Buyer Supplier Relationship and Supply Chain Sustainability Empirical PDF
Buyer Supplier Relationship and Supply Chain Sustainability Empirical PDF
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 12 June 2015
Received in revised form
29 February 2016
Accepted 3 April 2016
Available online 27 April 2016
Over the last decade, most manufacturing organizations have been experiencing pressure to incorporate
sustainability practices in their supply chains. The key reasons behind this pressure may be stated as
increased consumer awareness towards environmental issues, stricter environmental laws and regulations, and increased competition. This paper seeks to identify the factors affecting sustainability adoption
in the Indian automobile supply chain and investigate the inter-relationships existing among them. The
factors have been identied on the basis of a comprehensive literature review and expert opinion. Data
were collected through a survey of 157 Indian automobile companies; a carefully prepared questionnaire
was used as research instrument. Partial least square (PLS) approach was used to investigate the relationships among various factors leading to sustainability performance. Results indicate that external
inuence and expected sustainability benets positively affect top management's commitment towards
adoption of sustainable practices. Further, it was found that a better buyeresupplier relationship positively impacted the triple bottom line of sustainability which comprises economic, social, and environmental performance measures. The buyeresupplier relationship was assessed after breaking it down
to three constructs - supplier selection, supplier development and supplier performance review. This
study is unique and carries a high originality value as it offers a better understanding of: 1) each
construct (supplier selection, supplier development and supplier performance review) of the buyer
esupplier relationship; and 2) every construct's effect on each dimension (economic, social and environmental) of supply chain sustainability of the Indian automobile industry. Such a comprehensive and
detailed study involving the observation of each construct of the buyeresupplier relationship, and
analysis of the effect that each construct has on the three dimensions of sustainability has not been
carried out before. This way, the study makes a signicant contribution to the existing body of literature.
The present study has several practical implications which would enable managers to adopt sustainable
practices in their supply chain.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainable supply chain
Buyeresupplier relationship
Indian automobile industry
Sustainability
1. Introduction
Today, organizations the world over face incessant pressure
from consumers, peers and governments to incorporate sustainable
practices in their supply chains in order to reduce their carbon
footprints and minimize damage to environment and society
(Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014; Diabat et al., 2014). Stakeholders
demanding goods and services from responsible sources compel
companies to develop their goods and service processes, and
Some companies consider sustainability adoption an opportunity for creating a marketing and competitive advantage (Clemens
and Douglus, 2006). According to Hawken (OECD, 1996) quoted by
Bradbury & Clair (1999): Sustainability is an economic state where
the demands placed upon the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. It can also be expressed in
the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative
economy: Leave the world better than you found it, take no more
than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make
amends if you do. Thus, sustainability adoption may be understood as the adoption of practices that induce an economic state
where needs of the present generation can be met without
depleting natural resources to an extent such that needs of future
generations might remain unfullled. These sustainable practices,
when followed consistently and over long periods of time, lead to
sustainable development (Elkington, 1994). Thus, a sustainable
supply chain is one which, in terms of an extended conceptualization of performance (including natural and social dimensions) as
well as conventional terms of prot and loss, performs well. Such
conceptualization of performance is usually termed the triple
bottom line (Gopal and Thakkar, 2014; Elkington, 1994).
In the past few years, authors have proposed several mechanisms
for developing a sustainable supply chain (Flynn et al., 2015; Jabbour,
2015; Govindan et al., 2014a,b; Ashby et al., 2012; Bommel, 2010;
Gold et al., 2010; Carter and Rogers, 2008; Klassen and Vachon,
2003). In order to develop a sustainable supply chain, it is necessary to strike a balance among the three aspects (economic, social
and environmental performance measures) of the triple bottom line
of sustainability (Elkington, 1994; Seuring and Muller, 2008).
Although several empirical studies are available on sustainability, most of them primarily focus on environmental practices
(Govindan et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015; De Giovannia and Vinzi,
2012). On the other hand, there are signicant number of empirical studies that concentrates only on the social dimension of sustainability (Bai et al., 2015; Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008; Beske
et al., 2008). Further, there are studies that investigate only the
economic aspect of sustainability (Avami, 2013; Bottani and Rizzi,
2008; Trkay et al., 2004; Rao and Holt, 2005; Gunasekaran et al.,
2001). However, in order to have a holistic and comprehensive
understanding of the mechanisms involved in a sustainable supply
chain, studies should be carried out that consider all dimensions of
sustainability (Jakhar, 2015; Silvestre, 2015). The importance of
such a view in the assessment of sustainability performance is
emphasized by the following: Sustainability performance can be
dened as the performance of a company in all dimensions and for
all drivers of corporate sustainability (Schaltegger and Wagner,
2006, p.2). It goes beyond the limits of any one organization and
emphasizes on the performance of the supply chain in entirety
(Fiksel et al., 1999).
