The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
30,1
Effects of green supply chain
management practices on
sustainability performance
98
Sibel Yildiz Çankaya
Department of Business Administration,
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey, and
Received 30 March 2018
Revised 28 June 2018
10 September 2018
Accepted 15 September 2018
Bulent Sezen
Department of Business Administration,
Gebze Technical University, Gebze, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of eight dimensions of green supply chain
management (GSCM) on economic, environmental and social performance, which are the three dimensions of
corporate sustainability. The eight dimensions covered in this study are: green purchasing, green
manufacturing, green distribution, green packaging, green marketing, environmental education, internal
environmental management and investment recovery.
Design/methodology/approach – The relationships between dimensions of GSCM and sustainability
performance are tested by using a plant-level survey. A proposed research model and hypotheses are tested
by using cross-sectional face-to-face and e-mail survey data collected from manufacturing firms in Turkey.
Structural equation modeling is used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings – Except for green purchasing, all GSCM dimensions are found to be related with at least one of the
performance dimensions.
Practical implications – The results are important in highlighting the importance of GSCM in improving
sustainability performance.
Originality/value – This paper enhances the understanding of the relationship between different
dimensions of GSCM and the three sustainability performance factors. While there are very few studies
examining the relationship between GSCM and corporate sustainability, this study is important in terms of
exploring the effects of dimensions of GSCM applications on economic, environmental and social performance
one by one, by examining these applications in the form of eight dimensions.
Keywords Green manufacturing, Sustainable production, Supply chain management
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2019
pp. 98-121
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0099
1. Introduction
Environmental problems such as rapid depletion of resources, environmental pollution,
global warming and decrease in biological diversity cause deterioration in the ecological
balance. The fact that these ecological problems are increasing continuously leads
governments, communities, companies and individuals to take precautions in
environmental matters (Walker et al., 2008). Companies that are seen as the source of
environmental problems have had to review their production processes and supply chains
as a result of pressure from the community and governments. Along with the acceptance of
company responsibility resulting from activities throughout supply chain, green supply
chain management (GSCM) has started to become prominent (Adriana, 2009).
The concept of green supply chain is a multidisciplinary issue that emerges essentially
from building environment-friendly management practices in the context of supply chains
(Eltayeb et al., 2011). Srivastava (2007) reported that GSCM was created with the idea of
inclusion of environmental thinking in supply chain management. It includes stages from
product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, product delivery
and end-of-life management of the product. As it may be understood from the definition, it
may be stated that GSCM has a very wide application area. However, in most studies
conducted in early years, GSCM was studied under a single functional dimension, such as
green purchasing or reverse logistics (Sarkis, 1999). The further studies conducted in
subsequent years started to investigate the different phases of supply chains with an
environmentalist perspective (e.g. Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Rao and Holt, 2005; Shang et al.,
2010; Kung et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2013; Luthra et al., 2016; Younis et al., 2016; Vanalle et al.,
2017; Schmidt et al., 2017). Despite the increase in the number of studies that have studied
GSCM in different dimensions in recent years, the fact that this concept has a very wide area
of application makes it difficult to establish a comprehensive framework for the dimensions
that make up GSCM. Some authors studying this field also mentioned the lack of a holistic
framework for GSCM dimensions (Murphy and Poist, 2003; Laosirihongthong et al., 2013;
Sharma et al., 2015).
Sustainable development began to draw attention with the publication of the Brundtland
report in 1987. In this report, sustainability was described as meeting today’s needs without
sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). The literature speaks of three dimensions of
sustainability. These are environmental, economic and social performances. For
sustainability, it is necessary for every business to achieve a balance in economic, social
and environmental processes and be successful in its attempts concerning all these three
dimensions. However, due to the complexity of these dimensions and their relationship to each
other, it is not easy to achieve this balance and reach success. Diabat and Govindan (2011)
pointed out that GSCM may be a good way to balance environmental, economic and social
advantages. Many authors have addressed the importance of a green supply chain in
achieving sustainable development (Green et al., 2012; Rao and Holt, 2005; Sarkis et al., 2011).
