Content uploaded by Mohamed Aboelmaged
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamed Aboelmaged on Apr 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mohamed Aboelmaged
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamed Aboelmaged on Apr 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Unveiling the path to
sustainability: two decades of
knowledge management in
sustainable supply chain –a
scientometric analysis and
visualization journey
Mohamed Aboelmaged
College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Saadat M. Alhashmi
Department of Computer Science, College of Computing and Informatics,
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Gharib Hashem
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Commerce, Helwan University,
Cairo, Egypt
Mohamed Battour
Faculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
Ifzal Ahmad
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, and
Imran Ali
College of Business, Central Queensland University –Melbourne Campus,
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The literature on knowledge management in sustainable supply chain (KMSSC) has witnessed
significant growth in the past two decades. However, a scientometric review that consolidates the primary
trends and clusters within this topic has been notably absent. This paper aims to scrutinize recent
advancements and identify the intellectual underpinnings of KMSSC research conducted between 2002
and 2022.
Design/methodology/approach –The present review employs a scientometric analysis approach via
visualization maps of prolific contributions, co-citation, co-occurrence and thematic networksto examine a total
of 114 articles and conference papers on KMSSC.
Findings –Emerging research frontiers and hotspots are revealed and a state-of-the-art framework of KMSSC
research structure is developed.
Practical implications –The review provides significant implications that guide KMSSC research and
better inform sustainability decisions in the supply chain context.
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Since acceptance of this article, the following author(s) have updated their affiliation(s): Mohamed
Battour is at the College of Business Administration, A’Sharqiyah University, Ibra, Oman. Ifzal
Ahmad is at the College of Business Administration, Umm Al Quwain University, Umm Al Quwain,
UAE and at the Department of Business Management, Karakoram International University, Gilgit,
Pakistan.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
Received 19 February 2023
Revised 26 August 2023
Accepted 3 September 2023
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-02-2023-0104
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’knowledge, this is the first review to thoroughly synthesize the
intersected domain of KMSSC using scientometric analysis.
Keywords Sustainable supply chain, Knowledge management, Sustainability, Knowledge sharing,
Scientometric analysis, Intellectual foundation, Literature review
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Knowledge management plays a pivotal role in enabling organizations to optimize their intra- and
inter-organizational capacities, effectively address strategic challenges, and ultimately achieve a
competitive advantage (Dave et al., 2019). The deficiency in essential knowledge and skills emerges
as a prominent factor contributing to the ineffectiveness exhibited by many managers, often
resulting in business failure. The scholarly exploration of knowledge management has garnered
significant interest from both academic researchers and industry professionals across diverse
domains. Prior literature reviews have predominantly centered on the role of knowledge
management within mainstream supply chain management research, owing to its potential to
enhance decisions, mitigate operational risks, and strengthen overall supply chain performance.
For instance, Marra et al. (2012) reviewed 58 papers published between 2000 and 2010 in the
domain of supply chain management. In their examination, the authors revealed challenges central
to knowledge management in supply chains, encompassing issues related to knowledge
obsolescence and accumulation within the context of supply chain operations. The review further
underscored the latent advantages entailed by knowledge management practices, concurrently
emphasizing the necessity for a methodically structured approach encompassing knowledge
capture, storage, and dissemination throughout the expanse of the supply chain. Similarly,
Cerchione and Esposito (2016) undertook a systematic analysis of 82 pertinent papers delving into
the domain of supply chain knowledge management. The primary objective was to pinpoint extant
research gaps and chart potential avenues for future exploration. Notably, the authors accentuated
the research gaps concerning key factors influencing the adoption and efficacious implementation
of knowledge systems, alongside their consequential impact on organizational performance.
Corroboratively, del Rosario P
erez-Salazar et al. (2017) affirmed the catalytic potential of
knowledge management as a mechanism to amplify both intra and inter-operational efficiency
across the spectrum of supply chain activities. Moreover, they emphasized the lack of exploration
of certain segments within the supply chain paradigm, particularly reverse logistics and
outsourcing, signifying areas warranting heightened scrutiny.
While knowledgemanagement has long been recognized as pivotal to ensuring the survival,
continuity, and competitiveness of organizations, its potential role in fostering sustainability has
gained increasing attention in recent years (Martins et al., 2019). Hence, the intersection of
knowledge management and sustainable supply chain (SSC) presents a fertile ground for
exploration, offering the prospect of addressing complex environmental, social, and economic
challenges. The imperative of efficiently managing supply chains to mitigate environmental
impacts and social disruptions is gaining prominence. However, the task of managing the social,
environmental, and economic dimensions of SSC has evolved into a complex endeavor in recent
times (Bag et al., 2018). The compounding influence of internal, external, and global challenges
stemming from factors like pandemics and regional conflicts has also contributed to an
escalation in SSC costs and a lack of effectiveness (Dubey et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, researchers have pointed out that the potential synergy between knowledge
management and the sustainability of supply chain practices has yet to be thoroughly
explored (Kassaneh et al., 2021). The integration of knowledge management processes into
sustainability practices in the supply chain holds the promise of creating more resilient and
responsible businesses wherein sustainability challenges often transcend departmental and
organizational boundaries (Chopra et al., 2021). By systematically capturing, sharing,
and leveraging knowledge about SSC, organizations can better assess the environmental
BIJ
impacts of their operations, innovate toward greener processes, foster interdisciplinary
collaboration, and maintain holistic and sustainable solutions (Fait et al., 2023;Habib et al.,
2021). Systematic reviews of literature in the intersected domain of knowledge management
in sustainable supply chain (KMSSC) have regrettably remained an underexplored area.
While a singular attempt has been made in this regard by Kassaneh et al. (2021), it bears
noting that the study focused only on knowledge definitions and types rather than
embarking on a more comprehensive thematic analysis. While the review underscored the
escalating interest in KMSSC research, a holistic and impartial assessment of the field,
encompassing both breadth and depth, remains relatively scarce.
Considering this gap, this paper seeks to make a significant contribution by conducting an
exhaustive scientometric review of KMSSC for the first time. The following central, yet
unexamined, question was established to attain this aim: How has the landscape of KMSSC
research evolved? Such a heightened understanding can offer fresh insights and valuable
contributions that offer substantial value to both researchers and practitioners in the SSC field.
Specifically, this review aims to unearth the most prevalent trends, including the evolution of
research, influential authors, esteemed journals, seminal papers, notable institutions,
participating countries, and prominent keywords. Moreover, the review endeavors to discern
influential themes, intellectual clusters, research hotspots, and the frontiers of inquiry. Hence, the
objectives of this paper are delineated as follows:
RO1. Unveiling the current landscape and recent advancements in KMSSC research
performance
RO2. Deciphering the intellectual pillars of KMSSC research
RO3. Navigating research hotspots and frontiers in KMSSC
RO4. Developing a conceptual framework that can guide future KMSSC research
directions
Attaining these objectives, our review uncovers significant discoveries regarding the theory and
practice of KMSSC research. First, our examination establishes that the field had a slow start but
has exhibited remarkable growth in recent years. This upswing can be attributed to a
heightened focus on sustainability, journal orientation, and funding initiatives linked to the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) introduced in 2015. Second, a multitude of disciplines,
notably business and management, environmental science, and social science, have contributed
substantially to KMSSC research. Remarkably, the “Journal of Cleaner Prod.”and
“Sustainability”stand out as prolific sources. Third, a diverse array of authors hailing from
various disciplines, countries and institutions have made substantial contributions to the
KMSSC domain. Noteworthy among them are prolific authors like Feng T. and Khan M., while
fruitful collaborations have emerged between authors such as Cai J., Feng T., Kong T., Wang C.,
and Wang W. Fourth, China emerges as the most productive country in the realm of KMSSC
research, closely followed by the USA. Intriguingly, developing countries like Iran, the United
Arab Emirates, India, and Indonesia have secured notable positions, thereby challenging the
conventional dominance of developed nations in research. Fifth, standout research papers
authored by Cheng et al. (2008) and Schrettle et al. (2014) have commanded significant attention,
accounting for over 25% of total citations. These papers concentrate on the drivers and
outcomes of decision-making within the context of (SSC. Sixth, the conceptual framework for
KMSSC research identifies knowledge capabilities –encompassing knowledge management,
sharing, integration, and diffusion –as essential prerequisites for effectively implementing
sustainability practices within supply chains. Seventh, this conceptual KMSSC framework also
integrates a resource-based view, highlighting the significance of internal operations and
external collaborations among supply chain partners. Key elements include business education,
Two decades of
KM in SSC
human resource development, public support, relational governance, and emerging
technologies. Finally, the KMSSC framework underscores the pivotal trajectories of
sustainability, emphasizing green logistics, integration, environmental transformation, and
the pursuit of competitive sustainable advantages.
The paper advances as follows: the review method is discussed in Section 2, followed by a
detailed exploration of the current landscape and recent advancements in KMSSC research in
Section 3. While Section 4 identifies and interprets the intellectual pillars of KMSSC research,
Section 5 navigates research hotspots and frontiers in KMSSC. Developing a conceptual
framework of KMSSC research is presented in Section 6.Section 7 discusses research findings
and develops implications for theory and practice of KMSSC research. Finally, research
conclusions and limitations are presented.
2. Method
2.1 Review design
The utilization of graph theory to map and visually represent scientific contributions has
emerged as an advanced and innovative approach, garnering substantial recognition in
recent times (Azam et al., 2021). By harnessing co-occurrence and co-citation network maps,
this approach dissects and visualizes the intricate fabric of scholarly knowledge. Herein,
scientometric analysis signifies a cutting-edge, computer-aided text analysis methodology
rendering the objective and transparent assessment of the performance and underpinnings of
scientific knowledge in a specific field (Young et al., 2015). Notably, the development of
CiteSpace, attributed to Chen Chaomei of Drexel University, stands out as a prominent model
within the scope of software applications tailored for scientometric research. Esteemed for its
robust functionalities and wide-ranging applications, CiteSpace has established its status as a
highly regarded research analysis and visualization tool (Chen and Liu, 2020). Furthermore,
the amalgamation of bibliometric data analysis with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al., 1999) approach has been
previously explored and documented (Contreras-Barraza et al., 2021;Fauzi, 2023;Torc
atoru
et al., 2022). These prior studies have recognized the potential synergy between bibliometric
methods (e.g. scientometric analysis) and the structured PRISMA framework, offering a
systematic and comprehensive means to analyze and present research findings.
2.2 Review protocol
The application of the PRISMA approach has proven effective in minimizing biases during
the article selection and exclusion). By adhering to the systematic guidelines set forth by
PRISMA, the potential for introducing bias is mitigated, ensuring a transparent and
comprehensive approach to article inclusion and exclusion within the review process (Khalid
et al., 2021;Page et al., 2021). This protocol has been uniformly applied to all articles, serving
to refine the scope of our investigation and align it precisely with the established objectives.
2.3 Search strategy
A comprehensive compilation of keywords was systematically curated to guarantee the
identification of pertinent sources. This thorough process encompassed a rigorous evaluation
of relevant abstracts and scholarly works in indexed databases. As a result, the search
mechanism combined the following terms: “supply chain”þ“sustainable”or “green”or
“sustainability”þ“knowledge management”or “knowledge storage”or “knowledge system”
or “knowledge storage”or “knowledge retention”or “knowledge creation”or “knowledge
retrieval”or “knowledge transfer”or “knowledge acquisition”or “knowledge sharing”or
“knowledge creation”.
BIJ
2.4 Sourcing and screening data
The Scopus database was selected as the most exhaustive and precise database for citing and
indexing scientific research (Aboelmaged et al., 2023;Yadav et al., 2022). A total of 221 results
were initially acquired between 2002 and 2022. The documents in the next round were further
filtered to rule out replications, notes, erratum, letters, reports, books, editorials, book
chapters, surveys, and non-English language documents. The last search query returned 145
documents reserved for further qualitative securitization. Content analysis of the abstract
was applied to ascertain the occurrence of specific concepts and thoughts within the paper to
decide upon its relevance for further analysis (Duan et al., 2020). Consequently, irrelevant
documents were excluded, retaining 114 documents (100 journal articles and 14 conference
papers) for the scientometric analysis. Applying the PRISMA flow diagram for systematic
reviews (Page et al., 2021), Figure 1 presents the data sourcing and screening process.
