Loughborough University

Institutional Repository

Developing a theoretical
framework of traceability for
sustainability in the
construction sector
This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository

by the/an author.

Citation: KATENBAYEVA, A. ...et al., 2016. Developing a theoretical frame-

work of traceability for sustainability in the construction sector. Presented at

the 12th Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 12-

14th October.

Additional Information:

• This is a conference paper.

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/23842

Version: Published

Publisher:
c The Authors

Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Cre-
ative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Please cite the published version.

 Developing  a  theoretical  framework  of  traceability  for  sustainability  
in  the  construction  sector  
 
 
PhD  candidate  Assel  Katenbayeva   Prof.  Jacqueline  Glass  
School  of  Civil  and  Building  Engineering   School  of  Civil  and  Building  Engineering  
Loughborough  University,  LE11  3TU,  UK   Loughborough  University,  LE11  3TU,  UK  
A.Katenbayeva@lboro.ac.uk   J.Glass@lboro.ac.uk  
 
Dr.  Aaron  Anvuur   Dr.  Shamir  Ghumra  
School  of  Civil  and  Building  Engineering   BRE  Group    
Loughborough  University,  LE11  3TU,  UK   Watford,  Herts,  WD25  9XX  
A.M.Anvuur@lboro.ac.uk   Shamir.Ghumra@bre.co.uk  

Abstract    
 
With  the  rise  of  globalisation,  supply  chains  have  become  longer  and  more  fragmented,  
so   nowadays   products   have   long,   complex   journeys   before   they   reach   end   consumers.  
As  a  result,  customers  have  little  awareness  of  where  their  products  come  from,  and  in  
what  conditions  they  have  been  produced  or  distributed.  Defined  as  the  ability  to  follow  
the  information  related  to  a  product,  traceability  is  a  key  component  for  verifying  and  
ensuring   claims   associated   with   production   and   transformation   of   the   product   as   it  
moves  along  supply  chain.    
 
Traceability   can   be   applied   to   a   range   of   types   of   information.   In   the   context   of  
sustainability,   through   verifying   sustainability   claims   associated   with   products   and  
their   supply   chains,   traceability   can   influence   customer   choice   and   play   an   important  
role   in   providing   an   incentive   for   sustainable   production   and   ethical   business  
behaviour.  
 
The   concept   of   traceability   has   been   investigated   in   a   few   specific   sectors   (such   as   food,  
fashion,  forestry),  but  studies  have  focused  mainly  on  safety  and  quality  within  supply  
chains,   rather   than   sustainability.   In   addition,   academic   scholars   have   tended   to  
concentrate   on   the   practical   (operational)   aspects   of   traceability,   hence   a   conceptual  
understanding   of   the   term   is   still   lacking.   The   absence   of   a   common   theoretical  
framework   for   traceability   means   there   is   a   lack   of   engagement   in   the   concept,   and  
consequently,   no   incentive   for   companies   to   engage   with   traceability   programmes.    
Furthermore,   the   concept   of   traceability   appears   to   be   often   confused   with  
transparency   and   supply   chain   mapping,   and   this   in   turn   leads   to   a   limited  
understanding  of  the  term,  and  its  scope  and  application.    
 
The  construction  industry  plays  an  important  role  in  sustainable  development  through  
contributing   to   the   economy   by   generating   jobs,   yet   it   also   consumes   significant  
amounts   of   raw   materials   and   energy,   which   can   result   in   significant   environmental  
impact.  Despite  such  scale  and  importance,  material  traceability  is  still  at  an  emerging  
stage  in  the  construction  sector,  which  is  arguably  a  missed  opportunity.  As  such,  this  
paper   is   part   of   an   ongoing   PhD   study   in   which   the   construction   industry   is   being  
considered  as  a  novel  application  context  for  the  concept  of  traceability.  
 
There   is   a   generic   need   for   a   theoretical   framework   to   better   understand   traceability,  
specifically  for  sustainability,  and  with  respect  of  the  ultimate  aim  to  relate  this  theory  
to   the   construction   industry.   Hence,   this   paper   will   offer   conceptual   insights   on  
traceability  as  a  construct,  through  a  comprehensive  review  of  academic  and  standards-­‐
related   literature.   In   doing   so,   the   study   defines   the   main   concepts   related   to  
traceability,   but   importantly   it   does   this   under   the   umbrella   of   sustainability   (ethics,  
social   responsibility,   transparency   and   responsible   sourcing)   and   explains   the  
relationships   between   them.   By   analysing   traceability   in   both   academic   literature   and  
standards/legal  requirements  and  across  multiple  sectors,  this  paper  aims  to  present  a  
robust,   yet   pragmatic   interpretation   of   traceability   that   can   be   related   to   the   needs   of  
the  construction  industry.  That  said,  the  theoretical  grounding  of  the  study  means  that  
the  paper  should  have  broader  application  value  to  other  sectors  and  contexts.  
 
Key  words:  traceability,  construction  sector,  sustainability,  transparency.  
   

2  
 
Introduction    
 
The   topic   of   sustainability   has   extended   its   scope   from   focusing   on   individual  
companies   in   the   past   to   considering   the   entire   network   of   supply   chains   at   present  
(Germani   et   al.,   2015).   Increased   outsourcing   practices   that   make   use   of   developing  
countries   and   low-­‐cost   markets   have   resulted   in   growing   concerns   about   social   and  
environmental   impacts   of   production   and   consumption   (Andersen   and   Skjoett-­‐Larsen,  
2009),  (Christopher  et  al.,  2011).  Many  customers  are  willing  to  pay  a  premium  for  the  
products   with   a   demonstrated   commitment   to   sustainability   (The   Nielsen   Company,  
2015).   In   this   light,   traceability   (which   is   the   ability   to   follow   information   related   to   a  
product   through   its   supply   chain),   becomes   increasingly   important   for   verifying  
sustainability   claims   associated   with   a   product   as   it   moves   along   supply   chain   (UN  
Global  Compact  &  BSR,  2014).  
 
The  topic  of  traceability  has  been  widely  investigated  in  particular  sectors  (such  as  food,  
fashion,   pharmaceutics   and   forestry),   mainly   from   the   perspective   of   quality   and   safety,  
rather   than   sustainability.   Despite   the   significant   role   of   the   construction   industry   in  
sustainable   development   (through   contributing   to   the   economy,   generating   jobs,  
extensive  consumption  of  raw  materials  resulting  in  large  carbon  footprint  and  energy  
use)  (Khatib,  2009),  traceability  issues  are  still  at  emerging  stage  in  the  sector.  Hence,  
this  paper  aims  to  explore  the  topic  of  traceability  for  sustainability  for  the  construction  
sector,   and   identify   the   components   of   a   theoretical   framework,   which   is   identified   as  
currently  lacking  in  the  literature.  
 
The   first   section   of   the   paper   focuses   on   traceability   in   its   broad   sense   -­‐   under   the  
agenda   of   sustainability.   The   following   section   attempts   to   understand   the   conceptual  
meaning   of   the   traceability   through   a   comprehensive   review   of   academic   and  
standards-­‐related   literature.   The   next   section   investigates   the   topic   of   traceability  
specifically   to   the   construction   industry.   This   is   followed   by   a   synthesis   and   some  
conclusions  and  indication  for  further  work.  

