Green logistics and supply chain knowledge management: an extended framework-based systematic literature review

Supply chains are pivotal and integral to global economics (WEF, 2022). Contemporary developments such as growing market competition, pervasive digital technologies, a global pandemic and the depletion of linear economic approaches are transforming logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) globally (WEF, 2022; Wong, 2021a). Accordingly, emerging forms of LSCM have become the subject of multiple debates across policy, theory and managerial practice (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Li et al., 2022; Seuring and Müller, 2008), especially when the global supply chains were disturbed during the COVID-19 pandemic (Schleper et al., 2021), causing panic among consumers who were fearful of depleting reserves of food and medicine.

Knowledge management plays a crucial role in fostering sustainable, resilient and agile supply chain networks (Al-Swidi et al., 2024; Mukherjee et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2025; Ogulin et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2020). Knowledge is considered a strategic asset for achieving competitive advantage in the food industry, significantly improving organizational learning and supply chain management practices (Attia and Essam Eldin, 2018). Overcoming the challenges of tacit cultural knowledge is necessary to minimize waste in the catering supply chain (Yu et al., 2022). The integration of knowledge management and sustainability strategies brings long-term value and addresses the gap between corporate goals and sustainable development (Abbas and Khan, 2023; Arduini et al., 2024).

Effective management of knowledge also facilitates the adoption of a circular economy. Specifically, it supports the transition from eco-innovation to a circular economy by improving resource efficiency, reducing environmental impact and integrating circular principles into corporate social responsibility initiatives and circular business models (Morea et al., 2023; Ul-Durar et al., 2023). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities are crucial for enhancing sustainability and innovation, as well as fostering circularity through environmental knowledge acquisition, transformation and collaboration in circular business model innovation (Marrucci et al., 2022; Pascucci et al., 2024).

Over the years, multiple articles and special issues have focused on developing the scope of LSCM. The ongoing debate on the topic has given rise to concepts such as reverse logistics (Fleischmann et al., 1997), lean supply chain (SC) (Jasti and Kodali, 2015), agile SC (Christopher, 2000), resilient SC (Hosseini et al., 2019), closed-loop SC (Govindan et al., 2015), green SC (Sarkis et al., 2011) and circular SC (Farooque et al., 2019). Green logistics and supply chain management (GLSCM) is a particularly suitable approach for advancing a circular economy (CE) (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Genovese et al., 2017). Notably, previous systematic review studies have covered interrelated pairs of topics, such as SC-logistics (Julianelli et al., 2020), CE–SC (Liu et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021) and CE-logistics (Mallick et al., 2023). However, the intersection of SC, logistics and CE, which is a significant issue in contemporary business operations, has not received much attention from scholars. This study aims to address the current gap in the literature by conducting a framework-based systematic literature review (SLR) to identify the current state of the field and by integrating these interrelated topic areas, provides an agenda for future research.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical framework that guides the review and the research questions. Section 3 describes the procedure and methodology for selecting and analyzing the papers, while the results are reported in Section 4. Section 5 compares and contrasts the results with previous studies and proposes a model capturing the challenges in pursuing GLSCM. Sections 6–9 set out the research agenda, the theoretical and practical implications, the limitations, and the conclusion.

Multiple definitions of SC management have been suggested in the literature. One of the most influential definitions was proposed by Mentzer et al. (2001, p.18), who explain SC management as “the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, to improve the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole”. In addition, SC management studies increasingly include a sustainability approach (Agrawal et al., 2022; Carter and Easton, 2011; Svensson, 2007). Therefore, new definitions that bridge SC management and sustainability aspects are being developed and frequently applied indistinguishably (Ahi and Searcy, 2013; Gurtu et al., 2015).

Integrating sustainability considerations into SC management studies further reinforces logistics’ importance in supply chain management (Aronsson and Huge Brodin, 2006; Wu and Dunn, 1995). Thus, (reverse) logistics enables a greener supply chain management approach (Mallick et al., 2023). This study combines green and circular aspects linked to LSCM under the GLSCM process. This combination underscores the role of logistics within sustainable supply chain management and emphasizes that GLSCM should be considered an integrative intersection of SC, logistics and sustainability.

There is a strong relationship between SC and logistics (Daugherty, 2011; Richey et al., 2022). The extant literature suggests that this relationship can be reflected through four perspectives:

1. traditionalist – SC is part of logistics;

2. relabeling – SC replaces the term logistics;

3. unionist – logistics is part of SC; and

4. intersectionist – SC includes strategic, integrative elements from logistics and other functional areas (Larson and Halldorsson, 2004).

