Sustainable agri-food supply chains in

Greece: the role of stakeholders

Giannis T. Tsoulfas 1, *, Catherine Marinagi 1, Panagiotis Trivellas 1 and Panagiotis

Reklitis 1

1 Agricultural University of Athens, General Department, 75 Iera Odos, 11855, Athens, Greece

Abstract

The shift to sustainable operations aims at radical changes in all dimensions of human

activities, such as management, production, education and consumption. Under this

prism, agri-food supply chains face several challenges and provide an apt example

where various categories of stakeholders meet and try to support their arguments and

pursue their interests. In this paper we focus on the analysis of agri-food supply chains

in Greece and examine the role of various stakeholders, which is crucial in shaping

corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. In particular,

stakeholders are identified based on secondary sources and assessed with the use of the

stakeholder salience model, which was proposed by Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997).

This mapping will reveal potential conflicts that may occur along agri-food supply

chains so as to develop proactive and rigorous interventions. Moreover, ground for

synergies may also arise from the perspectives of extended supply chains and integrated

product development.

Keywords: corporate social performance, corporate social responsibility, mapping,

stakeholder salience model, sustainability

1. Introduction

Since its conceptualisation, sustainable development has been a focal point and key

objective for the mankind. At the same time, competition is nowadays experienced not

only among companies but among supply chains, value chains and value networks, in

a globalised context. The complexity of relationships formed in this context is

confronted with the range and the complexity of the issues that concern modern

societies.

In this paper we aim at providing a basis of analysis of various stakeholders in the case

of agri-food supply chains in Greece. This may assist stakeholders’ collaboration,

coordination and orientation towards pursuing the goals of sustainable development.

The remainder of the paper is as follows: section 2 includes an overview of sustainable

development and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Next, insights on the

stakeholder theory are discussed in section 3, since this theory has an integral part in

the conceptualisation of sustainable development and CSR. Section 4 discusses supply

chain management and its role in contemporary business environment. In section 5 we

proceed with the mapping of stakeholders in agri-food supply chains and we propose

an application of the stakeholder salience model, as proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997).

The paper ends with the conclusions.

2. Sustainable development and Corporate Social Responsibility

Sustainable development was introduced back in 1987 in the so-called Brundtland

Report, which was published by the UN World Commission on Environmental and

Development (WCED). The official title was “Our Common Future” and sustainable

development was defined as a “development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED,

1987).

For more than 30 years sustainable development has been a global hot topic with

extensions in politics, business, education and the organization of human societies at

large. Three core dimensions are identified in sustainable development: economic,

environmental, and social but they have been regarded in alternative viewpoints

(Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2012, A). In the earliest one, they are regarded in the form of

pillars being interdependent and mutually reinforcing. In a later approach they are

illustrated in the form of concentric circles (economic, social environmental from

smallest to largest). This view emphasises the need to integrate all three dimensions.

The third one, overlapping circles, integrates all dimensions and puts sustainable

development in the forefront of attention.

Over the years, several researchers have challenged the initial definition of

sustainable development from various standpoints. A common disagreement has to do

with the inclusion of the economic dimension especially without attempting to

drastically modify the dominant economic paradigm (Norgaard, 1992; Tijmes and

Luijf, 1995; Bell and Morse, 2008). Others claim that it is not possible to isolate society

and the natural environment and that the impacts of human activities do not always fit

easily in a single dimension (Urry, 2006; Newton, 2007). Seghezzo (2009) argued that

the initial definition is anthropocentric, and that sustainable development should be

seen through a different lens. He suggested that it is more convenient to address

sustainable development in terms of ‘place’, ‘permanence’, and ‘persons’. Place

incorporates the three dimensions of space, while permanence relates to time. ‘Persons’

is about human beings.

Sustainability is related with the concept of CSR. Actually, CSR is regarded as the

contribution of the business world to sustainable development. The “father” of CSR is

considered Bowen (1953), who defined social responsibility of business as the “the

obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions or follow

those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of

society”. On the opposite side, Milton Friedman (1970) view social responsibility of

business as an increase to business profits as long as the business engages open and free

competition without deception or fraud. Bridging the two edges, a strategic

management approach to CSR represents the “triple bottom line” of financial,

social/ethical and environmental concerns (Carroll, 1979). These are the three

dimensions of sustainability that should be included in corporate mission and values

statement (Svendsen et al., 2001).