Traceability  under  the  agenda  of  sustainability    

 
There  are  several  perspectives  on  the  concept  of  traceability.  The  majority  of  academic  
papers  stress  the  importance  of  traceability  for  quality  and  safety  purposes  (Dabbene  et  
al.,  2014),  (Germani  et  al.,  2015).  Traceability  facilitates  recalls  in  the  case  of  quality  and  
safety  failures  (Golan  et  al.,  2004),  (Aung  and  Chang,  2014)  and  minimises  scandals  that  
are   dangerous   for   a   company’s   reputation   (Germani   et   al.,   2015).   Traceability   is   also  
believed   to   improve   supply   chains   by   allowing   choosing   better   suppliers   and  
minimising   risks   (Karlsen   et   al.,   2013)   and   enhancing   trust   in   supply   relationships  
(Sarpong,   2014).   All   these   purposes   are   arguable   within   the   scope   of   sustainable  
development,   which   is   defined   as   development   which   “…meets   the   needs   of   current  
3  
 
generations   without   compromising   the   ability   of   future   generation   to   meet   their   own  
needs”  (WCED,  1987,  p.16).  
 
To   date,   only   a   few   studies   have   addressed   traceability   issues   under   the   umbrella   of  
sustainability  (Germani  et  al.,  2015),  (Mol  &  Oosterveer,  2015).  Therefore,  this  section  
investigates   the   concept   of   traceability   as   an   important   element   of   sustainable  
development.   To   do   so,   we   offer   a   model   of   related   concepts   (as   shown   in   Figure   1),  
each   of   which   is   discussed   in   turn.   Essentially,   Figure   1   shows   the   major   concepts  
related   to   traceability,   which   are   arranged   in   terms   of   causal   relationships   and  
breadth/focus  of  the  various  concepts.    
 

Level 1: general, Sustainability

applicable for
many companies The goal of Business Ethics is to
achieve Sustainable Developement

Business ethics

Social Responsibility is an
Ethical framework
Level 2: strategy
Social Responsibility
of a company

Transparency is one of the principles of

Social Reponsibility
Level 3: management
decisions of the company Transparency

Responsible Sourcing aims to

demonstrate transparency with regards
to the materials within a product
Level 4: management Responsible Sourcing
practices of the company
Traceability enables the company to
prove its Responsible Sourcing
practices and demonstrate transparency
Traceability
Narrow concept
 
Figure  1  Diagram  of  the  concepts  related  to  traceability  
 

Sustainability  and  business  ethics  

 
The   concepts   of   sustainability   and   business   ethics   are   presented   at   the   first   level.  
Sustainable  development  embraces  environmental,  social  and  economical  aspects,  and  
is  an  ultimate  goal  of  all  the  concepts  presented  in  Figure  1,  including  business  ethics.  
Businesses  are  locomotives  for  economic  development  but  also  they  have  a  potential,  if  
they   are   ethically   driven,   to   provide   major   contributions   to   society   (through   generating  

4  
 
jobs,   fair   wages,   etc.)   and   environment   benefit   (by   minimising   its   negative   impacts   on  
the   planet)   (Crane   and   Matten,   2007).   The   basic   principles   of   business   ethics   are  
grounded  in  moral  norms  and  moral  evaluations  that  should  be  universally  applicable  
(Joyner   and   Payne,   2002),   and   so   remain   the   same   across   different   industries,  
businesses   and   regions.     Therefore,   sustainability   and   business   ethics   occupy   the   first  
general   level   in   the   diagram,   and   are   considered   as   being   applicable   for   many  
companies.    
 

Social  responsibility  
 
Next   down   the   categorisation   is   social   responsibility,   which   implies   an   organisation  
being   responsible   for   the   economic,   social   and   ecological   consequences   of   their  
activities  and  decisions  (Dubbink  et  al.,  2008).  Social  responsibility  is  represented  as  a  
strategy  of  a  company.  These  strategies  should  be  tailored  to  individual  businesses  (Van  
Marrewijk,   2003),   depending   on   a   number   of   factors,   such   as   the   sector,   size   of   the  
company,   social   and   environmental   impacts   of   company’s   activities,   etc.   Indeed,  
companies   in   the   construction   sector   tend   to   report   on   health   and   safety,   energy   and  
resources,   carbon   emissions,   supply   chain   and   communities   (Brown   et   al.,   2009)  
whereas   the   food   industry   might   prioritise   safety   and   quality   issues   (Beulens   et   al.,  
2005),  (Regattieri  et  al.,  2007).  Accordingly,  the  concept  of  social  responsibility  relates  
most  closely  with  the  level  of  individual  organisations  in  Figure  1.  
 

Transparency  
 
Transparency,   responsible   sourcing   and   traceability   comprise   the   third   level,   which   can  
be   described   in   terms   of   “management   decisions/practices”   of   the   organisation.  
Transparency,  in  the  context  of  sustainable  development,  can  be  defined  as  the  extent  to  
which   information   related   to   organisation’s   decisions   and   activities   that   affect   society,  
the  economy  and  the  environment  is  disclosed  and  communicated  to  the  stakeholders  
(Hofstede,   2003).   Transparency   is   an   essential   condition   for   improving   social  
responsibility   (Dubbink   et   al.,   2008),   (British   Standards   Institution,   2010).   It   helps   to  
raise  awareness  of  stakeholders  on  the  activities  and  decisions  of  organisations,  thereby  
encouraging   organisations   to   behave   responsibly   (Dubbink   et   al.,   2008),   (Doorey,  
2011).    
 
Implementing   transparency   typically   involves   a   strategic   choice   by   a   company  
(Hofstede,  2003)  –  this  may  ultimately  depend  upon  the  financial  costs  associated  with  
the     implementing   transparency,   market   conditions   and   disclosure   strategies   of  
competitors  (Chen  and  Slotnick,  2015).  However,  under  some  circumstances  businesses  
might  be  forced  to  be  transparent.  For  example,  The  Modern  Slavery  Act,  introduced  in  
the   UK   in   2015,   requires   large   companies   to   demonstrate   activities   undertaken   to  

5  
 
ensure   there   is   no   modern   slavery   in   their   own   business   and   their   supply   chains,   which  
might   encourage   companies   to   investigate   their   supply   chains   more   thoroughly  
(Parliament,   2015).   Hence,   legislation   can   force   a   company   to   become   more  
transparent,   but   the   literature   suggests   that   transparency   is   more   typically   within   the  
‘normal’  managerial  decision-­‐making  practices  in  a  company.    
 
Businesses   may   be   highly   dependent   on   purchasing   and   outsourcing   activities,   which  
means   that   organisations   are   encouraged   to   reveal   information   not   only   about   their  
internal   affairs,   but   also   their   suppliers’   sustainable   practices.   Thus,   the   notion   of  
transparency   extends   from   being   an   internal   concern   of   an   organisation   to   include  
external   relationships   within   its   supply   chains   (Egels-­‐Zanden   et   al.,   2015),     (Mol,   2015),  
and   this   gives   rise   to   the   concept   of   supply   chain   transparency.   Companies   tend   to  
disclose  and  communicate  the  following  supply  chain  information:  suppliers’  names  and  
locations,   sustainability   conditions   associated   with   the   product   (Egels-­‐Zanden   et   al.,  
2015),   (Marshall   et   al.,   2015),   purchasing   practices   (Egels-­‐Zanden   et   al.,   2015)   and  
material  provenance  (Marshall  et  al.,  2015).  Provenance  refers  to  the  source  of  origin,  
often  from  a  geographical  perspective.  In  this  context,  material  provenance  is  very  close  
to  the  concept  of  responsible  sourcing,  which  is  described  next.    
 