For example, the natural resource-based view (NRBV) sees environmental practices as a
source of substantial gains to enterprises (Hart, 1995). These environmental practices can
positively impact corporate sustainability performance by reducing energy consumption and
material usage, improving stakeholder engagement, reducing costs and increasing product
quality. However, in the literature, the number of studies examining the effects of GSCM
practices on the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) is
limited. There are studies that examined the effects of GSCM on economic performance
(Schmidt et al., 2017; Younis et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2005, 2007b, 2013; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004;
Eltayeb et al., 2011), environmental performance (Younis et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Laari et al.,
2016; Choi and Hwang, 2015; Zhu et al., 2005, 2007b, 2013; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Eltayeb et al.,
2011; Chien and Shih, 2007) and social performance (Younis et al., 2016). In these studies, the
impact of GSCM on economic performance and environmental performance was examined,
but social performance, the third dimension of sustainability, was not mentioned much. There
is also a gap in developing countries, as studies on the relationship between GSCM and
performance are mostly carried out in developed countries (Geng et al., 2017).
In the light of the aforementioned shortcomings, in this paper, we identified eight GSCM
dimensions (green purchasing, green manufacturing, green distribution, green packaging,
green marketing, environmental education, internal environmental management and
investment recovery) and aimed to investigate the effects of these dimensions on economic,
environmental and social performance. In order to achieve this goal, a survey was conducted
on 281 manufacturing firms operating in Turkey.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, the research model and related
hypotheses are proposed based on the literature review. The next section describes the
research methodology, including the construction of the instrument and measures, survey
procedure, sample, and reliability and validity tests. Then, the results of the structural
model are presented. The implications of the results for researchers and practitioners are
discussed and the validity of the findings is reevaluated in the last section. The paper
concludes with further research implications.
Green supply
chain
management
99
JMTM
30,1
100
Table I.
Some green supply
chain dimensions
discussed in
the literature
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1 Green supply chain practices
Srivastava (2007) reported that GSCM includes green design, green purchasing, green
production, green distribution, logistics, marketing and reverse logistics. According to
Walker et al. (2008), the green supply chain concept covers all phases of a product’s life
cycle, from the extraction of raw materials through the design, production and distribution
phases, to the use of the product by consumers and its disposal at the end of the product’s
life cycle. Clearly, GSCM practices are extremely extensive. In similarity to the concept of
SCM, the boundary of GSCM depends on the goal of the researcher (Srivastava, 2007).
When empirical studies on GSCM are examined, it is seen that there are more than ten
GSCM dimensions discussed by different authors (Table I). In the light of these studies and
based on expert opinions, eight dimensions were determined to be included in our survey.
These practices are briefly described in the following sections.
2.1.1 Green purchasing. The first dimension of GSCM that we included in our study is
purchasing. The purchasing function is the first step in the value chain. Its success will
depend on the integration of environmental efforts, purchasing activities and environmental
objectives of the firm (Carter et al., 2000). For this reason, the green purchasing function is
also an important component of GSCM.
Green purchasing may be defined as integrating environmental problems and concerns
into the procurement process (Rao and Holt, 2005). Choosing the right supplier has a
significant effect in realizing a company’s environmental goals. However, selecting the
suitable supplier is not enough by itself to improve environmental performance. Once a
Internal environmental management Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Zhu et al.
(IEM)/Green management
(2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Zhu and Sarkis (2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012), Luthra et al. (2016)
Eco-design (ECO)/Green design/
Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Younis
Green R&D
et al. (2016), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Choi and Hwang (2015), Zhu et al.
(2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Kung et al. (2012), Eltayeb et al. (2011), Zhu and
Sarkis (2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al. (2017), Shang et al. (2010), Lee
et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Green purchasing/Green sourcing
Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Zhu et al. (2007a, b, 2013,
2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Younis et al. (2016), Kirchoff et al. (2016),
Teixeira et al. (2016), Hsu et al. (2016), Kung et al. (2012), Eltayeb et al.
(2011), Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Carter et al. (2000), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Shang et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Customer cooperation with
Vanalle et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Teixeira et al. (2016),
environmental concerns
Zhu et al. (2007a, b, 2013), Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Environmental cooperation
Younis et al. (2016)
Investment recovery/Collection and Vanalle et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Choi and Hwang (2015),
Zhu et al. (2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Kung et al. (2012), Zhu and Sarkis
post-use processing/Green stock/
(2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al. (2017), Shang et al. (2010), Green et al.