2.5 Data analysis
CiteSpace v5.8.R3 was utilized in this study to analyze data extracted from 114 KMSSC
documents equipped with their full cited references. The key parameters employed in the
analysis are defined as follows: (1) Time span covers Jan 2002 to Jan 2022 with a 1-year time
slice that is pruned by pathfinder and sliced network; (2) Node type includes cited reference,
author, journal, country and keywords using title, abstract and keywords; (3) Selection
Records identified from
Scopus Database (n = 221)
Records removed before
screening:
Duplicate records removed
(n = 3)
Records marked as ineligible
by automation tools (n = 0)
Records removed for other
reasons (n = 0)
Records screened
(n = 218)
Records excluded
(n = 73 )
Reports sought for retrieval
(n = 145)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 0)
Reports assessed for
eligibility (n = 145)
Reports excluded due to
quality securitization and
irrelevancy (n = 31)
Studies included
(n = 114 )
Identification
Screenin
g
Included
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram
of data sourcing and
screening
Two decades of
KM in SSC
criteria include g-index and top 50%; and (4) Default links and visualization via “static cluster
view and merged network”are established. Following these parameters, knowledge maps
and visualized networks supported by relevant tables are developed to depict the current
status and intellectual foundation of KMSSC research. Emerging research frontiers and
hotspots based on keyword analysis are also revealed and examined.
3. The current landscape and recent advancements in KMSSC research
performance
3.1 Evolution of KMSSC research
Scholarly interest in KMSSC research has undergone significant evolution over the last
two decades, with a clear upward trend, as depicted in Figure 2 categorizing three distinct
waves as follows:
3.1.1 Initiation wave (2002–2008). This initial wave marked a slow start, characterized by
modest growth. During this phase, scholars contributed only 2 conference papers and 1 journal
article over seven years. Theprimary focus was on knowledge sharing within supply chains. Li
et al. (2002) led a pioneering effort to highlight the necessity of sharing product and material
information between buyers and suppliers for successful SSC. Another significant contribution
came from Cheng et al. (2008), who authored the first journal article in the KMSSC domain. Their
paper, published in “Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,”utilized structural
equation modeling to explore how SSC members in Taiwan’s manufacturing firms strengthen
trust-based relationships for maintaining knowledge sharing as a competitive advantage.
3.1.2 Recognition wave (2009–2015). In this stage, there was a steady uptick in the
number of publications, culminating in a total of 23 papers. This increase was primarily
influenced by vigorous publishing in journals that are indexed, which constituted 16 articles.
Scholars started to acknowledge the importance of the field of KMSSC, resulting in the release
of both foundational and empirical studies.
3.1.3 Growth wave (2016–2021). The most recent wave has seen a rapid surge in both the
quantity and diversity of KMSSC research, yielding 88 papers (comprising 83 journal articles
and 5 conference papers). This remarkable growth constitutes over 77% of all papers
published since 2002. The catalyst for this expansion can be attributed to the introduction of
the “sustainable development goals”(SDGs) in 2015, coupled with strategic journal
orientation towards sustainability topics.
Figure 2.
KMSSC research
evolution (2002–2022)
BIJ
The evolution of KMSSC research has transitioned through these distinct waves, signifying a
journey from modest beginnings to its current substantial growth, driven by a range of
factors including scholarly recognition, evolving sustainability goals, and focused journal
direction.
3.2 Active authors and influential papers in KMSSC research
The 114 papers on KMSSC were drafted by the top (n 550) most occurred authors.
In Figure 3a, we can observe a compilation of 23 authors who have contributed two or more
papers each. Notably, Feng T. from Harbin Institute of Technology in China emerges as the
foremost prolific author in this domain, having authored 4 papers. Following closely is Khan
M. with 3 papers, and an additional 21 authors with 2 papers each. The accompanying figure
also unveils the co-authorship network, characterized by 529 links connecting 342 nodes.
Despite the relatively low-density level of 0.0091, suggesting a certain degree of loose
collaboration among KMSSC literature authors, the network exhibits significant modularity
(Q 50.9791) and silhouette (S 50.9894) values. These metrics reveal the presence of 91
loosely formed clusters, indicating a diverse spectrum of researchers contributing to the
KMSSC field rather than a concentrated few.
Figure 3b reveals the emergence of a distinct co-authorship cluster encompassing 15
authors, which accounts for only 4% of the total nodes within the network. This cluster
highlights authors’collective focus on “green supplier integration”during the period
spanning 2020 to 2021. Noteworthy contributors to this cluster include Cai J, Feng T, Kong T,
Wang C, and Wang W. This cluster underscores the significance of seamlessly integrating
key suppliers into environmentally conscious operations, fostering the exchange of green
Figure 3.
Visualization of
(a) active authors and
(b) authorship network
Two decades of
KM in SSC
knowledge across both internal and external processes. This, in turn, bolsters the resilience of
the supply chain, stimulates green innovation, and ultimately enhances sustainable
performance (Feng et al., 2020;Kong et al., 2021).
Authors with high centrality levels play a crucial role as key actors who control the flow of
information among other participants in their networks (Newman, 2005). In this context, the
authors with the highest betweenness centrality (C) scores are Khan, M. and Wang, X
(C 510), closely followed by Feng, T (C 59).
Regarding citation bursts, Figure 4 illustrates authors with the “strongest citation bursts”
based on burst duration. As expected, only a limited number of authors exhibit “strongest
citation bursts”since most of the research was conducted during the growth phase (2016–
2022). The foremost author in terms of burst duration and strength (s) is Cheng, J., who
published two papers between 2008 and 2011, accumulating 385 citations and a strength
score (s 51.24). These papers concentrated on the significance of inter-organizational
knowledge sharing in the management of green supply chains (Cheng, 2011;Cheng
et al., 2008).
3.3 Influential papers in KMSSC research
The papers focusing on KMSSC research have garnered recognition through a total of 1995
citations. Among these, a noteworthy observation emerges: a mere 10 papers (8.7%) have
amassed the lion’s share of citations, totaling 1203 (60%). Illustrated in Figure 5 and detailed
in Table 1, we present a compilation of the most frequently cited papers, employing a citation
threshold of c ≥50. At the summit of this citation landscape stands the seminal work by
Cheng et al. (2008), featured in “Supply Chain Management: An International Journal”with an
impressive count of 307 citations (15.39%). This pivotal contribution underscores trust as the
linchpin connecting decision-making involvement, communication dynamics, and
opportunistic conduct to the sphere of inter-organizational knowledge sharing within SSC.
Similarly, the work of Schrettle et al. (2014) constructing a decision-making framework
inclusive of sustainability drivers and prospective outcomes has garnered 199 citations
(10%). A subsequent entry is a paper authored by Lim et al. (2017), delving into the role played
by knowledge creation, sharing mechanisms, information technology, and the learning
organization in propelling SSC performance, accruing 130 citations (6.52%).
The factors propelling these papers into the realm of high citation volumes within KMSSC
research appear to be multifaceted. Notably, the novelty associated with the topic,
particularly during its inception phase (2002–2008), explains the remarkable citations
witnessed by Cheng et al.’s (2008) contribution. Furthermore, an intriguing trend emerges
during the years 2020 and 2021, wherein notable researchers in the supply chain domain
(such as Kant, R., Butt, A., Tseng, M., and Kiil, K.) frequently referenced KMSSC papers. This
period aligns with the global upheaval caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, significantly
impacting the intricacies of the global supply chain. Additionally, the quality of the journals
in which these papers were published emerges as another influential factor, as discerned by
the presence of top-cited papers within top-tier journals.
Figure 4.
Visualization of author-
based citation bursts in
KMSSC research
BIJ
3.4 Top countries in KMSSC research
The most contributing countries to KMSSC research are presented in Figure 6. The Republic
of China leads KMSSC research with 34 papers (%30) due to the active inputs from “Harbin
Institute of Technology”and “Harbin Engineering University”, followed by the United
Kingdom with 11 papers (9.7%) and the United States with 10 papers (8.8%). Italy, Taiwan,
Iran, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, India, Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Indonesia
are among the top with (n 5≥4 papers). The top-ranked country by betweenness centrality is
the United States (C 55), followed by Mexico (C 53) and Switzerland (C 52).
4. The intellectual pillars of KMSSC research
The intellectual base of a research domain can be detected through key thematic clusters and
insights of co-cited references and keywords. The visualization of this base helps researchers
develop deeper insights into the topic’s structure and frontiers. The co-citation networks
reflect the intellectual underpinning of the field when two or more papers, journals, or authors
in the list of references have a co-citation relationship. In this context, researchers suggest the
consideration of clusters with significant modularity (Q > 0.3) and reliable silhouette (S > 0.5)
scores (Yuanyuan et al., 2021).
4.1 Reference co-citation network in KMSSC research
Reference co-citation is an essential analysis to discover the knowledge structure of a
particular domain. It reflects the citation frequency of two or more documents by at least one
later document at the same time. The strength of the co-citation link is therefore dependent on
the total citations. About 7068 references were cited in the 114 articles. Figure 7a maps the top
10 co-cited references in KMSSC research (c 5≥4) accompanied by the first author and
publication year. The paper titled “Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain”by Vachon and Klassen (2008)
Figure 5.
Visualization map of
influential papers in
KMSSC research
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Rank
Citation
(%) Authors Paper title Year Findings
1 307 Cheng J., Yeh C.,
Tu C.
“Trust and knowledge
sharing in green supply
chains”
2008 Trust is a significant pivot that
links participation in decision
making, communication and
opportunistic behavior to
interorganizational knowledge
sharing in SSC
(15.4%)
2 199 Schrettle S.,
Hinz A.,
Scherrer-Rathje
M., Friedli T.
“Turning sustainability
into action”
2014 Developing a framework to
guide sustainability decisions
considering main drivers and
outcomes
(10%)
3 131 Lim M., Tseng
M., Tan K.,
Bui T.
“Knowledge management
in sustainable supply chain
management”
2017 Knowledge creation and
sharing, information
technology and learning
organization are the strongest
driving forces of SSC
(6.6%)
4 130 Kaipia R.,
Dukovska-
Popovska I.,
Loikkanen L.
“Creating sustainable fresh
food supply chains through
waste reduction”
2013 The chain of perishable food
can be more effective through
efficient information sharing
and positive changes in
material flow
(6.5%)
5 88 Khan M.,
Hussain M.,
Saber H.
“Information sharing in a
sustainable supply chain”
2016 Introducing the role of
information sharing to
maximize environmental and
social SSC practices
(4.4%)
6 83 Cervellon M.,
Wernerfelt A.
“Knowledge sharing
among green fashion
communities online”
2012 Knowledge content has been
switched from focusing on
sustainability to focus more on
fashion
(4.2%)
7 78 Cheng J. “Inter-organizational
relationships and
knowledge sharing in
green supply chains”
2011 Guanxi and relational
advantages in SSC enhances
the adverse effect of potential
knowledge sharing risks
(3.9%)
8 68 Woo C., Kim M.,
Chung Y., Rho J.
“Suppliers’communication
capability and external
green integration”
2016 Supply partners with greater
information sharing capacity
can augment their sustainable
collaboration, cost
management, and level of
competitiveness
(3.4%)
9 66 Peterson H.C. “Transformational supply
chains and the ‘wicked
problem’of sustainability”
2009 Developing a generic
framework based in
knowledge- and resource-
based theories to link
performance to knowledge and
governance in SSC
(3.3%)
10 53 Kim J., Youn S.,
Roh J.
“Green supply chain
management orientation
and firm performance”
2011 SSC orientation has a positive
effect on performance via
information exchange and
trust among SC partners
(2.7%)
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 1.
