4.6 Review

Green supply chain management under uncertainty: a review and content analysis

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2021.2021561

Keywords

Supply chain management; green supply chain; uncertainty; literature review

Funding

  1. National Social Science Fund of China [21BGL012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviews the literature in the field of green supply chain management (GSCM) under uncertainty published from 2011 to 2020, analyzing and classifying 198 articles. It focuses on bibliometric analysis, identifying uncertainty factors, research directions, and management methods in the domain, while also proposing research agendas for the future.
This study reviews the literature in the field of green supply chain management (GSCM) under uncertainty published from 2011 to 2020. Following the systematic review process, 198 articles are analyzed and classified according to the content framework. This study contributes to the related literature in the following ways. Firstly, it focuses on the bibliometric analysis of the GSCM under uncertainty, which provides a better understanding of this research field. Second, it identifies the uncertainty factors and highlights the research directions in this domain. The proposed uncertainty factors mainly consist of internal uncertainty, external uncertainty, and hybrid uncertainty. In addition, it shows that the current research covers the following themes: green supply chain network design (GSCND), collaboration, transportation optimization, supplier evaluation and practice and performance. Third, this study draws attention to uncertainty management methods. The fuzzy method, the stochastic method and the grey theory method are the main methods to solve the uncertainties of GSCM at present. Finally, it also identifies the gaps existing in the literature and proposes research agendas that can be expanded in the future. [GRAPHICS] .

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available