In today's context, it is very difcult to achieve sustainability in a
supply chain without supplier support (Jabbour et al., 2014). Several
rms have acknowledged the importance of working in collaboration with supply chain partners to achieve sustainability in supply chain (Gunasekaran et al., 2014; Ashby et al., 2012; Gold et al.,
2010). There are studies that have investigated the role of
buyeresupplier relationship (BSR) in developing a sustainable
supply chain (Hsu et al., 2013; Meena and Sarmah, 2012; Bommel,
2010; Carter and Rogers, 2008). However, very few studies in extant
literature observe the inuence of BSR on sustainability of a supply
chain in context of developing nations like India (Jabbour et al.,
2014; Seuring and Gold, 2013).
According to Abdulrahman et al. (2014), comparatively less
research attention has been given to the association between sustainable supply chain and BSR, especially in context of emerging
837
838
performance review) were the main antecedents to affect sustainable practice adoption in supply chain.
2.1. Developing top management commitment
The proposed conceptual model and related hypotheses are
shown in Fig. 1; arrows depict relationships among the considered
constructs. The integration of sustainability with corporate objectives is one of the primary tasks for supply chain partners when
adopting sustainable practices (Seuring and Muller, 2008). A sustainable supply chain offers companies a chance to gain competitive advantages and address environmental, economic, and social
issues (Buyukozkan and Cifci, 2010). Resource-based theory (RBT)
also known as resource based view of the rm describes and
predicts how sustainable competitive advantage can be gained by
organizations by acquiring and controlling resources. When capabilities and resources lead to abnormal prots, they are believed to
be associated with competitive advantage (Barratt and Oke, 2007).
Such resources comprise tangible (e.g. equipment) and intangible
(e.g. information or process knowledge) assets vital for production
and delivery of goods and services (Olavarrieta and Ellinger, 1997).
Previous research on supply chain management has used RBT;
Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996) suggested that supply chain
linkages represented a type of BSR, the investigation of which
involved the use of RBT.
Having said that, most companies adopt sustainable practices
due to external inuence or pressure from various agencies such as
human right organizations (Bommel, 2010; Peters et al., 2011),
NGOs (Seuring and Muller, 2008), competitors (Diabat et al., 2014),
society (Carter and Rogers, 2008), customers and government (Holt
and Ghobadian, 2009).
Clemens and Douglus (2006) studied the possibilities of
improving sustainability across the US steel industry supply chain
by coercion. Their results showed that coercion had a positive
impact on sustainable practice adoption among supply chain
lez-Benito and Gonz
partners. Gonza
alez-Benito (2006) discussed
the role of stakeholder pressure in adoption of environmental
practices. According to Lai and Wong (2012), regulatory pressure
played a positive role in adoption of environmental practices in
Chinese manufacturing rms. Meixell and Luoma (2015) suggested
that pressure from stakeholders may result in sustainable practice
adoption and establishment of sustainability goals. GilletMonjarret (2015) found that pressure from media agencies also
pushed companies towards sustainability adoption.
Apart from external pressure, support from various groups
(customers, NGOs, media, trade associations, etc.) also inuences
the commitment of top management of supplier companies to
adopt sustainable practices (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Thus, supply
839
food safety issues, adopted by companies to demonstrate the performance of their organizations or products in specic areas
(Giovannucci et al., 2014). Michelsen (2007) established that selection of appropriate supplier(s) increased the chances of better
sustainability outcomes. Similarly, Vachon and Klassen (2006),
Shen et al. (2013) discovered that right supplier selection was
crucial to developing a sustainable supply chain. Thus, we
hypothesize:
H4a: Incorporation of supplier selection activities in sustainability
standards improves environmental performance of supply chain.
H4b: Incorporation of supplier selection activities in sustainability
standards improves social performance of supply chain.
H4c: Incorporation of supplier selection activities in sustainability
standards improves economic performance of supply chain.
After selecting the right supplier(s), it is necessary to extend
required help and support to them. Various strategies such as
conducting supplier conferences, on-site visits and training programmes, and building teams comprising representatives from
both buyer and supplier rms are necessary for supplier development (Simpson and Power, 2005; Zutshi and Sohal, 2004; Bommel,
2010). Information sharing and mutual commitment towards
building strong BSR are also helpful in developing suppliers and
improving supply chain performance (Simpson and Power, 2005;
Rao and Holt, 2005; Peters et al., 2011; Rocha et al., 2007). Companies also need to monitor their supply chain partners on parameters such as coordination and collaboration in different
activities like purchasing, manufacturing and marketing
(Miemczyk et al., 2012; Vachon and Klassen, 2006). Bommel (2010)
emphasized on the importance of continuous monitoring of suppliers' efforts towards implementation of sustainable business
practices. Fortes (2009) asserted that supplier certication, supplier
base reduction, and pressurizing suppliers towards adopting sustainable practices were good strategies for supplier development.
Cilibereti et al. (2008) discussed the concept of clear contracts for
supplier development. It can be said on the basis of the discussion
above that continual supplier development efforts inuence the
triple bottom line of sustainability. Therefore, the following hypotheses are constructed:
H5a: Incorporation of supplier development activities in sustainability standards improves environmental performance of supply
chain.
H5b: Incorporation of supplier development activities in sustainability standards improves social performance of supply chain.
H5c: Incorporation of supplier development activities in sustainability standards improves economic performance of supply chain.
Supplier assessment is necessary to determine the supplier's
readiness to adopt sustainable practices (Keatinga et al., 2008).
According to Hamprecht et al. (2005), developing sustainability
quality standards and assessing suppliers on those standards is
essential to improve the performance of the sustainable supply
chain. Simpson and Power (2005) suggested continuous reviews of
supplier performance outcomes on each sustainability dimension.
Klassen and Vachon (2003) analyzed two types of activities (sustainability evaluation and collaboration) for improving sustainability performance of the supply chain. Focal companies are
effectively pressurizing supply chain partners towards sustainable
practice adoption by integrating environmental and sustainability
targets in their purchase policies (Ytterhus et al., 1999). Vachon
(2007) showed that collaboration with suppliers towards environmental issues was associated with decreased individual
840
Table 1
Responses received during data collection.
Industry Category/Responses
Total
First Round
Second Round (First reminder)
Third Round (Second reminder)
Fourth Round (Follow up)
Total
841
Delivered
Received
Delivered
Received
Delivered
Received
Delivered
Received
738
21
717
31
686
46
640
59
Delivered
Received
738
157
response rate of 21.27 percent). Of these, 16 responses were eliminated due to errors in completing the questionnaire. Therefore, the
effective sample size for the study was 141. These responses were
received in four rounds as shown in Table 1. The number of responses received in the rst, second, third and fourth rounds were
21, 31, 46, and 59 respectively.
The demographic analysis of respondents revealed that 68.79
percent of the respondents held middle-level management positions [such as Assistant Production Manager, Assistant Manager
(Quality Control), Assistant Manager (Purchases)]; 7.8 percent held
top-level management positions (such as President, VP, Executive
Director); and 13.47 percent held senior-level managerial positions
[such as Production Manager, Manager (Quality Control), Manager
(Purchases)]. 53 percent of the respondents had 5e10 years of
experience, 9.2 percent respondents had more than 10 years of
experience, and 16.31 percent respondents had less than 5 years of
experience. This clearly demonstrates that the respondents were
widely experienced and held signicant positions.
Non-response bias test was conducted to check for any biasness
in collected data based on response time by comparing early (21)
and late responses (21) (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). ANOVA Ftest was used to compare any differences with respect to response
time. Analyses reveal that there was no signicant difference between the two groups and conrm that there is no concern of nonresponse biasness in this study.
Common method bias test as described by Podsakoff et al.
(2003) and Williams et al. (2003) was also conducted in the
study. They proposed adding a common factor in the model that
included all indicators of principal constructs. One construct in our
PLS model was added whose indicators are the indicators of the
entire principal construct. The substantive factor loading of the
indicators on the method factor and principal factor has been
compared. In our study, average variance explained by the method
factor is only 0.036 while that shown by the principal construct is
0.68, giving a ratio of nearly 1:19. Based on these results, common
method biasness does not seem to be a concern in our study
(Meena and Sarmah, 2012).
Table 2
Unidimensionality check of the blocks.