Reverse logistics
(2012), Younis et al. (2016), Eltayeb et al. (2011)
Green logistics
Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016)
Green manufacturing/green
Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Hsu et al. (2016), Kung et al.
production
(2012), Shang et al. (2010)
Green innovation
Zhu et al. (2017)
Green marketing
Luthra et al. (2016), Kung et al. (2012), Shang et al. (2010)
Green packaging
Hsu et al. (2016)
Public relations and green education Kung et al. (2012)
External GSCM
Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Zhu et al. (2005)
Environmental participation
Shang et al. (2010)
suitable supplier has been selected, the supply process must be managed by adopting a
strategic and collaborative understanding with the suppliers. In addition to the selection and
management of the supplier, it is also important to assess whether the supplier meets the
environmental criteria of the firm (Paulraj, 2011).
2.1.2 Green manufacturing. Green manufacturing is one of the most important steps in
GSCM activities. Green production is the adoption and planning of activities that will
require less energy and resource use in the production system and cause the least possible
environmental pollution (Gao et al., 2009). Green manufacturing aims to continuously
improve industrial processes and products in order to prevent or reduce air, soil and water
pollution. In short, green manufacturing aims to produce environmentally friendly products
with minimal resources (materials, energy and water) and minimal waste (Routroy, 2009).
2.1.3 Green packaging. Green packaging is an important element not only because it is
closely related to the other components of the value chain but also because it has a direct
effect on the environment (Sarkis, 2003). Green packaging practices include simple
packaging, biodegradability, eliminating excessive packaging, use of paper wrappings,
reduced quantity of polystyrene, easy disassembly and use of simplified packaging
materials (Kung et al., 2012).
2.1.4 Green distribution. Green distribution is an important activity that affects the
performance of a green supply chain. Green distribution includes all activities to
reduce/eliminate environmental damages and wastes during shipment (Gao et al., 2009). The
fuel consumed by the vehicle transporting the product, frequency of transportation
operations, distance to the customers and packaging characteristics (weight, shape and
material) affect the performance of green distribution (Sarkis, 2003).
2.1.5 Green marketing. Green marketing involves fulfillment of human needs with
minimal negative impact on the natural environment (Singh and Pandey, 2012). Pride and
Ferrell (1993) referred to green marketing as efforts to design, promote, price and distribute
products that will not harm the environment. In this study, green marketing is considered as
more of a promotion.
2.1.6 Investment recovery. Investment recovery, which is just another dimension, comes
forward as one of the most frequently investigated dimensions in GSCM studies. Investment
recovery is a traditional business practice where excess inventories/materials or the
scrap/used materials are resold (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). The objective of investment recovery
is to recover the highest value from obsolete, end-of-life products and surplus items (Ayres
et al., 1997). In short, investment recovery is about trying to include these items in the
reverse logistics process. Thus, these items can be recovered or disposed of correctly.
2.1.7 Internal environmental management. Internal environmental management is a
company’s creation of its own environmental protection policies and environmental targets
to ensure protection of the environment (Chan et al., 2012). Activities such as upper-level and
mid-level managers’ support of environmental practices, inter-departmental cooperation for
environmental improvements, and setting up an environmental management system are
issues that are within the scope of internal environmental management (Zhu et al., 2005).
2.1.8 Environmental education. Environmental education is seen as one of the important
tools ensuring the development of human resources and paving the way for a more
sustainable society (Agenda 21, 1992, chapter 36). Recent empirical studies emphasized the
importance of education for green management in the firms to be successful (i.e. Sarkis et al.,
2010; Sammalisto and Brorson, 2008). It is stated that environmental education serves two
important purposes. The first is to teach the personnel the environmental policies of the
corporation, and the second is to change the individual behaviors of the personnel in order to
establish a more permanent and responsible relationship with the environment (Sammalisto
and Brorson, 2008).
Green supply
chain
management
101
JMTM
30,1
102
2.2 GSCM and corporate sustainability: an NRBV perspective and stakeholder theory
The resource-based view (RBV ) is widely utilized to explain the impact of GSCM on firm
performance. RBV indicates that rare, indispensable, valuable and non-substitutable
internal resources and capabilities will lead to sustainable competitive advantage (Barney,
1991). Resources include both tangible assets and intangible assets such as leadership,
market agility, positive social reputation and human resources (Mahoney and Pandian,
1992). Tangible resources provide a temporary competitive advantage to the firm as they
can easily be imitated by competitors. Intangible resources are more difficult to imitate
because they are gained by experience (Hart, 1995).