Responsible  sourcing  
 
Responsible  sourcing  (which  is  often  termed  ethical  sourcing)  is  presented  at  the  next  
level  in  the  diagram.  Organisations  typically  demonstrate  responsible  sourcing  though  
their   procurement   strategies   (including   purchasing   decisions   and   practices)   addressing  
a  range  of  environmental,  economic  and  social  considerations  (Glass,  2012).  Hence,  the  
purpose  of  responsible  sourcing  is  to  demonstrate  supply  chain  transparency  in  terms  
of  constituent  materials  of  a  product  (Glass,  2011),  (Upstill-­‐Goddard  et  al.,  2015),  (Guo  
et   al.,   2015).   The   term   responsible   sourcing   is   commonly   used   in   the   construction  
industry,  as  discussed  later.  
 

Traceability  
 
Finally,   the   concept   of   traceability   is   presented   in   Figure   1   as   the   narrowest   of   the  
concepts   shown.     Traceability   is   a   key   component   for   verifying   and   ensuring   claims  
associated  with  production  and  transformation  of  the  product  as  it  moves  along  supply  
chain  (UN  Global  Compact  &  BSR,  2014).  The  concept  of  traceability  is  closely  linked  to  
transparency  and  responsible  sourcing,  because  in  order  to  disclose  information  related  
to   suppliers,   this   information   must   be   traced.   Traceability   is   the   ability   to   follow  
information  related  to  a  product  through  its  supply  chain  (see  next  section).  Therefore,  
traceability   is   an   essential   condition   for   supply   chain   transparency   (Sarpong,   2014).   On  
the   other   hand,   transparency   is   important   to   enable   traceability.   Thus,   when   tracing   a  

6  
 
product,   a   company   needs   to   connect   with   its   suppliers   and   obtain   information   about  
the  product;  it  means  suppliers  need  to  be  transparent  when  revealing  information  to  
the  company  (Skilton  and  Robinson,  2009).    It  is  clear  that  traceability  and  supply  chain  
transparency  are  involved  in  sharing  and  communicating  of  the  same  information.  This  
implies   that   traceability   information   might   involve:   suppliers’   names   and   locations,  
sustainability  conditions  associated  with  the  product,  purchasing  practices  and  material  
provenance.    
 
Regarding   the   link   between   traceability   and   responsible   sourcing,   traceability   serves   as  
means   through   which   responsible   sourcing   within   an   organisation’s   supply   chain   is  
demonstrated  and  ensured.  Hence,  traceability  enables  companies  to  account  for  their  
environmentally   and   socially   responsible   practices,   as   associated   with   products   and  
supply   chains.   In   this   way,   traceability   can   influence   customer   choice   and   play   an  
important  role  in  providing  an  incentive  for  sustainable  production  and  ethical  business  
behaviour.   Presenting   traceability   in   this   manner   indicates   how   it   fits   within   a  
categorisation  of  related  concepts,  and  provides  an  initial  sense  of  the  business  context  
for  the  idea  of  tracing  product  information.  The  next  section  presents  a  more  detailed  
account  of  current  understanding  of  traceability.  

Understanding  the  concept  of  traceability  

 
This   section   aims   to   unpick   the   conceptual   meaning   of   traceability   through   a   rigorous  
review  of  definitions  provided  in  both  standards/legislation  and  academic  literature.    
 

Traceability  in  standards,  legal  acts  and  reports    

 
An   initial   literature   review   revealed   that   the   majority   of   academic   papers   referred   to  
standards  and  legislation  when  defining  traceability.  Therefore,  it  is  important  to  review  
how  traceability  issues  are  addressed  in  standards,  legislation  and  global  organisation’  
reports  as  both  material  and  integral  to  the  subject  matter.    
 
The  word  traceability  is  a  derivative  of  two  words  “ability”  and  “trace”,  so  the  majority  
of   definitions   use   these   to   designate   the   term.   Trace   refers   to   following   downstream  
flow   to   identify   the   origin   of   products,   while   track   means   following   upstream   supply  
chain  to  identify  the  point  of  localisation  of  products  (Dabbene  et  al.,  2014).  Other  key  
verbs  frequently  used  to  describe  traceability  include  “track”,  “follow”,  and  “identify”.    
 
The   most   widely   cited   definitions   of   traceability   are   given   by   the   International  
Organization  for  Standardization  (ISO)  in  a  number  of  specific  standards.  Table  1  shows  
how   interpretations   of   traceability   by   ISO   have   developed   over   time   to   the   current  
definition.    
 
7  
 
 Scope  
Verb   Traceability   Object   Method  
Source   (Trace  
phrase   information   (Trace  what?)   (Trace  how?)  
where?)  
 ISO   8402:1994   Trace   History,   Entity   (activity   or   -­‐   By   means   of  
Quality  management   application   or   process,  product,   recorded  
and   quality   location   organisation,   system   identification    
assurance.   person,   or   any  
Vocabulary     combination  thereof.)  
ISO   9000:2000   and   Trace   History,   That   which   is   under   -­‐   -­‐  
ISO   9000:2008   application   or   consideration  
Quality  management   location  
systems   -­‐  
Fundamentals   and  
vocabulary  
ISO   9000:2015   Trace   History,   Object   (material,   non-­‐ -­‐   -­‐  
Quality  management   application   or   material  or  imagined)  
systems   –   location  
Requirements  
 
Table  1  Definitions  of  traceability  in  ISO  standards  
 
According   to   ISO   8402:1994,   traceability   refers   to   the   “ability   to   trace   history,  
application   or   location   of   an   entity   by   means   of   recorded   identification”.   By   entity   the  
standard  implies   an   activity   or   process;  product;  organisation,  system  or  person;  or  any  
combination   of   them.   Distinctly   from   later   versions,   ISO   8402:1994   outlines   that  
traceability  should  be  implemented  by  means  of  “recorded  identification”.    
 
Following   versions   of   Quality   Management   standards   (ISO   9000:2000   and   ISO  
9000:2008)   describe   the   object   of   traceability   with   the   vogue   “that   which   is   under  
consideration”.   Finally,   the   recent   ISO   9000:2015   standard   defines   traceability   as   the  
“ability   to   trace   the   history,   application   or   location   of   an   object”,   that   can   be   can   be  
material   (for   example,   an   engine,   a   sheet   of   paper,   a   diamond),   non-­‐material   (for  
example,  conversion  ratio,  a  project  plan)  or  imagined  (for  example,  the  future  state  of  
the  organization).  In  other  words,  definitions  of  traceability  have  evolved  from  tracing  
an  “entity”  to  material,  non-­‐material  or  imagined  “objects”.    
 
Notably,  ISO  Quality  Management  standards  do  not  specify  whether  traceability  should  
be   implemented   throughout   an   object’s   stages   of   production,   processing   and  
distribution,  or  only  in  specified  ones.  
 
Table  2  depicts  how  other  global  organisations  perceive  traceability.    
 