Latent Variable
No. of indicators
Cronbach's-a
Dillon-Goldstein's-a
First eigenvalue
Second eigenvalue
Benets
Development
Economical
Environmental
External
Performance
Selection
Social
Top Management
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
5
0.8070
0.8371
0.7189
0.7837
0.8038
0.8058
0.7783
0.7115
0.8563
0.8720
0.8847
0.8419
0.8545
0.8717
0.8850
0.8722
0.8273
0.8962
2.537
3.031
1.922
2.394
2.521
2.163
2.103
1.847
3.177
0.572
0.573
0.609
0.714
0.641
0.496
0.695
0.633
0.708
842
Table 3
Outer model results.
Latent variable
Manifest variable
Outer weight
Loading
Communality
AVE
CR
Cronbach's alpha
Benets
BEN1
BEN2
BEN3
BEN4
EXT1
EXT2
EXT3
EXT4
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
SS1
SS2
SS3
PR1
PR2
PR3
SD1
SD2
SD3
SD4
SD5
ECS1
ECS2
ECS3
SSC1
SSC2
SSC3
EVS1
EVS2
EVS3
EVS4
0.3931
0.3118
0.2413
0.3099
0.2918
0.3049
0.3302
0.3333
0.2723
0.2342
0.2036
0.2528
0.2927
0.3723
0.4040
0.4299
0.4377
0.4018
0.3342
0.2499
0.2285
0.2901
0.2458
0.2679
0.3950
0.4046
0.4507
0.4093
0.4599
0.4046
0.3009
0.2695
0.3796
0.3443
0.8200
0.8200
0.7820
0.7530
0.7990
0.7720
0.8300
0.7720
0.8010
0.8050
0.7870
0.7880
0.7980
0.8800
0.8660
0.7500
0.8930
0.8520
0.7980
0.7500
0.7630
0.8140
0.7500
0.8120
0.7810
0.8210
0.7980
0.7990
0.8180
0.7690
0.7810
0.7630
0.7830
0.7810
0.7770
0.8330
0.8240
0.7490
0.8150
0.7790
0.8280
0.7510
0.7970
0.8240
0.8180
0.7770
0.7690
0.9150
0.8990
0.6760
0.8830
0.8430
0.8200
0.7490
0.7760
0.8030
0.7490
0.8130
0.7950
0.8370
0.7690
0.8130
0.7890
0.7510
0.8020
0.7970
0.7290
0.7630
0.6305
0.8720
0.8071
0.6297
0.8717
0.8039
0.6335
0.8962
0.8564
0.6955
0.8721
0.7784
0.7200
0.8850
0.8059
0.6058
0.8847
0.8371
0.6397
0.8419
0.7189
0.6332
0.8381
0.7115
0.6037
0.8590
0.7837
External
Selection
Performance
Development
Economical
Social
Environmental
843
Table 4
Correlation between latent variables.
Constructs
BENF
SD
ECS
EVS
EXT
PR
SS
SSC
TC
BENF
SD
ECS
EVS
EXT
PR
SS
SSC
TC
0.7941
0.6053
0.7008
0.7205
0.7586
0.7542
0.6179
0.6344
0.6206
0.7783
0.7052
0.7353
0.6222
0.7208
0.7335
0.6605
0.5673
0.7998
0.7689
0.5853
0.7612
0.7165
0.6349
0.5458
0.7770
0.6306
0.7257
0.7297
0.6801
0.571
0.7936
0.7792
0.6009
0.6813
0.7183
0.8486
0.6814
0.7252
0.657
0.8340
0.5928
0.518
0.7957
0.6284
0.7959
of hypotheses is classication of BSR into three categoriesdsupplier selection, supplier development, and supplier performance review. Similarly, sustainability was also considered from
three perspectivesdeconomic, social and environmental, as proposed by Elkington (1994).
Table 5 indicates that hypotheses H2, H3a, H3b, H3c, H5b, and H6a
are supported at a signicance level of 0.0001, while hypotheses
H4a and H5a are supported at a signicance level of 0.001. Further,
hypotheses H1, H6b, H4c, and H5c are supported at a signicance
level of 0.01. However, the collected data do not support hypotheses
H4b and H6c.
Thus, path analysis suggests that expected benets (BENF) and
external pressure (EXT) positively affect the commitment of the toplevel management towards adoption of sustainable practices in the
supply chain. Results show that top-level commitment is positively
and directly related to development of BSR (supplier selection,
supplier development, and supplier performance review). Further,
inclusion of supplier selection activities in sustainability standards
improves the environmental and economic performance of the
supply chain. Also, consideration of supplier development activities
in sustainability standards positively affects the social and environmental performance of the supply chain. Finally, incorporation of
supplier performance review in sustainability standards improves
the environmental, social and economic performance of the supply
chain. Thus, hypotheses H4b and H6c are not supported by collected
data and need further investigation.
844
Table 5
Path coefcients and related hypotheses decisions.
Hypothesis
Path
Path coefcient
T statistics
P value
Decision
H1
H2
H3a
H3b
H3c
H4a
H5a
H6a
H4b
H5b
H6b
H4c
H5c
H6c
0.1782
0.5831
0.5180
0.6570
0.5673
0.3100
0.3088
0.2853
0.0704
0.4961
0.2513
0.2876
0.4350
0.1807
2.2759
6.3475
5.7748
11.5876
7.5143
3.5282
3.6757
3.0851
0.7958
4.2111
2.5378
2.4438
3.2329
1.5373
0.0244*
0.0001***
0.0001***
0.0001***
0.0001***
0.0006**
0.0003**
0.0024***
0.4275
0.0001***
0.0122*
0.0158*
0.0015*
0.1265
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not-supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not-supported
*P 0.05 which means that our hypotheses are accepted/rejected at 0.95 condence level.
**P 0.01 which means that our hypotheses are accepted/rejected at 0.99 condence level.
***P 0.001 which means that our hypotheses are accepted/rejected at 0.999 condence level.
6. Discussion
Based on the fact that sustainable supply chain is an important
subject (Jabbour et al., 2014; Jabbour, 2015; Govindan et al.,
2014a,b), our study explores a new model to determine whether
BSR strategies (supplier selection, supplier development and supplier performance review) focusing on the adoption of sustainable
practices inuence the sustainability performance of the supply
chain. All the direct relationships proposed in our conceptual
model were statistically tested and validated. Thus, results of our
study are supported by existing literature. Further, ndings
emphasize that sustainability performance of a supply chain can be
improved by developing a strong buyeresupplier relationship
(Seuring and Muller, 2008; Jabbour et al., 2014; Flynn et al., 2015).
Commitment of top management of supply chain partners towards
adoption of sustainable practices seems very vital to developing
sustainability focused BSR (Bai et al., 2015; Kannegiesser et al.,
2015). However, no positive relationship was found between supplier selection and social performance of supply chain (H4b), and
supplier development and economic performance of supply chain
(H6c). Barring these two hypotheses, all results of our study are in
line with erstwhile research (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004; Lin, 2007).
Rejected hypothesis revealed some important and interesting
insights relevant for future researchers. Our study stipulated that
supplier selection is not positively contributing to the social sustainability of supply chain. Key reasons behind this rejection could
be turning of items such as, rights to employees, fair trade &
practices, under social sustainability into hygiene factor (bare
minimum criterion) for supplier selection under existing regulations in various countries. Henceforth, supplier selection does not
exhibit signicant inuence over social sustainability of the supply
chain as an overall construct in structural model. Additionally, social welfare as one item of social sustainability has signicant effect
on supplier selection but it does not represent the construct as a
whole. Therefore other MCDM techniques can also prove useful
during the supplier selection process (Kumar et al., 2016). It is also
evident through ndings that supplier development is not helping
in improvement of the economical sustainability of the supply
chain which could be attributed to signicant investment of resources in form of money, training of suppliers, sharing and
development of technology, and conducting workshop & seminar.