The last two perspectives have been adopted widely by researchers and practitioners, particularly in studies related to green supply chains and sustainability (Anca, 2019; Islam et al., 2013; Gurtu et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2018). Similarly, this study adopts the last point of view, that is, an intersectional – SC view that includes strategic, integrative elements from logistics and other functional areas.

Many literature reviews on GLSCM have adopted bibliometric analysis (see, for example, Balon, 2020; Choudhary and Sangwan, 2022; Dubey et al., 2017; Mishra et al., 2023), while others have followed content analysis (Julianelli et al., 2020; Touboulic and Walker, 2015), thematic analysis (Ripanti and Tjahjono, 2019) and descriptive analysis (Liu et al., 2018). Despite these contributions, the implications of GLSCM and the methods used when studying it remain under-researched. It should be noted that framework-based synthesis methods such as input-mediators-outcomes, antecedents-decisions-outcomes) and particularly theories-contexts-method (TCM), enable researchers to develop and advance theory from different perspectives (Booth et al., 2021; Dixon-Woods, 2011; Durach et al., 2021). In addition, most SLRs lack sufficient contributions that cover definitions, study contexts, theoretical boundaries, analysis units, data sources and constructs (Durach et al., 2017). However, the framework-based approach has yet to be applied to study LSCM. Therefore, we attempt to answer the first research question through the lens of the TCM framework as follows:

As discussed previously in the Introduction, the intersection of SC, logistics and CE has not received much attention in the literature on GLSCM. Also, the potential of knowledge management in effectively operationalizing GLSCM strategies remains underexplored. These gaps provide the foundation for the second research question:

SLRs configure a rigorous and systematic method for identifying, analyzing and synthesizing all empirical evidence related to specific RQ and objectives (Kraus et al., 2022; Snyder, 2019; Tranfield et al., 2003). Thus, SLRs take stock of existing knowledge to produce new knowledge and fruitful lines for advancing literature and practice (Webster and Watson, 2002; Wong, 2021b). To deliver a meaningful contribution to theory and practice, SLRs on LSCM need to consider their idiosyncratic aspects (Durach et al., 2017, 2021; Koufteros et al., 2018a, 2018b; Saenz and Koufteros, 2015). Accordingly, this study uses an SLR approach to identify theories, contexts (countries and industries), methods, data sources, units of analysis and samples applied in the extant research on GLSCM. Figure 1 presents the research protocol applied, based on the six sequential steps suggested by Durach et al. (2017) that are detailed below:

1. Step 1Define the research question: This step involved determining the need, objectives, RQs and theoretical framework for guiding the SLR. The Introduction and Theoretical Framework sections have discussed all these aspects.

2. Step 2Ascertaining the characteristics of studies: The second step consisted of defining inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies in the SLR. Accordingly, the following criteria were adopted based on best practices commonly adopted in recent reviews.

We followed Ferreira et al. (2022) and searched for relevant studies on the Web of Science (WoS), which has one of the largest collection of articles. We included only English-language peer-reviewed publications in the review and limited the data to articles on business economics. This criterion focused the pool of articles on the disciplines under the scope, a practice commonly applied in review studies (Bengoa et al., 2021; Fernandes and Ferreira, 2022; Niesten and Jolink, 2020).

To be included in the pool of articles to be admitted in the review, the article source needed to be classified as 2, 3, 4 or 4* in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2021 by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (2021) to ensure the highest quality publication outlets were covered. Thus, we followed an encouraged (Kraus et al., 2020) and well-established practice (Blevins et al., 2022; Bouncken et al., 2015) in review studies.

Finally, similar to review studies with similar purposes (Hassan et al., 2023), we analyzed the pool of articles based on their relevance to the field of GLSCM. In this sense, articles that revealed having little or no relevance to GLSCM, took a broad approach to GLSCM (for instance, articles that adopted a narrow scope to facets of these concepts such as supplier selection, organizational purchasing or waste management) or engaged less deeply in articulating the ideas under analysis, were to be discarded. By excluding articles not fulfilling such criteria, we ensure that the reviewed articles specifically addressed the RQs under investigation:

1. Step 3Search for relevant literature: As discussed previously, we consider SC and logistics to be intersectional and use AND Boolean operator to ensure that the two concepts would coexist in the final search results (see Dekkers et al., 2022). Gurtu et al. (2015) also point out that researchers have often used AND operator to combine “supply chain” and “logistics” in review papers related to green or sustainability. Following extensive literature searches in the LSCM field and considering the need, objectives, RQs and theoretical frameworks of reference for guiding the SLR (as defined in Step 1), we agreed on the following search string: (logistic AND “supply chain management”) AND (green OR circular*). We stress that this string focuses the search on articles that specifically take a green or circular approach to the field of LSCM, thus ensuring that the pool of articles to be analyzed falls within the scope of the objectives and RQs that guided this review.