 
 
 
 

8  
 
 Scope   Purpose    
Verb   Traceability   Object  
Source   (Trace   (For  what?)  
phrase   information   (Trace  what?)  
where?)  
GS1   Global   Track   The  movement     Of   that   which  
Through   -­‐  
Traceability   forward       is   under  
specified  
Standard     The   history,   consideration   stage(s)   of  
(2012)     Trace   application   or   the  
  backward   location   extended  
supply  
chain  
United   Nations   Identify   The   history,   Products,  parts   -­‐   To   ensure   the  
Global   Compact   and  trace     distribution,   and  materials   reliability   of  
and  BSR  (2014)   location   and   sustainability   claims,  
Guide   to   application   in   the   areas   of   human  
Traceability     rights,   labour  
(including   health   and  
safety),   the  
environment  and  anti-­‐
corruption  
 
Table  2  Definitions  of  traceability  given  by  global  organisations  
 
GS1  is  a  global  non-­‐profit  organisation  for  the  design  and  implementation  of  electronic  
commerce  tools,  such  as  global  location  numbers,  GS1  corporate  prefixes,  global  trade  
identification   numbers   and   barcodes   (Charlebois   et   al.,   2014),   and   developed   a   Global  
Traceability  Standard,  which  focuses  on  safety,  quality,  and  risk  management  objectives.  
Importantly,   it   recognises   traceability   as   an   integral   part   of   the   business   process,   which  
is  not  separate  from  logistical  processes  and/or  product  safety  and  quality  programmes  
(GS1,  2012).  The  standard  allows  implementing  traceability  through  specified  stages  of  
the  extended  supply  chain  rather  than  through  entire  supply  chain.  In  contrast  to  GS1,  
the   United   Nations   Global   Compact   (UN   Global   Compact)   and   BSR   focus   on  
sustainability   aspects   “to   ensure   the   reliability   of   sustainability   claims,   in   the   areas   of  
human  rights,  labour  (including  health  and  safety),  the  environment  and  anti-­‐corruption”  
(UN  Global  Compact  &  BSR,  2014,  p.6).  They  are  global  non-­‐profit  organisations;  their  
guide  analyses  existing  schemes  across  multiple  sectors.  
 
It  is  noteworthy  that  traceability  requirements  have  been  established  in  the  food  sector.  
In   the   European   Union   traceability   for   all   food   and   feed   products   is   enforced   by  
legislation.  Many  other  countries,  such  as  Norway,  Finland,  Switzerland,  Canada,  Japan,  
Australia,   New   Zealand   and   Brazil   have   implemented   traceability   programmes   for  
specific   types   of   food,   including   animal   products   and   rice   (in   the   case   of   Japan).  
Regulation   178/2002   of   European   Union   suggests   a   “one   step   back”   –   “one   step  
forward”   approach,   according   to   which   all   food   sector   operators   shall   outline   from  
whom   and   to   whom   their   products   has   been   supplied   (European   Commission,   2002),  
(Charlebois  et  al.,  2014).    
 

9  
 
However,  there  are  discrepancies  in  terms  of  the  scope  of  traceability  requirements  in  
food   sector.     According   to   EU   Regulation   178/2002   beef   should   be   traced   “from   farm   to  
fork”,  i.e.  throughout  its  entire  lifecycle,  whereas  livestock  traceability  within  Australia  
and  Japan  covers  animals  from  birth  to  slaughter,  but  no  further.  These  differences  are  
reflected  in  the  academic  literature:  some  expect  traceability  to  be  implemented  across  
all  stages  of  a  product’s  life  cycle,  yet  others  use  traceability  in  specified  stages.    
 
In  terms  of  the  construction  industry,  to  date  traceability  has  only  been  defined  in  the  
BRE’s   framework   standard   on   responsible   sourcing   BES   6001   (as   shown   in   Table   4).  
Early   versions   of   the   standard   (BES   6001   issue   1   and   2)   provide   definitions   of  
traceability   that   are   almost   identical   to   the   EU   Regulation   178/2002   for   General  
principles   and   requirements   of   food   law.   Quite   reasonably,   traceability   has   been  
redefined   from   “food,   feed,   food-­‐producing   animal   or   substance”   to   refer   to   the  
“constituent  material”.  Yet   neither   this   definition   suggests   what   information   should   be  
traced.   The   latest   version   of   BES   6001   (2014)   provides   guidance   on   how   traceability  
should   be   implemented   to   comply   with   the   standard,   rather   than   defining   the   term  
itself.    
 
Given   this   shortcoming,   potential   traceability   issues   for   the   construction   sector   in  
greater  detail  in  a  later  section  of  the  paper,  but  there  follows  a  specific  section  which  
analyses  the  extant  academic  literature  on  traceability,  such  that  it  can  be  understood  as  
a  concept.    
 
Scope  
Verb   Traceability   Object   Method  
Source   (Trace  
phrase   information   (Trace  what?)   (Trace  how?)  
where?)  
BES   6001:   ISSUE   Trace   -­‐   Constituent   Through   all   -­‐  
1.0   and   2.0   and   material   stages   of  
Framework   follow     intended  to  be,  or   production,  
Standard   for   the   expected   to   be   processing  
Responsible     incorporated  into   and  
Sourcing   of   a   construction   distribution  
Construction   product  
Products  (2009)    
BES   6001:   ISSUE   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   Link   (through  
3.0   Framework   documentation)  
Standard   for   one   production  
Responsible   stage  with  another  
Sourcing    (2014)    
 
Table  3  Definitions  of  traceability  in  the  construction  sector  
 
 
 

10  
 
The  concept  of  traceability  in  academic  literature  
 
Very   few   academic   studies   offer   an   underpinning,   conceptual   meaning   of   traceability,  
and  the  majority  of  these  relate  to  the  food  sector,  namely  (Moe,  1998),  (Olsen  &  Borit,  
2013),   (Karlsen   et   al.,   2013),   (Bosona   and   Gebresenbet,   2013),   (Aung   &   Chang,   2014),  
(Ringsberg,   2014).   Indeed,   these   studies   tend   to   interpret   traceability   differently,   and   it  
is  challenging  to  find  consensus.  For  instance,  Olsen  and  Borit  (2013,  p.148),  through  a  
systematic   review   of   definitions,   concluded   that   traceability   is:   “The  ability  to  access  any  
or   all   information   relating   to   that   which   is   under   consideration…”.   However,   the   verb  
“access”  could  cause  confusion  with  the  term  supply  chain  transparency.  Indeed,  many  
researchers  associate  accessibility  of  information  related  to  product  with  transparency  
(Hofstede,  2006),  (Michener  and  Bersch,  2013).  Therefore,  defining  traceability  simply  
as  the  ability  to  “access”  information  might  be  confusing.    
 
Bosona   and   Gebresenbet   (2013,   p.35)   define   traceability   as   “part   of   logistics  
management   that   capture,   store,   and   transmit   adequate   information”   about   a   product.    
This  is  in  line  with  the  GS1  Traceability  standard  that  describes  traceability  as  a  part  of  
a   business   process   and   not   one   which   is   separate   from   logistical   processes   (GS1,   2012).  
More  precisely,  according  to  Moe  (1998)  and  Karlsen  et  al.  (2013),  traceability  is  based  
on   the   principle   of   unique   identification.   This   corresponds   with   the   definition   of  
traceability   by   ISO   8402:1994   (p.31),   which   emphasises   that   traceability   should   be  
implemented   by   “the   means   of   recorded   identification”.   The   GS1   Global   Traceability  
standard  also  distinguishes  the  idea  of  unique  identification  and  recording  as  one  of  the  
principles   of   traceability,   together   with:   information   exchange   among   supply   chain  
partners   and   “linking  inputs  through  changes  or  processing  to  outputs,  be  that  the  same  
traceable  item  or  a  new  traceable  item”  (GS1,  2012,  p.37).  
 
Academic  literature  (similarly  to  standards,  legislation  and  global  reports)  also  suffers  
from   inconsistencies   in   defining   the   scope   of   traceability   Schwagele   (2005),   Van  
Rijswijk  et  al.,  (2008),  Skilton  and  Robinson  (2009),  Olsen  and  Borit  (2013),  Bosona  and  
Gebresenbet  (2013)  argue  that  traceability  should  be  implemented  through  all  stages  of  
supply  chain.  In  contrast,  Tamayo,  et  al.  (2009)  specify  the  distribution  chain.,  and  Moe  
(1998)  allows  traceability  through  all  and  specified  stages  of  supply  chain.      
 