Hart (1995) noted that the constraints created by the natural environment such as
depletion of resources and degradation of the ecosystem, threaten firms’ existing resources
and capabilities. The author then tried to expand the scope of the resource-based approach,
including the opportunities and limitations inherent in the natural environment. Hart’s
typology, which is called NRBV, states that firms can gain competitive advantage by
implementing strategies such as pollution prevention, product stewardship and sustainable
development. According to NRBV, environmental applications, such as GSCM, can be
considered as a strategic resource that enhances firm performance (Choi and Hwang, 2015).
This is because GSCM practices are a difficult source of imitation by competitors as they are
based on knowledge and experience. For example, the positive reputation that can be
achieved with GSCM is not a resource that can easily be imitated by competitors.
Green practice-oriented enterprises will also be able to differentiate themselves from their
competitors at the same time with increased sales gains due to enhanced market legitimacy
and greater social approval (Molina-Azorin et al., 2009). As a result, green practices can
positively impact corporate sustainability performance through cost advantages, increased
competitiveness through increased capabilities, increased production and environmental
performance, creation of new capabilities, waste reduction, product and process quality
improvements (Wijethilake, 2017).
Another theory that may be utilized to explain the effects of GSCM is the stakeholder
theory. Since the industrial revolution and up to a certain period, businesses had heavily
focused only on profit-related activities. However, increased competition, damaged
environment and increased importance paid to quality of life led social responsibility to gain
importance. As social responsibility gained importance, the concept of the stakeholder has
directly come to the forefront.
The concept of the stakeholder is defined as any group or person who affects a business’
achievement of its goals or is affected by these goals (Freeman, 1994). Freeman (1994)
divided groups of stakeholders into two. These are internal stakeholders (employees,
managers, owners) and external stakeholders (suppliers, customers, society, government,
competitors, etc.). According to Freeman, the stronger the relations with these societal
parties are, the easier will it be to reach mutual goals. In general, the stakeholder theory
argues that businesses should meet and manage the expectations and needs of their
stakeholders in the best way.
Stakeholder groups, who have increasingly higher levels of awareness regarding the
environment, wish to see the business’ attitude toward both social and environmental
issues, in addition to its economic success. For example, what the business does against
environmental pollution is important for stakeholders. Hence, businesses try to implement
more proactive environmental strategies such as GSCM in order to develop better relations
with their stakeholders and meet their expectations in the best way (Rivera-Camino, 2007).
Considering the increased attention of stakeholders on how a firm is managed, GSCM is a
significant tool that may answer the needs of stakeholders (Longoni and Cagliano, 2018).
Activities of the business toward protecting the environment may allow it to develop better
relations with customers, partners, employees and the society. Consequently, thanks to
successful stakeholder management, the business may obtain competitive advantage in
various aspects (e.g. efficiency, good reputation, long-term relations with the customers and
the suppliers) (Endrikat et al., 2014).
2.2.1 GSCM and environmental performance. This dimension concerns the
environmental impact of organizational activities. In order to better understand basic
environmental problems and produce effective solutions, it is necessary for the firm to identify
the sources of environmental problems in its scope (such as production, transportation,
procurement and the product). While producing goods and services to meet needs, businesses
consume limited resources and cause environmental pollution by interfering with hazardous
wastes, air, water and soil that they release into the environment (Azapagic, 2003).
Environmental performance measures the ability of a firm to reduce pollution, reduce waste,
prevent use of hazardous substances and reduce environmental accidents.
GSCM practices cover every effort to reduce the adverse effects of a company’s
products or services on the environment. These efforts positively impact the improvement
of environmental performance by reducing the consumption of solid/liquid wastes and
hazardous substances, reducing the incidence of environmental accidents and improving
community health (Eltayeb et al., 2011). In Lee’s (2009) case study of green practices of
small- and medium-sized enterprises, these green practices have reduced material and
water consumption and waste production to the lowest level. Similarly, Azevedo et al.
(2011) stated that green practices contribute to the improvement of environmental
performance by reducing waste caused by businesses. In short, research suggests that
green activities have a positive impact on environmental performance through practices
such as reducing waste production and use of energy and materials (e.g. Zhu and Sarkis,
2004; Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Rao, 2002; Tukker et al., 2001; Shrivastava, 1995; Kung et al.,
2012; Famiyeh et al., 2018). On the basis of the aforementioned studies, this paper proposes
the following hypotheses:
H1a. Green purchasing has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
H1b. Green manufacturing has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
H1c. Green marketing has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
H1d. Green distribution has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
H1e. Green packaging has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
H1f. Internal environmental management has a positive relationship with environmental
performance.