2. Step 4Choose relevant studies: The fourth step involved applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria previously defined (Step 2) to the broad sample of documents. Specifically, this step consisted of the following procedures:

   • Applied the search string previously defined (Step 3) to undertake a search by Topic in WoS Core Collection – All Editions. The search was conducted to capture all articles published until 2022, and no time frame was defined, leading to 901 results. We chose the time period until 2022 to capture the LCSM issues explored during the COVID-19 pandemic and how knowledge management influenced organizational strategic responses.

   • Refined the results by document types: Article, Review Article or Early Access; Language: English; Research Area: Business Economics. Following this procedure left us with 275 articles.

   • Refined the sample articles based on the classification of the AJG 2021. Following this procedure, the sample was reduced from 275 to 136 articles.

   • Refined the sample articles based on the article’s relevance to the field of GLSCM. Following this procedure, the sample was reduced from 136 to 80 articles.

3. Step 5Integrating the literature: The fifth step encompassed two stages. The first stage consisted of the coding procedure. It started with the open coding of the final sample of 80 articles based on theories, contexts (country and industry), methods, data sources, units of analysis, sample, primary purpose, main findings, main limitations and critical lines for future research. The coding of each article’s primary purpose, main results, main constraints and critical lines for future research placed us in a favorable position to suggest a comprehensive research agenda based on a comprehensive overview of the research on GLSCM. The second stage involved synthesizing and integrating the findings from the coding procedure.

4. Step 6Reporting the results: The final step involved reporting the findings. In this step, the findings arising from the SLR are presented, a comprehensive agenda for future research is suggested and theoretical, managerial and policy implications are discussed.

The results from the framework-based review are presented in Supplementary A (Supplementary material). Below, the main findings are discussed for each coding category. Thus, this section also answers our RQ1, i.e. what are the extant theories, contexts (country and industry), methods, data sources, units of analysis and samples applied in the literature on GLSCM?

Considering the objectives that motivated this study, namely, identifying relevant theories in the literature on GLSCM, only explicit underlying theories (i.e. theories that the authors refer to as the basis for positioning their contributions accordingly) were considered. This is highly relevant, considering that the lack of a specific and appropriate theoretical basis hinders the development of a field of research (Durach et al., 2021; Wong, 2021a). Indeed, what configures a theory motivates ongoing debate in the literature (e.g. Doty and Glick, 1994; Durach et al., 2021; Suddaby, 2014; and Whetten, 1989). Therefore, by focusing on explicit underlying theories, this study can depict an unbiased state-of-the-art regarding theories of reference in this field of research. Figure 2 presents the number of theories applied in the sample articles.

As depicted in Figure 2, most sample articles (48 out of 80) do not explicitly apply any underlying theory. This suggests a need for observable theoretical framing in this field of research. On the other hand, 17 articles are based on an underlying theory. Eleven refer to two underlying theories and three articles are built on three underlying theories. Finally, one article underlines five underlying theories as building blocks.

Figure 3 portrays the explicitly underlying theories observable in this field of research.

As detailed in Figure 3, 35 distinct theories are explicitly identified in the 32 articles that use underlying theories. These theories are from distinct research fields. The resource-based view is the most applied theory in the sample articles (N = 8), followed by the natural-resource-based (NRBV) and the institutional theory (each explicitly featured in 4 articles). Three articles apply the stakeholder theory. Next, two articles each feature three theories (relational view, practice-based view and dynamic capabilities).

An interesting conclusion can be made about the application of “green supply chain management”, “sustainable supply chain management” and the “theory of reverse logistics”, only explicitly referred to as theories in one article each. This is highly relevant. Considering this study’s aim, a much larger pool of articles is based on such approaches; nevertheless, they are only explicitly referred to as theories in one article each. This contributes to the debate regarding what configures theory and the boundaries of theories. Furthermore, two articles in the sample propose new theories for advancing the GLSCM literature, contributing to this debate from another perspective.

