Editorial work

Supply chain management research predominantly examines sustainability from the perspective of buying firms, analyzing how procurement strategies, supplier governance, and compliance mechanisms can reduce negative environmental and social outcomes associated with their supply chains. While this approach has advanced our understanding of firm‐level practices, it suffers from a fundamental unit‐of‐analysis problem: Socio‐ecological footprints emerge from the interaction of multiple supply chains and other actors within specific localities, yet research often treats the supply chains of individual buying firms as independent units. Consequently, interventions that appear successful for individual firms may leave harm in place or merely displace it rather than resolve underlying causes. We introduce the footprint perspective as a complementary approach to sustainable supply chain management research. While the buying firm perspective usually traces supply chains from the buying firm to its suppliers, the footprint perspective begins its investigation in the localities where supply chain activities are entangled with socio‐ecological systems. This perspective treats localities as the unit of analysis, examining how interdependencies among supply chains, locality actors, and ecosystems jointly produce socio‐ecological footprints. We compare the assumptions of these two perspectives and outline an empirical playbook for putting this conceptual shift into practice.

Supply chain management is grounded on the assumption that endless economic growth is compatible with environmental and social sustainability. Yet scholars from ecological economics question this assumption due to ever increasing evidence showing how hard it is to decouple growth from negative environmental and social externalities. In response, pressure from social movements is mounting, and the agendas of several countries already consider alternatives to growth. Therefore, this article presents a critical thought experiment for the supply chain management discipline: What are the implications of moving from the current endless growth paradigm to a post‐growth paradigm for businesses and their supply chains? Using the umbrella term “post‐growth,” this article identifies three key post‐growth principles—(i) socio‐ecological wellbeing, (ii) selective downscaling, and (iii) systems thinking—and then examines their implications for supply chain management research and practice.

No abstract available yet.

Purpose This paper aims to provide a starting point to discuss how social enterprises can drive systemic change in terms of social impact through operations and supply chain management. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews existing literature and the four papers in this special issue and develops a conceptual framework of how social enterprises and their supply chains create social impact and further enable systematic change. Findings Our paper finds that social impact and systemic change can be shaped by social enterprises at three different levels of analysis (organization, supply chain and context) and through three enablers (cognitive shift, stakeholder collaboration and scalability). Such dimensions are used to position current literature and to highlight new research directions. Originality/value This paper proposes a novel understanding of operations and supply chain management in social enterprises intended as catalysts for systemic change. Based on this premise we distinguish different practices and stakeholders to be considered when studying social impact at different levels. The conceptual framework introduced in the paper provides a new pathway for future research and debate by scholars engaged at the intersection of social impact, sustainable operations and supply chain management.

In this editorial, we introduce the four best papers selected from the IPSERA 2021 conference for this special issue of the Journal. We discuss how a double-blind crowd review (CR) process was used as an alternative to the traditional “two reviewer” double-blind peer review system. After a brief review of the literature and the existing debate around academic peer review, we introduce the main characteristics of CR. Next, at the core of our discussion, we report on the results of a pilot CR project that we conducted to review JPSM articles associated with the 2021 IPSERA Conference. We describe in detail the review process, and we illustrate the feedback received from reviewers and authors on the CR process, as well as our perspective as guest editors. Finally, we draw some conclusions and present recommendations for CR in the Purchasing and Supply Management (PSM) field. The CR pilot contributes to the wider debate around peer-reviewing by offering insights into the experience of different stakeholders and by highlighting the benefits and pitfalls of CR.