HRMARS - Purpose: This study aims to comprehensively examine the integration of sustainable supply chain management in higher education institutions through bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. It deeply explores the theoretical foundations and practical applications of Higher Education Sustainable Supply Chain Management (HESSCM) across different cultural contexts, so as to fill the gap in cultural adaptability research in this field and provide theoretical support and practical guidance for universities to more effectively implement sustainable supply chain management globally. Design/methodology/approach: This study examines 59 peer-reviewed articles through bibliometric analysis to explore research focus, collaboration patterns, and geographical distribution, alongside a systematic literature review. This systematic review examines the theories and practical applications of HESSCM, comparing Eastern examples from China, Indonesia, Oman, and Vietnam with Western cases from Spain, Italy, Germany, and Latin America, while considering environmental concerns, a human-centered approach, technology integration, and institutional challenges in educational innovation. Findings: A novel theoretical 3 layers framework that consist drivers (Regulatory, Stakeholder and Technology), practices (sustainable procurement, resource usage and educational innovation) and performances (environment, society, economy and education quality outcomes). Different patterns appear between Eastern the west is interested in stakeholder interests with university – community cooperation efforts and thorough environmental review incorporating UN Sustainable Development Goals into supply chain logistics instruction. Bibliometric analyses showed huge gaps among the research areas of focus and the cooperation actions undertaken by academics from Asia and those from Western countries; meanwhile scholars from Africa and the Middle East did very few research. Research limitations/implications: The study exhibits geographical bias, with East Asia overrepresented and Africa, the Middle East, and other developing countries underrepresented. Some methods have limitations, such as the constraints of bibliometric analysis, potential bias favoring published positive results over unpublished ones, language barriers, and databases that exclude non-English literature. These limitations indicate directions for future research. Expand geographical coverage; employ both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including quantitative and case-study approaches; conduct a longitudinal study on HESSCM evolution; develop standardized context-sensitive evaluations; carry out surveys or interviews to address implementation challenges. Practical implications: The study provides evidence-based recommendations for educational leaders and policymakers. Institutions must implement HESSCMs through a staged and context-specific approach, considering local laws, institutional capabilities, and stakeholder conditions. Investment in technological infrastructure such as AI and IoT is essential. It is necessary to measure sustainability, for instance, through a carbon footprint evaluation system. Additionally, effective communication is crucial, and channels must be established for stakeholder participation to ensure the integration of traditional projects with green initiatives. Policy makers must create flexible regulations that connect global sustainability standards with the needs of diverse communities and establish pathways for learning and information exchange from the successful practices of other organizations. Originality/value: This article contributes to the literature in three distinct ways. Initially, This study create a comprehensive HESSCM framework that considers cultural and institutional contexts, integrates material resources with non-material education, and distinguishes the educational supply chain from the commercial supply chain. The second point concerns the identification of key success factors for implementation across different regions, such as Eastern institutions that emphasize technological effects and standardization, in contrast to Western institutions that prioritize involvement approaches and stakeholder cooperation. Thirdly, this study provides evidence-based recommendations for educators and policymakers to address geographic bias.
Lan et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: