Sustainable Supply Chains: Theory and Practice

Author: Lina Mansour — Independent Researcher

Abstract

As climate change, geopolitical tensions, resource scarcity, and changing consumer values change the global economy, sustainable supply chain management has become a top priority for businesses around the world. Supply chains used to be built mostly for speed and cost-effectiveness, but now they are key to achieving long-term ecological balance, social well-being, and economic resilience. Today's problems with sustainability, such as Scope 3 emissions, exploitation of workers, loss of biodiversity, and disruptions made worse by extreme weather, show how important it is for supply chains to be not only efficient but also ethically governed, environmentally sound, and socially just. This article analyses sustainable supply chains through three influential sociological and political-economic frameworks: Bourdieu’s theory of capital and field, world-systems analysis, and institutional isomorphism. These theories show how power struggles, global inequalities, and institutional pressures that push people to agree on certain norms affect sustainable practices.

The study utilises a concentrated examination of contemporary academic literature and industry advancements from 2018 to 2025. It looks at how supply chain sustainability programs work in the real world, how responsibility and resources are shared among global networks, and how sustainability is built into the way organisations act. The article contends that sustainable supply chains can only thrive when governance frameworks acknowledge and rectify systemic disparities between core and peripheral regions, confront power imbalances between buyers and suppliers, and enhance capacity-building at all levels. It ends with strategic suggestions for researchers, professionals, and policymakers to go beyond compliance-driven sustainability and create supply chain systems that are truly transformative and focused on justice.

1. Introduction

Sustainable supply chains are at the centre of global talks about changing the economy, protecting the environment, and running businesses in an ethical way. As much as 80% or more of a company's environmental impact—and often a big part of its social responsibility risks—comes from its supply chain instead of its direct operations. This includes emissions from suppliers, getting raw materials, shipping, and throwing away products when they are no longer needed. These complicated networks connect people from all over the world, from different industries, cultures, and regulatory environments. As a result, the sustainability performance of one company is part of a larger system of interdependence.

In 2025, supply chain sustainability has become more urgent than ever. Several powerful forces shape this landscape:

1. Rising regulatory expectations

Governments are adopting stricter rules on due diligence, modern slavery reporting, sustainable procurement, human rights oversight, and deforestation-free sourcing. These regulations increasingly hold companies accountable for the behaviour of suppliers many tiers removed from their direct control.

2. Greater climate and environmental pressure

Extreme weather, floods, heatwaves, and resource shortages disrupt supply chains globally. Firms now understand that resilience cannot exist without sustainability, as climate risks threaten continuity of production and logistics.

3. A shift in consumer and investor expectations

Consumers increasingly demand ethical sourcing, transparency, and product traceability. Investors incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into risk assessments, making sustainability essential for financial legitimacy.

4. Digital transformation of supply chain visibility

Advanced analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain-based traceability, and digital twins enhance oversight but also create new power dynamics regarding data ownership and interpretation.

5. Global inequalities and labour concerns

Workers in low-cost production regions still face risks of wage theft, unsafe conditions, gender inequality, and in some cases forced or child labour. These issues are deeply embedded in global economic structures.

Despite these challenges, the field of sustainable supply chain management has matured significantly. It has evolved from focusing solely on “green logistics” to incorporating holistic frameworks addressing environmental impacts, social justice, and economic governance. Yet sustainability efforts often remain fragmented, overly technical, or shaped by the interests of dominant players.

This article aims to enrich the understanding of sustainable supply chains by integrating sociological and political-economic theories, providing a more holistic view of how supply chains function as social systems. It combines theory, practice, and contemporary challenges to offer a comprehensive, publication-ready academic contribution.

2. Background: Theoretical Foundations

To understand sustainable supply chains in practice, it is necessary to move beyond operational metrics and examine the deeper structures that shape behaviour. Three theoretical perspectives—Bourdieu’s theory of capital, world-systems analysis, and institutional isomorphism—provide powerful lenses for this task.

2.1 Bourdieu’s Theory: Capital, Field, and Habitus

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualised society as composed of fields—spaces of power where actors struggle for advantage through deployments of various forms of capital:

• Economic capital (financial resources)

• Cultural capital (skills, expertise, and technical knowledge)

• Social capital (networks and relationships)

• Symbolic capital (prestige, legitimacy, and reputation)

Application to Sustainable Supply Chains

The global supply chain can be conceptualised as a field in which firms compete to accumulate symbolic capital by presenting themselves as sustainability leaders. Corporations in wealthy economies typically hold the strongest combination of capitals. They shape sustainability norms by deciding which certifications to adopt, which metrics to prioritise, and which suppliers are worthy of long-term partnerships.

