A bibliometric and content analysis of sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises

Journal Pre-proof A bibliometric and content analysis of sustainable development in small and mediumsized enterprises Anupama Prashar, Vijaya Sunder M PII:

S0959-6526(19)33535-8

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118665

Reference:

JCLP 118665

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 27 July 2019 Revised Date:

27 September 2019

Accepted Date: 29 September 2019

Please cite this article as: Prashar A, Sunder M V, A bibliometric and content analysis of sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118665. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

A BIBLIOMETRIC AND CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

First Name: Anupama; Last Name: Prashar Assistant Professor, Operations Management Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. Telephone: +91 124 4560292, Email: [email protected] First Name: Vijaya; Last Name: Sunder M* Head – Business Process Excellence The World Bank Group, 11, Taramani Road, Chennai, India. Telephone: +91 44 24443541, Mobile: +91 8122952359, Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding Author

1

A BIBLIOMETRIC AND CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

Abstract Research on sustainability or sustainable development has emerged significantly over the past two decades, evidenced by an increasing interest and publication momentum by academic scholars. Given the importance of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), that constitute ~99% of all firms, this paper adopts a three-stage systematic review protocol to present a state of art literature review on sustainable development

in

SMEs.

Four

different

analysis-synthesis

approaches

(bibliometric

analysis,

methodological analysis, qualitative content analysis, and logical reasoning of authors) were used on the literature data of 117 relevant papers (from 37 journals) identified from mainstream academic databases. This review provides insights not previously fully captured or evaluated by other reviews on this topic. The findings provide several implications on the current state of literature on sustainable development in SMEs, leading to research gaps and directions for future research. The findings provide a robust roadmap for further investigation in this field. Keywords: Sustainable development; Small and medium-sized enterprise; Systematic Literature Review; Content Analysis; Bibliometric Analysis

2

A BIBLIOMETRIC AND CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

1. INTRODUCTION The origin of sustainability dates back more than 130 years, when an idea known as spaceship earth (George, 1879/2009) took birth. Evolving over the years, the construct gained significant popularity with the emergence of the term “sustainable development” (Brundtland Report, 1987).

Research on

sustainability or sustainable development has emerged significantly over the past two decades, evidenced by an increasing interest by academic scholars. Specifically, operations management scholars have recognized sustainability as an important and inter-disciplinary field of research (Daily and Huang, 2001; Wilkinson, Hill and Gollan, 2001; Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012). While sustainability was initially recognized as a discipline of research by Brundtland Commission in 1987 as a global concern about environmental damage, the later developments on this subject revealed a broader definition. The 2005 World Summit on Social Development identified sustainable development goals, such as economic development, social development and environmental protection. Sustainability is defined as something that improves "the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems" (UNEP, 1991). It refers to the development efforts aiming to improve economic welfare that takes its social implications and environmental protection into consideration. Studying sustainability from the operations management perspective is essential for two key reasons. First, firms have to account for the resources they use and the resulting footprint they leave behind (owing to activities such as production, transportation, recycling and remanufacturing of current products and the design of new products) (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Second, companies need to operate in a sagacious and responsible manner and take care of employee health and safety, and quality of life of the external community (Gimenez et al., 2012). The way it is usually operationalized is through the triple bottom line, a concept developed by Elkington (1998). The concept simultaneously considers and balances economic, environmental and social impacts of a firm’s operations from a microeconomic point of view. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments (OECD, 2013) report, Small and Medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are the predominant form of enterprises, comprising approximately 99% of all firms. While economic sustainability in SMEs is vital for their survival, the social and economic dimensions together with economic dimension improves their overall competitiveness by creating new forms of competitive advantage (Schwab et al., 2019; Nematollahi et al., 2017). Hence, it is very crucial to explore the sustainable development in SMEs to gain a better understanding of the

3

economic, social, and environmental impacts of their operations. With rising energy prices and growing consumer demand, there are compelling reasons for SMEs to adopt sustainability strategies. The Lloyds TSB survey (2013) found that 70% of SMEs are adopting a sustainable approach in order to secure new business, while 54% are becoming sustainable to save money. Thus, the influence and impact of triple bottom line becomes vital in SMEs (Gimenez et al., 2012). From an economic dimension, a sustainable business is more efficient, has a more resilient business model, and is, therefore, able to generate reliable cash flow. From social and environmental dimensions, sustainability refers more to a responsibility than an obligation in SMEs. An overview of research literature reveals a few literature reviews conducted on sustainability or sustainable development. However, all these review studies are scoped to address one of the dimensions of sustainability or scoped to interface with a relevant management concept. For example, reviews by Engert (2016), Salzmann et al., (2015), Goyal et al., (2013) address corporate or economic sustainability. A few other reviews such as those by Rajeev et al., (2017), Chen et al., (2017), Xu et al., (2018), Mokhtar et al., (2019) addressed sustainability in supply chain context. While Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes (2014) reviewed sustainability in the context of Lean management, reviews by Dempsey et al, (2011), Montiel (2008) addressed the social dimension of sustainability. While Pullman et al., (2009) pointed out a dearth of research in operations management literature on sustainability considerations towards social issues, Cagliano et al., (2010) noted that the environmental and social dimensions were less explored. Nonetheless, a review paper on sustainable supply chain management by Seuring and Muller (2008) showed that very few papers considered all dimensions of sustainability simultaneously (economic, environmental and social). Further, none of these reviews were specific to SMEs. Thus, taking this as a valuable opportunity, we present this paper. The aim of this paper is to examine the research literature on sustainable development in SMEs through review and analysis. For this purpose, four research questions were identified. First, there is dearth of reviews pertaining to sustainability in SMEs, and hence we address this call by reviewing the relevant literature to identify the frequent topics of research in this area. Thus, the Research Question 1: RQ1: What are the topics related to sustainability in SMEs in research? Secondly, in our reading of papers related to sustainability, scholars used a variety of research methods in respective studies. Academicians have given rich importance to research methodologies as they provide necessary roadmap in choosing methods, materials, scientific tools and training in techniques relevant for the problems chosen (Scandura and Williams, 2000). Further, for management research to progress, it is important for researchers to assess the methods they employ (Sackett and Larson, 1990). Thus, we set our

4

second research question to examine different research methods used in sustainability studies in scope of SMEs. Subsequently, Research Question 2 is: RQ2: What research methods are used by scholars to study sustainability in SMEs? While the growing interest in the topic has been evident from scholarly publications, it will be valuable to examine how the scholarly interest has grown in the area of sustainable development in SMEs. Logically speaking, to explore the research gaps, it is important to know what has been researched on this subject, so that the subsequent logical reasoning should reveal the opportunities for future research. Therefore, our Research Questions 3 is: RQ3: What has been researched so far on the topics related to sustainability in SMEs? Finally, in line with the research objectives of this paper – to summarize the current state-of-the-art in the field of sustainability in SMEs, as well as to identify what future research would best benefit the field – our final research question is: RQ4: What are the research gaps and potential future research directions for sustainability in SMEs? To address these questions, we scoured Web of Science database to collect articles that fit the research objectives. Then, we provided a systematic literature review and comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-art literature (published between January 2000 and February 2019) in sustainability in SMEs to explore understanding of the current research situation. Four different analysis-synthesis methods (bibliometric analysis, methodological analysis, content analysis, and logic-based reasoning) were applied to address the set research questions. Following this introduction section, the paper presents an overview of the review methodology. It then provides a descriptive analysis to address RQs, followed by the synthesis of findings through content analysis to identify emerging themes on SD in SMEs. From there, the paper provides a research agenda by providing research gaps and directions for the purpose of future research.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: THE STATE OF ART PRIOR TO THIS STUDY The evolution patterns in SD research from the previous studies revealed four dimensions – economic, environmental, social and holistic sustainability (based on TBL approach). Figure 1 summarizes how the research has progressed on this subject.

5

Fig 1: Temporal classification of articles

Management scholars had shown a considerable interest in developing business approaches to address the SD issues over the past 25 years after the first reference of SD in the Brundtland Commission Report in 1987 (Brundtland, 1987). according to the report, SD was defined as “development, which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 8). Thus, the term SD covered the three dimensions of sustainability - social, economic and environment, consistent with the Triple-Bottom-Line (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1998). With the rising awareness of repercussions of production (of goods/service) activities on the environmental and social dimensions of sustainability, there was a rise in the research on sustainability of enterprises engaged in production of goods/services (Corbett, 2009). Despite the rise in demands for building a holistic sustainability for all type of enterprises, regardless of their organizational size or subsector, the prior SD literature addressed sustainability from its environmental perspective, mainly focusing on large enterprises (Seidel et al., 2009; Gaughran et al., 2007). It was only in 1991, when the first review article on the CSR activities of small businesses was published in Journal of Small Business Management (Thompson and Smith, 1991). However, over the last two decades, the SD aspects including enablers/barriers of implementation, management tools/practices and integration strategies for SMEs had been increasingly addressed in the academic literature. The temporal trends revealed by the chronological analysis of reviewed articles are discussed below:

2000-2005: During this period, the contribution of manufacturing SMEs towards the global environmental sustainability goals gained visibility. However, a limited proliferation of sustainability practices in manufacturing SMEs, irrespective of rising stakeholders’ pressures, was also acknowledged. This impelled the scholars to work towards broadening the understanding of environmental sustainability from the viewpoint of manufacturing industry (Biondi et al. 2002; Lagace and Bourgault, 2003). For instance, Lagace and Bourgault, (2003) examined the Government-run programs for improving

6

manufacturing sustainability in Canadian SMEs. Based on the survey findings, the authors emphasized the need for linking these programs with the competitive positioning sought by SMEs. The authors classified the sustainability practices of SMEs as potential practices, emergent practices, priority practices and realized practices. While exploring the reasons for SMEs’ limited interest in applying for Sustainability Entrepreneurship certificates, Crals and Vereeck (2005) postulated the preconditions for successful implementation of sustainable business practices by SMEs.

2006-2010: This period witnessed an emergence of sustainability management framework, tailor-made to the SMEs’ need of economic as well as ecological sustainability (Burke and Gaughran, 2007). With the focus shifting from environmental sustainability to a holistic sustainability of SMEs, these management frameworks recommended the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies and technological innovations for improving operational efficiency (Thomas, 2007). Although, the social aspect of sustainability remained largely unattended in these frameworks. Scholars also examined the impact of intangible and tangible investment on sustainability efforts (such as adoption of environment management tools such as ISO 14001) on the financial/operational performance of SMEs (Amadieu and Viviani, 2010).

2011-2015: This period witnessed an increase in the academic interest in SD in SMEs research (30 articles), with 11 articles adopting the holistic TBL approach for defining SD performance. Most of the studies during this period were aimed at demonstrating the viability of SD practices as a tool for competitive advantage for SMEs. The sustainability practices examined were environment (Verrier et al. 2014; Arnold, 2015) and social management systems (Bergmann and Posch, 2018; Oncioiu et al., 2018; Badulescu et al., 2018), life cycle assessments (Testa et al. 2018) and eco-efficient analyses, and sustainability reporting (Alves and Medeiros, 2015; Thomas et al. 2016). The highlight of SD research during this period was employment of composite sustainability development measures/indices for understanding the outcomes of sustainability efforts for SMEs.