Having   reviewed   interpretations   of   traceability,   it   is   clear   that   it   is   associated   with  
ability   to   trace   (or   track,   or   follow)   information   related   to   a   product   (object,   entity,  
service,   project)   through   recorded   identification.     This   information   can   depict   a   history,  
application   and   location   of   a   product   (note   definitions   in   ISO   standards),   but   in   the  
context   of   sustainability   it   may   also   include   data   on   sustainable   practices   associated  
with   the   product’s   supply   chain   (such   as   suppliers’   names/locations,   sustainability  
issues  associated  with  the  product,  purchasing  practices  and  material  provenance,  etc.).    
 

11  
 
Traceability  in  the  construction  supply  chain  
 
This  section  aims  to  examine  the  role  of  traceability  for  the  construction  sector,  through  
the  lens  of  sustainability  issues.  It  also  provides  a  brief  overview  on  how  traceability  is  
currently  being  addressed  in  the  construction  sector.    

The  role  of  the  construction  sector  in  sustainable  development  

 
The  construction  sector  comprises  a  wide  range  of  activities  from  mining,  quarrying  and  
forestry   to   the   construction   of   buildings   and   infrastructure,   and   the   manufacture   and  
supply   of   products   (Designing   Buildings   Wiki,   2016).   It   plays   an   important   role   in  
sustainable  development  through  contributing  to  the  economy,  generating  jobs,  but  also  
through  extensive  consumption  of  raw  materials  resulting  in  large  carbon  footprint  and  
energy   use   (Khatib,   2009).   The   construction   industry   accounts   for   almost   7%   of   total  
GDP  and  10%  of  total  employment  in  the  UK  (BIS,  2013).    
 
Construction   activities   certainly   have   a   major   impact   on   the   environment.   The   UK  
construction  industry  consumes  over  90%  of  non-­‐energy  minerals  extracted  in  the  UK,  
and   is   responsible   for   almost   half   of   the   total   carbon   emissions,   while   manufacturing  
and   transportation   of   construction   materials,   and   construction   processes   alone   account  
for  around  10%  of  the  total  carbon  dioxide  emissions  (Constructing  Excellence,  2008).  
The   UK   government   has   committed   to   cut   greenhouse   gas   emissions   from   built  
environment  by  80%  by  2050  compared  to  1990  levels  (HM  Government,  2013).  
 
In  terms  of  social  issues,  the  construction  sector  is  vulnerable  to  human  rights  abuses,  
such   as   bonded   labour,   delayed   wages,   inappropriate   working   conditions   and   other  
forms   of   modern   slavery.   To   combat   this,   the   UK   government   introduced   the   Modern  
Slavery  Act  in  2015,  which  obliges  large  companies,  including  those  in  the  construction  
sector,  to  demonstrate  that  they  are  working  to  eradicate  modern  slavery  within  their  
supply  chains  in  the  country  and  overseas.    
 
The  role  of  traceability  for  sustainability  within  the  construction  supply  chain    
 
Construction   supply   chains   are   highly   fragmented;   involving   many   parties   with  
different   purposes   and   relying   heavily   on   subcontracting.   In   a   typical   £10   million  
construction   project   the   main   contractor   may   have   over   40   sub-­‐contractors   and  
suppliers   (EC   Harris,   2013).   Figure   2   shows   a   simplified   structure   of   construction  
supply   chain,   as   an   illustration   of   the   complexity   involved   in   discussing   traceability  
within  this  industry.    
 

12  
 
  
Figure  2  Typical  construction  supply  chain  (Source:  BIS,  2013)  

All   the   supply   chain   parties   are   involved   in   complex,   sometimes   adversarial,  
relationships,  where  each  could  attempt  to  derive  maximum  benefit  at  least  cost  though  
transferring   risks   and   responsibilities   down   to   the   next   level   of   the   supply   chain   (Cox  
and   Townsend,   1998),   (Pryke,   2009).   In   addition,   the   procurement   strategies   used   by  
the   construction   industry   have   been   criticised   for   their   inefficiency.   Thus,   the   tendering  
process,   widely   used   in   the   construction   sector,   implies   selecting   suppliers   who   offer  
the   least   expensive   bid.   This   results   in   low   quality   of   work   and   use   of   cheaper  
construction  materials  (Pryke,  2009),  which  exposes  the  risk  of  human  rights  violations  
at   the   work   cite   and   choosing   not   ethically   sourced   materials,   etc.   As   a   result,   the  
construction  industry  has  a  poor  public  image  (Cox  and  Townsend,  1998),  (Wilkinson,  
2014).    
 
Regarding   responsible   sourcing   of   construction   materials,   almost   all   construction  
materials  in  the  UK  are  extracted  locally,  within  the  country  (BIS,  2013).  However,  the  
sector   is   not   completely   invulnerable   to   modern   globalisation   trends   associated   with  
sourcing   from   developing   countries   where   production   and   labour   is   cheap   (as,   for  
instance,   textile,   electronics   and   many   other   sectors).   A   survey   of   construction   supply  
chain,   conducted   in   2013   (EC   Harris,   2013),   showed   that   UK   construction   companies  
tend  to  prioritise  cost  factors  when  selection  materials/products.  Hence,  there  is  a  risk  
of  materials  penetration  from  low  cost  international  markets  (EC  Harris,  2013),  which  
might   lead   to   non-­‐ethical   sourcing   practices.   This   is   illustrated   in   recent   years   by   the  
large   increase   in   imports   of   reinforcing   steel   from   China   which   was   cheaper   than   UK  
produced   rebar,   but   queries   were   raised   about   quality   and   production   control   (BBC,  
2016).  
 

13  
 
On   the   other   hand,   the   construction   supply   chain   is   characterised   by   high   customer  
influence  (Vrijhoef  and  Koskela,  2000),  (Behera  et  al,  2015)  and  project  uniqueness.  In  
contrast   to   many   other   industries   (for   example,   manufacturing   and   automobile   sectors)  
where  production  size  is  based  on  market  forecasts,  so  end  clients  are  not  known  before  
manufacturing,   each   project   in   the   construction   sector   is   tailored   to   its   customer’s  
requirements.  The  end  customers  (including  Government,  which  is  a  large  client  of  the  
construction)   thus   have   an   important   role   in   transforming   the   construction   supply  
chain  (HM  Government,  2013).    
 
Increasing   public   interest   in   environmental   and   ethical   issues   and   government’s  
strategies   towards   sustainable   development   are   important   drivers   for   the   potential  
adoption   of   traceability   in   respect   of   construction   materials   for   buildings   and  
infrastructure.   In   the   context   of   sustainability,   traceability   is   highly   worthwhile   for  
verifying   sustainable   practises   along   construction   supply   chains,   such   as   ethical  
sourcing   of   materials,   environmental   impact   of   production   and   distribution   of  
construction  materials,  modern  slavery,  health  and  safety  conditions  of  employees,  etc.  
Hence,   traceability   of   sustainability   claims   along   supply   chains   has   great   potential   to  
improve  the  reputation  of  construction  companies  and  improve  data  exchange.  
 