Top 10 most cited
papers in KMSSC
research
BIJ
Figure 6.
Active countries in
KMSSC research
Figure 7.
Visualization of
reference co-citation
network and clusters in
KMSSC literature
Two decades of
KM in SSC
is placed first with 10 citations. The paper set the ground for the bond between environmental
management activities and supply chain performance through knowledge collaboration and
integration. The paper by Seuring and M€
uller (2008) is ranked second (c 59). It identifies
strategies for managing supply chain risks and sustainable performance given stakeholder
pressures and incentives. The rest of the papers either offer a framework for managing SSC
(e.g. Ahi and Searcy, 2013), provide methodological guidelines for survey research, or explore
knowledge sharing in SSC (e.g. Cheng et al., 2008;Cai et al., 2013). Table 2 displays the top
co-cited references along with their authors, centrality burst, cluster and journal.
Cluster analysis of co-cited references is performed to explore intellectual hot spots and
trends that shaped KMSSC research. The analysis identifies 42 clusters with overall
modularity (Q 50.8775) and silhouette value (S 50.9276) levels. Figure 7b depicts the
structure and specifics of generated clusters. The cluster is labeled using the “Log-Likelihood
Ratio”(LLR) abstract terms reflecting the work of citing references that created the cluster,
while the cluster size donates the number of co-cited references within each cluster.
As shown in Table 3, cluster #0 “supply chain”(S 50.839, n 592, AVY 52011) is ranked
first, with maximum co-cited counts, as the most prevalent intellectual base for this domain,
with 2011 as an average publication year (AVY) of 92 references co-cited by 10 documents.
The “supply chain”theme has long been explored in various contexts to understand how
knowledge capabilities enforce sustainable practices. For instance, the intellectual base of
supply chain networks has recently (i.e. 2019–2020) laid the foundation for linking knowledge
Rank
Co-
citations Reference title
Author(s)
(Year) Centrality Burst
Cluster
ID
110“Environmental management and
manufacturing performance”
Vachon and
Klassen (2008)
35 1.92 0
29“From a literature review to a
conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain
management”
Seuring and
M€
uller (2008)
35 –1
38“A framework of sustainable supply
chain management”
Carter and
Rogers (2008)
17 2.72 0
46“Sustainable supply chain
management”
Carter and
Liane Easton
(2011)
16 2.18 7
55“Common method biases in
behavioral research”
Podsakoff et al.
(2003)
4 2.35 0
65“Exploring the relationship between
leadership, operational practices,
institutional pressures and
environmental performance”
Dubey et al.
(2015)
13 1.94 0
75“Trust and knowledge sharing in
green supply chains”
Cheng et al.
(2008)
25 –2
85“Sustainable supply chain
management and inter-
organizational resources”
Gold et al.
(2010)
1 2.59 2
94“A comparative literature analysis
of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain
management”
Ahi and Searcy
(2013)
22 –7
10 4 “Knowledge sharing in collaborative
supply chains”
Cai et al. (2013) 9–0
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 2.
Top 10 references by
co-citations
BIJ
sharing through strategic collaboration to SSC performance (Feng et al., 2020;Mehdikhani
and Valmohammadi, 2019;Marques, 2019).
Cluster #1 “human resource development”(S 50.993, n 543, AVY 52002) is ranked
second with 43 references co-cited by 4 documents. The cluster concentrates on codes of
conduct knowledge pertaining to sustainable human resources and the development of
supplier practices which reflect a crucial standard in supplier selection for green projects
(Erkul et al., 2015;Mokhlesian, 2014). The cluster also cogitates on the role of cognitive and
structural capital in knowledge flows among green supply chain members (Hung et al., 2014).
Cluster #2 “knowledge sharing”(S 50.962, n 543, AVY 51996) recognizes an
integration of early knowledge sharing references in the SSC domain as the mean year of cited
references is 1996. The cluster is featured by the work of Cheng et al. (2008) and Cheng (2011)
on maintaining inter-organizational knowledge sharing through collaborative activities and
trust relationships among SSC members. Yet, Kim et al. (2011) asserted that knowledge
sharing and trust among supply chain partners work as a leverage mechanism for SSC
orientation to achieve business performance.
Cluster #3 “environmental transformation”(S 50.958, n 537, AVY 52004) is themed
around firms’efforts to create eco-friendly changes in operations, products and services
through facilitating information exchange between buyers and suppliers despite the absence
of environmental awareness and affective commitment to change among market players
(Grandia, 2016).
Cluster #6 “relational governance”(S 50.985, n 519, AVY 51999) gives special
attention to governance mechanisms that integrate communication protocols and knowledge
capabilities (i.e. visibility and flexibility) along the supply chain network, which in turn
generate competitive advantages in vibrant markets due to collaborative downstream and
upstream supply chains.
Cluster #7 “knowledge management”(S 50.979, n 518, AVY 52008) features the
contribution of KM strategies in creating business value by enhancing environmental
practices, strategic orientation, customer relationships, and innovative performance of global
Rank
Cluster
ID
Log-likelihood
ratio (LLR) label Size Silhouette AVY Citing documents
1 0 Supply chain 92 0.839 2011 Mehdikhani and Valmohammadi
(2019),Marques (2019),Roy (2019),
Feng et al. (2020),Ji et al. (2020),Dubey
et al. (2020),Zhou et al. (2020),Fantazy
and Tipu (2019), and Peng et al. (2020)
2 1 Human resource
development
43 0.993 2002 Erkul et al. (2015),Mokhlesian (2014),
Li and Li (2010), and Hung et al. (2014)
3 2 Knowledge sharing 43 0.962 1996 Cheng et al. (2008),Cheng (2011), and
Kim et al. (2011)
4 3 Environmental
transformation
37 0.958 2004 Baresel-Bofinger et al. (2011),Grandia
(2016), and Woo et al. (2016)
5 6 Relational
governance
19 0.985 1999 Ramon-Jeronimo et al. (2017)
6 7 Knowledge
management
18 0.979 2008 Evangelista and Durst (2015) and
Rahman et al. (2016)
7 10 Knowledge
diffusion
12 0.986 2012 Yu et al. (2021) and Uniyal et al. (2021)
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 3.
Top clusters of co-cited
references in KMSSC
research
Two decades of
KM in SSC
supply chain and third-party logistics partners (Evangelista and Durst, 2015;Gloet and
Samson, 2019).
Cluster #10 “knowledge diffusion”(S 50.986, n 512, AVY 52012) evolves around the
diffusion of information technology as knowledge tools for the successful implementation of
SSC governance concerning resources management, waste reduction, and cost enhancement
to meet the SDGs (Uniyal et al., 2021).
Pertaining to citation burst, Figure 8 shows that the references titled “Sustainable supply
chain management: evolution and future directions”and “A framework of sustainable supply
chain management: moving toward new theory”by Carter and Liane Easton (2011) and
Carter and Rogers (2008), respectively, have the longest burst duration (2016–2020) which
accentuates their essential role as key references during the growth wave of KMSSC research.
Both references developed conceptual models of SSC that link economic, environmental and
social dimensions of business performance using multiple theoretical perspectives (e.g.
resource-based view, transaction cost, and resource dependence theory). Remarkably, Carter
and Rogers’(2008) work has also maintained the strongest citation burst (s 52.72), followed
by the reference titled “Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational
resources”by Gold et al. (2010) (s 52.59) despite its shortest burst duration during 2019 only.
Further, Zhu et al.’s (2005) paper titled “Green supply chain management in China”has been
third with burst strength (s 52.4) from 2021 to 2022. The paper argued that despite the rise in
environmental awareness among Chinese firms due to market, competitive and regulatory
pressures, the firms could not translate their awareness into strong actions concerning SSC
practices and business performance as was coveted.
4.2 Author co-citation network in KMSSC research
About 6236 authors were cited in the 114 documents. Figure 9a presents the top co-cited
authors in KMSSC research where the authors with c ≥5 co-citations are displayed. The node
denotes an author and the lines between nodes render co-citation links. The larger the node is,
the more influential the author is. Moreover, the shorter the space between authors is, the
higher their co-citation counts, and the more congruent their research pathways are. The
largest node signifies Zhu Q (n 530), with the co-citation connection of Zhang X, Rao P,
Cheng J, Khan, A, and others. Zhu Q’s work focuses on green and closed-loop supply chain
practices. The second prolific node portrays Vachon S (n 523), co-cited with Ahmed A, Dyer
J, Hall J, Khan M, Luthra S, and others. The research of Vachon S emphasizes the impact of
supplier sustainability on business performance. Figure 9b pinpoints the co-cited links
between the prolific nodes of Zhu and Vachon and other co-cited authors while the top 10
c-cited authors in KMSSC research along with their co-citation counts, mean cited year,
centrality, burst, cluster ID, institution, and h-index are displayed in Table 4. The analysis
Figure 8.
Visualization of
citation bursts of
co-cited references in
KMSSC research
BIJ
also points out a few isolated small sub-networks, which may reflect an altered research
stream within each of the sub-networks.
Cluster analysis of the author co-citation network advises 13 clusters with satisfactory
modularity (Q 50.7029) and silhouette (S 50.8499) values suggesting homogeneous and
reasonably connected clusters. The top clusters with significant silhouette values (S > 0.5) are
presented in Figure 9b. The cluster is labeled using the LLR abstract terms based on the
papers that generated the cluster, while the cluster size indicates the number of co-cited
authors.
Cluster #0 “green supply chain”(S 50.804, n 519, AVY 52014) is the largest theme with
19 co-citations and 9 citing documents between 2011 and 2020. The cluster concentrates on
the link between SSC orientation and firm performance, and the role of knowledge sharing in
moderating this relationship (e.g. Kim et al., 2011;Cheng, 2011).
Cluster #1 “knowledge integration”(S 50.0.874, n 518, AVY 52014) emphasizes the role
of knowledge integration mechanisms in upstream supply chains and their impact on
sustainable performance along the supply network (e.g. Dubey et al., 2020;Ramon-Jeronimo
et al., 2017;Li et al., 2017).
Cluster #2 “human resource development”(S 50.88, n 515, AVY 52014) emerges to
highlight knowledge concerning codes of conduct in enhancing supplier practices along the
Figure 9.
Visualization of author
co-citation clusters in
KMSSC research
Two decades of
KM in SSC
SSC (e.g. Erkul et al., 2015;He et al., 2019;Woo et al., 2016). Table 5 delineates the rank and
label of top clusters along with cluster label, size, silhouette, average citation year, and citing
documents.
5. Research hotspots and frontiers in KMSSC
5.1 Keyword co-occurrence network and burst strength
Keywords offer information about the most significant facets and core contents of the papers
(Chen and Liu, 2020). Generally, visualizing the keyword co-occurrence network and burst
strength specifies research frontiers and hot spots (Azam et al., 2021). Figure 10a visualizes a
keyword map of KMSSC research where each node represents a keyword, and node size
reflects the co-occurrence counts, while Figure 10b captures a time zone evolution of top
keywords in KMSSC research. The analysis manifests a total of 112 nodes and 485 links
where the top keywords are visualized due to their strong influence in the whole network. The
modularity value exceeds 0.3 (Q 50.4776) and the silhouette score is greater than 7
(S 50.7815) which indicate a reasonable structure (Su et al., 2019). Table 6 shows highly
occurred keywords along with their inception year and citing documents. The inaugural
research on “information sharing”(n 532) in 2002 emphasizing an architecture for
information sharing requirements for exchanging sustainable product and material
Rank
Co-
citations Author AVY Centrality Burst
Cluster
ID Institution
Scopus
h-index
1 30 Zhu Q. 2011 30 –2“Shanghai Jiao
Tong University,
China”
55
2 23 Vachon S. 2011 26 –0“Ivey Business
School, Canada”
23
3 14 Carter C.R. 2016 12 4.70 8 “Arizona State
University, United
States”
38
4 14 Sarkis J. 2014 12 –4“Worcester
Polytechnic
Institute, United
States”
96
5 13 Pagell M. 2017 14 2.80 1 “UCD Michael
Smurfit Graduate
Business School,
Dublin, Ireland”
37
6 12 Seuring S. 2015 14 3.58 2 “Universit€
at Kassel,
Kassel, Germany”
48
7 11 Fornell C. 2017 15 2.70 1 “University of
Michigan, United
States”
22
8 11 Hair J.F. 2020 12 3.78 7 “University of South
Alabama, Mobile,
United States”
42
9 10 Podsakoff
P.M.