Numerous studies have insisted that short run sustainability
adoption is a costly process, whereas long run sustainability
adoption actually pays (Seuring and Muller, 2008; Kumar et al.,
2016). Therefore instead of arguing on supplier development for
sustainability adoption as having negative effect on the economical
Benets (BENF)
BENF1 Improve corporate Image/Reputation
BENF2 Product Differentiation
BENF3 Premium Pricing
BENF4 Provide New Market
External inuence (EXT)
EXT1 Fear of loss of business
EXT2 Penalty
EXT3 Reputation loss
EXT4 Focal company sharing expertise
Top management commitment (TC)
(TC1) Allocation of fund
(TC2) Allocation of resources
(TC3) Looking for developing relationship
(TC4) Integrating sustainability in corporate strategy
(TC5) Developing team to ensure sustainability
integration
Supplier selection (SS)
(SS1) Developing selection standards
(SS2) Allocation of order with respect to performance
(SS5) Feasibility of developing relationship
Supplier development (SD)
(RS1) Technology sharing
(RS2) Resource allocation
(RS3) Information sharing
(RS4) Knowledge sharing
(RS5) Joint teams
Performance review of supplier (PR)
(PR1) Suppliers evaluation and assessment
(PR2) Rating and classication
(PR3) Deciding on relationship continuation
Environmental Supply Chain (EVS)
(EVS1) Reverse logistics
(EVS2) Energy efciency
(EVS3) Pollution & emission minimization
(EVS4) Waste minimization
Social supply chain (SSC)
(SSC1) Rights to employees
(SSC2) Fair trade and transparency
(SSC3) Social welfare
Economical Supply Chain (ECS)
(ECS1) Asset utilization
(ECS2) Cost reduction
(ECS3) Late delivery
845
performance review is directly related to economic and environmental sustainability of the supply chain (Shen et al., 2013; Zhu et al.,
2016).
For practitioners interested in improving the green performance
of their rms, our study provides some implications that they
might wish to consider. First, it may be appropriate to create
awareness among supply chain partners about the expected benets of sustainability adoption, and pressurize them to commit to
sustainability practices. Only after having committed supply chain
partners should there be an investment in BSR. Special attention
may be given to BSR through strategies such as supplier selection,
supplier development and supplier performance review.
For industrial policymakers, it is suggested that technical/conceptual/nancial support be provided to supply chain companies to
motivate them to develop relationships with other supply chain
partners. However, this support should be continual so that strong
sustainability oriented BSR may be developed to improve sustainability performance of the supply chain. The concept of supplier
development (SD) should attract efforts from policymakers towards
developing capabilities of smaller rms. Policymakers could formulate policies to reduce the economic burden of buyer rms which
might result in increased economic sustainability of the supply chain.
Appendix 1
Eltayeb et al., 2011; Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009; Zhu et al., 2008a,b
Kogg, 2003
Eltayeb et al., 2011; Ageron et al., 2011; Ytterhus et al., 1999
Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Clemens and Douglus, 2006
Nakano and Hirao, 2011; Fortes, 2009; Elkington, 1994
Lee, 2008; Seuring and Muller, 2008; Clemens and Douglus, 2006; Elkington, 1994
Zutshi and Sohal, 2004; Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Eltayeba et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2008b;
Ageron et al., 2011; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Zhu et al., 2008a
Eltayeba et al., 2011; Carter and Rogers 2008; Rao and Holt, 2005; Ytterhus et al., 1999
Rocha et al., 2007 Ageron et al., 2011; Ni et al., 2010; Zutshi and Sohal, 2004
Peters et al., 2011; Bommel, 2010; Rocha et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2007a; Rao and Holt, 2005
Peters et al., 2011; Vachon and Klassen, 2008
Rocha et al., 2007
Ciliberti et al., 2008; Keatinga et al., 2008; Vachon, 2007; Koplin et al., 2007
Nakano and Hirao, 2011; Bommel, 2010; Zhu et al., 2008a; Keatinga et al., 2008
Ageron et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2011; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009
Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Vachon, 2007; Koplin et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2007b
Ageron et al., 2011; Daugherty, 2011; Ni et al., 2010; Brito et al., 2008; Rocha et al., 2007; Zutshi and Sohal,
2004
Nakano and Hirao, 2011; Bommel, 2010; Seuring and Muller, 2008
Peters et al., 2011; Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009; Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Zhu et al., 2008b; Vachon, 2007
Bommel, 2010; Keatinga et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2008a
Gopalakrishnan et al., 2012; Ciliberti et al., 2008; Keatinga et al., 2008
Michelsen, 2007; Green et al., 1998
Ageron et al., 2011; Bommel, 2010; Keatinga et al., 2008; Michelsen, 2007
Hsu et al., 2013; Diabat et al., 2014; Eltayeb et al., 2011; Wu and Pagell, 2011
Wu and Pagell, 2011; Ciliberti et al., 2008; Vachon and Mao, 2008
Hsu et al., 2013; Ashby et al., 2012; Kudla and Klaas-Wissing, 2012
Ni et al., 2010; Rao and Holt, 2005; Zhu et al., 2007a
Marshall et al., 2014; Kudla and Klaas-Wissing, 2012
Peters et al., 2011; Bommel, 2010; Ni et al., 2010; Rocha et al., 2007
Eltayeb et al., 2011; Rocha et al., 2007; Young and Kielkiewicz-Young, 2001
Gopalakrishnan et al., 2012; Carbone and Moatti, 2011; Buyukozkan and Cifci, 2010
Gopalakrishnan et al., 2012; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Rao and Holt, 2005; Zutshi and Sohal, 2004
Zhu and Sarkis, 2004
846
References
Abdulrahman, M.D., Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., 2014. Critical barriers in
implementing reverse logistics in the Chinese manufacturing sectors. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 147, 460e471.