Configuring  traceability  in  the  context  of  construction  

 
Yet   in   contrast   to   other   sectors,   such   as   food   industry,   fashion,   forestry   and  
pharmaceutics,   traceability   issues   are   still   at   an   emerging   stage   in   the   construction  
sector.   At   present,   there   is   minimal   academic   literature   on   traceability   with   just   a   few  
studies  noting  traceability  in  relation  to  responsible  sourcing  of  construction  materials  
(Glass,  2011),  (Livesey  and  Hughes,  2013),  (Upstill-­‐Goddard  et  al.,  2015).    
 
As   discussed   earlier,   traceability   requirements   in   the   sector   appear   to   be   addressed  
exclusively  in  the  standard  BES  6001  (BRE  Global  Ltd,  2014)  on  responsible  sourcing  of  
materials   (mainly   construction   materials   but   also   others),   developed   by   Building  
Research  Establishment  (BRE)  in  the  UK.  Traceability  of  materials  at  each  stage  of  the  
supply   chain   from   its   source   is   a   compulsory   requirement   for   certification   against   the  
standard.   Accordingly,   the   organisation   responsible   for   constituent   materials   at   each  
stage   of   the   supply   chain   must   be   certified   against   ISO   9001   Quality   Management  
standards  or  demonstrate  equivalent  documented  evidence  of  traceability.  A  minimum  
of   60%   of   the   mass   and   volume   of   input   materials   must   be   traceable   to   suppliers  
responsible  for  extraction  of  raw  materials;  recovery  of  recycled  materials;  production  
of  by-­‐products  or  processing  of  commodity  traded  chemicals  (see  Figure  3  for  details).    
 

14  
 
 • Constituent  materials  must  be  traced  back  to  the  source  of  mining,  quarrying,  
The  extraction  of   growing,  harvesting  and  other  extraction  methods  of  raw  materials  
raw  materials  

• Constituent  materials  must  be  traced  as  far  back  as  the  factor  trading  in  the  
The  recovery  of   material,  for  example,  for  scrap  steel  must  be  traced  back  to  the  scrap  yard,  not  
recycled  materials   the  suppliers  of  scrapyard;  recycled  aggregate  must  be  traced  back  to  the  
processor  of  building  waste,  not  the  demolition  contractor  

• Constituent  materials  must  be  traced  down  supply  chain  to  the  organisation  
The  production  of   manufacturing  the  product  of  which  the  component  material  is  considered  to  
by-­‐products   be  the  by-­‐product  or  residue,  for  example,  pulverised  fuel  ash  (PFA)  must  be  
traced  back  to  the  power  station,  not  the  coal  supplier  

• Constituent  materials/chemicals  must  be  traced  back  to  the  trader  of  the  
The  processing  of   chemicals/materials.  Traders  might  source  the  chemicals  in  a  commodity  
commodity  traded   market  where  their  supplier  changes  in  dependence  on  availability  and  price,  
chemicals   which  makes  traceability  almost  unfeasible  
 
Figure  3  Types  of  source  of  constituent  materials  (BRE  Global,  2014a)  

If   constituent   materials   are   sourced   from   a   supplier   based   outside   the   EU/OECD,   the  
organisation   seeking   BES   6001   certification   must   perform   a   risk   assessment   for   98%   of  
constituent   materials   by   mass   and   volume.   Also   the   organisation   must   demonstrate  
monitoring   of   suppliers’   compliance   with   the   ILO   Declaration   on   Fundamental  
Principles  and  Rights  at  Work  (through,  for  example,  membership  of  the  Ethical  Trade  
Initiative;  membership  of  the  United  Nations  Global  Compact;  certification  to  the  Social  
Accountability  International  SA8000  standard)  (BRE  Global  Ltd,  2014)  .  
 
However,   the   standard   does   not   provide   suggestions   on   how   to   actually   implement  
traceability  programmes,  which  is  a  major  shortcoming,  but  it  should  be  recognised  that  
guidelines  also  do  not  exist  in  other  sectors  either  (Karlsen  et  al.,  2013).    In  addition,  the  
lack  of  academic  literature  on  traceability  within  construction  supply  chain  might  lead  
to   a   poor   understanding   of   the   concept   of   traceability   and   hence   it   would   not   be  
reasonable  to  expect  the  industry  to  engage  with  the  idea  to  any  meaningful  degree.    
 
Given  this  situation,  it  can  be  argued  that  there  is  a  strong  need  for  a  clear  theoretical  
framework   for   traceability   in   the   context   of   sustainability   that   can   be   applied   to   the  
construction   sector.   A   better   understanding   of   the   notion   of   traceability,   as   well   as   a  
clear  breakdown  of  what  it  means  to  operationalise  and  implement  traceability  within  a  
construction   project   supply   chain   could   be   beneficial   to   information   sharing   when   it  
comes   to   sustainability   issues,   which   are   significant   and   ‘shared’   across   various   parties.  
Subsequent  stages  of  this  research  will  examine  the  different  types  of  information  that  
might  be  the  subject  of  a  traceability  programme  in  construction,  and  also  examine  the  
drivers   and   barriers   to   implementation,   but   the   scope   of   this   paper   is   to   focus   on  
theoretical  underpinnings.    

15  
 
This  paper  documents  research,  which  is  in  progress,  but  it  is  still  feasible  to  being  to  
outline  some  of  the  major  features  of  a  framework.  It  should:    
 
• Clarify  the  conceptual  meaning  of  traceability.  It  is  important  to  have  a  common  
understanding   what   constitutes   traceability.   The   definition   of   traceability   should  
be   applicable   for   many   contexts   (purposes   and   sectors)   in   which   the   term   is  
used.  
• Specify  which  key  variables  influence  the  concept  of  traceability  and  outline  the  
relationships  between  them.  This  can  help  to  shape  the  scope  of  traceability  and  
avoid  confusing  of  the  concept.    
• Define   the   main   concepts   and   theories   related   to   traceability.   This   can   help   in  
understanding  of  traceability  in  its  broad  sense.      

Conclusions  and  further  research    

 
This   research   is   focused   on   the   concept   of   traceability   from   the   perspective   of  
sustainable  development,  within  the  construction  industry.  For  that,  the  main  concepts  
related  to  traceability  under  the  umbrella  of  sustainability  (ethics,  social  responsibility,  
transparency   and   responsible   sourcing)   have   been   outlined,   and   the   relationships  
among   them   are   explained.   To   understand   the   conceptual   meaning   of   traceability,   the  
paper  reviewed  how  traceability  issues  are  addressed  both  in  academic  literature  and  
standards/legal   requirements.   There   is   an   agreement   in   literature   that   traceability  
involves   following   (or   tracing,   tracking,   etc.)   information   related   to   a   product   (object,  
service,   project,   entity)   through   means   of   recorded   identification.   In   the   context   of  
sustainability,  such  information  includes  data  on  sustainable  practices  associated  with  
the   product’s   supply   chain   (for   example,   as   suppliers’   names   and   locations,  
sustainability  conditions  associated  with  the  product,  purchasing  practices  and  material  
provenance).   However,   interpretations   of   traceability   differ   in   terms   of   whether   to  
implement  traceability  across  all  stages  of  supply  chain  or  specified  ones.  This  indicates  
a   poor   understanding   of   traceability   requirements   and   its   scope,   and   so,   there   is   a   need  
to   develop   a   theoretical   framework   of   traceability   specifically   for   sustainability   in   any  
case,  but  we  argue  that  this  is  particularly  pertinent  to  the  construction  industry.    
 