2016-2019: Following the rising scholarly interest in SD issues related to small businesses, this period witnessed the maximum number of publications (79 articles) with 48 articles adopting the TBL approach. During this period, many scholars examined the moderating/mediating effects of SMEs’ background, government support and business network on the SMEs’ sustainability performance using survey-based research (28 articles) (Caldera et al. 2019; Lopez-Perez et al. 2018; Choongo, 2017). For instance, in a recent survey of Chinese SMEs, Tong et al. (2019) found that government’s support in developing financing guarantee services for SMEs was one of the key external environment factors, which restricted

7

the SD of SMEs in China. Among the internal environment factors, upgradation of operations management level was found to have moderating effect on the SD of Chinese SMEs. Besides descriptive studies, this period witnessed rise in development of multi-attribute decision-making models (8 articles) for supporting the complex phenomena of sustainability in SMEs. These hierarchical models enabled the analysis of sustainable performance indicators/measures at corporate (Thanki and Thakkar, 2018; Singh et al. 2018) as well as shop-floor level (Winroth et al. 2016). For instance, Wang et al. 2018 used mixedmethod design to establish a hybrid multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) model for the selection of sustainable supplier in the SME food processing industry. During this period, there was growth in the indepth case studies (Battistella et al. 2018; Witjes et al. 2017) and action research projects (Richert, 2017; Kozlowski et al. 2018) to demonstrate the application of sustainable business models/frameworks. For instance, Kozlowski et al. 2018 presented an in-depth case on the application of a design tool, called reDesign canvas, to support design entrepreneurs in developing sustainable fashion enterprise. Though, the period saw a rise in SD research in quasi-manufacturing and service environment (Kozlowski et al. 2018), these business environments remained largely unattended in the current SD in SMEs research. In our extant literature data search, we have not come across any literature review paper highlighting the role of sustainable development in SMEs, and hence this study is novel. Consequently, this review provides insights not previously fully captured or evaluated by other reviews on this topic.

3. METHODOLOGY To address the research questions, we performed a systematic review (Transfield et al., 2003) of the extant literature on the sustainability or SD concept in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Reay et al., (2009) recognized literature reviews as a higher level of research evidence amongst other empirical and field testimonies, because of the element of structured analysis-synthesis that underpins the review articles. Systematic reviews have become a fundamental scientific activity, and hence, are essential for the literature, when compared to ad-hoc reviews. They have been successfully applied in other areas related to production economics (Zhu and Sarkis, 2016; Beske et al., 2014; Sunder et al., 2018). The literature review team, made up of two senior researchers and two Ph. D students, held discussions and cooperated in all facets of this literature review, following the principle espoused by Seuring and Müller (2008). As per the prescriptions of Transfield et al., (2003), a three-stage protocol was used for the study, summarized in Figure 2. While the first stage gathered the relevant literature data, stage-2 featured the analysis of data and synthesis using several appropriate methods addressing the research questions, and third stage enumerated meaningful implications.

8

Stage-1: Gathering relevant literature data: After clearly defining the review strategy (Figure 1), a comprehensive online search was conducted to collect the journal articles published from January 2000 to February 2019, using Web of Science database. According to Gamal (2010), academicians and practitioners often make use of journals to obtain and publish the highest level of research findings. Hence, by using the selected keywords, papers were collected from peer-reviewed journals based on their enlisting in the search results of Web of Science database. For this purpose, we used “Small and Medium sized enterprises” OR “SMEs” AND “sustainability” OR “sustainable development” as the search keywords in Title and Abstract fields. This resulted in 456 papers. A Microsoft Excel database was then created with the bibliometric details of these papers. Duplication of articles were manually checked and removed by two PhD students, resulting in 382 papers. The research team comprising Ph. D students read the abstracts to eliminate irrelevant articles. The Cohen’s Kappa inter-rater reliability was found to be 0.89, and this resulted in 189 articles. Cohen's kappa inter-rater reliability is a statistic which measures inter-rater agreement for qualitative (categorical) items and thought to be a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation, as it considers the possibility of the agreement occurring by chance (Cohen, 1960). Next, a final evaluation of papers was performed by two senior researchers, who fully read all the 189 articles. With a Cohen’s Kappa inter-rater reliability of 0.92, this process brought the final number to 117 papers spread across 37 journals. Stage2: Performing Analysis-Synthesis on the literature data: We used four different analysis-synthesis methods to synthesize the literature data in response to the research questions. Because categorization is a crucial approach to understanding the characteristics of different groups (Cohen and Lefebvre, 2005), we analyzed the pool of research papers according to key research issues. Then, we analysed the literature data based on methodological analysis. Then, we began by exploring the topics related to ‘sustainability in SMEs’ chosen for research. Finally, the literature data was synthesized to explore what has been researched so far, and what are the research gaps and potential future research directions for sustainable development in SMEs.

9

Figure 2: Review Methodology

Bibliometric Analysis:

Bibliographic analyses based on co-occurrence networks integrates content-based

traditional systematic literature reviews quantitatively (Ciano et al., 2019). The analyses of co-occurrence networks, in this study, were based on the unified approach to clustering and mapping bibliometric networks (Waltman et al., 2010). Several recent studies recognized this method as an effective means to perform clustering for exploring trends and grouping literature data graphically based on the frequency of words used in the articles (Pollack and Adler, 2015). In this study, the researchers used co-occurrence networks of keywords to address RQ1. This approach was implemented in the VOS viewer software (Van Eck and Waltman 2009), mining the datasets and selecting keywords, which together described a number of papers over a selected threshold. The original data source from the Web of Science database containing the bibliographic information of the articles, which was in .CSV format, was extracted to VOS viewer software without any modifications. Density based clustering using full counting method and association-based normalization algorithm was adopted (Kriegel et al., 2011). The software required a threshold representing the minimum number of keywords that must be present together in a paper. This threshold was set at 5 for keywords analysis. The keywords that satisfied the selected threshold were then mapped and clustered, allowing for the co-occurrence networks analysis. Methodological Analysis: For management research to progress, it is important for researchers to assess the employed methods (Sackett and Larson, 1990). Research methodology has been of greater importance

10

in academic publications as it provides necessary roadmap in choosing methods, materials, scientific tools and trainings in the techniques relevant to the problem at hand (Scandura and Williams, 2000). Methodological analysis allows to examine the methodological and epistemological approaches adopted in the previous research in a field. This analysis helps in identifying, which methods are frequently used, and which are employed less often in a selected discipline (Sunder et al., 2019), providing methodological directions to the future researchers. In this study, four key criteria, adapted from Saunders et al., (2007) namely research paradigm, research design/strategies, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques, were used for the methodological analysis. Deciding the paradigmatic approach of the research is the first step of a research project, which sets up the intent, motivation and expectations for the research (Bryman and Bell, 2007). For the purpose of classifying the reviewed studies, the researchers used the three main philosophical perspectives identified in the literature: positivism, interpretivism and realism. The positivist adopts a deductive research approach and prefers the research strategies used in natural sciences to generate ‘objective’ knowledge (Morgan and Smircich 1980). Alternatively, interpretivist adopts an inductive research approach for developing a contextual understanding of the phenomena under investigation. It chooses research strategies apt for collecting subjective observations (Morgan and Smircich 1980). Besides these two major opposing philosophical perspectives, the literature indicates the third paradigm namely realism (Healy and Perry 2000). This paradigm has elements of both positivism and interpretivism, and thus, features the preferred methodologies as both quantitative and qualitative depending upon the research idea. Further, the significance of opting for appropriate research strategy for integrating the different components of a research project to generate a quality research outcome is highlighted by many scholars in the Operations Management field (Voss et al., 2002). The common research design classifications used in the review were (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991): case study (single or multiple), survey, experimental, conceptual, longitudinal and others (to include emerging research designs). For coding the selected articles based on the data collection procedures, the researchers used a classification proposed by Mentzer and Kahn (1995): structured questionnaire, interviews, participatory observations, action research, mathematical modelling and others. Further, to capture data analysis techniques for both quantitative and qualitative studies (Stuart et al., 2002), the articles were classified as: content analysis, descriptive statistical analysis, modelling, conceptual. Microsoft Excel was used to illustrate the methodological analysis on research paradigms, research strategies and the associated data collection procedures used. Wordcloud creator software was employed to illustrate the methodological analysis of data analysis techniques used by the scholars. These helped address RQ2.

11

Content Analysis: To identify the cognitive schemas, which are also called emergent research themes or categories, content analysis was adopted on the literature data. The adapted version of qualitative content analysis procedure by Mayring (2004) was used for the purpose of deriving research themes (Figure 3). This inductive category development procedure began by defining the central categories and expounding the level of abstraction among the categories. The next step was to develop codes and create a hierarchy of codes with central codes representing the central categories and the subsidiary codes representing the various dimensions of the central categories. Further, the formative assessment of inter-coder reliability was carried out which was 0.75 (after processing 10-15% of text) by revising the definition of central/subsidiary categories. Using the revised coding frame, the remaining text was processed. Finally, a summative check of inter-coder reliability was conducted. Using this inductive approach, an initial set of 18 subsidiary categories emerged, eventually resulting into five central categories namely Sustainability and Firm Performance, Business models for Sustainability, Enablers and Barriers to SMEs’ sustainability, Sustainable business practices, and Sustainability management tools. RQ3 was thus addressed, and subsequent synthesis of the literature data resulted in emerging themes from SD in SMEs research.

Figure 3: Flowchart for inductive category development

12

Step-3: Deriving implications: A combination of the above five analyses presents a methodological

contribution through this systematic review and helped in synthesizing the research literature data on sustainability in SMEs. All the above analyses and full-papers reading helped the researchers gain insights of the state-of-art of SD research pertaining to SMEs. Finally, the researchers used logical reasoning to propose research gaps and future research directions, in order to address RQ4.

4. DESCRIPTIVE DATA ANALYSIS

We began with bibliometric analysis using the VOS viewer software to explore topics related to sustainability in SMEs in research. Next, we conducted the methodological analysis to understand the methodological and epistemological approaches adopted in the research. This was followed by the proportion analysis, aimed at examining the industry split of applications and theoretical basis of research. Further, the chronological analysis was aimed at understanding the temporal and journal-wise distribution of research. 4.1 Bibliometric Analysis

The objective of the first stage of the analysis was to explore topics related to sustainability in SMEs in research. Keeping 5 as the minimum number of author keywords occurrences within the identified articles, 41 out of 728 keywords met the threshold. Keywords like “SMEs”, “small enterprises”, “medium enterprises”, “small and medium enterprises”, and “sustainability” were excluded as the overall search scope was specific to sustainability in SMEs, and these keywords obtained the highest ranking and were expected to naturally impact the formation of clusters. For each of the remaining 36 keywords, the total strength of the co-occurrence links with other keywords was calculated by the VOSviewer software using normalization of associations and full counting algorithm. VOS viewer output is a network (Figure 5) composed of 36 nodes corresponding to 3 clusters (Appendix 1). Based on the VOS viewer output, clusters were named based on the topics researched, such as (a) sustainability and operations management, (b) sustainability and strategic management and (c) sustainability and technology management. In the following sub-sections, the obtained clusters are described through some relevant works on the subject to outline the research interests related to sustainability in SMEs.