2020 12 2.35 9 “University of
Florida, United
States”
52
10 9 Grant R.M. 2019 14 3.42 3 “Universit
a Bocconi,
Italy”
23
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 4.
Top co-cited authors in
KMSSC research
BIJ
information between buyers and suppliers (Li et al., 2002) set up the base ground for KMSSC
research. Since 2006, there have been many hotspot keywords such as “supply chain
management.”that maintained the highest citation counts (n 570), “sustainability”(n 568),
“knowledge management”(n 543), “competition”(n 59), and “sustainable supply chain”
(n 59), denoting the outset of an era that has eventually shaped KMSSC research directions.
In this respect, Martin et al. (2006) revealed that knowledge and learning practices reinforce
business sustainability, which in turn leverages supply chain competitiveness. Similarly,
Peterson (2009) advocated that managing sustainability problems necessitates a
transformational supply chain type that generates new knowledge mechanisms
throughout the stakeholder context. Thereafter, the keywords of “green supply chain”
(n 523) and “innovation”(n 59) have become hotspots in KMSSC research. For instance,
Rank
Cluster
ID
Log-likelihood ratio
(LLR) label Size Silhouette AVY Citing documents
1 0 Green supply chain 19 0.804 2013 Kim et al. (2011),Cheng (2011),Zhou
et al. (2020),Ji et al. (2020),Feng et al.
(2020),Baresel-Bofinger et al. (2011),
Kai et al. (2014),Qi and Chen (2014),
Kong et al. (2020)
2 1 Knowledge
integration
18 0.874 2014 Dubey et al. (2020),Ramon-Jeronimo
et al. (2017),Li et al. (2017),Lim et al.
(2017),Cheng et al. (2008),Zhou et al.
(2020),Awan et al. (2020)
3 2 Human resource
development
15 0.880 2014 He et al. (2019),Marques (2019),Erkul
et al. (2015),Woo et al. (2016),Grandia
(2016),Mehdikhani and
Valmohammadi (2019),Plant et al.
(2015),Pinto et al. (2019),Evangelista
and Durst (2015),Khan et al. (2016)
4 3 Supply chain
sustainability
14 0.746 2017 He et al. (2019),Marques (2019),
Fantazy and Tipu (2019),Roy (2019),
and Mehdikhani and
Valmohammadi (2019)
5 4 Competitive
sustainable
advantage
13 0.914 2013 Pham and Pham (2021),De Pablos
et al. (2009),Schrettle et al. (2014),
Zhang et al. (2021),Chang (2021),
Gholizadeh and Fazlollahtabar
(2021),Hung et al. (2014), and Zhou
and Wang (2021)
6 5 Green logistics 12 0.872 2014 Mihi-Ramirez (2013),Aschehoug
et al. (2013),Khan et al. (2018), and
Kaipia et al. (2013)
7 7 Manufacturing
companies
perspective
8 0.839 2019 Habib et al. (2021),
€
Ozlen (2021),Kong
et al. (2021),Pham and Pham (2021),
Kassaneh et al. (2021), and
Evangelista and Durst (2015)
8 8 Paper-making
industry
8 0.860 2015 Wang et al. (2018),Zhang et al. (2018),
Sendlhofer and Lernborg (2018), and
Li and Li (2010)
9 9 Environmental
profit
7 0.899 2019 Ji et al. (2020),Dubey et al. (2020),
Feng et al. (2020),Pinto et al. (2019),
and He et al. (2019)
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 5.
Top clusters of co-cited
authors in KMSSC
research
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Pinto et al. (2019) developed a conceptual model to address the relationship between
innovation, green supply chain, and knowledge and technology transfer. The findings
specified that innovation and knowledge transfer facilitate better green supply chain
performance. In other words, the innovation process in the green supply chain hinges on
knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms.
Keyword citation burstiness presents those keywords that are frequently cited within a
precise duration. Thus, a keyword with a high burst during the early phase of a research
domain pinpoints a research frontier, while a recently cited keyword with a high burst
signifies an emerging research trend or a hot topic being presently examined. Figure 11
depicts the keywords with the citation bursts along with their burst duration and strength
from reflecting KMSSC research frontiers between 2002 and 2022. Keywords “competition”
Figure 10.
Visualization map of
KMSSC research hot
spots and their time
zone evolution
BIJ
and “knowledge sharing”are at the top with the longest burst durations which lasted for 11
and 6 years (2006–2017 and 2008–2014), respectively. Furthermore, it can be observed from
Figure 11 that during the recognition wave of KMSSC, the core areas of investigation were
“green supply chain”(s 53.56) (2009–2014) and “knowledge sharing”(s 51.88) (2008–2014).
Besides, “innovation”(s 51.58) appears the most recent citation burst and hot topic that has
attracted scholars’interest between 2020 and 2022. Hereof, Gloet and Samson (2020) extended
innovation and knowledge research to green supply chain across Australian exporters of
food and beverage. Using a qualitative case study approach, the findings demonstrated that
successful exporters with robust innovation performance appear to be driven primarily by
financial goals that reflect an economic focus on sustainability rather than addressing social
and environmental considerations through transformative innovation practices. Further,
many studies have recently examined the concept of “green innovation”concerning the
supply chain highlighting key economic and environmental returns from investing in clean
innovations owing to their significant impact on emission reduction, consumer green
awareness, and market demand for green products (e.g. Effendi et al., 2021;Kong et al., 2020;
Zhou et al., 2020).
Rank Keyword Frequency Year Citing documents
1 Supply chain
management
70 2006 Cervellon and Wernerfelt (2012),Jung and Jeong (2018),
Li (2011), and Woo et al. (2016)
2 Sustainability 68 2006 Daghfous and Zoubi (2017),Grandia (2016),Liu et al.
(2019a), and Peterson (2009)
3 Knowledge
management
43 2006 Chang (2021),Gloet and Samson (2019),Kai et al. (2014),
and Zhou et al. (2020)
4 Information
sharing
32 2002 Ding and Wang (2020),Khaliunaa and Kalimuthu (2020),
Nativi and Lee (2010), and Wang et al. (2021)
5 Green supply chain 23 2009 Nikolaou and Zervas (2017),Peng et al. (2020),Qi and
Chen (2014), and Zhu et al. (2009)
6 Decision making 10 2002 Greschner Farkavcova et al. (2018), and Rainero and
Modarelli (2021)
7 Competition 9 2006 De Pablos et al. (2009),Lim et al. (2017), and Yu and Chen
(2021)
8 Knowledge sharing 9 2008 Kai et al. (2014),Qi and Chen (2014), and Zhu et al. (2009)
9 Innovation 9 2010 Kong et al. (2020),Awan et al. (2020),Li and Li (2010),
Gloet and Samson (2022),Gholizadeh and Fazlollahtabar
(2021)
10 Sustainable supply
chain
9 2006 Khan et al. (2016),Septiani et al. (2014), and Zhou et al.
(2020)
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 6.
Top 10 keywords in
KMSSC research
Figure 11.
KMSSC research
frontiers between 2002
and 2022
Two decades of
KM in SSC
5.2 Keyword-based intellectual structure of KMSSC research
Keywords were also used to extract top cluster themes that reflect the intellectual base of
KMSSC research. The analysis specifies 15 clusters with an overall modularity (Q 50.6123)
and silhouette value (S 50.8643) levels. Figure 12 depicts the top clusters labeled using the
LLR abstract terms, while Figure 13 shows a horizontal timeline view of each cluster.
Cluster #0 “knowledge transfer capacity”(S 50.737, n 551, AVY 52015) is ranked first
with an overall size of 51 keywords and the average year of 2015. The cluster has primarily
focused on the capacity of knowledge source and knowledge recipient as well as the
collaboration capacity between them along the SSC network (Li and Li, 2010). It reflects how
organizations involved in the supply chain can effectively exchange relevant information,
Figure 12.
Visualization of
keyword co-occurrence
clusters in KMSSC
research
Figure 13.
Timeline visualization
of keyword co-
occurrence network in
KMSSC research
BIJ
insights, and best practices related to sustainability and environmental considerations.
Moreover, the exchange of green knowledge among partners within the SSC framework
presents fresh avenues for effectively mitigating adverse environmental impacts, especially
when these partners share a closely-knit inter-organizational relationship (Cheng, 2011).
Within supply chains, a variety of partners come together, each offering their distinct domain
knowledge. This capacity for knowledge transfer not only supports collective learning but
also empowers partners to draw lessons from both achievements and setbacks. By embracing
this collaborative ethos, problem-solving capabilities are amplified, nurturing an
environment of perpetual enhancement. The ability to transfer knowledge effectively
ensures that all partners remain updated with the latest regulatory requirements and can
collectively develop strategies to mitigate supply chain risks, ensuring uninterrupted
operations. Often, larger organizations within the supply chain play a mentoring role for
smaller suppliers. Knowledge transfer capacity aids in disseminating best practices, technical
expertise, and technological know-how to enhance the capabilities of smaller partners,
fostering a more robust and competitive supply chain ecosystem.
Cluster #1 “external green integration”(S 50.805, n 547, AVY 52013) is the second
most essential theme. It refers to the strategic alignment and coordination of sustainability
initiatives, practices, and processes across different organizations or entities within a supply
chain network. In the context of SSC, it entails integrating environmentally friendly practices,
principles, and considerations into the relationships and operations that extend beyond a
single organization’s boundaries. Research on this domain revealed that green integration
with external partners necessitates a cooperative decision making process and strategic
alignment to ensure an efficient flow of information and exchange of resources among SSC
partners, which in turn enhances supplier competitiveness (Woo et al., 2016). Research has
also shown that environmental knowledge is a significant determinant of developing green
integration mechanisms between customers and suppliers, which has a significant impact on
SSC performance more than that of internal integration (Pham and Pham, 2021). External
green integration facilitates the implementation of eco-friendly practices at various stages of
the supply chain. This can include reducing energy consumption, minimizing waste
generation, using sustainable materials, and optimizing transportation routes. These efforts
collectively contribute to reducing the overall environmental footprint of the supply chain.
External green integration also allows organizations to promote their commitment to
environmental responsibility and transparency, thereby enhancing their reputation and
attracting environmentally conscious customers. External green integration encourages the
exchange of ideas, technologies, and strategies that contribute to continuous improvement in
sustainability performance. By working together, supply chain partners can create lasting
changes that extend beyond immediate business interests, leading to enduring
environmental benefits. Moreover, Digital information sharing technology such as “Radio-
Frequency Identification”plays a crucial role in supporting green SC integration through
improving operational performance and supply policies for both buyers and suppliers and
employing pattern analysis to enhance performance and return on investment across the
supply chain (Li et al., 2002;Nativi and Lee, 2010).
Cluster #3 “literature review”(S 50.843, n 535, AVY 52010) explores the application of
KM approaches and technologies in environmental sustainability relations (Martin et al.,
2006;Peterson, 2009). The primary focus of this cluster is to delve into the application of
knowledge management (KM) approaches and technologies within the realm of
environmental sustainability relationships. A particular spotlight is cast on how these KM
approaches can be utilized in the context of Chinese green supply chains. The cluster’s
research sheds light on how knowledge management techniques and technologies can be
effectively employed to devise strategies, tactics, and solutions that promote eco-friendliness
and sustainable practices. The cluster also zooms in on how KM approaches can be tailored to
Two decades of
KM in SSC
local requirements and dynamics within the context of the Chinese green supply chain.
