Cigdem Ataseven

Purpose: This study addresses the longstanding ambiguity in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) research regarding the effectiveness of institutional pressures. Using two decades of empirical evidence, it benchmarks how coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures influenced environmental practices during the pre-2019 foundational period. We provide a baseline for theory and policy development, and for evaluating how sustainability drivers and actions evolve amid the post-2019 disruptions. Design/methodology/approach: Using the Schmidt and Hunter (2015) meta-analysis approach, we synthesize findings from 47 empirical studies, yielding a cumulative sample of 9,622 firm-level observations and 30,840 firm-level pressure-practice pairings. We examine relationships at the aggregate practice-category level (e.g. internal and external practices) and the fully disaggregated pressure-practice pair level. Findings: Normative pressures appear as the strongest and most consistent associations with environmental practice. Mimetic pressures, while weaker, meaningfully support selective adoption, highlighting the strategic role of competitive imitation. Coercive pressures show little to no effect on specific practices. Exploratory moderator analyses reveal substantial contextual heterogeneity, with economy type (developed vs. emerging) and temporal shifts (pre- vs. post-Paris Agreement) shaping observed relationships. Originality/value: This study offers the first comprehensive meta-analytic benchmark of institutional pressures on environmental practices during the pre-disruption era. By systematically disaggregating and reconsolidating pressures and practices, we clarify longstanding inconsistencies, highlight context-specific dynamics and establish a critical baseline for evaluating how sustainability drivers may change under new global disruptions and rising regulatory and societal expectations.

Rapidly growing interest in sustainability coupled with individuals, firms, and other organizations becoming more inclined to agitate for changes internally, and with outside organizations, has resulted in firms being pressured by various sources to change their sustainable supply chain management practices. In this literature review, we synthesize 93 published research articles spanning from 1997 to 2022. We identify and evaluate how pressure types (e.g., coercive, normative, and relational) are used by pressure sources (e.g., governments, suppliers, customers, and employees) to impact firm and sustainable supply chain practices (e.g., internal, upstream, and downstream). Our goal is twofold. First, we aim to guide potential sources as to which types of pressures are most effective in eliciting changes in firm and sustainable supply chain practices. Additionally, we provide insights into not only which relationships have and have not been adequately examined in extant research, but also what could be the next evolution of inquiry in this domain.

Purpose: This paper investigates the inter-relationships among supply integration, demand integration and internal integration in the context of food banking.Design/methodology/approach: This study utilizes survey data from managers at 71 different food banks in the US combined with secondary data gathered from Feeding America's website to provide model controls and an objective measure of food bank performance. The performance metric is the amount of food distributed per food insecure individual in the food bank's service area. Theoretically developed hypotheses were tested using seemingly unrelated regression techniques and a Monte Carlo simulation-based mediation analysis.Findings: While the previous research on integration relationships on for-profit supply chains has shown that managing internal integration forms the foundation for integrating with suppliers and customers, the findings indicate that, for not-for-profit food banks, external integration should precede internal integration and that demand integration has a stronger influence on performance than supply integration.Research limitations/implications: The heavy reliance of food banks on external partners necessitates an internal integration structure that supplements and builds upon these external relationships. The basic programs thus developed have a direct impact on the amount of food distributed per food insecure individual.Originality/value: This paper contributes to the humanitarian supply chain management literature by analyzing supply chain integration and its performance implications in a slow onset disaster setting.

Food banks are humanitarian aid organizations that collect, organize, and deliver food to nonprofit member agencies and also to individuals to help alleviate the society's hunger problem. The supply chain of food banks is characterized by private sector companies, individual donors and governmental agencies providing monetary support and food inventory on the supply side, and the member agencies such as food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and volunteers delivering support on the demand side. Within the purview of this supply chain, food banks strive to improve their performance, which is commonly measured in terms of the amount of food delivered to the communities in need. Food banks rely on managerial talent that is relatively more constrained than the private sector and also use a voluntary workforce for attaining their performance goals. Considering the unique yet pertinent role of human assets in food banks to manage their supply chain integration initiatives, we employ an intellectual capital framework to analyze the human, organizational, and social capital antecedents of supply chain integration in food banks. Specifically, we suggest that intellectual capital drives supply chain integration in humanitarian organizations. Moreover, we propose specific relationships between the dimensions of intellectual capital. A carefully crafted survey is used to inform our results. The results indicate that human capital significantly impacts social capital, which, in turn, drives all supply chain integration dimensions. We discuss the implications of our findings for managing intellectual capital in the not‐for‐profit sector and offer directions for future research.