By analysing 37 definitions on Dahlsrud (2008) identified five CSR dimensions: the

environmental; the social; the economic; the stakeholder; and the voluntariness. CSR

may be regarded as a form of self-regulation, which aims to contribute to social welfare.

This could be in terms of compensation for the business footprint or additively to social

well-being (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2012, A).

Ahmadu Hamidu et al. (2015) mapped the evolution of CSR definitions with respect

to the focus area. Their typology is shown in Table 1. It is obvious that CSR has a

strategic direction and an international orientation. Being practical, the European

Commission proposed a very short yet concrete definition of CSR as “the responsibility

of enterprises for their impacts on society” (European Commission, 2011).

Table 1: CSR definitions and focus areas

Period Focus areas Scope

1950’s – 1960’s Religious & Humane philosophies

Community development

Unregulated philanthropy

Poverty alleviation

Obligation to the society

Philanthropy

1970’s – 1980’s Extension of CSR commitments

CSR as symbol of Corporate citizenship

Stakeholder relationship management

Corporate reputation

Socio-economic priorities

Bridging governance gap

Stakeholders rights

Legal & Ethical responsibilities

Regulated CSR

1990’s – 21st

century Competitive strategy

Environmental protection

Sustainability

Internationalisation of CSR standards

Transparency & accountability

Instrumental/Strategic

CSR

Source: (Ahmadu Hamidu et al., 2015)

According to several researchers the social dimension of sustainability and CSR is

maybe the least developed one (Missimer et al., 2010; Casula Vifell and Thedvall 2012;

Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018; Falcone et al., 2019). The strategic-oriented CSR seems to

neglect the social aspects of CSR, in terms of minimizing the negative effects of

business activities. Murphy and Schlegelmilch (2013), Farrington et al. (2017) and

Dania et al. (2016) argue that the majority of recent CSR papers are restricted to

measuring the benefits of CSR for company stakeholders, emphasizing on CSR as a

strategy for gaining competitive advantage, rather than addressing social needs. This

may be merely attributed to the fact that this dimension encompasses a lot more issues

compared with the others. Moreover, diverse interest groups enter the equation, which

makes the situation a lot more complicated. Farmaki (2019) proposes that a win-win

situation can be promoted by strategic CSR, where the capabilities of a company in

achieving competitive advantage and benefiting the society are leveraged.

Regardless of the conceptualisation of sustainable development and CSR, there are

certain issues that shape today’s global landscape. In September 2015, the General

Assembly of the UN adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which

includes 17 sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2015). Contemporary

organizations face various challenges and have to accelerate their reactions to rapid

changes. Zemigala (2019) analysed research papers on sustainable development in the

field of management sciences with the use of bibliometric methods. He concluded that

there is a growing broad spectrum of relevant topics studied by researchers all over the

world. These tendencies outline the significance and the urgency of sustainable

development. Aguinis and Glavas (2012) outline that CSR is a multilevel field of study

and provide a systematic roadmap for redefining the relevant research agenda.

3. Stakeholder theory

The issue of CSR is tightly related with stakeholder theory, since responsiveness to

stakeholders’ claims and stakeholder involvement is crucial for the sustained growth of

business. One of the broadest definitions of the term 'stakeholder' has given by Freeman

(1984): “A stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who can affect or

is affected by the achievement of a firm's objectives”. The initial yet narrow stakeholder

model is depicted in Figure 1.

According to Mitchell et al., (1997) the entities that can be stakeholders include

“persons, groups, neighbourhoods, organizations, institutions, societies and even the

natural environment”. Dahlsrud (2008) argued that business has always had to operate

under a regulated setting and has always been connected with economic environmental

and social impacts. To deal with the volatile and turbulent environment business has to

address the requirements posed by various stakeholders in order to find the right

balance in dealing with the above impacts in decision making. Therefore, additional

considerations may affect the development and implementation of business strategies.

Figure 1: The initial stakeholder model

The Corporation

Management

Employees

Owners

Suppliers

Local

Community

Customers

Clarkson (1995) distinguished stakeholders in two categories: primary stakeholders

for business stakeholders; and secondary stakeholders for non-business stakeholders.