13

Figure 5: Co-occurrence network of keywords

4.1.1 Cluster 1: Sustainability and Operations Management The biggest cluster of the keywords network dealt with sustainability and operations management. Studies on supply chain sustainability, with focus on green supply chain, supply chain performance, and supply chain innovation were dominant (Touratier-Muller et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2018; Valdez-Juárez et al., 2018; Kot, 2018; Li and Mathiyazhagan, 2018). All three dimensions of sustainability had been studied in the context of supply chain management practices in SMEs, albeit with the imbalance as observed in the literature. Another dominant topic researched was Lean management practices and their associations with the three categorizations of sustainability performance – economic, environmental, and social performance (Choudhary et al., 2019; Sajan et al., 2017). An examination of Lean-green has attracted significant interest from scholars (Saunila et al., 2018; Cuerva et al., 2014). Associated operational measures such as responsiveness, productivity and efficiency were examined. Several Lean practices and tools such as TPM and VSM were demonstrated and associated frameworks were proposed (Thanki and Thakkar, 2018). Significant attention had been given to topics related to environmental

14

management (Rahbauer et al., 2016; Masocha, 2018; Granly and Welo, 2014; Rita et al., 2018). These included

environmental

innovation,

social

responsibility,

environmental

behavior,

associated

certifications (ISO 14001), and environmental regulations. Scholars used Analytical Hierarchy Process to organize the concepts dealing with sustainable operations (Toke and Kalpande, 2018). Other topics in this cluster included enterprise implementations, sustainability drivers, operating systems and impact of sustainability on SMEs. 4.1.2 Cluster 2: Sustainability and Strategic Management This cluster was named as sustainability and strategic management as the nodes identified within this cluster included strategy, performance, competitive advantage, business, entrepreneurship, etc. An overview of associated literature revealed that competitive positioning, leadership, firm performance with sustainability has attracted great attention from scholars (Cantele and Zardini, 2018; Gunasekaran et al., 2011; Lagacé and Mario, 2003). Firm performance and associated mediating factors towards sustainable competitive advantage had been studied. Those included legal, financial, regulatory, organizational and customer related factors. Several strategy and organization related concepts and theories such as Balanced Score Card, Fuzzy interfaced systems, and resource-based view were used (Singh et al., 2018; Bergmann and Posch, 2018; Caldera et al., 2019). With regard to performance, scholars studied how different dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) impacted firm performance (Hsu et al., 2017; Choongo, 2017; Duygulu et al., 2016). Various financial and non-financial performance measures were considered in these studies to represent conceptual and empirical models. Entrepreneurial resilience (Suriyankietkaew and Avery, 2016; Masocha and Fatoki, 2018), sustainable entrepreneurial patterns (Kraus et al., 2017; Hosseininia and Ramezani, 2016), entrepreneurial decision models (Zamfir et al., 2017) and associated innovation practices (Ulvenblad et al., 2019; Saunila et al., 2018) that lead to sustainability in SMEs had been studied. Finally, another important topic that had attracted significant research in this cluster was corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Badulescu et al., 2018; Valdez-Juárez et al., 2018). Scholars used various methods to examine both strategic and operational dimensions of CSR with regard to social, environmental and economic sustainability in SMEs. 4.1.3 Cluster 3: Sustainability and Technology Management This cluster comprised of ten nodes represents technology-based sustainability in SMEs. Predominantly, innovation and information technology had dominated this cluster (Pigosso et al., ,2018; Shibin et al., 2018). Technological supply, clean technology, manufacturing technologies, international networks, etc. had been studied in the context of sustainability in SMEs (Toke and Kalpande, 2018; Collins et al., 2007; Melane-Lavado et al., 2018). Technological capabilities such as research and development, greeninnovation, incremental innovation (quality management and continuous improvement) and their

36

SUSTAINABILITY

1 1 1

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT

1 1

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY…

1

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL

1

ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS…

WATER

1

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

1

MATHEMATICS

1

JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY

1

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

1 1

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL… INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS

1

ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER-INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING

1

INDUSTRIAL ROBOT-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

1

TECHNOVATION

1

INFORMATION SCIENCES

1 1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED…

1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING…

1

15

WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-ENERGY AND…

relationships with sustainability had been studied (Cuerva et al., 2014; Nunes et al., 2019; Seidel-Sterzik

1

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

et al., 2018). Sustainability dimensions, examined through innovation models such as business model

1

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

innovation, eco-innovation, co-innovation and social innovation, had received significant interest amongst

1

AGRIBUSINESS

scholars. Industry specific sustainability practices and associated technology adoption as a response to

2 1

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS

environmental dynamism were other emerging topics of research.

2

CIENCIA E INVESTIGACION AGRARIA

4.2 Methodological Analysis

2

CIRP ANNALS-MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS

2

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL…

An overview of 117 papers (see Figure 6) revealed that two journals (Sustainability, and Journal of

2

ENERGY POLICY

Cleaner Production) contribute to 38% of articles (68 papers). Further, 68% of the journals (25 journals)

2

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE…

contributed to merely one paper per journal. The wide spread of the relevant journals indicated the

2

PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

interdisciplinary nature of SD research in SMEs’ context. Such a finding on the diversity of journals

2

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH

generates an expectation of usage of a wide range of methodological, epistemological and theoretical

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT… INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

approaches, which is currently missing in this field of research.

32

5

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY…

3

Figure 6: Journal-wise classification of articles

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION

16

Further, to examine the research philosophies that underline the SD in SMEs research, the researchers used four methodological aspects: research paradigm, research design/strategy, data collection procedures and data analysis techniques for classifying the articles based on research methodology (Saunders et al., 2007).

Table 1: Dominant research paradigms in SD in SMEs’ research Frequency

Percent (%)

Sample Papers

Research Paradigms Positivism

89

76.07%

Interpretivism

16

13.68%

Realism

12

10.26%

Caldera et al., 2019; Touratier-Muller et al., 2019; Bergmann and Posch, 2018; Kraus et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2017; Font et al., 2016; Alves and de Medeiros, 2015; Sulong et al., 2015 Nunes et al., 2019; Choudhary et al., 2019; Kot, 2018; Testa et al., 2017; Choi and Lee, 2017 Thanki et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2014; Doukas et al., 2014; Burke and Gaughran, 2007

Research Design / Strategies Survey Design

55

47.01%

Mixed Method

18

15.38%

Case study

14

11.97%

Longitudinal

13

11.11%

Conceptual

9

7.69%

Action Research

6

5.13%

Kiesnere and Baumgartner, 2019; Yacob et al., 2019; Lopez-Perez et al., 2018; Degong et al., 2018; Jahanshahi and Brem, 2017; Sajan et al., 2017; Panwar et al., 2016; Arnold, 2015; Woo et al., 2014 Wang et al., 2018; Rahbauer et al., 2018; Thanki et al., 2016; Bellantuono et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2014 Battistella et al., 2018; Cagno et al., 2018; Witjes et al., 2017; Guedes et al., 2017; Falle et al., 2016; Sulong et al., 2015 Choi et al., 2018; Melane-Lavado et al., 2018; Kraus et al., 2017; Zamfir et al., 2017; Meath et al., 2016; Alves and Medeiros, 2015 Choudhary et al., 2019; Testa et al., 2017; Muzamwese, 2016; Chen et al., 2014; Pardo et al., 2012 Pigosso et al., 2018; Kozlowski et al., 2018; Richert, 2017; Halila and Tell, 2013

Data Collection Procedures Structured questionnaire

47

40.17%

Structured Interviews

24

20.51%

Review of existing literature

19

16.24%

Public or Private database

14

11.97%

Jahanshahi and Brem, 2017; Choongo, 2017; Aboelmaged, 2018; Hosseininia and Ramezani, 2016; Panwar et al., 2016; Winroth et al., 2016; Jorge et al., 2015; Bevan and Yung, 2015 Verrier et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Upstill-Goddard et al., 2016; Witjes et al., 2017; Michalec et al.,2018; Liang et al.,2018 Manikas et al., 2019; Rahbauer et al., 2018; Seidel-Sterzik et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2017; Doukas et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2014 Cordeiro et al., 2012; Meath et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2015; Przychodzen and Przychodzen, 2015; Cordeiro et al., 2012

17

5

4.27%

He et al., 2014; Cagno et al., 2018; Touratier-Muller et al., 2019;

54

46.15%

Ormazabal et al., 2018; Cantele and Zardini, 2018; Saunila et al., 2018; Bocken et al., 2014; Aboelmaged, 2018; Tantalo et al., 2012

Content analysis

40

34.19%

Nikolaou et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Granly and Webo, 2014; Choi, and Lee, 2017; Guedes et al., 2017

Modelling (multi-criteria decision-making models such as AHP, DEMATEL, Fuzzy inference system, logit model, mathematical modelling)

20

17.09%

Chang and Cheng, 2019; Wang et al., 2018; Kraus et al., 2017; Zamfir et al., 2017; Doukas et al., 2014

Conceptual

3

2.56%

Caldera et al., 2018; Seidel-Sterzik et al., 2018; Shibin et al., 2018

Unstructured Interviews Data Analysis Techniques Statistical analysis techniques (parametric and non-parametric hypothesis test, regression, structural equation modelling, PLS techniques)

4.2.1 Research Paradigm From Table 1, it is evident that the positivist paradigm dominates the SD literature in SMEs’ context. 76.07% (89 articles) of the extant research contributing to this field adopted deductive research approaches for generating objective knowledge. Only 16 articles were based on the interpretivist perspective, which allows the researcher to focus on the contextual understanding of the management phenomena under investigation by using subjective approaches (Morgan and Smircich 1980). Additional 12 articles assumed a realist stance and employed both qualitative and quantitative methods for investigating the underlying structural mechanisms that constituted SD systems in SMEs. However, this finding about the positivist philosophical stance is not unique to SD field. Other fields of research in OM such as manufacturing capabilities (Egbunike et al., 2018), logistics and Supply chain management (Mangan et al., 2004; Burgess et al., 2006) and Information systems management (Chen and Hirschheim 2004) are also dominated by research from positivist perspective. This supremacy of positivist philosophy suggests that most of the SD research is towards conceptualizing knowledge as a mathematical function by using natural science methods (Burgess et al 2006). Nevertheless, many scholars had previously cautioned against the potential ramifications of unwarranted dominance of a single research philosophy in a field (Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991). Further, the positivist studies were targeted at theory testing (rather than theory building) by using a priori knowledge about the fixed relationships within a business phenomenon. In this review, the proportion of articles (89 out of 117) that fit into this paradigm focused on testing the significance of association between SD criteria (industry-specific SD measures derived from previous literature or expert opinion) and the performance of the SMEs by using survey data. These studies place a limited emphasis on the role of internal/external factors related to SMEs’ environment that

18

impacted the association of SD with performance in SMEs. Additionally, considering the multi-faceted nature of SD in SMEs, the positivist perspective appears to be insufficient to attend to the knowledge gaps in this emerging field of research.

4.2.2 Research design/strategy Table 1 shows that the research on SD in SMEs had a strong dominance of empirical studies with only 10 conceptual articles (7.69% of the sample). This can be understood as a positive development in this field of research considering the fact that many scholars in the OM field had called for more field-based empirical research on ‘real’ managerial concerns. For instance, MacCarthy et al., (2013) reasoned that while the key scholarly contribution of OM researchers was in terms of explanation of managerial phenomena through mathematical models, these models should be necessarily focused on the solving the key issues of managers in the field. Further, the research design categorization indicated that within empirical studies, survey design (55 articles representing 47.01% of the sample) was the most used strategy. This finding was not unexpected considering the dominance of positivist posture of SD of SMEs research, as discussed in the previous section. However, as observed by many scholars that though there was a rise in the amount of empirical research in the OM field, the presence of a strong conceptual and methodological base remained less common (Ketokivi and Choi 2014; Meredith, 1993). For instance, Ketokivi and Choi (2014) argued that the dominance of survey design in OM research indicated that research in the field was focused on testing theories rather than generating new theories. Further, the authors argued that there was limited attention of existing OM research towards addressing operational concerns of managers. One notable finding of the methodological analysis was the trivial presence of conceptual studies (8.55%). It is widely argued that a conceptual research design build on descriptive and explanatory methods lead to a balance between the theory-building and theory-testing research (Egbunike et al., 2018). However, the review indicates that most of the conceptual articles (8 out of 10) followed the existing literature or expert opinions for conceptualizing an effective SD criteria or indicators in context of SMEs. Absence of research methods based on empirical investigations for developing conceptualization limits the generalizability of the research conclusions and consequently its’ relevance to the managers. Another noteworthy finding was deficiency of qualitative research design choices in the SD in SMEs research. While 14 articles (representing 11.97% of the sample) used case research design (single or multiple), 6 (5.13%) articles were based on action research project and there were only 2 literature review articles. Further, there was a total absence of ‘other’ qualitative research designs such as ethnography and grounded theory. While, qualitative designs such as ethnography and grounded theory may not be

19

popular among the OM scholars, the use of action research is widely called for in this field (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). Action research being an iterative and participatory approach for implementing interventions through simultaneous process of acting and doing research is apt for conceptualizing and validating managerial framework for SD in SMEs. Further, there are only 2 review articles (by Kot, 2018 on sustainable supply chain management or SSCM and Seidel-Sterzik et al 2018 on Life Cycle Management or LCM) which used systematic literature review to collect, evaluate and synthesize the findings of existing research on the phenomena of SD in SMEs.