Notably, the research highlights the works of scholars like Plant et al. (2015) and Zhou and
Wang (2021). The cluster also dives into the challenges that might hinder the successful
implementation of KM in environmental sustainability endeavors. These barriers could
range from technological limitations to organizational resistance.
Cluster #4 “contingent resource-based view”(S 50.89, n 532, AVY 52015) ascertains a
central theoretical framework in KMSSC research. The “resource-based view”(RBV) is a well-
known theoretical framework in management and strategy. It suggests that a firm’s
competitive advantage is driven by its unique and valuable resources and capabilities. These
resources can include tangible assets like technology or physical infrastructure, as well as
intangible assets like knowledge, brand reputation, and organizational culture (Barney,
2001). The term “contingent”in this context implies that the applicability or effectiveness of
the resource-based view may vary depending on specific conditions or contingencies
(Arag
on-Correa and Sharma, 2003). In other words, the impact of a firm’s resources on its
competitive advantage could be influenced by factors such as industry dynamics, market
conditions, and the organization’s strategy. This framework likely highlights the importance
of considering not only the presence of resources and capabilities but also how these
resources interact with the specific context of SSC. In other words, it emphasizes that the
value and impact of resources on achieving sustainability goals might be contingent on
various factors related to the supply chain’s unique characteristics, environmental
challenges, and collaborative dynamics. Yuen et al. (2019) classified a firm’s resources that
may enhance SSC practices into three categories including “intra-firm resources”,“inter-firm
relationship management resources”and “learning resources”. Hence, this view has been
applied to elucidate how knowledge sharing between buyers and suppliers is a key resource
that affects supply chain visibility and velocity practices, which in turn influences business
performance (Sharma et al., 2022). Studies have also employed the resource-based perspective
to demonstrate that firms may attain various strategies to influence green innovation as long
as they retain heterogeneous green knowledge resources concerning logistics and supply
chain stakeholders involving suppliers, customers, and competitors (He et al., 2019). The full
list of clusters is depicted in Table 7 along with their size, silhouette, AVY and citing
documents.
6. Towards a conceptual framework of KMSSC research
This review divulges the intellectual foundations that KMSSC research has confided in.
Particularly, the intellectual premises of KMSSC research are anchored in 31 foundational
clusters pervading the analysis of keywords, and co-citations of references and authors.
Integrating the knowledge that avails from these clusters, we have embarked on an
underlying conceptual framework that constructed the field. The framework proposes three
constituents for KMSSC as shown in Figure 14. First, knowledge capabilities including
knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge integration and knowledge
diffusion appear to be crucial prerequisites allowing the best deployment of SSC
initiatives. Knowledge sharing was the first capacity to be introduced in KMSSC research
(AVY 52002) focusing mainly on external knowledge sharing among supply chain partners
concerning green practices in the successful implementation of SSC (Hung et al., 2014;Kai
et al., 2014). The level of knowledge sharing necessitates effective cooperation among
organizational departments and the cultivation of learning processes that generate
substantial flows of knowledge along the entire organizational chain, which in turn can be
shared with external partners. However, research on intra-organizational knowledge sharing
appears to be scant which opens new venues for future research directions. Remarkably,
research that contributes to the knowledge integration theme in KMSSC is relatively new
BIJ
Rank
Cluster
ID Size Silhouette Label (LLR) AVY Citing documents
1 0 51 0.737 Knowledge transfer
capacity
2015 Li and Li (2010),Yu et al. (2021),
Cheng (2011),Zhu et al. (2009),Cholez
et al. (2020),Russo and Comi (2021),
Hung et al. (2014),Wang et al. (2022),
Grandia (2016),Wang et al. (2018)
2 1 47 0.805 External green
integration
2013 Woo et al. (2016),Kai et al. (2014),
Greschner Farkavcova et al. (2018),
Pham and Pham (2021),Li et al.
(2002),Nativi and Lee (2010),Yatskiv
et al. (2017),Khan et al. (2016),Ding
and Wang (2020),Plant et al. (2015),
Feng et al. (2020)
3 2 35 0.843 Literature review 2010 Martin et al. (2006),Li (2011),
Schrettle et al. (2014),Plant et al.
(2015),Peterson (2009),Zhou and
Wang (2021)
4 3 32 0.89 Contingent
resource-based view
2015 Sharma et al. (2022),Kassaneh et al.
(2021),Yuen et al. (2019),Kaipia et al.
(2013),Awan et al. (2020)
5 4 30 0.895 Knowledge base 2016 Kai et al. (2014),Liu et al. (2019b),Roy
(2019),Septiani et al. (2014)
6 5 29 0.885 Green fashion
communities
2012 Marques (2019),Rainero and
Modarelli (2021),Ruta et al. (2010),
Rajabion et al. (2019)
7 6 25 0.884 Supply chain 2014 Septiani et al. (2014),Kai et al. (2014),
Liu et al. (2019b),De Pablos et al.
(2009),Lai et al. (2019),Rajabion et al.
(2019),Sendlhofer and Lernborg
(2018),Park (2020),Greschner
Farkavcova et al. (2018),Pham and
Pham (2021)
8 7 22 0.885 Third-party
logistics
2016 Evangelista and Durst (2015),
Septiani et al. (2014),Zhang et al.
(2018),Aschehoug et al. (2013)
9 8 16 0.945 Public engagement 2019 Russo et al. (2020),Awan et al. (2020)
10 9 9 0.946 Proposal of
emerging
technologies
2016 Contreras-Medina et al. (2020),Russo
and Comi (2021)
11 10 8 0.997 Environmental
transformation
2011 Baresel-Bofinger et al. (2011),
Septiani et al. (2014)
12 11 8 0.976 sustainable
operation
2015 Erkul et al. (2015),Awan et al. (2020)
13 12 8 0.980 public
infrastructure
2016 Wondimu et al. (2016),Liu et al.
(2019b)
14 13 7 0.974 Relational
governance
2017 Ramon-Jeronimo et al. (2017),Yuen
et al. (2019),Zhou et al. (2020),Cheng
(2011)
15 14 6 0.981 Business education 2021 Kassaneh et al. (2021),Putz et al.
(2018)
Source(s): Authors’own work
Table 7.
Top keyword clusters
in KMSSC research
Two decades of
KM in SSC
(AVY 52014) recognizing the positive effect of knowledge integration on making conscious
decisions to achieve better SSC performance and resilience (Ji et al., 2020;Peng et al., 2020).
Therefore, further research aiming at extending this theme should focus on knowledge
integration to advance green innovations and improve SSC performance during turbulent
times such as crises and pandemics.
The second foundation assimilates a resource-based view of internal operations and
external collaborations among supply chain partners involving business education, human
resource development, public support, relational governance, and emerging technologies. For
instance, the impact of knowledge on SSC will be much stronger in a context wherein
emerging information sharing and communication technologies such as RFID are well-
established between buyers and suppliers to augment supply chain policies and system
performance (Khaliunaa and Kalimuthu, 2020;Nativi and Lee, 2010). Further, public support
through community engagement and reliable infrastructure facilitate knowledge integration
along the supply chain enforcing higher returns on sustainable development (Russo and
Figure 14.
KMSSC research
framework
BIJ
Comi, 2021). Yet, scholars should seize other views of the firm that may advance KMSSC
research such as the environmental determination view that advocates the limited ability of
firms to adapt to the environment around them (Livingstone, 2011). In addition, digitization
and supply chain analytics can be a potential underpinning theme in future KMSSC research
given the growing prominence of scholarly work in the industry 4.0 era.
Finally, the underpinning sustainability trajectories in KMSSC literature emphasize SSC,
green logistics, green integration, environmental transformation, and competitive
sustainable advantage.
Imminent research should also be acquainted with SSC concepts that exhibit dynamics of
a firm’s competitiveness owing to integrating knowledge capabilities into SSC practices.
More essentially, imminent research that strives to enrich these themes may address new
concepts and approaches concerning the role of KM in reinforcing social, environmental and
economic aspects of green city logistics, and SSC technologies, education, resilience,
transparency and plasticity. Unearthing these prospective underlying themes helps progress
the KMSSC research profile in the circular economy era.
7. Discussion
The scientometric analysis and visualization conducted in this study provide profound
insights into prolific trends, influential themes and intellectual clusters, research hotspots,
and research frontiers in KMSSC research. These findings hold significant value for both
researchers and practitioners alike. While existing reviews have primarily centered on the
role of knowledge management within conventional supply chain management research, our
present review takes a unique stance by specifically examining the nexus between
knowledge management and sustainability within the supply chain context. In this review,
we make a distinctive contribution to the field of KMSSC research by delving into complex
interrelationships.
Marra et al. (2012), for instance, scrutinized 58 papers spanning from 2000 to 2010,
shedding light on issues such as knowledge obsolescence in supply chain knowledge
management. They emphasized structured methodologies for the capture, storage, and
dissemination of knowledge. In a similar vein, Cerchione and Esposito (2016) analyzed 82
papers, pinpointing research gaps concerning factors influencing the adoption of knowledge
systems and their consequent impact on performance. del Rosario P
erez-Salazar et al. (2017)
underscored the potential of knowledge management to enhance both intra and inter-
operational efficiency within the supply chain, while identifying gaps in the exploration of
reverse logistics and outsourcing. While previous reviews aptly highlighted the growing
interest in the role of knowledge management in supply chain management at large, they fell
short in integrating this concept with the distinct research stream of sustainability within the
supply chain domain. In contrast, our study bridges this gap by specifically investigating the
intersection of knowledge management and sustainability in supply chain research. One
more concern in previous reviews is their narrow scope and limited coverage of the examined
papers, especially when compared to the present review. It’s possible that the selection
criteria used in those reviews unintentionally left out relevant research, potentially impacting
the thoroughness of their conclusions. Furthermore, these reviews were constrained by
specific timeframes (up to 2016), which might have hindered the acknowledgment of recent
advancements or emerging trends that occurred after those periods.
In contrast to previous review endeavors, this comprehensive analysis has uncovered the
prevailing trends within the research landscape. These include the trajectory of research
evolution, the impact of influential authors, the recognition of esteemed journals, the
identification of seminal papers, the recognition of notable institutions, participation patterns of
countries, and the emergence of prominent keywords. Additionally, this review has unveiled
Two decades of
KM in SSC
the overarching influential themes, intellectual clusters that have emerged, research hotspots
that have garnered attention, and the frontiers of inquiry that beckon future exploration.
Consequently, various implications avail while reflecting upon the review findings.
7.1 Implications for KMSSC research
Regarding the performance of KMSSC research, the analysis reveals that the evolution of this
field was slow during its initial years. However, in recent times, there has been a notable upsurge,
which can be attributed to a heightened focus on sustainability as a prominent domain. This
surge coincides with a strategic orientation of journals towards KMSSC topics and funding
initiatives, likely influenced by the initiation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in
2015. The recognition of a sluggish start and subsequent accelerated growth highlights the
evolving nature of KMSSC research. This trajectory underscores the field’sincreasing
significance, possibly driven by growing societal and economic demands for SSC practices.
Second, an analysis of academic journals underscores the diverse range of disciplines that
have influenced the landscape of KMSSC research. Notably, business and management,
environmental science, and social science stand out as the most prolific contributors,
propelled by the notable contributions from sources like the “Journal of Cleaner Prod.”and
“Sustainability.”The emergence of KMSSC research across these various subject areas
should serve as an inspiration for scholars to embark on new explorations that span multi-
disciplinary domains, fostering a fertile ground for promising research opportunities. This
suggests that KMSSC is not limited to one specific domain but rather draws insights and
expertise from a range of disciplines, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of SSC
research. It also indicates that issues related to business strategies, environmental impact,
and social responsibility are central themes in the development of SSC knowledge.