Primary stakeholders that can directly affect or be affected by a company’s financial

success, may include investors, suppliers, partners, employees, customers, debt holders

and competitors. Secondary stakeholders are considered those individuals that can have

indirect influences on a company or can be indirectly affected by a company’s

activities. Secondary stakeholders may include labour unions, community groups,

environmental organizations, human rights organizations, opinion leaders, local

government leaders (Svendsen et al., 2001). Eesley and Lenox (2006) have investigated

the success of secondary stakeholders in forcing companies to respond to their claims.

They concluded that a stakeholder with greater power relative to the company in terms

of resources and whose requests is more legitimate is more likely to evoke a positive

response from a company. In addition, they give evidence that group legitimacy and

the request tactics adopted by stakeholder groups may be tightly coupled. For example,

a protest is less likely to appear threatening to a large firm comparing to a large boycott

which could make a significant impact on the sales, or a lawsuit which could entail

monetary loss.

Maessen et al. (2007) analysed various stakeholder categorizations and argued

against the distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders. They suggested

that this approach is not suitable to map the connection of a stakeholder group to a given

corporation. Therefore, their suggestion was to use concentric circles around the

corporation in order to represent different categories of stakeholders. The circles are of

dynamic nature, which means that they may change over time.

Eventually, apart from the initial stakeholders, we can identify additional ones,

especially if we look at the corporation’s environment. All those stakeholders may have

varying roles in their interaction with the corporation. It is also possible that a person

or organization shares more than one stakeholder roles. An indicative mapping of

various stakeholders is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The broad stakeholder model

MACRO

EXTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT

Governments

Regulators

Pressure groups

NGOs

Media

General public

MICRO

EXTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT

Suppliers

Customers

Local Community

Creditors

Investors

Partners

Contractors

Competitors

Unions

Sponsors

INTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT

Owners

Management

Employees

The Corporation

Mitchell et al., (1997) introduced the so called ‘stakeholder identification and

salience theory’, which proposes three key attributes of stakeholder classes: (1) power

which refers to stakeholders possess power to influence the company; (2) legitimacy

which refers to stakeholders having legitimate relationship with the company; and (3)

urgency which refers to stakeholders having urgent claims on the company. Mitchell et

al., (1997) propose combining the three attributes in order to balance social

responsibility with social responsiveness (Frederick, 1994). Based on the above three

attributes, Mitchell et al., (1997) identified different types of stakeholders, possessing

one, two or three attributes in their stakeholder salience model:

latent stakeholders are those groups who possess only one of the three

attributes and they are considered as low salience group. They are no likely

to influence the corporation in any way.

expectant stakeholders are those groups who possess two attributes and they

are considered as moderate-salience stakeholders. They may influence the

corporation in some ways.

definitive stakeholders are those who possess all three attributes and they

form the most important group for managers.

Of course, entities possessing none of the 3 attributes are classified as non-

stakeholders or potential stakeholders.

All different categories of stakeholders are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The different categories of stakeholders

POWERLEGITIMACY

URGENCY

1

Dormant

stakeholder

2

Discretionary

stakeholder

3

Demanding

stakeholder

4

Dominant

stakeholder

5

Dangerous

stakeholder

7

Definitive

stakeholder

6

Dependent

stakeholder

8

Nonstakeholder

1. Dormant: They possess power to

impose their will but have little

or no interaction /involvement.

2. Discretionary: They put pressure

on managers and they are likely

the recipients of corporate

philanthropy.

3. Demanding: They have urgent

claims, but it does not worth

considering.

4. Dominant: The group that many

theories position as the only

stakeholders of an organisation

or project. It is likely to have a

formal mechanism in place.

5. Dangerous: They have powerful

and urgent claims, which may

lead to severe problems.

6. Dependent: They are dependent

on others to carry out their will.

7. Definitive: They are expectant

stakeholders who gain the

relevant missing attribute.

4. The role of supply chain management

Christopher (2016) defines supply chain management as “the management of

upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers in order to deliver

superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole”. Customer value is

clearly connected with the concept of the value chain (Porter, 1985). Value chains

essentially consist of

a set of primary activities (inbound logistics; operations; outbound logistics;

marketing and sales; and service)

a set of support activities (infrastructure; technological development; human

resources management; and procurement).