Suppliers in developing economies—though rich in cultural capital (local knowledge, production capabilities)—often lack symbolic and economic capital. This asymmetry means that:

• Suppliers must conform to sustainability standards imposed by buyers.

• They may bear the cost of implementing sustainability measures without receiving commensurate benefits.

• Their sustainability knowledge may be undervalued relative to formal certifications created by Western institutions.

Bourdieu’s perspective highlights sustainability as a struggle for legitimacy: firms compete to control narratives, influence standards, and convert sustainability into symbolic value that improves market reputation.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: Core–Periphery Structures

World-systems analysis positions global capitalism as a structure divided into core, semi-periphery, and periphery regions. Core nations dominate finance, technology, branding, and regulatory systems, while peripheral regions supply raw materials and low-cost labour.

Application to Sustainable Supply Chains

Sustainability standards almost always originate in core economies:

• Carbon reporting protocols

• Human rights due diligence frameworks

• Anti-deforestation regulations

• ESG disclosure requirements

These standards, although well-intentioned, can place significant pressure on producers and suppliers in periphery regions. Compliance may require:

• Digital traceability tools they cannot afford

• New reporting processes requiring administrative expertise

• Shifts to more sustainable farming or production methods that reduce income in the short term

Meanwhile, high-value sustainability activities (consulting, data analytics, auditing, and reporting) remain located in core markets.

Thus, the global sustainability agenda risks perpetuating the very inequalities it aims to solve. World-systems theory suggests that unless structural imbalances are addressed, sustainable supply chains may reinforce long-standing patterns of extractive relationships.

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Why Firms Converge in Practice

Institutional isomorphism describes the pressures that cause organisations to adopt similar structures and practices. DiMaggio and Powell define three types:

1. Coercive pressures

Governments, regulators, and large buyers impose mandatory rules.

2. Normative pressures

Professional associations, standards bodies, accreditation agencies, and industry groups promote “best practices”.

3. Mimetic pressures

Firms imitate industry leaders when uncertain or afraid of reputational risk.

Application to Sustainable Supply Chains

Supply chains experience all three forms of pressure:

• Due diligence laws create coercive alignment.

• Sustainability reporting frameworks generate normative expectations.

• Companies imitate high-ranked competitors to appear responsible.

Isomorphism explains why sustainability practices often look similar across industries—even when they fail to deliver deep structural change. The danger is that firms may adopt sustainability language without meaningful implementation, producing “symbolic compliance” rather than transformation.

3. Method

This article employs a qualitative, theory-driven approach grounded in three methodological components:

1. Focused Literature Review

A targeted review of academic literature between 2018 and 2025 on sustainable supply chains, ESG strategy, power relations, and global value chains. Emphasis is placed on peer-reviewed articles, conceptual frameworks, and recent empirical findings.

2. Theoretical Integration

The literature is synthesised through three frameworks—Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—to illuminate structural, relational, and institutional dimensions.

3. Contemporary Contextualisation

Analysis is enriched by real-world developments such as regulatory changes, climate-related disruptions, and the growth of digital sustainability tools (AI-enabled analytics, blockchain traceability, and supply chain monitoring systems).

This methodology allows for a deep conceptual understanding without relying on primary data collection, making it suitable for theoretical advancement and publication.

4. Analysis

The analysis explores how sustainable supply chains function in reality, using the selected theories to reveal hidden dynamics and systemic patterns.

4.1 Sustainable Supply Chains as a Field of Power

Sustainable supply chains do not exist in a vacuum—they operate within a field where firms compete for legitimacy, influence, and market advantage.

Symbolic Capital and Corporate Sustainability Narratives

Many organisations use sustainability reporting, carbon neutrality commitments, and ESG ratings to build symbolic capital. Certifications, awards, and sustainability rankings help companies differentiate themselves, even when underlying practices vary in quality.

However, symbolic capital can overshadow genuine sustainability performance. Firms may prioritise high-visibility initiatives (e.g., recycled packaging, tree planting campaigns) instead of addressing complex systemic issues such as living wages or long-term supplier development.