4.2.3 Data collection procedures Expectedly, in light of the findings related to paradigmatic approaches and research strategies discussed in last two sections, an inclination was observed towards the use of structured questionnaires (40.17%) and structured interviews (20.51%) for the collection of large volume of quantitative data (Table 1). One of the findings of the review was the notable absence of ‘other’ procedures of data collections such as simulation and experiments despite the dominance of positivist stance of SD in SMEs research. Another finding was regarding the limited use of mixed-methods (integration of qualitative and quantitative data), which were appropriate for achieving triangulation of findings and for increasing the generalizability of results (Wacker 1998). Also, the adoption of procedures apt for collecting qualitative data such as unstructured interviews and participatory observation was scarce in the current SD research in SMEs’ context. In addition, the samples used in these papers were largely (42% articles) from Europe. These include significant contributions from countries such as Germany, Spain, UK, Austria, Greece, France, Italy, etc. About 18% of the research articles used samples from Asia. These included contributions from India, China, Malaysia, Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, etc. Some research used samples from America, Australia and Africa, making up about 12% of the total articles. Further research studies should accommodate multi-country samples.

4.2.4 Data analysis techniques Owing to the dominance of positivist perspective-based research using survey design, the statistical analysis techniques (40 articles representing 46.1% of the sample) were found to be the most preferred choice for data analysis, and modelling came third (20 article representing 17.09% of sample) in the ranking.

20

5. CONTENT ANALYSIS FOR DATA SYNTHESIS AND EMERGING THEMES ON SD IN SMES The results of our qualitative content analysis can be found in Figure 7. The figure highlights the predominant themes of extant research on SD in SMEs. There are five major themes concerned with aspects of SD in SMEs - sustainability and firm performance (35 articles), enablers and barriers of sustainability (29 articles), business models for sustainability (26 articles), sustainable practices (8 articles), and sustainable management tools (17 articles). 5.1 Sustainability and Firm Performance The 34 articles clustered under the most dominant research theme of Sustainability & Firm Performance were focused on examining the effects of moderating and mediating factors on the sustainabilityperformance relationship in SMEs. Most articles defined ‘firm performance’ as a multidimensional construct using both financial- (such as net profit margins, return on investment) and non-financialmeasures (such as corporate reputation, employee commitment) for investigating the influence of sustainability practices. For the constructs of Sustainability Practices, studies used the triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1998) by including indicators that referred to social, economic and environmental dimensions. For establishing the significance of sustainability-performance relationship, articles used quantitative techniques such partial least square (PLS), structural equation modelling (SEM), correlation & regression analysis and multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). Additional, two subthemes emerged from this theme: internal and external moderating/mediating effects. A larger number of articles (27) on the ‘internal moderating effect’ subcategory pinpointed the heavy dependence on SMEs’ internal perception of SD benefits and associated decisions on the allocation of resources to positively influence their performance. These articles investigated the following moderating/mediating effects:

5.1.1 Effect of SMEs’ characteristics 14 articles explored the influence of SMEs and their owner/manager characteristics on the sustainabilityperformance relationship. Some of the SMEs’ characteristics investigated for moderating/mediating effect were ownership structure (family or non-family firms) (López-Pérez et al., 2018), sector affiliation (Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018), age of operations (Tantalo et al., 2019; Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018), organizational resilience (Ates and Bititci, 2011), organizational learning capacity (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2016), organizational mission statement and strategies (Duygulu et al., 2016; ), use of information and communication technologies (ICT) (Pardo et al., 2012), and advanced manufacturing technologies (Thomas, 2007). The studies on the significance of owner/managerial characteristics examined the effect of owners/managers intentions (Yacob et al., 2019), transformational leadership (Li et al., 2019),

21

sustainable leadership practices (Suriyankietkaew and Avery, 2016), innovativeness (Jahanshahi and Brem, 2017), and entrepreneurial resilience (Masocha and Fatoki, 2018) on the sustainabilityperformance relationship. For instance, in a survey on managers of SMEs in SMES in Thailand, Suriyankietkaew and Avery (2016) studied the significance of sustainable leadership (SL) practices on the corporate financial performance. The results confirmed significance of four SLs namely shared vision, amicable labor relations, valuing employees and social responsibility. Many recent studies (Masocha and Fatoki, 2018; Ates and Bititci, 2011) have postulated ways of improving organizational and entrepreneurial resilience for a positive sustainability-performance relationship.

5.1.2 Effects of internal stakeholder demands Three articles emphasize on significant effect of internal stakeholder demands for the achievement of corporate reputation, competitive advantage, customer satisfaction, and community engagement on the sustainability-performance relationship (Cantele and Zandini, 2018; Choongo, 2019). For instance, in a survey of 348 Italian manufacturing SMEs, Cantele and Zandini (2018) found firm’s awareness of the returns of sustainability strategies and consequent practices was vital for the positive sustainabilityfinancial performance relationship. The authors studied the mediation effect of four constructs namely corporate reputation, organizational commitment, customer satisfaction and competitive advantage in the sustainability-performance relationship. The analysis using structural equation modelling showed that while the first three constructs were first-stage mediators, competitive advantage had second-stage mediation effect on sustainability-performance relationship.

5.1.3 Effects of SMEs’ social responsiveness Four articles explored the influence of SMEs’ social responsiveness on the sustainability-performance relationship (Choi et al., 2018; Panwar et al., 2016; Valiente et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2017). For example, Hsu et al., 2017 emphasized that SMEs’ should prioritize their performance indicators on multiple dimensions using tools such as Balanced Scorecard. The authors underlined the requirement of integrating social issues with environmental and business issues for the improving the sustainability of manufacturing SMEs.

5.1.4 Effects of SMEs’ environmental responsiveness Six articles examined the effect of environmental responsiveness of SMEs on the linkage between sustainability efforts and firm performance (Bocken et al., 2014; Przychodzen et al., 2015; Masocha et al., 2018; Sajan et al., 2017). For instance, in a study on SMEs operating in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), Przychodzen et al., (2015) found that strong assets and financial capabilities strongly influence the

22

SMEs’ adoption of eco-innovations for enhancing their financial performance. Halila and Tell, 2014 illustrated the significance of learning networks (supported by a university team) in overcoming the barriers to implementation of energy management system in SMEs. Further, Saunila et al., (2018) found that adoption of green innovation was driven by economic and institutional pressures in SMEs and these innovations created value in terms of their social sustainability.

Further the subtheme on effects of external moderating/mediating factors includes articles (7) that focused on understanding the way in which sustainability-performance relationship in SMEs was impacted by their market environment (Woo et al., 2014), regulatory pressures (Masocha and Fatok, 2018; Agan et al., 2013) and level of internationalization (Degong et al., 2018). For instance, in a study on Korean SMEs, Woo et al., (2014) found that SMEs’ business-group membership and their listing status positively moderated the influence of environmental innovations on performance of SMEs. In another study on the effect of market conditions, Caputo et al., (2018) used the survey data of a sample of 1,137 customers of 175 Italian SMEs to show the significant influence of customer’s cognitive dimensions of firm’s sustainability practices on the economic performance of SMEs. Besides the effect of SMEs’ market environment, the role of coercive isomorphic pressures from government, environmental pressure groups and other stakeholders (Masocha and Fatok, 2018), attainment of sustainability certifications (Crals and Vereeck, 2005), adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies such as Industries 4.0 (Mullera and Voigt, 2018), international capabilities (in terms of access to international technologies, finance and expertise) (Degong et al., 2018) were the other external factors, whose effect on the positive relationship between firm’s sustainability practices and their financial and non-financial performance was explored.

5.2 Business models for Sustainability 26 articles clustered into this theme had a focus on the development of propositions or criteria for sustainable business models of SMEs. These articles defined sustainability of a business model by means of its commercial success in creating customer value and growing firms’ profitability, future readiness to meet rising energy and material prices, and contribution to a sustainable society (Ulvenblad et al., 2019) These models are multicriteria decision-making frameworks, which facilitate the determination of weights of the criteria defined for the sustainability of industrial operations or supply chains under the conditions of certainty or uncertainty. Most articles used the qualitative analysis of existing literature as well as expert opinions, for listing the industry-specific (food processing, textile and auto-component being the most researched industries) criteria for sustainability of SME operations and supply chains. Depending on nature of decision-making situation (certainty vs. uncertainty), the articles used a variety of decisionmaking models such as fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) (Wang et al., 2018), fuzzy inference

23

system (FIS) (Singh et al., 2018), data envelopment analysis (DEA), logit and decision-tree models (Rahbauer et al., 2018), parametric & non-parametric econometric techniques (such as stochastic frontier analysis used by Cordeiro et al., 2012), and Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) (Li and Mathiyazhagan, 2018) to develop an empirical insight into the multiple criteria of achieving holistic sustainability and develop framework to guide SMEs in improving the sustainability of their business. Further, two subthemes emerged from this theme, namely - business models for Sustainable production/operations and business models for sustainable supply chains.

5.2.1 Business models for Sustainable production/operations The articles (22) categorized under this theme laid emphasis on the development of quantitative models for upgrading the environmental sustainability of production for SMEs. Those included models that used criteria for energy efficient production and growth of green/renewable energy sources (Ulvenblad et al., 2019; Rahbauer et al., 2016); adoption of eco-innovations (Thanki et al., 2016) and management of solid waste (Cordeiro et al., 2012) in manufacturing SMEs. For example, Rita et al., 2018 proposed a multicriteria decision-making approach, named as Green Index to evaluate the SMEs’ pro-environmental behavior and actions. The authors emphasized that the index could be used for benchmarking the environmental improvement initiative of SMEs. Thanki et al., (2016) developed a managerial system for Lean-Green implementation in manufacturing SMEs by evaluating the impact of Lean and Green practices on SMEs’ performance. Based on the results of dynamic sensitivity analysis of AHP models, the authors found Total Productive Maintenance to be the most significant lean practice, while ISO 14001 was found to be the most vital one. In an investigation on sustainability performance merit in the context of European Union (EU) sustainability initiatives of Welsh SMEs’, Cordeiro et al., (2012) showed the significance of technical efficiency of solid waste management as a key criterion for evaluating a firms’ sustainability. Further, after the examination of sustainability innovation practices of 204 SMEs operating in the agri-food sector in Sweden, Ulvenblad et al., (2019) showed the dominance of eco-innovations for maximizing material and energy efficiency. Additionally, the authors found that merely 10% of surveyed SMEs evaluated the success of sustainability innovation practices solely on financial terms. The remaining SMEs used multi-dimensional measures based on social, environmental and economic benefits of innovations. Only a single article (Battistella et al., 2018) on a multiple-case analysis on European SMEs in the tourism services examined the tensions that these SME face in reconfiguring their business model toward a sustainable one.

Many studies (5 out of 16) clustered under this category worked on the performance evaluation methods for an all-inclusive monitoring and reporting of sustainability of SMEs. These studies identified and

24

classified the reporting indicators that play a key role in boosting sustainable performance of SMEs (Chang and Cheng, 2019). For instance, Singh et al., 2014 proposed the adoption of Balanced Scorecard (BSC) for the categorization of sustainability indicators among its four aspects namely financial, customer, internal processes and organizational capacity. Using, analytical models based on FAHP and FIS, the authors assessed the overall sustainability performance of a firm using the weighted performance ratings with respect to these four dimensions indicators. Bellantuono et al., 2016 highlighted the significance of materiality analysis for encouraging stakeholder engagement towards SMEs’ sustainability reporting. The author suggested a quantitative structured approach using multi-attribute group decisionmaking models for materiality analysis and tested their validity in Italian SMEs. Other studies in this subtheme developed sustainability reporting indicators for shop-floor activities (Winroth et al., 2016) and deployment of environment-friendly business strategies (Chang and Cheng, 2019).