Reflecting on these theories in the context of knowledge management, we find that while the studies do not explicitly mention the knowledge-based view, the broader resource-based view is applied in majority of the studies. We argue that knowledge (tacit and explicit) as a resource needs to be better understood and incorporated in the strategic decision-making process for managing the GLSCM. The limited knowledge-based explanations suggests that most studies have taken a meso-level lens to explain contemporary phenomenon and micro-level (individual knowledge) analysis remains under-researched.

Contexts are portrayed in terms of the country (Section 4.2.1. Contexts – countries) and terms of industry (Section 4.2.2. Contexts – industries). However, due to the methods applied (as described in Section 4.3: Methods), we underline that some articles do not identify any contexts.

A pool of 50 articles describes a country sample. Of these, 40 articles apply a single country-based sample, whereas ten articles use a multi-country sample (i.e. a sample that includes two or more countries). Accordingly, there is a paucity of articles that use multi-country samples. This configures an important feature of this research topic. Applying multi-country samples would deliver a more comprehensive picture of the reality in GLSCM worldwide while avoiding country idiosyncrasies that can hinder the generalization of the results. Figure 4 depicts the 32 countries presented in the articles.

As illustrated in Figure 4, two of the world’s largest emerging economies (India and China) are the most featured countries in the research on GLSCM. Next, we observe two European countries (Sweden and Germany) featured in the sample of six articles each. These countries stand out due to their circular/green practices. Taiwan completes the top five of the most represented countries in the sample articles, with the scholars in this theme underscoring the country’s importance as a global electronic supply chain manufacturer.

A pool of 49 articles identifies an industry sample. Whereas 42 articles used a single industry sample, seven built a sample comprised of multiple industries (i.e. a sample that includes two or more industries). Figure 5 depicts the 26 distinct industries portrayed in the sample articles. We underline that some closely related industries were grouped into higher-order industry designations for the effects of grouping.

Expectedly, logistics (n = 13) and manufacturing (n = 11) were the most studied industries. The automotive industry and the food industry are featured in five articles each. With three appearances each, we then observe the electronics industry, the freight transportation industry and the textile industry. Chemical-related industries and the electrical and electronic industries are studied in two articles, respectively. Finally, 17 distinct industries are featured at least one time.

Figure 6 summarizes the methods applied in the sample articles.

As portrayed in Figure 6, quantitative methods are the most used in the sample (n = 34); this methodology includes articles based on statistical analysis and mathematical/simulation models. Next, many review articles (n = 17) in the sample comprised different types of literature reviews, bibliometric analyses and meta-analyses. In the third place, with each method comprising ten articles, we observe conceptual articles (i.e. articles that do not carry any empirical analysis or some review) and qualitative articles (namely, the case study method, but also including other qualitative approaches). Finally, five articles use mixed methods (combining a two-method approach), while four are based on a multi-methodological approach (using a combination of three or more methods).

Table 1 shows that the data used in the sample articles result from distinct sources.

Accordingly, multiple data sources are observable in the sample articles, closely related to the methods used. We underline that some articles included in the sample are conceptual and do not use any data source. Another interesting finding relates to the multi-methodological approach to data sources applied in multiple articles.

Due to the multiple approaches taken and stakeholders involved in GLSCM, portraying the units of analysis when studying GLSCM is far from simple. Therefore, to depict the units of analysis used in the sample articles consistently, after carefully analyzing all the articles, it was possible to classify the units of analysis based on the approach taken by the authors into seven main categories: a cross-functional perspective, a dyadic relationships perspective, a holistic conceptual approach, a holistic approach, a holistic simulation approach, a holistic theoretical approach and a marketing-based approach.

The articles’ sample is inextricably intertwined with data sources and units of analysis. Therefore, the sample refers to the lens adopted in the article. For instance, review articles are based on a sample of literature (e.g. the number of articles). In contrast, empirical articles could be based on an individual perspective (stakeholder) or a company/companies’ approach. Therefore, the sampling ranges from literature, individuals, companies, supply chains, industries and mathematical models.

This study’s findings highlight two interesting trends: a growing emphasis on sustainability and the circular economy and a recognition that the literature is still in its infancy and lacks theoretical development.

There is a global push to address sustainability challenges, and organizations are key players in implementing change (Manzilati and Prestianawati, 2022). Issues such as waste generation from fast fashion and modern slavery in supply chain networks are some of the challenges organizations face (Robb and Michailova, 2023). GLSCM is critical in addressing some of these issues, and there is an opportunity to determine a contemporary approach that includes the challenges and finds appropriate solutions for them.