Mentzer et al. (2001) suggested that supply chain management entails the following

traits: a systems approach according to which the supply chain is treated as a whole; a

strategic orientation toward cooperation and synchronisation of the parties involved;

and a customer focus aiming at creating customer value and enhancing customer

satisfaction.

Research and practice in supply chain management can affect policy, science or

social science by presenting alternative scenarios for the development of sustainable

supply chains. Sustainability stretches the concept of supply chain management to look

at optimizing operations from a broader perspective—the entire production system and

post-production stewardship as opposed to just the production of a specific product.

The connection of supply chain management with sustainable development is dual:

(1) as a series of operational processes, supply chain management is subjected to

changes towards its adjustment towards the demand for sustainability; and (2) due to

its nature, supply chain management serves as a means to support sustainability

purposes (closing materials cycles) (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2012, B). Indeed, while

sustainability provides an overarching framework for much of the past and ongoing

environmental research in operations, sustainability moves beyond current common

practice. Supply chains must be explicitly extended to include by-products of the supply

chain, to consider the entire lifecycle of the product, and to optimize the product not

only from a current cost standpoint but also a total cost standpoint.

Recent literature reviews (Eriksson and Svensson, 2015; Schinckus et al., 2019) give

a justification on the growing interest in CSR issues in supply chain management.

Different studies, included in these reviews, indicate the strong interdependence of CSR

and supply chain management. Nishat Faisal (2010) presents an approach to effectively

adapt sustainable practices in a supply chain. The research findings reveal that three

variables, which are called enablers, play a key role for integrating SCM in supply

chain: consumer concern towards sustainable practices, regulatory framework and

awareness about sustainable practices in supply chain. In addition, CSR for supply

chain management considers benefits for stakeholders. Therefore, support from policy

makers and corporate top management is needed (Feng et al., 2017; Bourlakis et al.,

2014). Moreover, to successfully promote CSR practices for supply chain management,

economic and social performance need to be balanced.

5. Mapping of stakeholders in agri-food supply chains

The agri-food sector is a crucial economic sector for many countries around the

world, including Greece. The sector is one of the major employers (farming and

industry) providing jobs for millions of people. It also accounts for a significant share

of production and consumption. The sector is intrinsically linked with the natural

environment. Land use is a major concern along the use of natural resources, especially

water. In addition, the sector is among the largest users of energy, while it is associated

with several environmental impacts due to the use of pesticides and chemicals. With

regards to the social dimension it must be noted that the sector is responsible for feeding

the planet. With all these traits it is easy to realise the importance of the sector for the

mankind and the planet (Galiano et al., 2016). Rastoin (2012) aptly outlines two crucial

characteristics of the sector: heterogeneity and convergence. The former is about the

fact that the sector is composed of a large number of sub-sectors (which used to be

regarded as whole sectors in the past). The latter is about the tendency to form a model

of global agro-industrial service sector. From the above it is evident that the agri-food

sector has a crucial role to play towards sustainable development.

The structure of the agri-food supply chain is extremely complex and for some

products it is quite extended (Maloni and Brown, 2006; Dania et al., 2016; Matopoulos

et al., 2007). The exact path for a specific food product mainly depends on the size and

market power of the supply chain members. Farmers usually sell to food processors,

but they can also sell to distributors, retailers, and even consumers. Food processors

usually sell directly to distributors, wholesalers, and brokers, while they can also reach

retailers and consumers. Therefore, the information exchanges can become

problematic.

The implementation of sustainability in the agri-food supply chain can give the

opportunity to the stakeholders to collaborate and address their common expectations

(Rota et al., 2013). Dania et al. (2016) study stakeholder collaboration in sustainable

agri-food supply chain management. They suggest that a fair sustainability system

could share the risks and costs among all stakeholders, protecting groups of

stakeholders such as local farmers and SMEs from suffering. Matopoulos et al. (2007)

state that collaboration attitudes among agri-food supply chain stakeholders is

encouraged by the entrance of global retailers, the changing consumer’s attitudes, and

the existence of more strict regulations and laws regarding food production. However,

the case study conducted by Matopoulos et al. (2007) revealed that collaboration in the

agri-food supply chain is often limited to operational issues and to logistics-related

activities. Moreover, it revealed the importance of trust, power, dependence and

risk/reward sharing in establishing and maintaining supply chain relationships.