5.2.2 Business models for Sustainable supply chains The articles categorized under this theme (4 articles) studied the integration of sustainability dimensions with the supply chain function in SMEs. For instance, in a study on textile SMEs in Vietnam, Tseng et al., (2018) examined the factors for the sustainability of supply chain finance (SCF) decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The results derived from qualitative (expert assessment) and quantitative (multi-criteria decision-making models) analysis showed that the economic aspect of SCF decisions had a significant effect on the social and environment dimensions of SCF. Further, delivery management policies were found to be the most effective tools for reinforcing sustainability in supply chain finance decisions. In another study on Vietnamese SMEs, Wang et al., 2018 examined the supplier selection process in food processing industry and highlighted the rising pressures for ensuring sustainability of supplier processes. Using the TBL-based criteria of supplier selection including parameters on supplier’s carbon footprint and toxic emissions, energy use and efficiency, wastage generations, and workers’ health and safety, the authors developed a multicriteria decision-making model for supplier selection in uncertain environment typical of food processing and other similar industries. Li and Mathiyazhagan (2018) underlined the rising industrial pollution by manufacturing operations of industrial SMEs, specially the auto component manufacturers. Based on a data on sustainability indicators (list of fifteen indicators extracted from literature) from a sample of 35 leading auto components manufacturing SMEs, the authors examined the prominence and causality of these indicators. The results showed that embodiment of carbon footprint management played a key role in the achievement of sustainability development goals of these SMES.

5.3 Enablers and Barriers to SMEs’ sustainability

25

The articles (29) categorized under this theme examined the enablers/drivers and barriers, which shape SMEs’ decision-making for economic, social and environmental aspects of business and permit the transition to sustainable business practices. Broadly, these articles drew from the natural-resource-basedview (NRBV) (De Stefano, 2016) to list the technological, organizational or environmental (Aboelmaged, 2018) drivers and/or barriers to SMEs’ sustainability. Further, cross-sectional survey was used to collect data on SMEs’ perception into key enablers/barriers associated with their adoption of sustainable business practices. These articles used Interpretative structural modelling (ISM) or factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) for the empirical validation of survey findings on driver/barrier dominance and their impact on the adoption of sustainable business practices in SMEs. Two major subthemes emerged were internal and external drivers or barriers to SMEs’ sustainability. 5.3.1 External drivers or barriers to SMEs’ sustainability These articles (18) examined the external pressures, which influenced the behavior/actions of SMEs towards sustainability. While, the diversity in the barriers and motivators faced by SMEs towards sustainability practices/programs was widely recognized (Meath et al., 2016), these barriers/motivators were broadly associated with the pressures from Government (Caldera et al., 2019; Thanki and Thakkar, 2016), market or customer (Ghadge et al., 2017; Granly and Webo, 2014), industry associations or clusters (Meath et al., 2016 ; Cagno et al., 2015; Collins et al., 2007 ), competitors (Ghadge et al., 2017; Biondi et al.,), availability of foreign direct investments (FDIs) (Melane-Lavado et al., 2018), and community surrounding (He et al., 2014). Government (through regulation, legislation, economic and structural support, and knowledge dissemination) was found to be the major driver/barrier, which influenced SMEs’ sustainability actions (Lagace and Bourgault, 2003; Cagno et al., 2018). For instance, in a survey of the success factors for the implementation of Lean-Green practices in Indian SMEs, Thanki and Thakkar (2018) found the Government’s support through financial assistance and incentives, technology transfer, and taxation policies for increasing conducive conditions to foster SMEs sustainability efforts. These findings on Governments’ vital role in fostering Indian SMEs’ sustainability initiatives resonated with a similar study on Lean-Green practices in Australian SMEs (Caldera et al., 2019), energy efficiency practices in energy-intensive SMEs in Nederland (Cagno et al., 2015) and environmental performance of dairy supply chain partners in Greece (Ghadge et al., 2017) enterprises. Additionally, Meath et al., (2016) highlighted the importance of flexibility in the design of governmentdriven programs for energy efficiency of SMEs in dealing with many barriers, which prevented SMEs’ participation in such programs. These findings resonated with the findings on the study on Canadian SMEs by Lagace and Bourgault(2003), which pointed towards the need for associating the Governmentrun improvement programs and practices with the competitive positioning sought by SMEs. Besides

26

Government, the influence of a market-pull in SMEs’ interest to display an environmental responsible behavior through effective waste and water management in European SMEs was outlined by Rabadan et al., 2017. Further, 3 articles discussed the role of industry associations or clusters to develop industrial symbiosis, to deal with the resource barrier of SMEs’ sustainability programs. For instance, in a survey on 800 small firms in New Zealand, Collins et al., (2007) found that SMEs’ membership of Sustainable Business Network (SBN) significantly impacted the adoption of environmental initiatives due to the importance of reputation and brand. However, the survey results did not show any significant difference in total waste and energy among the members and non-members of SBN. In a survey of Chinese SMEs, He et al., (2014) reported the rising environmental awareness and demands of the local community to be a key driving force that pushes SMEs’ to promote the performance of their environmental practices. However, the survey showed a strong economic tie between local county governments and SMEs continue is a major barrier for SMEs’ adherence to stringent environmental regulation such as ISO 14001. In another study on ISO 14001 adoption by Norwegian manufacturing SMEs, Granly and Web (2014) found customer pressure and improved environmental routines to be the major drivers, while low realization of market benefits, employee resistance, competence and time were most prominent for ISO 14001 adoption by SMEs. 5.3.2 Internal drivers or barriers to SMEs’ sustainability These articles (11) reported the SMEs’ internal factors, which influenced their sustainability behavior and actions. These factors were related to organizational culture (Kiesnere et al., 2019), corporate reputation/image & expected financial benefits (Michalec et al., 2018), employee demands (Tong et al., (2019), strategic intent (Font et al., 2016) and technical and human resource capabilities (Cuerva et al., 2014). For instance, in a survey on corporate sustainability management practices in Austrian SMEs, Kiesnere et al., (2019) found organizational culture and owners’ interest to be the main driving factors, whereas lack of resources to be the major barrier for the integration of sustainability with the core business of SMEs. In an examination of energy-intensive SMEs in China, Tong et al., (2019) found the influence of employees’ demands on firms’ motivation to comply with environmental sustainability standards of low carbon emissions. Ormazabal et al., (2018) found that SMEs tend to comply with the environmental standards due to their concern for their corporate image and not because of the expected financial benefits. Further, as per the results of factor analysis, the authors categorized the potential barriers associated to SMEs’ sustainability as: hard barriers (lack of financial and technical resources) and human-based barriers from leadership and customer standpoint. On similar lines, in a study on food waste recycling of SMEs engaged in catering business in United Kingdom, Michalec et al., (2018) found that convenience and expected financial benefits to be the key factors. Depending on the strategic intent of

27

incorporating eco-saving activities in the daily operations, Font et al., (2016) divided the 900 tourism SMEs in 57 European protected areas into three clusters. These clusters were named as Business-driven firms, which implemented eco-savings activities for achieving profitability, Legitimization-driven firms, which reported their eco-saving activities due to perceived stakeholder pressure, and Lifestyle- and valuedriven firms, which implemented and reported a large number of environmental, social and economic activities. Unexpectedly, only a limited number of articles explored the owners’ or entrepreneur’s personal characteristics (including their work experience and education) and firm’s ownership structure (Hosseininia et al., 2016) as driving or inhibiting factors towards SMEs’ sustainability behavior and resulting practices. Further, most articles under this theme used ISM or factor analysis using responses received from relatively limited number of SMEs, thus the implications of the results might differ in different cases and would depend upon the context of operations of SMEs, i.e. their industrial affiliation and external stakeholders in the country of operation.

5.4 Sustainable business practices The articles (8) clustered under this theme examined the extant research on the patterns of business practices for the achievement of their sustainable development goals. While most article adopted an environmental sustainability perspective (5 out of 7) to examine the nature of business practices, only a few assumed an all-inclusive sustainability purview. These studies used both primary (cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interview) and secondary (literature review and web analysis) sources for collecting data on industry-specific sustainability practices in SMEs. Two subthemes emerged from this theme: 5.4.1 Sustainable business practices in Manufacturing These articles (3) identified the main practices for attaining sustainable manufacturing/production and also pinpointed the aspects of the business that needed to be strengthened for an overall sustainability of manufacturing SMEs. For instance, Schmidt et al., (2018) found that the main sustainable manufacturing practices in the surveyed Southern Brazilian SMEs operating in the manufacturing sector were associated with values and transparency, internal audience, environment, supplier and customer relationships, and community relationships. However, the results showed that the surveyed SMEs were deficient in social aspects of sustainability as none of the surveyed SMEs positioned itself to be excellent in social responsibility actions. In a study on 6R practices i.e. redesigning, reusing, remanufacturing, recovering, recycling and reducing for sustainable manufacturing in SMEs generating low- to medium-volume outputs, Bi et al., (2015) evaluated the challenges of integration of sophisticated technologies and tools such as industrial robot. The authors suggested the the integration of 6R practices with modular

28

architecture had the potential of enhancing the resource utilization in manufacturing SMEs. Emphasizing the synergetic effect of integration of Lean and Green practices for improving environmental performance and operational efficiency in manufacturing SMEs, Choudhary et al., (2017) proposed a novel managerial tool called Green Integrated Value Stream Mapping (GIVSM). The authors tested the tool for the simultaneous deployment of Lean and Green practices in a UK-based packaging SME. 5.4.2 Sustainable business practices in Services This subtheme comprises articles (3) that explored sustainability practices in services. In a study on Spanish Universities, Jorge et al., (2015) emphasized the benefits of a holistic integration of sustainable development with higher education systems. The authors classified and collected data on sustainability practices related to corporate governance, students, staff, society, environment, recruiting companies and continuous improvement. Arnold et al., (2015) evaluated the sustainability strategy and deployment tools (such as Balanced Scorecard, ISO 14001 and sustainability reporting) in German SMEs offering Watersupply and distribution services (WSC). The authors found that while the regenerative power generation and an integrative thinking of farming and water supply were some of the progressive sustainability practices adopted by WSC, there was marginal implementation of sustainability management in these service firms. Touratier-Muller et al., (2019) investigated the behavior of small carriers and shippers on the deployment of freight environmental programme, run by French Government, for enhancing the environmental sustainability of freight carriers. The authors found that while most small carriers were driven by their internal initiatives and customer expectations to adopt sustainable strategies and measures for a greener supply chain, an accurate and standardized method for measuring carbon dioxide emissions by transportation was a priority demand of these freight carriers. Unexpectedly, only a few articles (2 articles) focused on examining the sustainability practices of agriculture sector, despite its significant contribution to economic structure and social structure of both developing and developed economies. For instance, Poursaeed et al (2011) examined the sustainability indicators for agriculture and impact of partnership models on agriculture sustainability in an investigation on farmers in Ilam Province of Iran. In another article, Arrau and Medina (2014) investigated the social sustainability problems and challenges in small and medium-sized vineyards in Chile.