Despite   the   significant   role   of   the   construction   industry   in   sustainable   development,  
traceability   issues   are   still   at   an   emerging   stage   in   the   sector,   as   such   there   is   a   minimal  
academic  literature  on  traceability.  The  standard  on  Responsible  Sourcing  BES  6001  is  
the  only  source  that  addresses  traceability  requirements  in  the  construction  sector  and  
even   this   does   not   specify   what   a   traceability   programme   should   entail.   Hence,   this  
paper   outlines   the   need   for   further   investigations   on   traceability   for   sustainability   from  
the   perspective   of   the   construction   sector   as   a   means   to   potentially   improve   the  
management  of  sustainability  in  supply  chains.      

16  
 
References    
 
Andersen,   M.   and   Skjoett-­‐Larsen,   T.   (2009),   “Corporate   social   responsibility   in   global  
supply   chains”,   Supply   Chain   Management:   An   International   Journal,   Vol.   14   No.   2,   pp.  
75–86.  
Aung,   M.M.   and   Chang,   Y.S.   (2014),   “Traceability   in   a   food   supply   chain:   Safety   and  
quality  perspectives”,  Food  Control,  Vol.  39  No.  1,  pp.  172–184.  
BBC.   (2016),   “Steel   imports   from   China   investigated   by   European   Commission”,  
available   at:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-­‐35559540   (accessed   5   February  
2016).  
Behera,   P.,   Mohanty,   R.P.   and   Prakash,   A.   (2015),   “Understanding   Construction   Supply  
Chain  Management”,  Production  Planning  &  Control,  Vol.  26  No.  16,  pp.  1332–1350.  
Beulens,   A.J.M.,   Broens,   D.-­‐F.,   Folstar,   P.   and   Hofstede,   G.J.   (2005),   “Food   safety   and  
transparency  in  food  chains  and  networks  Relationships  and  challenges”,  Food   Control,  
Vol.  16  No.  6,  pp.  481–486.  
BIS.   (2013),   UK   Construction:   An   Economic   Analysis   of   the   Sector,   Department   for  
Business   Information   &   Skills,   available   at:  
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210
060/bis-­‐13-­‐958-­‐uk-­‐construction-­‐an-­‐economic-­‐analysis-­‐of-­‐sector.pdf.  
Bosona,   T.   and   Gebresenbet,   G.   (2013),  “Food   traceability   as   an   integral   part   of   logistics  
management  in  food  and  agricultural  supply  chain”,  Food  Control,  Vol.  33  No.  1,  pp.  32–
48.  
BRE   Global.   (2009),   BES   6001:   ISSUE   2.0   Framework   Standard   for   the   Responsible  
Sourcing  of  Construction  Products,  Watford.  
BRE  Global.  (2014a),  BES  6001  Issue  3  Guidance  Document,  Watford.  
BRE  Global.  (2014b),  BES  6001:  ISSUE  3.0  Framework  Standard  for  Responsible  Sourcing,  
Watford.  
British   Standards   Institution.   (2010),   BS   ISO   26000:2010   Guidance   on   Social  
Responsibility,  BSI  Standards  Publication,  London.  
Brown,   J.,   Parry,   T.   and   Moon,   J.   (2009),   “Corporate   responsibility   reporting   in   UK  
construction”,   Proceedings   of   the   ICE   -­‐   Engineering   Sustainability,   Vol.   162   No.   4,   pp.  
193–205.  
Charlebois,   S.,   Sterling,   B.,   Haratifar,   S.   and   Naing,   S.K.   (2014),   “Comparison   of   Global  
Food   Traceability   Regulations   and   Requirements”,   Comprehensive   Reviews   in   Food  
Science  and  Food  Safety,  Vol.  13  No.  5,  pp.  1104–1123.  
Chen,   J.Y.   and   Slotnick,   S.A.   (2015),   “Supply   chain   disclosure   and   ethical   sourcing”,  
International  Journal  of  Production  Economics,  Elsevier,  Vol.  161,  pp.  17–30.  
Christopher,   M.,   Mena,   C.,   Khan,   O.   and   Yurt,   O.   (2011),   “Approaches   to   managing   global  
sourcing  risk”,  Supply  Chain  Management:  An  International  Journal,  Vol.  16  No.  2,  pp.  67–
81.  
Constructing   Excellence.   (2008),   Plain   English   Guide   to   Sustainable   Construction,  
available  at:  http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/lgtf/S2.pdf.  

17  
 
Cox,   A.   and   Townsend,   M.   (1998),   Strategic  Procurement  in  Construction:  Towards  Better  
Practice   in   the   Management   of   Construction   Supply   Chains,   edited   by   Cox,   A.,   Thomas  
Telford.  
Crane,   A.   and   Matten,   D.   (2007),   Business   Ethics:   Managing   Corporate   Citizenship   and  
Sustainability  in  the  Age  of  Globalization,  Oxford  University  Press.  
Dabbene,   F.,   Gay,   P.   and   Tortia,   C.   (2014),   “Traceability   issues   in   food   supply   chain  
management:  A  review”,  Biosystems  Engineering,  Vol.  120,  pp.  65–80.  
Designing   Buildings   Wiki.   (2016),   “UK   construction   industry”,   available   at:  
http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/UK_construction_industry   (accessed   23  
August  2016).  
Doorey,  D.J.  (2011),  “The  Transparent  Supply  Chain:  from  Resistance  to  Implementation  
at  Nike  and  Levi-­‐Strauss”,  Journal  of  Business  Ethics,  Vol.  103  No.  4,  pp.  587–603.  
Dubbink,   W.,   Graafland,   J.   and   Van   Liedekerke,   L.   (2008),   “CSR,   Transparency   and   the  
role   of   intermediate   organisations”,   Journal   of   Business   Ethics,   Vol.   82   No.   2,   pp.   391–
406.  
EC  Harris.  (2013),  Supply  Chain  Analysis  into  the  Construction  Industry.  A  Report  for  the  
Construction  Industrial  Strategy,   Department  for  Business,  Innovation  and  Skills,   available  
at:  
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252
026/bis-­‐13-­‐1168-­‐supply-­‐chain-­‐analysis-­‐into-­‐the-­‐construction-­‐industry-­‐report-­‐for-­‐the-­‐
construction-­‐industrial-­‐strategy.pdf.  
Egels-­‐Zandén,   N.,   Hulthén,   K.   and   Wulff,   G.   (2015),   “Trade-­‐offs   in   supply   chain  
transparency:  the  case  of  Nudie  Jeans  Co”,  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production,  JOUR,  ,  Vol.  107,  
pp.  95–104.  
European   Commission.   (2002),   Regulation   178/2002,   Official   Journal   of   the   European  
Communities,   Vol.   L   31,   The   European   Parliament   and   the   Council   of   the   European  
Union,  pp.  1–24.  
Germani,  M.,  Mandolini,  M.,  Marconi,  M.,  Marilungo,  E.  and  Papetti,  A.  (2015),  “A  System  
to   Increase   the  Sustainability   and   Traceability   of   Supply   Chains”,  Procedia  CIRP,   Vol.   29,  
Elsevier  B.V.,  pp.  227–232.  
Glass,  J.  (2011),  “Briefing:  Responsible  sourcing  of  construction  products”,  Proceedings  
of  the  ICE  -­‐  Engineering  Sustainability,  Vol.  164  No.  3,  pp.  167–170.  
Glass,   J.   (2012),   “Engaging   small   firms   in   sustainable   supply   chains :   responsible  
sourcing   practices   in   the   UK   construction   industry”,   Int.   J.   Agile   Systems   and  
Management,  Vol.  5  No.  1,  pp.  29–58.  
Golan,   E.,   Krissoff,   B.,   States,   U.,   Kuchler,   F.,   Calvin,   L.,   Nelson,   K.   and   Price,   G.   (2004),  
Traceability   in   the   US   Food   Supply:   Economic   Theory   and   Industry   Studies,   Agricultural  
Economic   Report   Number   830.   Washington,   DC,   available   at:  
http://151.121.68.30/publications/aer830/aer830.pdf.  
GS1.   (2012),   GS1   Global   Traceability   Standard,   available   at:  
http://www.gs1.org/docs/traceability/Global_Traceability_Standard.pdf.  
Guo,   R.,   Lee,   H.L.   and   Swinney,   R.   (2015),   “Responsible   Sourcing   in   Supply   Chains”,  
Management  Science,  No.  Articles  in  Advance,  pp.  1–32.  

18  
 
HM   Government.   (2013),   Construction   2025.   Industrial   Strategy:   Government   and  
Industry  in  Partnership,  UK  Government,  available  at:http://doi.org/HM  Government.  
Hofstede,   G.J.   (2003),   “Transparency   in   netchains”,   EFITA   2003   Conference,   Debrecen,  
Hunfary,  pp.  17–29.  
Hofstede,   G.J.   (2006),   “Trust   and   Transparency   in   Supply   Netchains”,   Supply   Chain  
Management,  IGI  Global,  pp.  106–127.  
Joyner,   B.E.   and   Payne,   D.   (2002),   “Evolution   and   implementation:   A   study   of   values,  
business   ethics   and   corporate   social   responsibility”,   Journal  of  Business  Ethics,   Vol.   41  
No.  4,  pp.  297–311.  
Karlsen,  K.M.,  Dreyer,  B.,  Olsen,  P.  and  Elvevoll,  E.O.  (2013),  “Literature  review:  Does  a  
common   theoretical   framework   to   implement   food   traceability   exist?”,   Food   Control,  
Vol.  32  No.  2,  pp.  409–417.  
Khatib,   J.M.   (2009),   Sustainability   of   Construction   Materials,   Sustainability   of  
Construction  Materials,  available  at:http://doi.org/10.1533/9781845695842.55.  
Livesey,  K.  and  Hughes,  D.  (2013),  Responsible  Sourcing  of  Materials  in  Construction,  BRE  
Publications,  Watford.  
Van   Marrewijk,   M.   (2003),   “Concepts   and   definitions   of   CSR   and   corporate  
sustainability:  Between  agency  and  communion”,  Journal  of  Business  Ethics,  Vol.  44  No.  
2,  pp.  95–105.  
Marshall,  D.,  Mccarthy,  L.,  McGrath,  P.  and  Harrigan,  F.  (2015),  “What’s  Your  Strategy  for  
Supply   Chain   Disclosure?”,   MIT   SLOAN   MANAGEMENT   REVIEW,   available   at:  
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/whats-­‐your-­‐strategy-­‐for-­‐supply-­‐chain-­‐
disclosure/?social_token=e12485a4b85a90d0244e26857acc740e&utm_source=twitter
&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm-­‐direct  (accessed  11  April  2016).  
Michener,   G.   and   Bersch,   K.   (2013),   “Identifying   transparency”,   Information  Polity,   Vol.  
18  No.  3,  pp.  233–242.  
Moe,   T.   (1998),   “Perspectives   on   traceability   in   food   manufacture”,   Trends   in   Food  
Science  &  Technology,  Vol.  9  No.  5,  pp.  211–214.  
Mol,   A.P.J.   (2015),   “Transparency   and   value   chain   sustainability”,   Journal   of   Cleaner  
Production,  Vol.  107,  pp.  154–161.  
Parliament.  (2015),  “Modern  Slavery  Act  2015”,  TSO   (The   Stationery   Office),   The   Houses  
of  Parliament,  p.  84.  
Pryke,   S.   (2009),   Construction   Supply   Chain   Management.   Concepts   and   Case   Studies,  
edited  by  Pryke,  S.,  Blackwell  Publishing  Ltd.,  Malaysia.  
Regattieri,   A.,   Gamberi,   M.   and   Manzini,   R.   (2007),   “Traceability   of   food   products:  
General  framework  and  experimental  evidence”,  Journal  of  Food  Engineering,  Vol.  81  No.  
2,  pp.  347–356.  
Van  Rijswijk,  W.,  Frewer,  L.J.,  Menozzi,  D.  and  Faioli,  G.  (2008),  “Consumer  perceptions  
of  traceability:  A  cross-­‐national  comparison  of  the  associated  benefits”,  Food  Quality  and  
Preference,  Vol.  19  No.  5,  pp.  452–464.  
Ringsberg,   H.   (2014),   “Perspectives   on   Food   Traceability:   A   Systematic   Literature  
Review.”,  Supply  Chain  Management:  An  International  Journal,  Vol.  19,  pp.  558–576.  

19  
 
Sarpong,   S.   (2014),   “Traceability   and   supply   chain   complexity:   confronting   the   issues  
and  concerns”,  European  Business  Review,  Vol.  26  No.  3,  pp.  271–284.  
Schwägele,  F.  (2005),  “Traceability  from  a  European  perspective”,  Meat  Science,  Vol.  71  
No.  1,  pp.  164–173.  
Skilton,   P.F.   and   Robinson,   J.L.   (2009),   “Traceability   and   normal   accident   theory:   How  
does  supply  network  complexity  influence  the  traceability  of  adverse  events?”,  Journal  
of  Supply  Chain  Management,  Vol.  45  No.  3,  pp.  40–53.  
Tamayo,   S.,   Monteiro,   T.   and   Sauer,   N.   (2009),   “Deliveries   optimization   by   exploiting  
production   traceability   information”,   Engineering   Applications   of   Artificial   Intelligence,  
Vol.  22  No.  4–5,  pp.  557–568.  
The   Nielsen   Company.   (2015),   Global   Sustainability   Report,   available   at:  
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-­‐sustainability-­‐
report-­‐oct-­‐2015.pdf.  
UN   Global   Compact   &   BSR.   (2014),   A   Guide   to   Traceability:   A   Practical   Approach   to  
Advance   Sustainability   in   Global   Supply   Chains,   United   Nations   Global   Compact   Office,  
New   York,   available   at:  
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_UNGC_Guide_to_Traceability.pdf.  
Upstill-­‐Goddard,  J.,  Glass,  J.,  Dainty,  A.  and  Nicholson,  I.  (2015),  “Analysis  of  responsible  
sourcing   performance   in   BES   6001   certificates”,   Proceedings   of   the   ICE   -­‐   Engineering  
Sustainability,  Vol.  168  No.  2,  pp.  71–81.  
Vrijhoef,   R.   and   Koskela,   L.   (2000),   “The   four   roles   of   supply   chain   management   in  
construction”,  European  Journal  of  Purchasing  &  Supply  Management,  Vol.  6  No.  3–4,  pp.  
169–178.  
WCED.   (1987),   Report  of  the  World  Commission  on  Environment  and  Development :  Our  
Common  Future  Acronyms  and  Note  on  Terminology  Chairman  ’  S  Foreword,   Report  of  the  
World  Commission  on  Environment  and  Development:  Our  Common  Future.  
Wilkinson,   P.   (2014),   “The   poor   image   of   UK   construction”,   available   at:  
http://blog.pwcom.co.uk/2014/12/22/the-­‐poor-­‐image-­‐of-­‐uk-­‐construction/   (accessed  
25  August  2016).  
 
   

20