Exploring the impact of institutional forces on the social sustainability of logistics service providers: insights from a high terrorism-affected region

Purpose: Achieving social sustainability has become a critical challenge in global supply chain networks, particularly during complex crises such as terrorism. The purpose of this study is to explore how institutional forces influence the social sustainability approaches of logistics service providers (LSPs) in high terrorism-affected regions (HTAR). This then leads to investigating how the key factors interact with Institutional Theory.

Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory multiple-case study research method was used to investigate six cases of different-sized logistics LSPs, each in an HTAR. The data was collected using semistructured interviews and triangulated using on-site observations and document analysis. Thematic analysis was used in iterative cycles for cross-case comparisons and pattern matching.

Findings: The findings interact with Institutional Theory and the three final-order themes. First, management processes are driven by coopetition and innovation. Second, organizational resources, structure and culture lead to an ineffective organizational design. Finally, a lack of institutionalization creates institutional uncertainty. These factors are rooted in many other first-order factors such as information sharing, communication, relationship management, capacity development, new process developments, workforce characteristics, technology, microlevel culture and control aspects.

Originality/value: This study answers the call for social sustainability research and enriches the literature on social sustainability, Institutional Theory and LSPs in HTARs by providing illustrations showing that institutional forces act as driving forces for social sustainability initiatives by shaping the current management processes. Conversely, the same forces impede social sustainability initiatives by shaping the current organizational designs and increasing institutional uncertainty.