We found that nearly half of the studies did not mention any theory. Most of the remaining studies used one theory, emphasizing theories like the resource-based view. This suggests a focus on internal organizational issues. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how GLSCM is affected by global and national issues. The lack of contingency planning severely impacted global SCs, the effects of which continue to be felt three years after the global pandemic was declared.

We incorporate these issues in a model (Figure 7) that captures SC and logistics firms’ key challenges in pursuing GLSCM. We show how global regulations and treaties, combined with disruption and political risks, inform national-level policies. The socio-economic and institutional environments dictate the operations of the organizations, which have to respond by altering the LSCM strategies while engaging with the green/circular economy.

While facing multiple and combined external pressures on the supply chain network, firms can neutralize such adverse effects through three main steps. Given that knowledge creation is critical to the survival of organizations in a global context, particularly during disruptions (Ferreira et al., 2020; Ngo et al., 2023), the first step involves identifying successful cases and establishing a knowledge base that includes effective strategies in practice. Key knowledge management enablers, such as regulations, market competition, organizational conditions and collaborative approaches, play a crucial role in this knowledge creation process (Pham et al., 2024; Yadav et al., 2020).

It has been shown that knowledge brokers can enhance collaboration among supply chain members to generate, share and use knowledge, thereby improving the resilience and sustainability of the supply chain (Fait et al., 2024; Umar et al., 2021). In particular, these brokers, as Haas (2015) asserts, play a crucial role in transferring and disseminating knowledge across organizations and fostering innovation. Similarly, brokers, especially startups, are able to trigger innovation across the entire supply chain ecosystem through their network position, credibility and knowledge base (Magliocca et al., 2023; Reus et al., 2023). Thus, the second step is to engage these brokers within the network to accelerate effective responses.

Knowledge transfer is a powerful tool for improving organizational sustainability and supplier performance (Batool et al., 2023; Shukla et al., 2023; Yee-Loong Chong et al., 2014). The transfer process becomes significantly more effective through internet platforms, social media tools and technologies such as blockchain (Grant, 2016; Li et al., 2023; Pu and Qiao, 2025). For example, digital platforms enhance the effectiveness of knowledge transfers from sport agents (i.e. brokers), ultimately improving the decision-making process in a sustainable way (Russo et al., 2023). In addition, digital innovation hubs can act as knowledge brokers to support digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises via the digital imprinting process (Crupi et al., 2020). The final step is to establish a digital platform and governance mechanism to disseminate knowledge throughout the entire network.

Regarding future research directions, we provide an agenda that presents promising future RQs based on identified literature gaps that GLSCM scholars can bridge to advance the literature in future studies. The agenda is structured around five main areas – theories, contexts, methods, data sources and samples and units of analysis – which are then used to develop a set of research questions for future studies (as illustrated in Table 2).

First, in terms of theories, more than half of the studies do not include any specific theoretical framework. Fewer studies apply theory, yet they rely on a narrow set of theoretical lens. Such limitations can negatively affect conceptual development in GLSCM. Future studies should explore theories beyond the popular ones, integrate multiple theories and use new perspectives that capture global, national and organizational levels.

Second, current studies mainly focus on a single country or a single industry. Contextual issues also require further investigation to ascertain the difference (if any) between developed and developing economies and across industries. For example, fast fashion organizations are criticized for creating products that are not circular in nature and need to be disposed of in landfills. These organizations, primarily from developed countries, rely on manufacturing plants in developing economies to dispose of dumped products. Future studies could investigate the role global regulatory bodies, special interest groups, consumers and the governments of these countries play in addressing these challenges.

Third, methodological diversity remains limited due to the dominance of quantitative methodologies in the reviewed papers. Despite their potential to provide richer insights and advance theory building, qualitative, mixed-method and longitudinal designs remain underexplored. We recommend the use of innovative combinations, such as integrating qualitative evidence with mathematical modeling, as new pathways to address complex GLSCM challenges.

Fourth, future research should also pay attention to data sources and samples, as current studies often rely on narrow data sets or single stakeholder perspectives. Triangulating data from academic, professional and modeling sources, and exploring how stakeholder perceptions differ across disciplines are highly recommended.