Third, the co-occurrence analysis presented in this paper reveals a diverse spectrum of
authors hailing from various disciplines, countries, and institutions, all of whom have made
substantial contributions to KMSSC research. This indicates that KMSSC is a topic that
transcends geographical and disciplinary boundaries with a multidisciplinary nature. It
reinforces the idea that diverse perspectives and collaborative work are valued and can
contribute meaningfully to the field.
Finally, the finding that China holds the position of the most productive country in KMSSC
research signifies a shifting global research landscape. Nevertheless, diverse contributions
from developing nations such as Iran, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Indonesia suggest
that KMSSC research contributions are not limited to traditional research powerhouses.
Similarly, the USA’s position as the most prolific in terms of burst duration and betweenness
centrality highlights its role as a hub for connecting scholars from various nations. This
indicates the potential for cross-border collaboration and knowledge exchange, showcasing the
importance of international cooperation in advancing KMSSC research. As developing
countries demonstrate their engagement in KMSSC research, there’s an opportunity to foster
knowledge sharing and capacity building. Collaborative initiatives could help these countries
further enhance their research capabilities and contribute meaningfully to the field.
7.2 Implications for practice
The implications drawn from this review provide valuable insights for businesses and
policymakers alike, offering actionable guidance for enhancing SSC practices, fostering
innovation, and contributing to the development of a circular economy.
First, the identified conceptual framework emphasizes the importance of knowledge
capabilities, including knowledge management, sharing, integration, and diffusion, as vital
prerequisites for successful SSC initiatives. Organizations aiming to enhance their SSC
performance can prioritize strategies that foster effective knowledge sharing and integration
BIJ
both internally and externally. By encouraging cross-departmental cooperation and
facilitating learning processes, firms can generate and disseminate valuable knowledge,
promoting better decision-making and innovation across the supply chain.
Second, the framework highlights research gaps in areas such as intra-organizational
knowledge sharing and knowledge integration. Organizations and policymakers can support
and incentivize research efforts that delve into these gaps, thereby advancing our
understanding of how these aspects influence SSC performance. Addressing these gaps
can guide businesses in developing more effective strategies for knowledge dissemination
within their organizational structures.
Third, the integration of emerging technologies, such as RFID and digital solutions, can
significantly amplify the impact of knowledge on SSC. Businesses and policymakers can
invest in technological infrastructure that facilitates efficient information sharing and
communication between supply chain partners. By harnessing the power of Industry 4.0
technologies, supply chains can achieve higher levels of transparency, responsiveness, and
efficiency, leading to improved SSC outcomes.
Fourth, the emphasis on public support, community engagement, and reliable
infrastructure underscores the need for collaborative efforts between businesses, local
communities, and governing bodies. Policymakers can advocate for policies that foster
partnerships between stakeholders, facilitating knowledge integration along the supply
chain. By recognizing the value of community engagement and sustainable infrastructure,
policy initiatives can contribute to the overall success of SSC endeavors.
Fifth, the sustainability trajectories highlighted in the framework, such as green logistics,
integration, and competitive sustainable advantage, offer guidance for organizations and
policymakers to align their strategies with broader sustainability goals. Businesses can adopt
practices that emphasize green logistics, efficient integration, and competitive advantages
derived from sustainable initiatives. Policymakers can incentivize and regulate practices that
align with these trajectories, promoting a more environmentally conscious and resilient
supply chain ecosystem.
Sixth, the identified themes within the framework align with circular economy principles,
emphasizing the need for integration, adaptability, and sustainability. Businesses and
policymakers can work collaboratively to advance circular economy practices within supply
chains. By integrating knowledge capabilities into SSC practices and embracing sustainable
trajectories, organizations can contribute to a more circular and resilient economy.
8. Conclusion
This study engages in a scientometric analysis of KMSSC research, unearthing significant
insights that hold relevance for both researchers and practitioners. While prior reviews have
predominantly focused on knowledge management within supply chain management, this
review sets itself apart by investigating the intersection of knowledge management and
sustainability within supply chains. By doing so, it bridges this research gap through
unveiling the current landscape and recent advancements in KMSSC research performance,
deciphering the intellectual pillars, navigating research hotspots and frontiers, and
developing a conceptual framework that can guide future KMSSC research directions.
In pursuit of these objectives, the analysis comprehensively covers facets ranging from
authors, institutions, funding sources, and countries to publication outlets, highly cited
papers, and subject keywords within the KMSSC domain. Furthermore, the study delves into
the intellectual bedrock of KMSSC research, employing co-citation and cluster mapping
techniques to dissect references, journals, and author networks. This review not only offers a
snapshot of the current KMSSC research landscape but also sheds light on emerging trends
and thematic areas. As a result, a conceptual framework is proposed, which encapsulates
Two decades of
KM in SSC
diverse foundational clusters. These clusters span from knowledge capabilities and
sustainability trajectories within supply chains to the role of internal and external
resources. This framework serves as a guiding beacon for both researchers and practitioners,
providing insights that steer the trajectory of future exploration in the field.
While this paper intended to present a comprehensive review, it is important to approach
the findings with a degree of caution, considering a few important considerations. First, it’s
worth noting that the database selection was limited to the Scopus advanced database,
chosen as the primary literature source due to its reputation for high quality and extensive
coverage. However, there may be numerous relevant KMSSC articles on platforms like
Google Scholar and other databases that should be considered in future reviews. Moreover,
the exclusion of certain source types during the filtering process of this study might have
omitted potentially valuable articles. Second, the literature selection in this study was
confined to specific entries and keywords, although every effort was made to ensure that no
essential research was overlooked and that all pertinent articles were included. Third, it’s
important to recognize that articles that were published or accepted prior to the analysis
phase of this research were incorporated in the review. As a result, some caution is needed
when interpreting articles published in the most recent period.
Finally, the reference status of an article was captured by documenting citations at a particular
moment, and this can change notably over time due to ongoing developments in the field.
In summary, while striving for a comprehensive overview, it’s crucial to acknowledge
these limitations and nuances when interpreting the findings of this study.
References
Aboelmaged, M., Bani-Melhem, S., Al-Hawari, M.A. and Ali, I. (2023), “Product innovation research over the
past 60 years: a bibliometric analysis of intellectual structure and emergent trends”,Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2022-0595.
Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 52, pp. 329-341.
Arag
on-Correa, J. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate
environmental strategy”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Aschehoug, S.H., Boks, C. and Aasland, K.E. (2013), “Building sustainability knowledge for product
development and design - experiences from four manufacturing firms”,Progress in Industrial
Ecology, Vol. 8 Nos 1-2, pp. 45-66.
Awan, U., Khattak, A., Rabbani, S. and Dhir, A. (2020), “Buyer-driven knowledge transfer activities to
enhance organizational sustainability of suppliers”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 (No. 7,
Supp. 2993), doi: 10.3390/su12072993.
Azam, A., Ahmed, A., Wang, H., Wang, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2021), “Knowledge structure and research
progress in wind power generation (WPG) from 2005 to 2020 using CiteSpace based
scientometric analysis”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 295, 126496.
Bag, S., Telukdarie, A., Pretorius, J. and Gupta, S. (2018), “Industry 4.0 and supply chain sustainability:
framework and future research directions”,Benchmarking, Vol. 28, pp. 1410-1450.
Baresel-Bofinger, A.C.R., Ketikidis, P.H., Koh, S.C.L. and Cullen, J. (2011), “Role of ‘green knowledge’in
the environmental transformation of the supply chain: the case of Greek manufacturing”,
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view”,Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 643-650.
Cai, S., Goh, M., De Souza, R. and Li, G. (2013), “Knowledge sharing in collaborative supply chains:
twin effects of trust and power”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 7,
pp. 2060-2076.
BIJ
Carter, C.R. and Liane Easton, P. (2011), “Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future
directions”,International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”,International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.
Cerchione, R. and Esposito, E. (2016), “A systematic review of supply chain knowledge management
research: state of the art and research opportunities”,International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 182, pp. 276-292.
Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A. (2012), “Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities
online: lessons for the sustainable supply chain”,Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Chang, C. (2021), “Constructing an intelligent shoe production plant using a green supply chain and
knowledge management”,Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 46-57,
doi: 10.1080/14778238.2021.1970488.
Chen, X. and Liu, Y. (2020), “Visualization analysis of high-speed railway research based on
CiteSpace”,Transport Policy, Vol. 85, pp. 1-17.
Cheng, J. (2011), “Inter-organizational relationships and knowledge sharing in green supply chains-
Moderating by relational benefits and guanxi”,Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 837-849.
Cheng, J., Yeh, C. and Tu, C. (2008), “Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains”,Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Cholez, C., Magrini, M. and Galliano, D. (2020), “Exploring inter-firm knowledge through contractual
governance: a case study of production contracts for faba-bean procurement in France”,Journal
of Rural Studies, Vol. 73, pp. 135-146.
Chopra, M., Saini, N., Kumar, S., Varma, A., Mangla, S. and Lim, W. (2021), “Past, present, and future
of knowledge management for business sustainability”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 328,
129592.
Contreras-Barraza, N., Espinosa-Cristia, J.F., Salazar-Sepulveda, G., Vega-Mu~
noz, A. and Ariza-
Montes, A. (2021), “A scientometric systematic review of entrepreneurial wellbeing knowledge
production”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, 641465.
Contreras-Medina, D.I., Contreras-Medina, L.M., Pardo-Nu~
nez, J., Olvera-Vargas, L.A. and Rodriguez-
Peralta, C.M. (2020), “Roadmapping as a driver for knowledge creation: a proposal for
improving sustainable practices in the coffee supply chain from Chiapas, Mexico, using
emerging technologies”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 (No. 14, Supp. 5817), doi: 10.3390/
su12145817.
Daghfous, A. and Zoubi, T. (2017), “An auditing framework for knowledge-enabled supply chain
management: implications for sustainability”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 9 (No. 5, Supp.
791), doi: 10.3390/su9050791.
Dave, M., Singh, K., Kumar, A. and Kumar, S. (2019), “Knowledge management measures: an empirical
investigation of Indian cement industry”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 734-752.
De Pablos, C., Montes, J.L. and Santos, I.S.L. (2009), “A model for the creation of knowledge and
competitive sustainable advantages in the supply chain”,Proceedings –23rd European
Conference on Modelling and Simulation, ECMS, p. 445.
del Rosario P
erez-Salazar, M., Aguilar Lasserre, A.A., Cedillo-Campos, M. and Hern
andez Gonz
alez, J.
(2017), “The role of knowledge management in supply chain management: a literature review”,
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 711-788.
Ding, J. and Wang, W. (2020), “Information sharing in a green supply chain with promotional effort”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 2683-2712.
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Duan, J., Zhang, C., Gong, Y., Brown, S. and Li, Z. (2020), “A content-analysis based literature review in
blockchain adoption within food supply chain”,International Journal F Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 5, p. 1784.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Ali, S.S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between leadership,
operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for
green supply chain”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 120-132.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S., Shibin, K. and Wamba, S. (2017),
“Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions”,Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 1119-1130.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z. and Roubaud, D. (2020), “Upstream
supply chain visibility and complexity effect on focal company’s sustainable performance: Indian
manufacturers’perspective”,Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 290 Nos 1-2, pp. 343-367.
Effendi, M.I., Widjanarko, H. and Sugandini, D. (2021), “Green supply chain integration and
technology innovation performance in SMEs: a case study in Indonesia”,Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 909-916.
Erkul, M., Kaynak, H. and Montiel, I. (2015), “Supplier relations and sustainable operations: the roles
of codes of conduct and human resource development”,International Journal of Integrated
Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-249.
Evangelista, P. and Durst, S. (2015), “Knowledge management in environmental sustainability
practices of third-party logistics service providers”,VINE, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 509-529.
Fait, M., Palladino, R., Mennini, F.S., Graziano, D. and Manzo, M. (2023), “Enhancing knowledge
brokerage drivers for dynamic capabilities: the effects on sustainable supply chain ecosystem”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JKM-07-
2022-0601.