5.5 Sustainability management tools 20 articles from the sample examined the sustainability management tools for SMEs. These tools were defined “as the management concepts, instruments and systems for the operationalization of corporate sustainability objectives of enterprises” (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2015). These tools were specific to the functional areas (such as supply chain) or were cross-functional management systems (such as

29

environment management system) affecting the overall goals of an enterprise. The sample covered a broad range of social, ecological and integrative tools, such as audits (economic, environmental and social), life-cycle assessments (LCAs), eco-efficiency analyses, sustainability reporting, quality management system, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) management. Many articles under this theme were anchored on stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) as well as the resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991) of the firm to address the implementation of sustainability management in SMEs (Bergmann and Posch, 2018). About the research design of articles under this theme, empirical evidences were collected and analysed quantitatively using descriptive & inferential statics and qualitatively through single- and multiple-case design. The subthemes listed the management tools adopted for attainment of sustainability in SMEs: 5.5.1 Tools for CSR management Articles (7) under this subtheme examined the CSR management systems/tools in SMEs for managing the legal compliances to social concerns and dealing with the stakeholder relationship. For instance, Witjes et al., 2017 emphasized the need for integrating CSR into the business activities of SMEs and suggested four CS integration tools. These tools, namely CS growth curve, CS triggers, Elements to ensure CS integration and Physical & social focus of CS integration activities, were tested on 18 SMEs in Netherlands. Bergmann and Posch (2018) analyzed the impact of a recent national CSR law on the 151 German firms of differing sizes and found significant difference in the effects on this law on SMEs and large firms. The survey results showed that size of firms influenced the mandatory sustainability reporting as per the CSR law. In a similar descriptive research, Oncioiu et al., (2018) investigated the level of involvement of Romanian SMEs (384 enterprises) in CSR management activities by collecting data about the nature of activities undertaken, magnitude of investments and the nature of the funding sources over a period of last five years. In another examination of CSR activities in the developing country of Romania, Badulescu et al., (2018) found that the level of CSR actions accepted by SMEs are dependent on value orientation of owners/managers. The newly established SMEs display a weaker propensity for CSR actions than the older SMEs. 5.5.2 Tools for environment management This subtheme covered articles (10) on structured managerial systems/tools to monitor the environmental performance of SMEs. These systems/tools covered international standards for environment management (ISO 4001) (Alves and Medeiros, 2015; Rita et al., 2018); Cleaner Production (CP) technologies/methods (Burke and Gaughran, 2007; Nunes et al., 2019); energy management systems (Richert, 2017; Viesi et al., 2017; Prashar, 2017); eco-efficiency analysis (Verrier et al., 2014 ); and environmental audits. Rita et al., (2018) developed a Green Index for evaluating and benchmarking environmental improvement initiatives

30

in SMEs. For the purpose of energy management in SMEs, Viesi et al., (2017) developed a selfassessment tool called Eco Energy Efficiency Management Tool, focused on SMEs’ eco-energy performance. Nunes et al., (2019) developed a methodology for undertaking CP programs in SMEs. The methodology comprised a metaphase and a five-step cyclic phase, which offered a simple way of conducting a CP program in SMEs.

5.5.3 Tools for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Though, LCA has gained popularity as a proactive quantitative method to assess the environmental impact of product/services during the entire life cycle (Bauman and Tillman, 2004), only a limited number of reviewed articles (1) examined the SMEs adoption of this proactive environment management practice. For instance, Testa et al., (2018) investigated the challenges in adoption of LCA by SMEs in fashion industry in an industrial cluster of Italy. The results showed that collaboration between actors operating within the industrial clusters can support the adoption of an LCA by SMEs.

5.5.4 Tools for Sustainability Assessment for Enterprises 2 articles were clustered under this subtheme (Kozlowski et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2016; Laurinkeviciute and Stasiskiene, 2011). Laurinkeviciute and Stasiskiene, (2011) developed a sustainable management system (SMS) by integrating concepts of sustainability management accounting and composite sustainable development index methodologies forms for decision-making in SMEs. The system was tested and validated in pilot SMEs.

31

Figure 7: Content analysis results: Emerging themes from SD in SMEs research

6. DISCUSSION ON RESEARCH GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Findings revealed that the SD research in SMEs’ context was dominated by positivist paradigm. Most of the reviewed studies (80 out of 117) focused on developing deterministic models with attention to the reliability and validity of research methods and procedures. However, the investigation on nondeterministic and reciprocal relationships under SD phenomena was lacking. Further, conforming to the positivist inclination of existing research, majority of data in the reviewed studies was collected using cross-sectional survey research design (47.1% of reviewed articles) with little attention on the conceptual base of the study (indicated by few conceptual articles). Considering the overwhelming positivist stance of the existing SD research, the future research from an interpretative perspective is desired (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). This would allow to generate new hypotheses for the investigation of SD relationships in SMEs, thus bridging the gaps in the positivist research. This would also facilitate the understanding of contextual exigencies typical to SMEs and interaction between various components of SD system in SMEs. Further, the adoption of qualitative research designs such as action research and grounded theory would aid in the development of theories that would help in better explaining SD phenomena in the SME context (Craighead and Meredith, 2008). Increase in adoption of mixed-methods is also desired for the advancement of knowledge through theory-building research in a field, which is currently dominated by theory-testing research. Further, use of data collection methods such as participatory observations and unstructured interviews is also recommended, which enable the researcher

32

in gaining a contextual understanding of the phenomena (Meredith, 1993), something that the exiting research lacks in.

Another aim of the study was to explore focus areas of SD in SMEs’ research. The findings indicated an uneven distribution of research in this field. While Europe dominated the research in this area, studies based on Asian samples had the second highest contribution. However, the focus in Asia had been dominated by industrial economies such as India, China and Malaysia. Future research should focus on comparing how Asian samples are different from those of Europe and Americas in the context of sustainability in SMEs. Unlike other disciplines such as Operations Management that were dominated by USA, sustainability research in SMEs had been fairly lower with American samples. Future research should focus on studying sustainability practices and associated dimensions for development in SMEs in American sub-continents.

The widely acknowledged concept of SD encompasses holistic perspective of sustainability based on three dimensions or TBL approach (Elkington, 1998). However, majority of empirical studies addressing SD practices in manufacturing sector are concerned with environmental (specifically energy conservation, emission reduction and waste management) or economic (manufacturing costs and profitability being key issues) dimensions with a limited number adopting the all-inclusive aspects of SD. Further, the studies dealing exclusively with social aspects were very limited (8 out of 117) despite SMEs significant contribution in maintaining social stability across the globe. Thus, the future research should address the eminent social sustainability aspects of SMEs such as employees’ health and safety, social equity, fair wages and anti-discrimination. Additionally, it was observed that sustainability research in SMEs had been interfaced with Operations, Strategic and Technological Management related disciplines. This leaves an opportunity to explore the subject from other management disciplines such as marketing, human resources, etc. to examine their role and relationships.

Another key observation from this review is the weak theoretical base and lack of consensus on theoretical guides to SD in SMEs research. Mere 12.8% of papers that have cited organizational theories such as resource-based-view, BSC and institutional theory to explain SD issues in SMEs. This provides a future direction to explore this subject through various theoretical lenses. Several other contemporary management theories such as dynamic capabilities approach, contingency theory, systems theory, chaos theory, etc., should be used for this purpose. Examining SD in SMEs through these theoretical lenses could reveal come interesting cause-effect relationships with associated variables, help explain and

33

develop constructs of SD to advance its theory and provide propositions that might Slead to hypotheses towards theory testing.

Findings also revealed that the research on sustainability efforts on SMEs was largely concentrated around the manufacturing SMEs’ operations and supply chains (Battistella et al., 2018). Despite a vast representation of service-based businesses in the SME sector and their catalytic role in the economic and social sustainability, there exists a gap pertaining to the study on sustainability practices and business models of service SMEs. While the environmental impact of services such as banks or consulting firm may not be similar to those of an automotive plant or a coal mine, there SD initiatives are crucial for boosting profits and strengthening community. Thus, we recommend that the future research on sustainable business models should consider the variability in service SMEs. Further, only two articles (Poursaeed et al., 2011; Arrau and Medina, 2014) focused on examining the aspects of sustainable agriculture (Boiffin et al., 2004), despite the significant contribution of agriculture sector to economic structure and social stability of both developing and developed economies. Thus, future research on design and development of sustainability in the farming system from OM perspective is recommended.

Additionally, the content analysis results showed that while the research themes on sustainability impact on firm performance (34 articles) and enablers & barriers of SMEs’ sustainability (29 articles) were well explored, research on business models and management tools for integrating SD within SMEs business plans is desired. Moreover, majority of existing studies on sustainable management tools concentrated on a single tool (18 out of 20 articles) such as environment management system, LCA, eco-efficiency analyses, only a few studies covered multiple tools (by Valdez-Juarez et al., 2018 and Manikas et al., 2019 on integration of CSR and SCM tools). One interpretation of this finding is that SD in SMEs had been taken at a more general level (reflected from use of standards and systems) and less on a specific level (limited application of hybrid tools). Thus, the future research is recommended for exploring a broad range of sustainability management tools considering the heterogeneity of SMEs.

7. CONCLUSIONS This paper applied systematic literature review and four types of analysis techniques to explore the current body of literature on of sustainability in SMEs. The online search through Web of Science database and inclusion-exclusion criteria provided 117 papers from 37 journals between Jan 2000 to Feb 2019. The review examined the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of extant research on sustainability in SMEs with detailed investigation on research topics, research methodologies, theoretical and industrial base of research, time-based, journal-wise and geographical distribution of research. Using content analysis, the

34

researchers categorized the existing literature on the diversified topics, into 5 major themes and 13 associated sub-themes in this research area. Prior research had provided insights for better understanding of sustainability and firm performance, enablers and barriers, business models for sustainability, sustainable practices and management tools. Further, the review proposed potential future research directions that would further enrich the field. This study is both descriptive as well as investigative and can serve as a foundation for those seeking and developing constructs and validating them through various research methods in the context of SD in SMEs. It is established that synthesis of existing knowledge in a field of research is a significant contribution to both theory and practice (Morgan and Gagnon, 2013; Ilgin and Gupta 2010). To the body of knowledge in Operations Management and Sustainable Manufacturing, this paper contributes by reviewing and extracting the empirical research themes on the burning issue of curtailing the adverse ecological influence due to manufacturing/service operations in SMEs. Thus, the paper provides an understanding on the empirical reality surrounding the translation of conceptual SD theories/principles (Shrivastava and Berger, 2010; Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001) into SMEs’ operations. From a practitioner perspective, our paper is useful as it accumulates the learnings on sustainability practices/models/strategies from a variety of primary studies conducted in diverse SME settings such as food processing, textile and autocomponent. Moreover, with the growing stakeholder pressure on the SME owners/managers for enhancing their economic output and also reducing their adverse ecological impacts (Caldera et al., 2019; Masocha and Fatok, 2018), our paper is particularly relevant. The paper describes the applications of key management tools (such as tools for CSR management, environment management, LCA and sustainability evaluation indicators) which are helpful for managers to integrate sustainability into SMEs’ business strategy. Particularly, the eco-efficiency studies on SMEs (Verrier et al., 2014; Fernández-Viñé et al. 2010) offer guidance on designing and implementing evaluation indicators for assessing the economic and environmental benefits of their sustainability initiatives. Also, the summary on the key enablers and barriers to SMEs’ sustainability provides the much-needed guidance for designing customized programs targeting SD of SME sector. From an academic viewpoint, our study contributes to the evolving SD literature which is thus far focused on environmental sustainability of large enterprises (Seidel et al., 2009; Gaughran et al., 2007). Furthermore, the positivist disposition of the sustainability research in SMEs provides an understanding on the application of multi-attribute decision-making models. Our study compiles the applications of decision-making models such as FAHP, FIS, DEMATEL, logit models, decision-tree models and other parametric & non-parametric econometric techniques to develop an empirical insight into the multiple criteria of achieving holistic sustainability in SMEs.

35

There are still some limitations in this study. First, the review discussed the body of knowledge from various academic perspectives, and not discussed the various effects of their practical implications. Another limitation of this study is the data. Though the study examined 117 articles from various reputed journals, it is possible that the researchers missed a few articles unintentionally. The literature data search was restricted to management journals. In order to understand more specific issues in sustainability, this study can also be extended to include more specific keywords from pure sciences journals, such as carbon dioxide reduction and green emissions, etc. Various questions chosen, and analysis-synthesis methods adopted in this study are not exhaustive. A different set of researchers could certainly come up with addressing these research questions by using various other methods. However, researchers believe that the aggregation of conceptual essence of the findings presented through this study remain similar. It is expected that future research will embrace new trends in sustainability research in SMEs, as their visibility and impact grow. It is believed that, this paper would naturally serve as a resource towards this purpose.

