Search

The topic of SDG interactions is a relatively new research area with many knowledge gaps. Some of these gaps are addressed in this summary of a Special Feature of Sustainability Science, including new findings and emerging issues on (1) the characteristics of SDG interactions; (2) methods/methodology to analyse these interactions; and (3) the elaboration of drivers that influence SDG synergies. The importance of scale is clear in two emerging issues. First, there is evidence of a disconnect between national planning for SDGs and their implementation at the local scale which is leading to SDG trade-offs between these scales. Second, the concept of a “critical transition zone” is introduced where SDG trade-offs pose a particular challenge to SDG implementation. These are areas (e.g., peri-urban and forest margin areas in the Global South) undergoing rapid biophysical and/or socio-economic changes and inhabited by populations especially vulnerable to these changes. While trade-offs occur among the SDGs, there are also many examples of synergies which provide opportunities for advancing multiple goals. To distinguish between synergies and the actions that exploit them, the term “synergy driver” is introduced to refer to policies and measures that positively advance two or more goals. Several examples of synergy drivers are presented, including sustainable global supply chains, people-centred early warning systems, and joint conservation-public health programmes. To make synergy drivers relevant to the broader policy community, the research community (working with stakeholders) should first consolidate knowledge about these drivers and then evaluate their effectiveness/applicability to different policy settings.

Increased awareness of ‘telecouplings’ between distant producer and consumer systems, through new forms of information exchange, has led to changes in how production systems are governed in relation to sustainability, including through private-sector led and hybrid governance initiatives. This chapter examines the complexities of implementing private-sector-led ‘zero-deforestation’ commitments, which promise to eliminate deforestation from the supply chains of the commodities that companies produce, trade, and/or source. Using the concept of ‘disarticulations,’ this chapter brings an analysis of global production networks into conversation with critical political economy’s emphasis on discourse and knowledge production. We discuss dominant, mainstream discourses prevalent in zero-deforestation governance, including notions that: (i) Implementing zero-deforestation is highly technical and requires the expertise of consultants and third parties; (ii) All supply chain actors have responsibility for zero-deforestation; (iii) The need for data and technologies for governing deforestation; (iv) Jurisdictional approaches provide joined up governance for zero-deforestation. Examining these discourses helps us to understand some of the complexities in the implementation of ‘zero-deforestation’ commitments, how socio-economic processes in global production are linked or delinked, and how people can be connected to or excluded from these chains. Finally, we reflect on opportunities for research and practice in shifting toward sustainable production and consumption of deforestation-risk commodities, and the importance of considering how power relations and knowledge politics shape production networks.

In this paper, we investigate the economic and behavioural factors affecting a firm’s optimal choices in the creation and management of its supply chain, and the resulting output in terms of economic value creation and social/ethical or environmental performance, defined as ‘public value’ (Bozeman, 2002; Moore & Bennington, 2011). Furthermore, we consider the effects of management’s extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, and the resulting alignment or conflicts between management and shareholders. Our game-theoretic analysis models how firms and their suppliers weigh up maximisation of economic value with delivering any level of ‘public value’ (social or environmental outcomes). Included are the risk of reputational damage destroying trust, and the economic penalty related to a public value outcome. Our model shows that an alignment in social preference across the supply chain is important, as is consumer pressure. This is equally true when customers (or investors) are motivated solely by cost reduction or profit maximisation. In making its choices, the focal firm faces twin pressures from within the supply-chain as to whether they too will act to maximise economic value or public value, and externally (from ethical/socially-minded consumers). We model the impact of values alignment and misalignment between firm, supplier and customer, and the threat of moral hazard, providing an application of behavioural OR in sustainable supply chain management. This helps to theorise the drivers for irresponsible behaviour that can lead to significant reputational damage and subsequent negative economic performance.

Governance for sustainable development increasingly involves diverse stakeholder groups, with the promise of enhanced legitimacy and effectiveness in decision-making and implementation. The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) emphasise the important role of multiple (non-state) actors, including businesses and non-governmental organisations, including in efforts to ensure the sustainability of supply chains, and to reduce tropical deforestation and forest degradation. This paper critically analyses sustainability strategies to examine how the UN SDG agendas related to ‘sustainable supply chains’ and ‘tropical forest protection’ are framed and enacted by two contrasting non-state actors: (1) Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), an NGO in Brazil working to address deforestation, including by supporting farmers to produce commodities, and (2) Unilever, a global consumer goods manufacturer and major buyer of such commodities. By identifying areas of variability in the discursive techniques used by ICV and Unilever, we unearth particular power dynamics that can shape the processes and outcomes of sustainability strategies. This paper finds that the two organisations use diverse strategies at different levels of governance, both participate actively in multi-stakeholder forums to advance their organisations’ goals, but have divergent framings of ‘sustainability’. Despite being considered ‘non-state’ actors, the strategies of the two organisations examined both reflect, and influence, the structural effects of the state in the implementation of non-state organisations’ strategies, and progress towards the SDGs. Although there is alignment of certain strategies related to tropical forest protection, in some cases, there is a risk that more sustainable, alternative approaches to governing forests and supply chains may be excluded.

This comprehensive literature review aims to provide an improved understanding of the impacts of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). SSCM is viewed here as the pursuit of sustainable develo...