Archontakis and Anastasiadis (2019) investigated future directions for the

agricultural sector in Greece. Towards this end they analysed the penetration of

technology, technological adoption and innovation in the sector as well as the

sustainability performance. The latter appears to be at very low levels (especially

regarding the social dimension), while the adaptation level of the former is low.

5.1 Methodology

In the agri-food supply chain, different stakeholders are involved. Santoso and

Delima (2017) propose four stakeholders categories: (1) Farmers (including farmers,

farmers union and farmer community); (2) Researchers; (3) Public Sector (including

local government, NGOs, relevant ministries); (4) Business Sector (including

transportation and courier services, fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers and suppliers,

equipment and tool suppliers, banking and financial institutions, ICT providers and

practitioners, distributors, retailers, etc). In the business sector, we should also add food

processors and packagers, and waste processors, while consumers of agri-food products

are among the primary stakeholders. Using this categorization in conjunction with the

broad stakeholder model illustrated in Figure 2 we have formed an extensive list of

various stakeholders in the agri-food supply chain. Our purpose is to develop a starting

point for analysing the dynamics of stakeholders in the agri-food supply chain.

Therefore, we decided to introduce an academic standpoint, which will then be diffused

to practitioners and other focus groups. The next step is about using the stakeholder

salience approach. For this purpose, a 2-round Delphi online survey was used in order

to evaluate various stakeholders against the three attributes of the model. In the process

participated 11 academics (including the 4 authors of the paper) and 1 facilitator

(doctoral student). Participants were asked to rate various stakeholders using the

following scale: 0 for absence of the attribute, 1 for “low”, 2 for “medium” and 3 for

“high” occurrence. After the two rounds the median values were chosen for each

attribute.

5.2 Results

The results of the Delphi process are presented in Table 2 and Figure 4. The results

indicate that the situation in agri-food supply chains in Greece is quite complex. 75%

of the stakeholders are found to be definitive but at varying degrees in each of the three

attributes of the stakeholder salience model. This perception indicates that there is

potential for various categories of stakeholders to strengthen their position in agri-food

value chains in order to pursue their priorities. Apparently, there are various focal

agents with different priorities and objectives who try, usually, through vertical

integration and strategic alliances to strengthen their position.

Table 4: Rating of stakeholders (medians)

power legitimacy urgency type

Farmers 1 2 3 definitive

Farmers unions 2 2 3 definitive

Farmers communities 1 1 2 definitive

Researchers 0 1 2 expectant

Local government 2 3 2 definitive

NGOs 1 1 3 definitive

Ministries 3 3 2 definitive

Regulators 3 3 2 definitive

Management teams 2 2 1 definitive

Employees in food processing 1 2 2 definitive

Fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers and suppliers 2 2 2 definitive

Equipment and tool suppliers 1 1 0 expectant

Banking and financial institutions 2 2 1 definitive

ICT providers and practitioners 0 1 0 latent

Distributors 1 1 1 definitive

Retailers 3 1 2 definitive

Food processors 3 3 3 definitive

Packagers 0 2 0 latent

Waste processors 0 2 0 latent

Consumers 2 3 3 definitive

Figure 4: Rating of stakeholders (medians)

Many of the UN sustainable development goals are directly or indirectly related to

agri-food supply chains at local, regional and global level (e.g. climate action, zero

hunger, good health and well-being and responsible consumption and production).

Therefore, stakeholders are confronted with worldwide challenges. Eventually, new

collaboration schemes are expected to emerge. We strongly believe that the multi-

stakeholder sustainability alliances in agri-food chains as discussed by Dentoni and

Peterson (2011) are about to become the dominant form of this kind.

6. Conclusion

Svendsen et al. (2001) argue that strong relationships with stakeholders are

prerequisites for innovation, good reputation, and development of new markets and

opportunities. Moreover, they argue that strong relationships can reduce shareholder

risk and enhance brand value. Research on supply chain integration has shown its

positive impacts on supply chain performance (e.g. Prajogo and Olhager, 2012;

Leuschner et al., 2013). On the other hand, relevant research on value chain

management is rather limited, while there is certainly ground for additional insights by

extensively analysing the role of various stakeholders. Rota et al. (2013) describe the

role of supply chain collaboration and sustainable relationships as the organizational

pillar sustainability of agri-food supply chains. The use of the stakeholder salience

model can be used in order to map the degree of involvement of various stakeholders

in various complex settings such as the case of supply chains and value chains. In this

paper we presented an initial attempt to apply this approach in the case of Greece. This

application is limited to a small number of academics but may provide the basis for

collaboration among various stakeholders. It is important to understand how each

stakeholder sees its role in a supply chain context in order to identify whether there is

ground for meaningful alliances in order to foster the sustainable development goals.