Supplier Dependence and Asymmetry

Suppliers often operate under conditions of dependency:

• Buyers dictate terms, deadlines, and sustainability expectations.

• Suppliers fear termination if unable to meet standards.

• Smaller suppliers have limited bargaining power to negotiate higher prices to offset sustainability investments.

This power imbalance shapes how sustainability unfolds in practice. Suppliers may implement sustainability measures superficially to satisfy audits rather than adopting deep transformation.

4.2 Core–Periphery Dynamics in Sustainability Implementation

World-systems theory clarifies how sustainability pressures fall unevenly along global value chains.

Cost Distribution

Core countries impose sustainability regulations that require changes in peripheral regions. While the intention is positive, the cost is disproportionately borne by:

• Smallholder farmers

• First-tier and second-tier manufacturers

• Informal sector workers

• Communities with limited infrastructure

These groups may need to implement traceability systems, transition to regenerative agriculture, or comply with labour reforms—yet often without receiving financial support.

Technological Gaps

Peripheral suppliers frequently lack:

• Digital monitoring systems

• Accurate carbon measurement capabilities

• Access to sustainability expertise

• Educational opportunities to interpret new regulations

Meanwhile, firms in core economies build competitive advantage through advanced sustainability technologies, gaining economic and symbolic capital.

Risk Externalisation

Environmental and labour risks remain concentrated in peripheral regions. Examples include:

• Polluting manufacturing processes

• Water-intensive agriculture

• Hazardous waste disposal

• Energy-intensive extraction

The environmental footprint of consumption in core economies is therefore “outsourced” to producing regions.

4.3 Institutional Pressures and Superficial Compliance

Isomorphic pressures push firms toward uniformity—but sometimes without depth.

Coercive pressures:

Governments require companies to report human rights risks, emissions, and due diligence measures. While this raises transparency, it also encourages box-ticking responses when reporting becomes more important than impact.

Normative pressures:

Professional norms and certifications create industry-wide expectations. However:

• Certifications may be expensive.

• Standards may privilege Western knowledge systems.

• Normative frameworks sometimes ignore local realities.

Mimetic pressures:

Companies imitate successful competitors by copying sustainability initiatives such as net-zero pledges or supplier scorecards. This imitation often occurs without:

• Internal capabilities

• Strong supplier partnerships

• Long-term investment strategies

As a result, sustainability becomes an exercise in reputational risk management rather than structural improvement.

4.4 Sustainability Metrics and the Rise of Data Capital

Digitalisation is transforming supply chains. AI-based emissions modelling, remote monitoring, geospatial analytics, and blockchain traceability systems promise greater sustainability.

Benefits include:

• Identifying hidden risks in multi-tier supply chains

• Providing real-time monitoring of agricultural or manufacturing inputs

• Improving accuracy of carbon footprint calculations

• Supporting predictive modelling for resilience

Risks include:

1. Centralisation of data capital: firms controlling digital platforms gain disproportionate influence.

2. Marginalisation of suppliers: small suppliers lacking digital skills or infrastructure risk exclusion.

3. Power asymmetry in data interpretation: buyers determine which data matters, how it is collected, and how performance is judged.

4. Increased surveillance: workers and communities may face intrusive monitoring without consent or benefit.

Digitalisation can empower sustainability—but only if governance frameworks ensure equitable access, transparency, and shared value.

5. Findings

Based on the theoretical analysis and contemporary developments, four core findings emerge.

5.1 Sustainability Is Framed at Firm Level Rather Than System Level

Most sustainability strategies focus on individual companies:

• Corporate emissions targets

• Supplier audits

• Firm-level ESG disclosures

• Certifications tied to specific factories or farms

Yet sustainable supply chains require system-wide coordination. Focusing solely on firm performance ignores:

• Sector-wide decarbonisation pathways

• Collective bargaining for living wages

• Shared infrastructure for tracing raw materials

• Regional environmental limits

Current approaches insufficiently address interconnected ecological and social systems.

5.2 Inequalities Persist and Are Reinforced by Sustainability Requirements

Sustainability efforts often reinforce global inequalities.

Suppliers bear disproportionate responsibility while receiving fewer rewards.

While buyers gain symbolic capital from sustainability branding, suppliers may:

• Pay for certifications

• Upgrade equipment

• Change farming or production methods

• Absorb compliance-related labour costs

Without shared benefits, sustainability becomes extractive rather than transformative.