Fantazy, K. and Tipu, S.A.A. (2019), “Exploring the relationships of the culture of competitiveness and
knowledge development to sustainable supply chain management and organizational
performance”,Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 936-963.
Fauzi, M.A. (2023), “Knowledge hiding behavior in higher education institutions: a scientometric
analysis and systematic literature review approach”,Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 27, pp. 302-327.
Feng, T., Jiang, Y. and Xu, D. (2020), “The dual-process between green supplier collaboration and firm
performance: a behavioral perspective”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 260 Supp. 21073,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121073.
Gholizadeh, H. and Fazlollahtabar, H. (2021), “Analysis of new product development between product
innovation and product financial performance assessment: a case of Doosheh Dairy Company”,
Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 18556-18581.
Gloet, M. and Samson, D. (2019), “Knowledge management to support supply chain sustainability and
collaboration practices”,Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, p. 5508.
Gloet, M. and Samson, D. (2020), “Supporting supply chain innovation and sustainability practices
through knowledge and innovation management”,2020, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, p. 4838.
Gloet, M. and Samson, D. (2022), “Knowledge and innovation management to support supply chain
innovation and sustainability practices”,Information Systems Management,Vol.39
No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2010), “Sustainable supply chain management and inter-
organizational resources: a literature review”,Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 230-245.
Grandia, J. (2016), “Finding the missing link: examining the mediating role of sustainable public
procurement behaviour”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 124, pp. 183-190.
BIJ
Greschner Farkavcova, V., Rieckhof, R. and Guenther, E. (2018), “Expanding knowledge on
environmental impacts of transport processes for more sustainable supply chain decisions:
a case study using life cycle assessment”,Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 61, pp. 68-83.
Habib, M.A., Bao, Y., Nabi, N., Dulal, M., Asha, A. and Islam, M. (2021), “Impact of strategic
orientations on the implementation of green supply chain management practices and
sustainable firm performance”,Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
He, Q., Gallear, D., Ghobadian, A. and Ramanathan, R. (2019), “Managing knowledge in supply chains:
a catalyst to triple bottom line sustainability”,Production Planning and Control,Vol.30Nos5-6,
pp. 448-463.
Hung, S., Chen, P. and Chung, C. (2014), “Gaining or losing? The social capital perspective on supply
chain members’knowledge sharing of green practices”,Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 189-206.
Ji, L., Yuan, C., Feng, T. and Wang, C. (2020), “Achieving the environmental profits of green supplier
integration: the roles of supply chain resilience and knowledge combination”,Sustainable
Development, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 978-989.
Jung, H. and Jeong, S. (2018), “The economic effect of virtual warehouse-based inventory information
sharing for sustainable supplier management”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10 (No. 5, Supp.
1547), doi: 10.3390/su10051547.
Kai, Q., Wei, C. and Meng-Lin, B. (2014), “Green supply chain knowledge sharing mechanism based on
principal-agent theory”,Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 6 No. 6,
pp. 1631-1639.
Kaipia, R., Dukovska-Popovska, I. and Loikkanen, L. (2013), “Creating sustainable fresh food supply
chains through waste reduction”,International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 262-276.
Kassaneh, T.C., Bolisani, E. and Cegarra-Navarro, J. (2021), “Knowledge management practices for
sustainable supply chain management: a challenge for business education”,Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1-15.
Khalid, A., Malik, G. and Mahmood, K. (2021), “Sustainable development challenges in libraries: a systematic
literature review (2000-2020)”,The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 47 No. 3, 102347.
Khaliunaa, U. and Kalimuthu, K.R. (2020), “Role of information sharing and green supply chain
management on supply chain performance: empirical evidences”,International Journal on
Emerging Technologies, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 833-844.
Khan, M., Hussain, M. and Saber, H.M. (2016), “Information sharing in a sustainable supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 181, pp. 208-214.
Khan, M., Hussain, M., Papastathopoulos, A. and Manikas, I. (2018), “Trust, information sharing and
uncertainty: an empirical investigation into their impact on sustainability in service supply
chains in the United Arab Emirates”,Sustainable Development, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 870-878.
Kim, J.H., Youn, S. and Roh, J.J. (2011), “Green supply chain management orientation and firm
performance: evidence from South Korea”,International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 283-304.
Kong, T., Feng, T., Huang, Y. and Cai, J. (2020), “How to convert green supply chain integration efforts
into green innovation: a perspective of knowledge-based view”,Sustainable Development,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1106-1121.
Kong, T., Feng, T. and Huo, B. (2021), “Green supply chain integration and financial performance:
a social contagion and information sharing perspective”,Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 2255-2270.
Lai, X., Tao, Y., Wang, F. and Zou, Z. (2019), “Sustainability investment in maritime supply chain with
risk behavior and information sharing”,International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 218, pp. 16-29.
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Li, B. (2011), “Research on evaluation of knowledge transfer risk based on green supply chain”,BMEI 2011 –
Proceedings 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information, p. 237.
Li, B. and Li, M. (2010), “Assessment on knowledge transfer capacity between enterprises in green
supply chain based on FAHP methodology”,Proceedings - 3rd International Conference on
Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, ICIII 2010, p. 298.
Li, J., Gao, Z. and Zhang, H.C. (2002), “Plug and play information sharing architecture and its
application in green supply chain management”,Conference Record 2002 IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (Cat. No. 02CH37273), IEEE, pp. 157-162.
Li, E.L., Zhou, L. and Wu, A. (2017), “The supply-side of environmental sustainability and export
performance: the role of knowledge integration and international buyer involvement”,
International Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 724-735.
Lim, M.K., Tseng, M., Tan, K.H. and Bui, T.D. (2017), “Knowledge management in sustainable supply
chain management: improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling
approach”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 806-816.
Liu, J., Shi, B., Xue, J. and Wang, Q. (2019a), “Improving the green public procurement performance of
Chinese local governments: from the perspective of officials’knowledge”,Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, 100501.
Liu, L., Zhang, M. and Ye, W. (2019b), “The adoption of sustainable practices: a supplier’s
perspective”,Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 232, pp. 692-701.
Livingstone, D. (2011), “Environmental determinism”,inSage Handbook of Geographical
Knowledge, Sage.
Marques, L. (2019), “Sustainable supply network management: a systematic literature review from a
knowledge perspective”,International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 1164-1190.
Marra, M., Ho, W. and Edwards, J.S. (2012), “Supply chain knowledge management: a literature
review”,Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 6103-6110.
Martin, V., Basnet, C., Childerhouse, P. and Foulds, L. (2006), “Knowledge management for the
sustainable supply chain: a literature review”,Proceedings of the European Conference on
Knowledge Management, ECKM, pp. 302-309.
Martins, V.W.B., Rampasso, I.S., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. and Leal Filho, W. (2019), “Knowledge
management in the context of sustainability: literature review and opportunities for future
research”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 229, pp. 489-500.
Mehdikhani, R. and Valmohammadi, C. (2019), “Strategic collaboration and sustainable supply chain
management: the mediating role of internal and external knowledge sharing”,Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 778-806.
Mihi-Ramirez, A. (2013), “The relationship between knowledge and green logistics: a theoretical
approach”,Engineering Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 267-274.
Moher, D., Altman, D.G. and Tetzlaff, J. (1999), “PRISMA (Preferred Reporting items for systematic reviews
and Meta-Analyses)”,Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’sManual,Vol.1999,p.250.
Mokhlesian, S. (2014), “How do contractors select suppliers for greener construction projects? The case
of three Swedish companies”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 4133-4151.
Nativi, J.J. and Lee, S. (2010), “Impact of RFID information sharing in a green supply chain”,IIE
Annual Conference and Expo 2010 Proceedings.
Newman, M. (2005), “A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks”,Social Networks,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Nikolaou, I.E. and Zervas, A. (2017), “How environmental knowledge of managers plays a critical role
in implementing green supply chain management”,In Operational Research in Business and
Economics: 4th International Symposium and 26th National Conference on Operational
Research, Chania, June 2015, Springer International Publishing, pp. 17-33.
BIJ
€
Ozlen, M.K. (2021), “Enablers and outcomes of knowledge management implementation in supply
chains: manufacturing companies perspective”,Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 1517-1532.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hr
objartsson, A.,
Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Wilson, E.M., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A. and Moher, D.
(2021), “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”,
International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 88, 105906.
Park, K. (2020), “A heuristic simulation–optimization approach to information sharing in supply
chains”,Symmetry, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 1-16.
Peng, H., Shen, N., Liao, H. and Wang, Q. (2020), “Multiple network embedding, green knowledge
integration and green supply chain performance——investigation based on agglomeration
scenario”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 259 Supp. 120821.
Peterson, H.C. (2009), “Transformational supply chains and the ‘wicked problem’of sustainability:
aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership”,Journal on Chain and
Network Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Pham, T. and Pham, H. (2021), “Improving green performance of construction projects through supply
chain integration: the role of environmental knowledge”,Sustainable Production and
Consumption, Vol. 26, pp. 933-942.
Pinto, M.M.A., Kovaleski, J.L., Yoshino, R.T. and Pagani, R.N. (2019), “Knowledge and technology
transfer influencing the process of innovation in Green Supply Chain Management:
a multicriteria model based on the DEMATEL method”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11
(No. 12, Supp. 3485), doi: 10.3390/su11123485.
Plant, E., Xu, Y. and White, G.R.T. (2015), “Green supply chain management in Chinese electronic
manufacturing organisations: an analysis of senior managements’perceptions”,International
Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 21-30.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Putz, L., Treiblmaier, H. and Pfoser, S. (2018), “Field trips for sustainable transport education: impact
on knowledge, attitude and behavioral intention”,International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1424-1450.
Qi,K.andChen,W.(2014),“Research on green supply chain knowledge sharing mechanism”,Energy
Education Science and Technology Part A: Energy Science and Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 8077-8086.
Rahman, A.A., Tay, M.Y. and Aziz, Y.A. (2016), “Potential of knowledge management as antecedence
of sustainable supply chain management practices”,International Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 43-50.
Rainero, C. and Modarelli, G. (2021), “Food tracking and blockchain-induced knowledge: a corporate
social responsibility tool for sustainable decision-making”,British Food Journal, Vol. 123 No. 12,
pp. 4284-4308.
Rajabion, L., Khorraminia, M., Andjomshoaa, A., Ghafouri-Azar, M. and Molavi, H. (2019), “Anewmodel
for assessing the impact of the urban intelligent transportation system, farmers’knowledge and
business processes on the success of green supply chain management system for urban distribution
of agricultural products”,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 154-162.
Ramon-Jeronimo, J.M., Florez-Lopez, R. and Ramon-Jeronimo, M.A. (2017), “Understanding the
generation of value along supply chains: balancing control information and relational
governance mechanisms in downstream and upstream relationships”,Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 9 (No. 8, Supp. 1487), doi: 10.3390/su9081487.
Roy, V. (2019), “Decoding the elemental arcs of superior performance in sustainable supply chains:
a knowledge-based view”,Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 2570-2592.
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Russo, F. and Comi, A. (2021), “Sustainable urban delivery: the learning process of path costs
enhanced by information and communication technologies”,Sustainability (Switzerland),
Vol. 13, p. 23.
Russo, F., Calabr
o, T., Iiritano, G., Pellican
o, D.S., Petrungaro, G. and Trecozzi, M.R. (2020), “City
logistics between international vision and local knowledge to sustainable development: the
regional role on planning and on public engagement”,International Journal of Sustainable
Development and Planning, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 619-629.
Ruta, M., Scioscia, F., Di Sciascio, E., Gramegna, F., Ieva, S. and Loseto, G. (2010), “RFID-assisted
product delivery in sustainable supply chains: a knowledge-based approach”,Proceedings of the
4th International Workshop on RFID Technology –Concepts, Applications, Challenges, IWRT
2010, in Conjunction with ICEIS 2010,p.3.
Schrettle, S., Hinz, A., Scherrer-Rathje, M. and Friedli, T. (2014), “Turning sustainability into action:
explaining firms’sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance”,International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147 PART A, pp. 73-84.
