The purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer the questions posed by the special issue editors using insights from leading academics in the field and case examples drawn from two renowned global companies. It also aims to define potential avenues for further research in the thematic areas covered.
The paper uses a roundtable discussion with the Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals's Education Strategy Committee and case materials and presentations from Cisco Systems and Walmart to generate the insights.
The existing cost/lead‐time trade‐off model still applies yet changes in fuel prices and the importance of sustainability initiatives (also from a marketing point of view) lead to different equilibrium points.
Based on insight from leading academics and case examples, the paper suggests that the trade‐offs are made more intricate and require the more accurate addition of new factors such as social costs as today most of the decision making tends to be traditional economic and not yet include social and environmental as much. Nuances need to be added to avoid marketing skewing the trade‐off away from sustainability over time if it turns out that sustainability is a marketing/public relations fad that might go away. And the length of time for sustainable initiatives to have an impact needs to be considered, if it turns out the marketing advantage does not have staying power as long as investment write off periods. These suggest potentially fruitful avenues for further research. The cases also offer practical guidance as to how leading companies green their supply chains.
This paper specifically addresses the call for papers questions of the special issue editors through the synthesis of insights from leading academics and companies.