Finally, this mapping will reveal potential conflicts that may occur along agri-food

supply chains so as to develop proactive and rigorous interventions.

References

[1] Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate

social responsibility a review and research agenda, Journal of Management, vol.

38, iss. 4, pp. 932-968.

[2] Archontakis, F. and Anastasiadis, F. (2019). Technology and innovation in

Southern Europe’s agri-food sector: A Delphi study, International Journal of

Technology Management & Sustainable Development, vol. 18, iss. 1, pp. 17-36.

[3] Bell, B. and Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators: measuring the

immeasurable?, 2nd ed, London: Earthscan Publications.

[4] Boström, M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing

social sustainability: Introduction to the special issue, Sustainability: Science,

Practice, and Policy, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 3-14.

[5] Bourlakis, M., Maglaras, G., Aktas, E., Gallear, D. and Fotopoulos, C. (2014). Firm

size and sustainable performance in food supply chains: Insights from Greek SMEs,

International Journal of Production Economics, vol.152, pp. 112-130.

[6] Bowen, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper Brothers

Press, New York, NY.

[7] Cagliano, R., Worley, C. G. and Caniato, F. F. A. (2016). The challenge of

sustainable innovation in agri-food supply chains. In Organizing for Sustainable

Effectiveness, vol. 5, pp. 1-30.

[8] Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional

construct, Business & Society, vol. 38, iss. 3, pp. 268-295.

[9] Casula Vifell, Å. and Soneryd, L. (2012). Organizing matters: How “the social

dimension” gets lost in sustainability projects, Sustainable Development, vol. 20,

iss. 1, pp. 18-27.

[10] Casula Vifell, Å. and Thedvall, R. (2012). Organizing for social sustainability:

Governance through bureaucratization in meta-organizations, Sustainability:

Science, Practice, and Policy, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 50-58.

[11] Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & Supply Chain Management, 5th ed., FT

Press.

[12] Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and

Evaluating Corporate Social Performance, Academy of Management Review, vol.

20, pp. 92-117.

[13] Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an

Analysis of 37 Definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, vol. 15, pp 1-13.

[14] Dania, W.A.P, Xing, K. and Amer, Y. (2016). Collaboration and Sustainable

Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review, MATEC Web of Conferences, 58,

02004.

[15] Eesley, C. and Lenox M. J. (2006). Firm Responses to Secondary Stakeholder

Action. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 27, pp. 765-781.

[16] Eriksson, D. and Svensson, G. (2015). Elements affecting social responsibility

in supply chains, Supply Chain Management, vol. 20, iss. 5, pp. 561-566.

[17] Falcone, P. M., González García, S., Imbert, E., Lijó, L., Moreira, M. T., Tani,

A., Tartiu, V.E. and Morone, P. (2019). Transitioning towards the bio-economy:

Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens, Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 26, iss. 5, pp. 1135-1153.

[18] Farmaki A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in hotels: a stakeholder

approach, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol.

31, iss, 6, pp. 2297-2320.

[19] Feng Y., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K-H. (2017). Corporate social responsibility for

supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis, Journal of

Cleaner Production vol. 158, pp. 296-307.

[20] Frederick, W.C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2. The maturing of business-and-

society thought, Business & Society, vol. 33, pp. 150-164.

[21] Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston:

Pitman.

[22] Friedman, M. (1970), The social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits, NY Times Magazine, Vol. 13, pp. 122-126.

[23] Hamidu, A. A., Haron, H. M. and Amran, A. (2015). Corporate social

responsibility: A review on definitions, core characteristics and theoretical

perspectives, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, iss. 4, pp. 83-95.

[24] Kastenhofer, K. and Rammel, C. (2005). Obstacles to and potentials of the

societal implementation of sustainable development: a comparative analysis of two

case studies, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 5-13.