Sendlhofer, T. and Lernborg, C.M. (2018), “Labour rights training 2.0: the digitalisation of knowledge
for workers in global supply chains”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179, pp. 616-630.
Septiani, W., Marimin, H., Y. and Haditjaroko, L. (2014), “Framework model of sustainable supply
chain risk for dairy agroindustry based on knowledge base”,Proceedings –ICACSIS 2014:
2014 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems, p. 255.
Seuring, S. and M€
uller, M. (2008), “Core issues in sustainable supply chain management–a Delphi
study”,Business Strategy and The Environment, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 455-466.
Sharma, M., Alkatheeri, H., Jabeen, F. and Sehrawat, R. (2022), “Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
perishable food supply chain management: a contingent Resource-Based View (RBV)
perspective”,International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 796-817.
Su, X., Li, X. and Kang, Y. (2019), “A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage
using CiteSpace”,Sage Open, Vol. 9 No. 2, 2158244019840119.
Torc
atoru, C., S
avescu, D. and Repanovici, A. (2022), “Literature review by scientometric methods on
the impact of the circular economy on sustainable industrial products”,Sustainability, Vol. 14
No. 9, p. 5084.
Uniyal, S., Mangla, S.K., Sarma, P.R.S., Tseng, M. and Patil, P. (2021), “ICT as ‘Knowledge
management’for assessing sustainable consumption and production in supply chains”,Journal
of Global Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 164-198.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing performance:
the role of collaboration in the supply chain”,International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
Wang, H., Han, P. and Liu, W. (2018), “How to improve sustainable competitive advantage from the
distributor and the supplier networks: evidence from the paper-making industry in China”,
Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10 (No. 6, Supp. 2038), doi: 10.3390/su10062038.
Wang, W., Lin, W., Cai, J. and Chen, M. (2021), “Impact of demand forecast information sharing on the
decision of a green supply chain with government subsidy”,Annals of Operations Research,
pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04233-7.
Wang, F., Li, H., Cao, Y., Zhang, C. and Ran, Y. (2022), “Knowledge sharing strategy and emission
reduction benefits of low carbon technology collaborative innovation in the green supply
chain”,Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 9, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.783835.
Wondimu, P.A., Hailemichael, E., Hosseini, A., Lohne, J., Torp, O. and Lædre, O. (2016), “Success factors
for early contractor involvement (ECI) in public infrastructure projects”,Energy Procedia,Vol.96,
pp. 845-854.
Woo, C., Kim, M.G., Chung, Y. and Rho, J.J. (2016), “Suppliers’communication capability and external
green integration for green and financial performance in Korean construction industry”,Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 483-493.
BIJ
Yadav, N., Kumar, R. and Malik, A. (2022), “Global developments in coopetition research: a
bibliometric analysis of research articles published between 2010 and 2020”,Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 145, pp. 495-508.
Yatskiv, I., Savrasovs, M., Kabashkin, I., Nathanail, E., Adamos, G. and Mitropoulos, L. (2017),
“Knowledge sharing strategy as a key element of the H2020 programme: enhancing excellence
and innovation capacity in sustainable transport interchanges (alliance) project”,Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 187, pp. 458-464.
Young, L., Wilkinson, I. and Smith, A. (2015), “A scientometric analysis of publications in the journal
of business-to-business marketing 1993-2014”,Journal of Business-To-Business Marketing,
Vol. 22, pp. 111-123.
Yu, D. and Chen, Y. (2021), “Dynamic structure and knowledge diffusion trajectory research in green
supply chain”,Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 4979-4991.
Yu, Y., He, Y. and Zhao, X. (2021), “Impact of demand information sharing on organic farming adoption:
an evolutionary game approach”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 172.
Yuanyuan, L., Min, L. and Peidong, S. (2021), “A bibliometric review of studies on construction and
demolition waste management by using CiteSpace”,Energy and Buildings,Vol.258,111822,
doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111822.
Yuen, K.F., Li, K.X., Xu, G., Wang, X. and Wong, Y.D. (2019), “A taxonomy of resources for
sustainable shipping management: their interrelationships and effects on business
performance”,Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 128, pp. 316-332.
Zhang, D., Wang, C., Zheng, D. and Yu, X. (2018), “Process of innovation knowledge increase in supply
chain network from the perspective of sustainable development”,Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 873-888.
Zhang, W., Zhang, X. and Zhou, Q. (2021), “How does knowledge seeking and knowledge generation
promote green supply chain management? An empirical study from China”,International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 26, pp. 37-57.
Zhou, Q. and Wang, S. (2021), “Study on the relations of supply chain digitization, flexibility and sustainable
development—a moderated multiple mediation model”,Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 18.
Zhou, M., Govindan, K. and Xie, X. (2020), “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”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 260.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Zhu, T., Ku, T. and Xu, L. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in green supply chain based on trust
adjustment mechanism”,Proceedings - International Conference on Management and Service
Science, MASS 2009.
Further reading
Aigbedo, H. (2021), “On the impact and sustainability of health information exchanges in the hospital
supply chain”,International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 283-299.
Akhir, E.A.P., Hughes, R.T. and Cox, K. (2017), “Information model to support sustainable
procurement”,Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 95 No. 22,
pp. 6278-6287.
Bates, O., Knowles, B. and Friday, A. (2017), “Are people the key to enabling collaborative smart
logistics?”,Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems –Proceedings, p. 1494.
Two decades of
KM in SSC
Bonjar, H.S., Salajegheh, S., Pourkiani, M. and Sayadi, S. (2019), “Identifying the dimensions and
sustainable supply chain operations for knowledge-based decision making in Iran’s Tax Affairs
Organization”,International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 735-743.
De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Venuti, F. and Zardini, A. (2021), “Knowledge transfer driving
community-based business models towards sustainable food-related behaviours: a commons
perspective”,Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 319-326.
Fong Piew, S., Sarip, S., AbdFatah, A.Y. and Kaidi, H.M. (2020), “Business sustainability through
technology management approach for construction company”,International Journal of
Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, Vol. 8 No. 1 Special Issue 1, pp. 22-26.
Jamalian, A., Ghadikolaei, A., Zarei, M. and Ghasemi, R. (2018), “Sustainable supplier selection by way
of managing knowledge: a case of the automotive industry”,International Journal of Intelligent
Enterprise, Vol. 5 Nos 1-2, pp. 141-172.
Khan, M., Hussain, A., Ishaq, A., Shah, S.F.A., Zeeshan, M., Khan, J.A. and Rehman, A. (2020), “The
teaching of humanitarian logistics at university level”,International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change, Vol. 12 No. 11, pp. 485-500.
Kongtana, J., Khasasin, R., Khasasin, K. and Nualkaw, S. (2020), “The impact of training and career
development, information sharing and diversity on developing a sustainable supply chain
strategy”,International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 553-561.
Ma, Y., Hou, G., Yin, Q., Xin, B. and Pan, Y. (2018), “The sources of green management innovation:
does internal efficiency demand pull or external knowledge supply push?”,Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 202, pp. 582-590.
Nandra, R., Majumder, A. and Mishra, M. (2021), “A multi-retailer sustainable supply chain model
with information sharing and quality deterioration”,RAIRO - Operations Research, Vol. 55,
pp. S2773-S2794.
Nazam, M., Hashim, M., Baig, S.A., Abrar, M. and Shabbir, R. (2020), “Modeling the key barriers of
knowledge management adoption in sustainable supply chain”,Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1077-1109.
Phawitpiriyakliti, C., Keawkunti, B., Saisama, C. and Sangma, W. (2020), “Towards environmental
sustainability: a case study of green supply chain management practice”,Journal of Security
and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 747-763.
Puspani, N.S., Hutomo, A. and Sinaga, O. (2019), “Role of market: how knowledge acquisition impact
on investment recovery and reverse logistics towards sustainability performance”,Journal of
Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3 Special Issue, pp. 97-116.
Rajapakshe, T., Kumar, S., Sen, A. and Sriskandarajah, C. (2020), “Sustainability planning for
healthcare information exchanges with supplier rebate program”,Operations Research, Vol. 68
No. 3, pp. 793-817.
Ren, R., Hu, W., Dong, J., Sun, B., Chen, Y. and Chen, Z. (2020), “A systematic literature review of green
and sustainable logistics: bibliometric analysis, research trend and knowledge taxonomy”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 (No. 1, Supp. 261),
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010261.
Thomas, N.E., Mink, A., Singh, A., Hoque, B.A., Van Halem, D. and Diehl, J.C. (2021), “Guidelines for
the design of digital knowledge: empowering Bangladeshi communities to improve their water
safety”,2021 11th IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, GHTC 2021, p. 371.
Tipu, S.A.A. and Fantazy, K. (2023), “Linking knowledge development with sustainable supply chain
performance: mediating effects of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk taking”,International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 491-515, doi: 10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2021-0034.
Utami, C.W., Susanto, H., Septina, F., Sumaji, Y.M.P. and Pratama, I. (2019), “Effect of supply chain
management practices on financial and economic sustainable performance of Indonesian
SMEs”,International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 523-535.
BIJ
Yin, S., Li, B., Zhang, X. and Zhang, M. (2019), “How to improve the quality and speed of green new
product development?”,Processes, Vol. 7 (No. 7, Supp. 443), doi: 10.3390/pr7070443.
Zhou, X., Li, T. and Ma, X. (2021), “A bibliometric analysis of comparative research on the evolution of
international and Chinese green supply chain research hotspots and frontiers”,Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 6302-6323.
About the authors
Mohamed Aboelmaged has a PhD in Management Science from Lancaster University, UK, and MA in
Public Policy and Administration from the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Netherlands. He is a professor of management and former vice dean of the College of
Business Administration, University of Sharjah, UAE. Aboelmaged is an active researcher in innovation
and sustainability areas. He was among the world’s top 2% cited scientists in 2019 and 2021 (business
and management) by the Stanford University list. His work has been published in highly ranked
international journals and conferences such as International Journal of Information Management,
Journal of Knowledge Management,Information Processing and Management,Journal of Cleaner
Production, Production Planning & Control, International Journal of Medical Informatics,Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management,Industrial Management and Data Systems, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Measuring Business Excellence,Business Process
Management Journal and IEEE Conferences. Mohamed Aboelmaged is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: maboelmaged@sharjah.ac.ae
Dr Saadat M. Alhashmi received the PhD degree from Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
Over the years, he has supervised several PhD students and published extensively in various high
impact journals and conferences. Currently, he is Associate Professor of Information Systems at the
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Dr Gharib Hashem has a PhD in Innovation Management from The University of Birmingham.
Currently, he an Associate Professor of Management at Faculty of Commerce, Helwan University,
Egypt. Dr Hashem has published in international journals and conferences in areas of knowledge
management, innovation and organizational behavior. His work has been published in highly ranked
international journals such as International Journal of Information Management,Journal of Cleaner
Production,Total Quality Management, International Journal of Medical Informatics,International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Dr Mohamed Battour is an Associate Professor at Faculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Egypt. He
holds a PhD in destination marketing from University of Malaya. His area of expertise includes
sustainable and destination marketing. He is also a reviewer in top ranking journals. His work has been
published in highly ranked international journals and conferences.
Dr Ifzal Ahmad is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Research Institute of Humanities and Social
Sciences, University of Sharjah, UAE. His research interests include sustainability, business
performance, knowledge management, green innovations and practices.
Dr Imran Ali is currently a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Operations and Innovation Management
at the School of Business and Law in Central Queensland University, Australia. Dr Imran also serves as a
“Food Systems Expert”at the FAO of the United Nations to develop resilient food systems in the
developing and developed countries of the world. He holds a PhD in Business Management (logistics and
supply chain management) from the University of South Australia. His current research focuses on
supply chain risk and resilience, Industry 4.0, climate change, sustainable global supply chains. Dr
Imran’s research has been featured in several good-quality journals and conference proceedings such as
Production Planning and Control,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, and Academy of Management Best Paper
Proceedings, among others.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Two decades of
KM in SSC