5.3 Power Relations Shape Which Sustainability Practices Dominate

Not all sustainability practices carry equal weight. Those aligned with the interests of powerful actors—such as carbon accounting tools favoured by investors—receive disproportionate attention.

Less visible but highly impactful issues, such as:

• Worker empowerment

• Local governance

• Community land rights

• Indigenous knowledge systems

often receive less investment.

Sustainability, therefore, is shaped by the distribution of economic and symbolic capital.

5.4 Institutional Pressures Drive Convergence but Risk Superficiality

Isomorphic pressures ensure widespread adoption of sustainability language. However:

• Firms may overstate achievements.

• Compliance may prioritise documentation over implementation.

• Sectoral challenges may be oversimplified.

• Innovation may be stifled by conformity.

True sustainability requires moving beyond imitation toward authentic, context-sensitive transformation.

6. Conclusion

Sustainable supply chains are essential for addressing the environmental and social challenges of the 21st century. However, they cannot succeed through technical optimisation alone. They must be understood as socio-political systems shaped by power, inequality, institutional pressures, and global economic structures.

Key insights from this study include:

1. Sustainability must shift from firm-level to system-level governance.

True progress requires collaboration across industries, governments, and civil society.

2. Power imbalances must be addressed.

Suppliers in low-income regions need resources, long-term contracts, and equitable partnerships.

3. Institutional incentives must reward genuine change.

Superficial compliance should be discouraged, while deep transformation should be supported.

4. Digitalisation must be inclusive.

Data tools should empower—rather than marginalise—suppliers and workers.

5. Sustainability metrics should reflect both environmental and social justice.

Carbon reduction cannot eclipse labour rights or community wellbeing.

6. Local knowledge and context matter.

Sustainability must respect cultural, ecological, and regional specificities.

7. Global governance frameworks must evolve.

From trade rules to investment systems, structural inequalities must be redesigned to enable fair and sustainable value creation.

Ultimately, sustainable supply chains are not just about reducing harm—they are about reimagining global production in a way that supports shared prosperity, ecological balance, and human dignity. Achieving this requires challenging entrenched systems, rethinking economic incentives, and embracing more inclusive governance structures. Scholars, practitioners, and policymakers all have a critical role in shaping this transformation.

Hashtags

#SustainableSupplyChains #ResponsibleSourcing #GlobalValueChains #SupplyChainEthics #ClimateAndSociety #ESGLeadership #SustainabilityInnovation

References (Harvard Style)

• Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Bourdieu, P., 1986. ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

• Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

• Seuring, S. and Müller, M., 2008. Sustainable Supply Chain Management: From Literature Review to Conceptual Framework. Berlin: Springer.

• Zimon, D., 2020. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Markets. London: Routledge.

• Ahmad, N., Haque, S. and Islam, M.A., 2024. ‘Modern slavery disclosure regulations in the global supply chain: A world-systems perspective’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99, 102677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102677

• Ahmadi‐Gh, Z. and Bello‐Pintado, A., 2024. ‘Sustainability isomorphism in buyer–supplier relationships: The impact of supply chain leadership’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(4), pp. 3635–3653. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3722

• Lissillour, R. and Silva, M.E., 2024. ‘Going forward and beyond: On the track of a practice turn in supply chain sustainability studies’, RAUSP Management Journal, 59(2), pp. 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-03-2023-0048

• Lissillour, R., 2024. ‘Exposing power and inequality in sustainable supply chains: A critical research agenda for transformative change’, Management Prospective, 41, pp. 58–75.

• Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S., 2008. ‘A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), pp. 360–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816

• Carter, C.R. and Washispack, S., 2018. ‘Mapping the path forward for sustainable supply chain management: A review of reviews’, Journal of Business Logistics, 39(4), pp. 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12196

• Martínez, J.V., Wichmann, B. and Chen, K., 2025. ‘Sustainability still matters: Global survey on supply chain sustainability’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 61(1), pp. 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12300

• Tuni, A., Cicerelli, F. and Giorgetti, M., 2025. ‘Power in sustainable supply chain management: A systematic literature review’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 31(1), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100889

• Zimon, D., Tyan, J. and Sroufe, R., 2020. ‘Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals’, International Journal for Quality Research, 14(1), pp. 219–236. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR14.01-13