ACMA, 2013. ACMA Membership, pp. 83e87. Annual report.
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2011. Sustainable supply management:
an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 168e182.
Armstrong, S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys.
J. Mark. Res. 14, 396e402.
Asefeso, A., 2015. Sustainable Urban Supply Chain Management. AA Global Sourcing
Ltd.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., Hudson-Smith, M., 2012. Making connections: a review of
supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manag.
Int. J. 17 (5), 497e516.
Asher, H., 1983. Casual Modeling, second ed. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Avami, A., 2013. Assessment of optimal biofuel supply chain planning in Iran:
technical, economic, and agricultural perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
26, 761e768.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Dou, Y., 2015. Corporate sustainability development in China: review and analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (1), 5e40.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R., 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach
to causal modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.
Technol. Stud. 2 (2), 285e309.
Barratt, M., Oke, A., 2007. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply
chains: a resource-based theory perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1217e1233.
Beske, P., Koplin, J., Seuring, S., 2008. The use of environmental and social standards
by German rst-tier suppliers of the Volkswagen AG. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 15 (2), 63e75.
Bommel, W.V., 2010. A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability strategies
in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 19
(8), 895e904.
Bottani, E., Rizzi, A., 2008. Economical assessment of the impact of RFID technology
and EPC system on the fast-moving consumer goods supply chain. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 112 (2), 548e569.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., 2015. Reverse logistics as a sustainable supply chain
practice for the fashion industry: an analysis of drivers and the Brazilian case.
In: Sustainable Fashion Supply Chain Management. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 85e104.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2001. The role of supply
management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10 (2), 174e189.
Bradbury, H., Clair, J.A., 1999. Promoting sustainable organizations with Sweden's
natural step. Acad. Manag. Exec. 13 (4), 63e74.
Brito, M.P.D., Carbone, V., Blanquart, C., 2008. Towards a sustainable fashion retail
supply chain in Europe: organization and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 114
(2), 534e555.
Buyukozkan, G., Cifci, G., 2010. Analysis of the sustainable supply chain structure
with incomplete preferences. In: Proceeding of the World Congress on Engineering, WCE, June 30eJuly 2, 2010, London, UK.
Carbone, V., Moatti, V., 2011. Towards greener supply chains: an institutional
perspective. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 14 (3), 179e197.
Carter, C.R., Jenning, M.M., 2002. Social responsibility and supply chain relationships. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 38 (1), 37e52.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving towards new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5), 360e387.
Chen, Y.J., Wu, Y.C.J., Wu, T., 2015. Moderating effect of environmental supply chain
collaboration: evidence from Taiwan. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45 (9/
10).
Cheung, Y.K.F., Rowlinson, S., 2011. Supply chain sustainability: a relationship
management approach. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (3), 480e497.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modelling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J. Mark. Res. 16 (1), 64e73.
Cilibereti, F., Pontrandolfoa, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility:
standard adoption and practices in Italian companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (1),
88e106.
Clemens, B., Douglus, T.J., 2006. Does coercion drive rm to adopt voluntary green
initiatives? Relationship among coercion, superior rm resources and voluntary
green initiatives. J. Bus. Res. 59 (4), 483e491.
Co, H.C., Barro, F., 2009. Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29 (6), 591e611.
Daily, B.F., Huang, S.C., 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human
resource factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21
(12), 1539e1552.
Daugherty, P.J., 2011. Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and
suggested research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (1), 16e31.
De Giovanni, P., Vinzi, V.E., 2012. Covariance versus component-based estimations
of performance in green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (2),
907e916.
Diabat, A., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2014. Analysis of enablers for implementation of sustainable supply chain managementea textile case. J. Clean.
Prod. 83, 391e403.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 65e91.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Schoonhoven, C.B., 1996. Resource-based view of strategic alliance
formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial rms. Organ. Sci. 7 (2),
136e150.
Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-Win-Win business
strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 36, 90e100 (winter).