36

References Aboelmaged, M., 2017. The drivers of sustainable manufacturing practices in Egyptian SMEs and their impact on competitive capabilities: A PLS-SEM model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 207221. Agan, Y. M.F Acar, A. Borodin, 2013. Drivers of environmental processes and their impact on performance: a study of Turkish SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 23-33. Amadieu P., Viviani J.L., 2010. Intangible Effort and Performance: The Case of the French Wine Industry. Agribusiness, 26(2), 280–306. Arnold, M., 2015. The lack of strategic sustainability orientation in German water companies. Ecological Economics, 117, 39-52. Ates, A., Bititci, U. S. 2011. Change process: a key enabler for building resilient SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5601-5618. Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., Saveanu, T., Hatos, R., 2018. The Relationship between Firm Size and Age, and Its Social Responsibility Actions—Focus on a Developing Country (Romania). Sustainability, 10(3), 805. Barney, J. B.,1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-121. Battistella, C., Cagnina, M., Cicero, L., Preghenella, N. 2018. Sustainable business models of SMEs: Challenges in yacht tourism sector. Sustainability 10(10), 3437. Bergmann, A., Posch, P. 2018. Mandatory Sustainability Reporting in Germany: Does Size Matter? Sustainability, 10(11), 3904. Baumann, H. Tillman, A.M., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Bellantuono, N.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Scozzi, B., 2016. Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach. Sustainability, 8, 379. Beske, P., Land, A., Seuring, S. 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131–143. Biondi, V., Iraldo, F., Sandra, M. 2002. Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: the role of SMEs. International Journal of Technology Management, 24 (5/6), 612-626. Bi, Z.M., Liu, Y., Baumgartner, B., Culver, E., Sorokin, J.N., Peters, A., Cox, B., Hunnicutt, J., Yurek, J., O’Shaughnessey, S., 2015. Reusing industrial robots to achieve sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 42(3), 264-273. Bocken, N.M.P., Farracho, M., Bosworth, R., Kemp, R.P.M., 2014, 'The front-end of eco-innovation for eco-innovative small and medium sized companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 43-57. Boslaugh, S.A. 2012. Statistics in a Nutshell, 2nd ed., O'Reilly Media, Inc. Brundtland, G. 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future, United Nations. NY. Bryman, A., Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caputo, F.,Luca C., Sarno, D., 2018. The Influence of Cognitive Dimensions on the Consumer-SME Relationship: A Sustainability-Oriented View. Sustainability, 10(9), 1-19

37

Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C., Dawes, L. 2019. Evaluating the enablers and barriers for successful implementation of sustainable business practice in ‘lean’ SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 575-590. Crals E., Vereeck L. 2015. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12, 173. Cantele, S., Zardini, A., 2018. Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability–financial performance relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 166–176. Chen, W., Hirschheim, R. 2004. A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination of Information Systems Research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14 (3), 197–235. Choudhary, S., Nayak, R., Dora, M., Mishra, N., Ghadge, A. 2019. SI-TBL: an integrated lean and green approach for improving sustainability performance: a case study of a packaging manufacturing SME in the U.K. Production Planning and control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1501811. Choongo, P. 2017. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Performance in SMEs in Zambia. Sustainability, 9(8), 1300. Cohen, J., 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37-46. Corbett, L. M. 2009. Sustainable operations management: A typological approach. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2(1), 10-30. Cordeiro, J. J., Joseph Sarkis, D. Vazquez-Brust, L. Frater, J. Dijkshoorn, 2012. An evaluation of technical efficiency and managerial correlates of solid waste management by Welsh SMEs using parametric and non-parametric techniques. Journal of Operational Research Society, 653-664. Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., 2002. Action Research for Operations Management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2), 220–240. Craighead, C. W., Meredith, J., 2008.Operations management research: evolution and alternative future paths. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 28(8), 710-726. Cuerva, M.C., Triguero-Cano, A., and Córcoles, D., 2014. Drivers of green and non-green innovation: empirical evidence in Low-Tech SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 104-113. Ciano M. P., Pozzi, R., Rossi, T., Strozzi, F., 2019. How IJPR has addressed 'lean': a literature review using bibliometric tools. International journal of production research, 1-34. Daily, B. F., Huang, S. 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12),1539-1552. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. 2009. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289-300. De Stefano, M.C. Montes-Sancho, M. J. T Busch, 2016. A natural resource-based view of climate change: Innovation challenges in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 1436-1448. Degong, M., Ullah, F., Khattak, M. S., Anwar, M., 2018. Do International Capabilities and Resources Configure Firm’s Sustainable Competitive Performance? Research within Pakistani SMEs. Sustainability, 10(11), 1-16.

38

Duygulu, E., Emir O., Pınar I¸sıldar, and Andrea A., 2016. The Sustainable Strategy for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: The Relationship between Mission Statements and Performance. Sustainability, 8, 698. Engert, S., Rauter, R. and Baumgartner, R.J. 2016. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833-2850. Egbunike, O., Purvis, L., Naim, M. M. 2018. A systematic review of research into the management of manufacturing capabilities. Production Planning & Control, 29(16), 1349-1366. Elkington, J.,1998. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21st century business. Oxford, Capstone publishing, Mankato. Font, X., Garay, L., Jones, S. 2016. Sustainability motivations and practices in small tourism enterprises in European protected areas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137(20), 1439-1448. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Fernández-Viñé, M. B., Gomez-Navarro, T., Capuz-Rizo, S. F. 2010. Eco-efficiency in the SMEs of Venezuela. Current status and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 736–746. George, H., 2009. Progress and poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1879). Gaughran, W.F., Burke, S., Phelan, P., 2007. Intelligent manufacturing and environmental sustainability. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23(6),704-711. Gamal Aboelmaged, M., 2010. Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future research. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(3), 268-317. Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J., 2012. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149-159 Ghadge, A. Kaklamanou, M., Choudhary, S., and Bourlakis, M. 2017.Implementing environmental practices within the Greek dairy supply chain: Drivers and barriers for SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(9),1995-2014. Granly, B.M., Welo, T., 2014. EMS and sustainability: Experiences with ISO 14001 and Eco-Lighthouse in Norwegian metal processing SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 194–204. Grant M.J., Booth A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. Granly, B. M., Welo, T. 2014. EMS and sustainability: experiences with ISO 14001 and Eco-Lighthouse in Norwegian metal processing SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 64, 194-204. Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani. A., 2012. Sustainability of manufacturing and services: Investigations for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 35-47. Gunasekaran, A., Rai, B.K., Griffin, M., 2011. Resilience and competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises: an empirical research. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 54895509. Halila, F., Tell, J., 2014. Creating synergies between SMEs and universities for ISO 14001 certification. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 85-92. Healy, M., Perry, C. 2000.Comprehensive criteria to judge the validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research – an International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.

39

Hosseininia G., Ramezani, A., 2016. Factors Influencing Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Iran: A Case Study of Food Industry. Sustainability, 8(10), 1-20. Hsu, C.H.; Chang, A.Y.; Luo, W., 2017. Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEs–integrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 629–645. Ilgin, M. A., S. M. Gupta. 2010. Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Product Recovery (ECMPRO): a Review of the State of the Art. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (3), 563–591. Jahanshahi, A. A., Brem, A., 2017.Sustainability in SMEs: Top management teams’ behavioral integration as source of innovativeness. Sustainability, 9(10). Jorge, M. L., Jesús Herrera Madueño, Maria Yolanda Calzado Cejas, Francisco Javier Andrades Peña, 2015. An approach to the implementation of sustainability practices in Spanish universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 34-44. Johnson, M., Schaltegger, S. 2016. Two Decades of Sustainability Management Tools for SMEs: How Far Have We Come? Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 481-505. Katz, H.C. 1993. The decentralization of collective bargaining: A literature review and comparative analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 3-22 Kot, S. 2018. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, Sustainability, 10(4), 1-19 Kraus, S., Burtscher, J., Niemand, T., Roig-Tierno, N., Syrjä, P., 2017. Configurational paths to social performance in SMEs: The interplay of innovation, sustainability, resources and achievement motivation. Sustainability 9 (10). Ketokivi, M., ChoI, T. 2014. Renaissance of Case Research as a Scientific Method. Journal of Operations Management, 32 (5), 232–240. Mangan, J., C. Lalwani, and B. Gardner. 2004. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies in Logistics Research. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 34 (7), 565–578. Kiesnere, A. L., Baumgartner, R. J. 2019. Sustainability Management in Practice: Organizational Change for Sustainability in Smaller Large-Sized Companies in Austria. Sustainability, 11(3),1-40. Kleindorfer P.R., Singhal K., Van Wassenhove LN., 2005. Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management 14(4), 482–492 Kozlowski, A.,Searcy, C.,Bardecki, M., 2018. The reDesign canvas: Fashion design as a tool for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 183, 194-207. Laurinkeviciute, A., Stasiskiene, Z., 2011. SMS for decision making of SMEs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13(6), 797–807. Mayring, P. 2004. Qualitative Content Analysis. In A Companion to Qualitative Research, edited by U. Flick, E. Kardorf, and I. Steinke, 266–269, Sage publications, London. Michalec, A., Fodor, M., Hayes E., Longhurst, J. 2018. Co-designing food waste services in the catering sector. British Food Journal, 120(12), 2762-2777. Lagace, D., Bourgault, M. 2003. Linking manufacturing improvement programs to the competitive priorities of Canadian SMEs. Technovation, 23(8),705-715.

40

López-Pérez, M.E.; Melero-Polo, I.; Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; Cambra-Fierro, J. 2018. Sustainability and Business Outcomes in the Context of SMEs: Comparing Family Firms vs. Non-Family Firms. Sustainability, 10, 4080. Lloyds Banking Group, 2013. Becoming the best bank for customers. Retrieved June 23, 2019 from https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/investors/2014/2013_lbg_interacti ve_annual_report.pdf. Li, H.; Sajjad, N.; Wang, Q.; Muhammad Ali, A.; Khaqan, Z.; Amina, S. 2019. Influence of Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior in Sustainable Organizations: Test of Mediation and Moderation Processes. Sustainability 11, 1594. Li, Y., Mathiyazhagan, K. 2017. Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172. Liang, X., Zhao, X., Wang, M. and Li, Z., 2018. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Sustainable Supply Chain Financing Decision Based on Triple Bottom Line Theory. Sustainability, 10(11), 4242. Kot, S., 2018. Sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enterprises. Sustainability, 10(4), 1143. Ma, J. and Nickerson, J. V. 2006. Hands-On, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Comput. Surv. 38, 3, 1–24. Maccarthy, B. L., Lewis, M., Voss, C. Narasimhan, R., 2013. The Same Old Methodologies? Perspectives on OM Research in the Post-Lean Age. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 33 (7), 934–956. Masocha, R., Fatoki, O., 2018. Social Sustainability Practices on Small Businesses in Developing Economies: A Case of South Africa. Sustainability, 10(9), 3032. Martínez-Jurado, P. J., Moyano-Fuentes, J. 2014. Lean management, supply chain management and sustainability: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 134-150. Masocha, R., 2018. Does Environmental Sustainability Impact Innovation, Ecological and Social Measures of Firm Performance of SMEs? Evidence from South Africa. Sustainability, 10(11), 3855. Meredith, J. 1993. Theory Building through Conceptual Methods. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 13 (5), 3–11. Mentzer, J.T., Kahn. K., 2016. A framework for logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics 16 (1), 231–250. Meath, C., Linnenluecke, M., Griffiths, A. 2016. Barriers and motivators to the adoption of energy savings measures for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): The case of the Climate Smart Business Cluster Program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3597-3604. Melane-Lavado, A.; Álvarez-Herranz, A., 2018. Different Ways to Access Knowledge for SustainabilityOriented Innovation. The Effect of Foreign Direct Investment. Sustainability, 10, 4206. María Eugenia López-Pérez, Iguácel Melero-Polo & Rosario Vázquez-Carrasco & Jesús Cambra-Fierro, 2018. Sustainability and Business Outcomes in the Context of SMEs: Comparing Family Firms vs. Non-Family Firms. Sustainability, 10(11), 1-16. Montiel, I. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability: Separate Pasts, Common Futures. Organization Environment, 21, 245.

