownership and disclosure policy, issues of confidentiality, privacy and economic value of information, and cost of disclosing information. To deal with these challenges, we recommend that the development need to ensure data quality, integrity and security, design information policy balancing commercial interests and openness, and design appropriate governance mechanism to complement the technological design in order to ensure the fair and proper use of the system.


Sustainable consumption Sustainable supply chains Information integration Interoperable data architecture Industrial ecology I-Choose 


  1. 1.
    Linton JD, Klassen R, Jayaraman V (2007) Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. J Oper Manag 25:1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuchs DA, Lorek S (2005) Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. J Consum Policy 28:261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mont O, Plepys A (2008) Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? J Clean Prod 16:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seyfang G (2005) Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environ Polit 14:290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14:57–74Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26:301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84:488–500Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mishra DP, Heide JB, Cort SG (1998) Information asymmetry and levels of agency relationships. J Mark Res 35:277–295Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jahn G, Schramm M, Spiller A (2005) The reliability of certification: quality labels as a consumer policy tool. J Consum Policy 28:53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luna-Reyes L, Zhang J, Whitmore A et al (2014) Full information product pricing: an information strategy for harnessing consumer choice to create a more sustainable world. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 34:1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham M, Haarstad H (2011) Transparency and development: ethical consumption through Web 2.0 and the internet of things. Inf Technol Int Dev 7:1–18Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watts S, Wyner G (2011) Designing and theorizing the adoption of mobile technology-mediated ethical consumption tools. Inf Technol People 24:257–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jarman H, Luna-Reyes LF, Zhang J, Whitmore A, Picazo-Vela S, Andersen DL, Tayi GK, Pardo TA, Andersen DF, Sayogo DS (2011) I-Choose: consumer choice, digital government, and sustainability in North America. Presented at the APPAM Research Conference, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vachon S, Klassen R (2007) Supply chain management and environmental technologies: the role of integration. Int J Prod Res 45:401–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson P (1970) Information and consumer behavior. J Polit Econ 78:311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Angell LC, Klassen RD (1999) Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management. J Oper Manag 17:575–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matos S, Hall J (2007) Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. J Oper Manag 25:1083–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarkis J, Zhu Q, Lai K (2011) An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int J Prod Econ 130:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu Q, Sarkis J (2004) Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J Oper Manag 22:265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsu C-C, Tan KC, Zailani SHM, Jayaraman V (2013) Supply chain drivers that foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. Int J Oper Prod Manag 33:656–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf J (2011) Sustainable supply chain management integration: a qualitative analysis of the German manufacturing industry. J Bus Ethics 102:1–15Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins CM, Steg L, Koning MAS (2007) Customers’values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychol Mark 24:555–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Locke R, Romis M (2007) Improving work conditions in a global supply chain. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 48:54–61Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Locke R, Kochan T, Romis M, Qin F (2007) Beyond corporate codes of conduct: work organization and labour standards at Nike’s suppliers. Int Labour Rev 146:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Opara LU (2003) Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review of basic concepts, technological implications, and future prospects. J Food Agric Environ 1:101–106Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson TP, Clarke WR (1998) Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain: using the Internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Manag Int J 3:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bardhan IR, Demirkan H, Kannan PK, Kauffman RJ, Sougstad R (2010) An interdisciplinary perspective on IT services management and service science. J Manag Inf Syst 26:13–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lyons AC, Coronado Mondragon AE, Bremang A, Kehoe DF, Coleman J (2005) Prototyping an information system’s requirements architecture for customer-driven, supply-chain operations. Int J Prod Res 43:4289–4319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu LD (2011) Information architecture for supply chain quality management. Int J Prod Res 49:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein R, Rai A (2009) Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain relationships. MIS Q 33:735–762Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steinfield C, Markus ML, Wigand RT (2011) Through a glass clearly: standards, architecture, and process transparency in global supply chains. J Manag Inf Syst 28:75–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Malhotra A, Gosain S, Sawy OAE (2005) Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. Mis Q 29:145–187Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bayat A, Sundararajan S, Gustafson HR Jr, Zimmers EW Jr (2011) Sustainably driven supply chains. Ind Eng 43:26–31Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis C, Nikolic I, Dijkema GP (2010) Industrial Ecology 2.0. J Ind Ecol 14:707–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mishra BK, Raghunathan S, Yue X (2007) Information sharing in supply chains: incentives for information distortion. IIE Trans 39:863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clemons EK, Row MC (1993) Limits to interfirm coordination through information technology: results of a field study in consumer packaged goods distribution. J Manag Inf Syst 10:73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johnston HR, Vitale MR (1988) Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. MIS Q 12:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Han K, Chang YB, Hahn J (2011) Information technology spillover and productivity: the role of information technology intensity and competition. J Manag Inf Syst 28:115–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mont O, Bleischwitz R (2007) Sustainable consumption and resource management in the light of life cycle thinking. Eur Environ 17:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lebel L, Lorek S (2008) Enabling sustainable production-consumption systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:241–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Srivastava SK (2007) Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. Int J Manag Rev 9(1):53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pardo TA, Burke GB (2008) Improving government interoperability: a capability framework for government managers. Center for Technology in GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pardo TA, Gil-Garcia JR, Burke GB (2008) Sustainable cross-boundary information sharing. In: Chen H, Brandt L, Gregg V, Traunmuller R, Dawes SS, Hovy E, Macintosh A, Larson CA (eds) Digital government: advanced research and case studies, and implementation. Springer, New York, pp 421–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stake RE (2006) Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, vol 5, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raynolds L, Murray D, Heller A (2007) Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: a comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agric Hum Values 24:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T (2005) The governance of global value chains. Rev Int Polit Econ 12:78–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sayogo DS (2013) Modeling incentives to disclose: smart disclosure policy, private sector transparency and demanded disclosure (Dissertation). University at Albany State University of New York, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sayogo DS, Jarman H, Whitmore A, Tayi GK, Zhang J, Hrdinova J, Pardo TA, Andersen DF, Luna-Reyes LF, Tan X, Andersen DL (2012) A stakeholder analysis of interoperable data architecture: the case of I-Choose. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual international conference on digital government research, Dg.o’12. Presented at the dg.o, ACM, Albany, NY, USA, pp 145–154Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rindfleisch TC (1997) Privacy, information technology, and health care. ACM Commun 40(8):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stiglitz JE (2000) The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. Q J Econ 115:1441–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vurro C, Russo A, Perrini F (2009) Shaping sustainable value chains: network determinants of supply chain governance models. J Bus Ethics 90(4):607–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Donahue JD, Zeckhauser RJ (2011) Collaborative governance: private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2008) Learning from difference: the new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. Eur Law J 14(3):271–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (eds) (2010) Experimentalist governance in the European Union: towards a new architecture. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Abbott K, Snidal D (2009) The governance triangle: regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. In: Mattli W, Woods N (eds) The politics of global regulation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 44–88Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Héritier A, Lehmkuhl D (2008) The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. J Public Policy 28(01):1–17Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jiang B (2009) Implementing supplier codes of conduct in global supply chains: process explanations from theoretic and empirical perspectives. J Bus Ethics 85(1):77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lim SJ, Phillips J (2008) Embedding CSR values: the global footwear industry’s evolving governance structure. J Bus Ethics 81(1):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theor 22(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Horne RE (2009) Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int J Consum Stud 33:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Davies J, Fensel D, Van Harmelen F (2003) Towards the semantic web. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lumsden J, Hall H, Cruickshank P (2011) Ontology definition and construction, and epistemological adequacy for systems interoperability: a practitioner analysis. J Inf Sci 37:246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Luna-Reyes, LF, Andersen DF, Andersen DL, Derrick D, Jarman H (2012) Full information product pricing (FIPP) regimes: policy implications for US–Mexico sustainable commerce. 3rd annual Puentes consortium symposium on the Mexico-US Border, Rice University, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ansell C, Gash A (2007) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Djoko Sigit Sayogo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jing Zhang
    • 3
  • Luis Luna-Reyes
    • 4
  • Holly Jarman
    • 5
  • Giri Tayi
    • 6
  • Deborah Lines Andersen
    • 6
  • Theresa A. Pardo
    • 2
  • David F. Andersen
    • 6
  1. 1.The University of Muhammadiyah at MalangMalangIndonesia
  2. 2.Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  4. 4.Universidad de las Americas PueblaCholulaMexico
  5. 5.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.University at AlbanyAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations