Mapping barriers to green supply chains in empirical research on green banking

Green growth strategies, formalized by the 2009 declaration and the OECD framework (2011), aim to align economic growth with environmental sustainability. Green supply chains (GSCs) integrate sustainability across purchasing, manufacturing, marketing, logistics, and more, but the transition entails multiple barriers. Green banking (GB) can contribute in two ways: (1) as a bank improving its own processes to be less polluting (GBP), and (2) as a financier of green activities through products like green loans and investments (GBB). Despite GB’s potential, the literature draws few clear conclusions about its contribution to GSCs. This review seeks qualitative conclusions on how empirical GB research addresses GSC barriers and where gaps exist. Research questions: RQ1: Can barriers to GSC development be identified in the empirical literature on GB? RQ2: Can we identify which barriers to GSC development have received the most attention in research?

Background situates GSC as integrating environmental sustainability and performance across the supply chain, incorporating CSR, stakeholder concerns, and accountability. GSC requires each agent to assume responsibility for environmental impacts. GB’s dual role: (a) GBP—banks greening internal processes and services to reduce their footprint; (b) GBB—banks providing green finance (green credit, investments) to support green industries and innovations. Key barriers recurrent in the literature include: (1) lack of environmental/green knowledge; (2) lack of green awareness/commitment (linked to CSR weaknesses); and (3) financial constraints limiting green production and innovation due to risks and access issues. GB disclosure often focuses on governance and CSR rather than quantitative environmental performance, and heterogeneity in disclosures hampers accountability. Without adequate green financing and policy frameworks, bank credit allocation to green projects may be constrained, impeding GSC development.

The study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) following Booth et al. (2012) and the Cochrane review protocol. Scope: peer-reviewed empirical papers in English (Economics/Social Sciences) published 2011–mid 2020, sourced from ABI/INFORM, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus. Phases: (1) Selection and quality assessment: identification, screening, suitability (triple-blind review by each author), inclusion. Of 46 eligible papers, 30 matched the aim of linking GB conclusions to GSC barriers. (2) Data systematization: a 17-field coding template (e.g., article metadata, authors’ and empirical locations, GB approach—GBP/GBB, topic, objective, methodology, data type, GB conclusions, journal, database). Coding reliability was checked, and cross-review among authors minimized bias. (3) Data analysis: primary fields were topic, country/continent of empirical analysis, methodology, year, and conclusions. Quantitative relationships were analyzed using SPSS and Excel; qualitative synthesis and mapping of themes/barriers were performed with Atlas.ti. Scientific impact mapping: citations from Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were used to compute topic-level indices (GSI, WoSI, SCI). A composite average impact index (Ali) was calculated: Ali = (GSIi + WoSIi + SCIi)/3. To correct for publication age, a time factor (TFCi) based on Clarivate’s field Citation Rates normalized Ali to 2020 values (Ali-TFC = Ali/TFCi). The Sample Rate (SR) expressed each topic’s/barrer’s Ali-TFC as a share of the total, enabling comparison across topics, barriers, areas, years, and methodologies.

• Four empirical GB topics identified: GB as driver of green economy (GBB), GB disclosure (largely GBP), GB perceptions (GBP), and GB practices (both GBP and GBB). - Barriers mapped from GB literature to GSC development: (1) Lack of green financial resources; (2) Lack of green awareness; (3) Lack of green knowledge. Topic-specific findings: • GB disclosure (GBP): barriers include lack of green awareness and knowledge; disclosures emphasize CSR, board/ownership and qualitative information, with scarce quantitative sustainability data; need for international reporting frameworks and user awareness; disclosure appears early-stage and image-focused. • GB as driver (GBB): financial barriers dominate; regulation/green credit requirements can constrain financing to green industries; lack of clarity on appropriate regulation (knowledge) and limited linkage between GB products and pollution reduction (awareness); need to integrate environmental risks into governance and provide guidelines. • GB perceptions (GBP): barriers of awareness reflected in client/banker attitudes; adoption depends on infrastructure, technology, staff green behavior, motivation, and stakeholder perceptions. • GB practices: GBB side shows mixed profitability effects of green credit; active regulation could lower green project capital costs and reallocate from brown assets; GBP side links practices to green image and commitment (awareness). - Scientific impact (Ali; Table 2): Driver 39.79%, Disclosure 29.83%, Practices 26.01%, Perceptions 4.38%. After time correction (SR of Ali-TFC): Driver 45.42%, Disclosure 26.99%, Practices 23.06%, Perceptions 4.53%—topic rankings unchanged. - Main impact vectors (SR of Ali-TFC): Asia 75.01% of citations; year 2019 accounts for 45.49% of citations; regression methodologies account for 52.91% of citations. - Barriers by impact (SR of Ali-TFC): Lack of green financial resources 52.20%; Lack of green awareness 30.30–33.30% (reported range across sections); Lack of green knowledge 14.50%. For lack of financial resources, the dominant topic is Driver (37.25%); key vectors include Asia (31.58%), 2019 (31.19%), regression (19.21%). For lack of awareness, the leading topic is often Driver (e.g., 13.28%) and Disclosure plays a major role (e.g., 52.20% within this barrier); vectors concentrate in Asia and 2018–2019 with regression/descriptive methods. For lack of knowledge, Disclosure dominates (about 33.30% within this barrier), vectors in Asia/2018 and modeling (e.g., SEM in 2020 for Driver). - Overall, GB is only beginning to finance green growth effectively; by impact, the GBB role (driver) is central, yet barriers—especially financing constraints—remain predominant.

The review confirms RQ1: empirical GB literature contains identifiable barriers to GSC development—chiefly financing constraints, followed by limited awareness and knowledge. It addresses RQ2 by quantifying attention: lack of green financial resources receives the most scientific impact, indicating that access to and allocation of capital is perceived as the primary bottleneck linking GB to GSC outcomes. Topic–barrier mapping shows that when GB is examined as a driver (GBB), studies focus on how regulation, risk, and bank policies shape credit flows to green industries; results suggest that current policies and risk practices may impede the scale-up of green lending, and that clearer regulatory frameworks and risk integration are needed. For GBP-focused topics (disclosure, perceptions, practices), the main obstacles are awareness and knowledge deficits, reflected in image-centric disclosure, limited quantitative accountability, and dependence on staff and stakeholder behaviors. The dominance of Asia and 2019 in the citation-weighted landscape, and regression-based methods, highlights regional and methodological focal points. Collectively, the findings suggest that to enhance GB’s contribution to GSCs, banks must strengthen the GBB role by channeling capital to green projects, while improving GBP disclosure quality and stakeholder awareness to reduce informational and behavioral frictions. Enhanced, standardized disclosure and policy incentives could align environmental risk management with profitable green lending, facilitating GSC development.

• Empirical GB research clusters into driver, disclosure, perceptions, and practices, with the GBB driver topic receiving the highest scientific impact independent of publication age. - The most salient barrier is lack of green financial resources (>52% of impact), followed by lack of awareness (~30–33%) and lack of knowledge (~14–15%). - Mapping reveals priority relationships: Lack of green financial resources—GB driver; Lack of green awareness—GB driver and disclosure; Lack of green knowledge—GB disclosure. Asia, year 2019, and regression methods dominate the impact-weighted landscape. - Future research should expand GBB-focused analyses, measure causal effects of green loans and investments on cleaner industry outcomes, and explicitly tag/build associations under the GB term to improve visibility. - Standardizing and modeling GB disclosure can enhance accountability and knowledge diffusion, supporting better allocation of finance to GSC needs. - Strengthening GB’s role as a financial bridge—via suitable regulation, integration of environmental risk into governance, and incentives—can help channel capital toward green business model transformation across the supply chain.

The review is limited to English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles from ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, and Scopus during 2011–mid 2020, excluding COVID-19 and post-COVID shifts. The scope is restricted to papers whose empirical conclusions on GB can be associated with GSC barriers, yielding a relatively small final sample (30 articles) after quality screening, although appropriate for qualitative synthesis. Differences in protocols across studies may yield divergent results. Findings should be interpreted within the study’s theoretical framework and with caution regarding generalizability; the analysis is qualitative and not intended for statistical inference. Time-correction of citation impact was applied, but residual biases in citation practices may remain.