41

Morgan, G., Smircich, L., 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5, 491-500. Morgan, S., R. Gagnon. 2013. A systematic literature review of remanufacturing scheduling. International Journal of Production Research 51(16), 4853–4879. Masocha, R. 2018. Does Environmental Sustainability Impact Innovation, Ecological and Social Measures of Firm Performance of SMEs? Evidence from South Africa. Sustainability,10, 3855. Muzamwese, T.C. 2016. Challenges and Opportunities for Mainstreaming Industrial Energy Efficiency in Small-to-Medium-Sized Industries in Zimbabwe. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 5(5). Müller, J.M.; Kiel, D.; Voigt, K.-I. 2018. What Drives the Implementation of Industry 4.0? The Role of Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of Sustainability. Sustainability,10, 247. Nematollahi, M., Hosseini-Motlagh, S.M. and Heydari, J., 2017. Coordination of social responsibility and order quantity in a two-echelon supply chain: A collaborative decision-making perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 107-121. Nunes, J.R.R., Silva, J. E. A. R. d., Moris, V. A. d. S., Giannetti, B.F., 2019. Cleaner Production in small companies: proposal of a management methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production 218, 357-366. Olugu, E. U., Wong, K. Y., Awaluddin, M. S., Abdul-Rashid, S. H., Ghazilla, R.A.B.R., 2107. Sustainable supply chain management in Malaysian SMEs: Perspectives from practitioners. Environmental engineering and management journal 16(9), 2123-2132. Oncioiu, I, Căpuşneanu, S., Türkeș, M. C., Topor, D. I., & Constantin, D. O., Marin-Pantelescu, A., Mihaela Hint, S., 2018. The Sustainability of Romanian SMEs and Their Involvement in the Circular Economy. Sustainability 10(8), 2761. Orlikowski, W.J.,Baroudi, J. J., 1991.Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2(1), 1–28. Pardo, R.J.H., Bhamra, T., Bhamra, R. 2012. Sustainable Product Service Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): Opportunities in the Leather Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, 4(2),118. Pigosso, D. C. A., Schmiegelow, A.; Andersen, M. M. 2018. Measuring the Readiness of SMEs for EcoInnovation and Industrial Symbiosis: Development of a Screening Tool. Sustainability, 10, 2861. Pollack, J., Adler, D. 2015. Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 236-248. Poursaeed, A., Mirdamadi, M., Malekmohammadi, I., Hosseini, A. F., 2010. The partnership models of agricultural sustainable development based on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in Iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res 5 (23), 3185-3190. Prashar, A. 2017. Adopting PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle for energy optimization in energyintensive SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 145, 1187-1201. Przychodzen, J., Przychodzen, W.,2015. Relationships between Eco-Innovation and Financial Performance—Evidence from Publicly Traded Companies in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 253-263. Reay, T., Berta, W. and Kohn, M.K., 2009. What's the evidence on evidence-based management? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 5-18. Rajeev, A., Pati, Rupesh K., Padhi, Sidhartha S., Govindan, K., 2017. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162 (20).

42

Rahbauer, S., MenradLuisa, K., Decker, M. T., 2016. Adoption of green electricity by German SMEs - A qualitative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129. Richert, M. 2017. An Energy Management Framework Tailor-Made for SMEs: Case Study of a German Car Company, Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 221-229 Rita, D. I. G., Ferreira, F. A. F., Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I., Govindan, K., & Ferreira, J. J. M. (2018). Proposal of a green index for small and medium-sized enterprises: A multiple criteria group decision-making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 985-996. Sackett, P. R., Larson, J. R., Jr. 1990. Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 419-489. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Sajan M.P, Shalij P.R, Ramesh A., Biju A. P. 2017. Lean manufacturing practices in Indian manufacturing SMEs and their effect on sustainability performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28(20). Saunila, M., Ukko, J., Rantala, T., 2018. Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 631-641. Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2007. Research Methods. 4th ed. Pearson. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Salzmann O, Ionescu-Somers A, Steger U. 2005. The business case for corporate sustainability: literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36. Sarango-Lalangui, P.; Álvarez-García, J.; Del Río-Rama, M.D.C., 2018. Sustainable Practices in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Ecuador. Sustainability,10, 2105.Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248-1264. Schmidt, F. C., Zanini, R. R., Korzenowski, A. L.,Reno Schmidt Junior, Karl Benchimol Xavier do Nascimento, 2018. Evaluation of Sustainability Practices in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises in Southern Brazil. Sustainability, 10(7), 1-11. Schwab, L., Gold, S. and Reiner, G., 2019. Exploring financial sustainability of SMEs during periods of production growth: A simulation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 212, 818. Seuring, S., Müller, M. 2008.From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1699-1710. Seidel-Sterzik, H., McLaren, S., Garnevska, E. A., 2018. Capability Maturity Model for Life Cycle Management at the Industry Sector Level. Sustainability 10, 2496. Seidel, M., Seidel, R., Tedford, D., Cross, R., Wait, L., Hammerle, E., 2009. Overcoming barriers to implement environmental benign manufacturing practices: Strategic Tools for SEMs. Environmental Quality Management, 18, 37-55 Shibin, K.T., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Zongwei, L., Thanos, P., David, R., 2018. Frugal Innovation for Supply Chain Sustainability in SMEs: Multi-method Research Design. Production Planning and Control, 29 (11), 908-927. Singh, S., Olugu, E. U. Musa, S. N., Mahat, A. B. 2015. Fuzzy-based sustainability evaluation method for manufacturing SMEs using balanced scorecard framework,” J. Intell. Manuf., May 2015.

43

Sulong, F., Sulaiman, M., Norhayati, M. A., 2015. Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) enablers and barriers: the case of a Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). Journal of Cleaner Production 108, Part B, 1365-1374. Sunder M, V., Ganesh, L.S., Marathe, R. R. 2018. A morphological analysis of research literature on Lean Six Sigma for services. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 149-182. Sunder M, V., Ganesh, L.S., Marathe, R.R., 2019. Dynamic capabilities: a morphological analysis framework and agenda for future research. European Business Review, 31(1), 25-63. Suriyankietkaew, S., Avery, G., 2016. Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: empirical evidence from Thai SMEs. Sustainability, 8(4), 1-14. Stuart, I., Mc Cutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R., Samson, D. 2002. Effective Case Research in Operations Management: A Process Perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5),419433. Tantalo, C., Caroli, M.G., Vanevenhoven, J., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and SME’s competitiveness. International Journal of Technology Management, 58(1/2),129–151. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. Testa, F., Nucci, B., Iraldo, F., Appolloni, A., Daddi, T. (2017). Removing obstacles to the implementation of LCA among SMEs: A collective strategy for exploiting recycled wool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 923-931. Touratier-Muller, N., Machat, K., Jaussaud, J., 2019. Impact of French governmental policies to reduce freight transportation CO2 emissions: Focus on small- and medium-sized companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 721-729. Thanki, S., Govindan, K., Thakkar, J., 2016. An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 284-298. Thanki, S., Thakkar, J. 2018. Interdependence analysis of lean-green implementation challenges: a case of Indian SMEs", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(2), 295-32 Toke, L. K., Kalpande, S. D. 2017. A framework of enabler’s relationship for implementation of green manufacturing in Indian context. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(4), 303-311. Thompson, J. K., Smith, H. L. 1991. Social Responsibility and Small Business: Suggestions for Research. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1), 30–44. Thomas, A., Byard, P., Francis, M., Fisher, R., White, G.R.T., 2016. Profiling the resiliency and sustainability of UK manufacturing companies", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(1), 82 – 99. Tong, P., Zhao C., Wang, H. 2019. "Research on the Survival and Sustainable Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in China under the Background of Low-Carbon Economy. Sustainability, 11(5),1-17 Waltman, L.R.; Eck, N.J.P. van; Noyons, E.C.M. 2010. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetric, 4 (4), 629-635.

44

Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Thai, H.T.N.; Tran, N.N.; Tran, T.L.A. 2018. Sustainable Supplier Selection Process in Edible Oil Production by a Hybrid Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and Green Data Envelopment Analysis for the SMEs Food Processing Industry. Mathematics, 6, 302. Witjes, S., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Cramer, J. M. 2017. Exploring corporate sustainability integration into business activities. Experiences from 18 small and medium sized enterprises in the Netherlands. Journal of cleaner production 153, 528-538. Ulvenblad, P.O., Ulvenblad, P., Tell, J., 2019. An overview of sustainable business models for innovation in Swedish agri-food production. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 16(1), 1-22. United Nations Environment Programme, 1991. Retrieved June 26, 2017 from https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/45089/retrieve. Upstill-Goddard, J, Glass, J, Dainty, A and Nicholson, I. 2015. Developing a sustainability assessment tool to aid organisational learning in construction SMEs In: Raidén, A B and Aboagye-Nimo, E (Eds)Procs 31st.Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchersin Construction Management, 457-466. Valdez-Juárez, L. E., Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Ramos-Escobar, E. A.,2018. CSR and the Supply Chain: Effects on the Results of the SME. Sustainability, 10, 2356. Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H., 2014. Combining organizational performance with sustainable development issues: the lean and green project benchmarking repository. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85. Viesi, D., Pozzar, F., Federici, A., Crema, L., & Mahbub, M. S. 2017. Energy efficiency and sustainability assessment of about 500 small and medium-sized enterprises in Central Europe region. Energy Policy, 105, 363 - 374. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195-219. Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., P. Gollan, P., 2001. The sustainability debates. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(12), 1492-1502. Woo, C., Yanghon Chung, Dongphil Chun, Hangyeol Seo, 2014. Exploring the Impact of Complementary Assets on the Environmental Performance in Manufacturing SMEs," Sustainability, 6(10), 1-21. Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., Xu, Y., 2018. Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics. Yacob, P., Wong, L. S. and Khor, S. C. 2019. An empirical investigation of green initiatives and environmental sustainability for manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(1), 2-25. Zamfir, A., Mocanu, C., Grigorescu, A., 2017. Circular Economy and Decision Models among European SMEs. Sustainability, 9(9), 1507. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2016. Green marketing and consumerism as social change in China: Analyzing the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 289-302.

45

Annexure I: Description of nodes and clusters id

label

cluster

weight

weight

score

score

score

1

analytic hierarchy process

1

11

5

2016.2

8

2.2009

2

barriers

1

26

8

2018.125

5.75

1.7219

3

decision-making

1

8

5

2016.6

9

1.2981

4

drivers

1

27

8

1764.75

8.25

0.7602

5

enterprises

1

20

7

2015.7143

18.1429

1.2091

6

environmental performance

1

19

5

2015.4

15.4

1.3522

7

environmental-management

1

28

9

2016.6667

14.7778

1.7991

8

framework

1

41

15

2015.6667

21.9333

1.5244

9

green

1

52

15

2015.9333

18.4667

1.7123

10

impact

1

34

8

2016.5

24.25

1.6403

11

implementation

1

20

7

2017.5714

3.4286

1.1089

12

lean manufacturing

1

23

5

1612.8

26.4

1.954

13

supply chain management

1

49

12

2017.1667

14.8333

1.6172

14

systems

1

34

10

2016.4

18.9

1.5897

15

business

2

39

11

2016.7273

8.2727

0.9374

16

competitive advantage

2

19

6

2016

6.1667

1.3333

17

csr

2

48

17

2016.7059

7.6471

0.9426

18

design

2

10

7

2016.4286

8

0.8203

46

19

entrepreneurship

2

17

6

2017.1667

9.1667

1.0908

20

financial performance

2

22

6

2015.6667

12.8333

0.9997

21

firm performance

2

39

12

2017

7.8333

1.1352

22

management

2

63

25

1934.64

13.8

0.9344

23

networks

2

11

6

2012.5

26.5

0.8268

24

perspective

2

46

14

2016

8.5714

0.6991

25

reputation

2

19

5

2017.8

3.2

0.8284

26

strategy

2

56

18

2016.3333

12.7222

1.2246

27

adoption

3

13

6

2015

9.8333

0.7067

28

eco-innovation

3

17

7

2015.4286

25.2857

1.4396

29

firms

3

25

7

2016.1429

17.2857

1.1086

30

future

3

19

5

2015.8

25.4

1.3029

31

industry

3

35

13

2016.1538

18.2308

1.0257

32

innovation

3

83

22

2016.6818

8.5

1.0663

33

model

3

31

9

2015.8889

14

1.4507

34

research-and-development

3

10

5

2012.8

40.2

1.4698

35

sustainable development

3

32

9

2016.1111

13.5556

1.472

36

technology

3

26

7

2015.7143

26.1429

2.2818