Finally, the reviewed papers use seven different units of analysis, which may make it difficult to determine a consistent way to collect and analyze data. We highlight the need to set clearly defined boundaries in future studies and emphasize the importance of configuring the fundamental elements of GLSCM to enable cross-country and cross-industry comparisons.

This section responds to RQ2 by integrating the findings based on an extended model and suggesting topics for future research based on identified literature gaps. What promising paths and directions can be leveraged to advance the literature on GLSCM? Overall, this study carries important implications for literature, policy and practice. We discuss these in detail below.

In terms of the implications for literature, we applied a framework-centered review that extends the existing TCM framework. We do so by integrating idiosyncratic aspects inherent to the LSCM field (Durach et al., 2017). One of the study’s significant implications lies in the research agenda developed. It is based on literature gaps and communicated according to the framework applied in the review, providing scholars with comprehensive avenues for future research. Indeed, what we know or do not know about GLSCM will continue to motivate multiple literature debates going forward.

More specifically, regarding a discussion, the research highlights a growing trend in stakeholder activism. We argue that the general population is concerned with the entire supply chain process of products rather than just the final products. News reports about events like the Rana Plaza incident in Bangladesh, the use of child labor in the production activities of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and environmental degradation have renewed interest in organizational logistics and supply chain systems globally. In addition, of the key stakeholders, modern consumers seek assurances that firms are operating sustainably and the role of global auditing and accrediting bodies that verify the activities is critical in providing these assurances. Thus, we highlight how the relationship between organizations and accrediting bodies is a key topic that needs to be unbundled in the future. In addition, another key question to enquire about is how these firms conduct their audits, which is also an area of future research that we highlight.

Moreover, to add to the above discussion, the topic of digitalizing certain activities and processes is also meant to ensure transparency, reduce waste and connect activities globally. Here too, we argue that while technology is meant to enhance efficiencies in LSCM, concerns about data and sensitive information becoming digitally exposed also exist. Recent hacking events where the personal data of organizations and their clients have been accessed and sold on the dark Web have highlighted the limitations of the existing security systems. As the global integration of LSCM requires information sharing, how this data can be protected and encrypted is another area of research that we highlight and encourage in future studies.

Regarding the implications for policy, we underline the potential of the GLSCM toward a more sustainable future. Accordingly, we argue that the GLSCM network comprises multi-stakeholders, including the public and private sectors. In this sense, public policies should seek to foster collaborative multi-stakeholder networks based on sustainable practices and (reverse) flows that foster sustainable production, distribution and consumption systems worldwide. To this end, more strict regulations and visible incentives based on sustainable practices through the supply chain could foster more sustainable behaviors by all the stakeholders involved. In addition, in this regard, public policies should promote green consumption initiatives that enable the greening of LSCM. Moreover, public policies should pay attention to the potential of GLSCM toward achieving sustainable development goals; accordingly, tailor-made public policies are needed.

Finally, in terms of implications for practice, this study is also of interest. Indeed, multi-stakeholder (public and private) collaboration emerges as a critical enabler for GLSCM. Therefore, stakeholders from the public and private spheres need to engage in collaborative practices that strengthen the GLSCM network. In addition, in this context, to promote a truly GLSCM and enable a sustainable future, managers of multiple companies that form the GLSCM network need to consider not only their respective interests but also the bigger picture, therefore engaging in sustainable practices throughout the GLSCM network. Finally, managers should not perceive the greening of LSCM as a costly endeavor but instead treat costs as investments and thereby acknowledge the long-term benefits for their companies and society.

Despite the multiple implications provided above (to literature, policy and practice), the current research also has limitations, like all studies. The research protocol applied, despite being justified in the extant literature, could lead to the exclusion of relevant studies. Furthermore, the coding procedure applied, despite being driven by strict guidelines, could encompass some unintended bias. Future studies could address these limitations by using multiple databases and refining search strings to capture a broader range of perspectives, including more specific aspects of knowledge management.

Given the current theoretical and methodological gaps in the GLSCM literature, we conducted a SLR using the TCM framework. Our analysis shows that the resource-based view, the NRBV and institutional theory are the most frequently adopted theories in the field. In terms of research context, many studies focus on a single country or a single industry rather than examining cross-country or cross-industry perspectives. Methodologically, the quantitative approach is the most popular research design, followed by qualitative and mixed methods. Based on these results, we recommend the importance of incorporating multiple theories that capture global, national and organizational perspectives. Future research should also broaden its scope to include both developed and developing countries, as well as diverse industry settings.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.