[25] Leuschner, R., Rogers, D. S. and Charvet, F. F. (2013). A meta-analysis of

supply chain integration and firm performance, Journal of Supply Chain

Management, vol. 49, iss. 2, pp. 34-57.

[26] Maessen, R., Van Seters, P. and Van Rijckevorsel, E. 2007. Circles of

stakeholders: towards a relational theory of Corporate Social Responsibility,

International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 77-94.

[27] Maloni, M.J. and Brown, M.E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the

supply chain: an application in the food industry, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.

68, iss. 1, pp. 35-52.

[28] Matopoulos, A., Doukidis, G.I., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V. and Manos, B.

(2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: Empirical evidence

from the agri-food industry, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,

vol. 12, iss. 3, pp. 177-186.

[29] Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and

Zacharia, Z.G. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business

Logistics, vol. 22, iss. 2, pp. 1-25.

[30] Missimer, M., Robrt, K. H., Broman, G. and Sverdrup, H. (2010). Exploring the

possibility of a systematic and generic approach to social sustainability, Journal of

Cleaner Production, vol. 18, iss. 10-11, pp. 1107-1112.

[31] Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of

stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what

really counts, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, iss. 4, pp. 853-886.

[32] Murphy, P.E. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility

and corporate social irresponsibility: introduction to a special topic section, Journal

of Business Research, vol. 66, iss. 10, pp. 1807-1813.

[33] Newton, T. (2007). Nature and sociology, London: Routledge.

[34] Nishat Faisal, M. (2010). Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction

among the enablers, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 508-

529.

[35] Norgaard, R.B. (1992). Sustainability as intergenerational equity: economic

theory and environmental planning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol.

12, pp. 85-124.

[36] Pashaei Kamali, F., Borges, J. A. R., Osseweijer, P. and Posada, J. A. (2018).

Towards social sustainability: Screening potential social and governance issues for

biojet fuel supply chains in Brazil, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

vol. 92, pp. 50-61.

[37] Porter, M.H. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior

Performance (Republished with a New Introduction, 1998), Free Press.

[38] Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012). Supply Chain Integration and Performance:

The Effects of Long-Term Relationships, Information Technology and Sharing, and

Logistics Integration, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 135, iss.

1, pp. 514-522.

[39] Rastoin, J.L. (2012). The agri-food industry at the heart of the global food

system. In Jacquet, P. Pachauri, R.K. and Tubiana, L., (eds.), Towards Agricultural

Change? The Energy and Resources Institute, pp: 183-194.

[40] Rota, C., Reynolds, N. and Zanasi, C. (2013). Sustainable food supply chains:

The role of collaboration and sustainable relationships, International Journal of

Business and Social Science, vol. 4, iss. 4, pp. 45-53.

[41] Santoso H. B. and Delima R. (2017). Stakeholder Definition for Indonesian

Integrated Agriculture Information System (IAIS), IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and Engineering, 185.

[42] Schinckus, C., Akbari, M. and Clarke, S. (2019). Corporate Social

Responsibility in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: An Econo-Bibliometric

Perspective, Theoretical Economics Letters. 09. 247-270.

[43] Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability, Environmental

Politics, vol. 18, iss. 4, pp. 539-556.

[44] Svendsen, A., Boutilier, R.G., Abbott, R.M. and Wheeler, D. (2001). Measuring

the business value of stakeholder relationships (Part One), CAmagazine (August),

pp. 29-63.

[45] Tijmes, P. and Luijf, R. (1995). The sustainability of our common future: an

inquiry into the foundations of an ideology, Technology in Society, vol. 17, iss. 3,

pp: 327-336.

[46] Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P. (2012 A). Corporate Social Responsibility and

Reporting. Ιn Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C.-H., (eds.), Handbook of Sustainability

Management, World Scientific Publishing, pp. 39-64.

[47] Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P. (2012 B). Supply Chains and Sustainability. Ιn

Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C.-H., (eds.), Handbook of Sustainability Management,

World Scientific Publishing, pp. 335-352.

[48] United Nations (2015). United Nations General Assembly Resolution

A/Res/70/1: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

[49] Urry, J. (2006). Complexity. Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 23, iss. (2–3),

pp. 111-115.

[50] WCED (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

[51] Zemigala, M. (2019). Tendencies in research on sustainable development in

management sciences. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 218, pp. 796-809.