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., 2011. Green supply chain initiatives among
certied companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating
the outcomes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (5), 495.
Falk, R.F., Miller, N.B., 1992. A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press.
Fiksel, J., McDaniel, J., Mendenhall, C., 1999, November. Measuring progress towards
sustainability principles, process, and best practices. In: Greening of Industry
Network Conference Best Practice Proceedings. http://www.economics.com/
images/Sustainability Measurement_GIN.pdf (accessed June 2015).
Flynn, B., Huang, X., Zhao, X., 2015. Supply chain management in emerging markets:
critical research issues. J. Supply Chain Manag. 51 (1), 3e4.
Fornell, C., Cha, J., 1994. Partial least squares. Adv. Methods Mark. Res. 407, 52e78.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18 (3),
382e388.
Fornell, C., Lorange, P., Roos, J., 1990. The cooperative venture formation process: a
latent variable structural modelling approach. Manag. Sci. 36 (1), 1246e1255.
Fortes, J., 2009. Green supply chain management: a literature review. Otago Manag.
Grad. Rev. 7, 51e62.
Gillet-Monjarret, C., 2015. Assurance of sustainability information: a study of media
pressure. Account. Eur. 1e19 (ahead-of-print).
Giovannucci, D., Von Hagen, O., Wozniak, J., 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility
and the Role of Voluntary Sustainability Standards. Voluntary Standard Systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 359e384.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and inter
organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Manag. 17 (4), 230e245.
2006. The role of stakeholder pressure and
Gonz
alez-Benito, J., Gonz
alez-Benito, O.,
managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (7), 1353e1373.
Gopal, P.R.C., Thakkar, J., 2014. Development of composite sustainable supply chain
performance index for the automobile industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 1e20
(ahead-of-print).
Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., Ambursa, H.M., 2012. Sustainable supply chain management: a case study of British Aerospace (BAe)
Systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 193e203.
tz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., Krafft, M., 2010. Evaluation of structural equation
Go
models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In: Handbook of Partial
Least Squares. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 691e711.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014a. Barriers analysis for green
supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555e568.
Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Jabbour, C.J.C., Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2014b. Eco-efciency based
green supply chain management: current status and opportunities. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2 (233), 293e298.
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015. Reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
240 (3), 603e626.
Govindarajulu, N., Daily, B.F., 2004. Motivating employees for environmental
improvement. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 104 (4), 364e372.
Green, K., Morton, B., New, S., 1998. Green purchasing and supply policies: do they
improve companies environmental performance? Supply Chain Manag. 3 (2),
89e95.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Tirtiroglu, E., 2001. Performance measures and metrics in
a supply chain environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21 (1/2), 71e87.
Gunasekaran, A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S., 2014. Managing organizations
for sustainable development in emerging countries: an introduction. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 21 (3), 195e197.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., Rahman, S., 2015. Green supply chain collaboration and incentives: current trends and future directions. Transp. Res. Part E
Logist. Transp. Rev. 74, 1e10.
Hamprecht, J., Corsten, D., Noll, M., Meier, E., 2005. Controlling the sustainability of
food supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 10 (1), 7e10.
Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J., 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 149e164.
Hartmann, J., Germain, R., 2015. Understanding the relationships of integration
capabilities, ecological product design, and manufacturing performance.
J. Clean. Prod. 92, 196e205.
Hartmann, J., Germain, R., Grobecker, A., 2015. Antecedents of environmentally
conscious operations in transitioning economies: insights from Russia. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (6).
Holt, D., Ghobadian, A., 2009. An empirical study of green supply chain management practices amongst UK manufacturers. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 20 (7),
933e956.
Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Chen, S.H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon
management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management.
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 164e172.
Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least square (PLS) in strategic management
research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (2), 195e204.
847
848
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2007a. Green supply chain management: pressure,
practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 15 (11e12), 1041e1052.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2007b. Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain
management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. J. Environ. Manag. 85
(1), 179e189.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008a. Green supply chain management implications for
closing the loop. Transp. Res. 44 (1), 1e18.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008b. Conrmation of a measurement model for green
supply chain management implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111 (2), 261e273.
Zhu, Q., Liu, J., Lai, K.H., 2016. Corporate social responsibility practices and performance improvement among Chinese national state-owned enterprises. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 171, 417e426.
Zutshi, A., Sohal, A.S., 2004. Adoption and maintenance of environmental management systems-Critical success factors. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 15 (4),
399e419.