Exploring the impact of institutional forces on social sustainability of logistics service providers: Insights from a highly 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, thus, is to explore how institutional forces influence social sustainability approaches of logistics service providers (LSPs) in highly terrorism-affected regions (HTAR). This then leads to investigating how the key factors interlock with Institutional Theory. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory multiple-case study research method is employed to investigate six cases of different-sized logistics LSPs in a HTAR. The data was collected by semi-structured interviews and triangulated by on-site observations and document analysis. The thematic analysis was utilized in iterative cycles for cross-case comparisons and pattern matching. Findings: Our findings are interlocked with Institutional Theory and the three final-order themes. Firstly, management processes are driven by coopetition and innovation. Second, organizational resources, structure and culture lead to ineffective organizational design. Finally, the lack of institutionalization creates institutional uncertainty. These factors then are rooted in many other first-order factors such as information sharing, communication, relationship management, capacity development, new process developments, workforce characteristics, technology, micro-level culture, and control aspects. Originality/value: The study answers the call for social sustainability research and enriches the literature about social sustainability, institutional theory and LSPs in a HTAR by providing illustrations that institutional forces act as driving forces for social sustainability initiatives by shaping current management processes. Conversely, the same forces impede social sustainability initiatives by shaping current organisational designs and increasing institutional uncertainty.