H1g. Environmental education has a positive relationship with environmental
performance.
H1h. Investment recovery has a positive relationship with environmental performance.
2.2.2 GSCM and economic performance. Economic performance is related to the
manufacturing plant’s ability to reduce costs associated with purchased materials, energy
consumption, waste treatment, waste discharge and fines for environmental accidents
(Zhu et al., 2008). This study also included elements such as profitability and sales.
One of the most controversial issues related to GSCM is whether green operation has a cost
to business (Hart and Ahuja, 1996). There are different opinions on this subject. The first
opinion states that GSCM will bring some costs. For instance, Bowen et al. (2001) stated that
environment-related practices do not affect short-term profitability and sales performance,
while Min and Galle (2001) pointed out that green purchasing increases the costs of a business,
which in turn affects the financial performance of the business negatively.
Green supply
chain
management
103
JMTM
30,1
104
The second view argues that GSCM will affect the business’ economic performance in a
positive way. For example, NRBV refers to the idea that environmental practices will
provide significant benefits to businesses. In general, it is mentioned in the literature that
GSCM can improve economic performance in two ways (Hart, 1995). First, businesses can
gain directly from economic benefits by reducing waste and energy costs. Second,
businesses can gain economic benefits from more indirect ways by increasing their loyalty
and corporate reputation through green practices (Schmidt et al., 2017). Some studies in this
area also underlined the findings that GSCM practices positively affect economic
performance (Carter et al., 2000; Rao and Holt, 2005; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Tang et al., 2012).
Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H2a. Green purchasing has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2b. Green manufacturing has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2c. Green marketing has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2d. Green distribution has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2e. Green packaging has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2f. Internal environmental management has a positive relationship with economic
performance.
H2g. Environmental education has a positive relationship with economic performance.
H2h. Investment recovery has a positive relationship with economic performance.
2.2.3 GSCM and social performance. The global movements and changes that have taken
place in recent years have led enterprises around the world to work on social responsibility
and the community has been required to approve the activities businesses carry out.
Therefore, the importance of social sustainability in maintaining corporate sustainability
has emerged, and it is inevitable that businesses are sensitive to stakeholder relations.
The social performance dimension was examined in terms of practices such as social
projects, well-being of all stakeholders and educational opportunities for all personnel.
Studies that are mentioned above examined the effects of GSCM on economic and
environmental performance. However, social performance was generally neglected among
the topics related to GSCM (Eltayeb et al., 2011; Rajeev et al., 2017). However, raising
awareness on corporate social responsibility requires equal consideration of social issues in
managing a supply chain. Green supply chain practices will allow firms to have more
positive images in the eyes of stakeholders, society, customers, personnel and the
government by decreasing damages on the environment. This positive image is highly
important for both customer and personnel satisfaction and loyalty (Hoffman, 2001). Testa
and Iraldo (2010) and Xie and Breen (2012) asserted that GSCM could result in improved
brand image, better relations with stakeholders and improved personnel motivation.
In summary, successful environmental practices may strengthen firms’ relationships with
all stakeholders. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H3a. Green purchasing has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3b. Green manufacturing has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3c. Green marketing has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3d. Green distribution has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3e. Green packaging has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3f. Internal environmental management has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3g. Environmental education has a positive relationship with social performance.
H3h. Investment recovery has a positive relationship with social performance.
All the hypothesized relationships in our theoretical model are shown together in Figure 1.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and the sample
The relationships between GSCM practices and corporate sustainability performance were
tested using a plant-level survey. The data for this study were obtained from a survey
directed at manufacturers in Turkey.
By considering that resource consumption, waste generation and environmental
management practices are mostly related to production (Zhu et al., 2013; Esfahbodi et al.,
2017), our survey focused mainly on chemical, electronics and automotive manufacturers.
The target group of the study was the companies operating in the automotive, electronics
and chemical sectors in Turkey which had 50 or more employees. Two sources have been
used to identify these companies: the Turkish Ministry of Industry and Trade and the
Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges. A total of 1,039 companies were
listed from these two sources.
Survey data were gathered using two methods: face-to-face surveys and e-mail surveys.
The e-mail survey was used first in this study. At the first stage, e-mails were sent to 1,039
companies, and within the next week they were informed by telephone. Two weeks later,
reminder e-mails were sent to the responders. This process was repeated four weeks later,
and reminder e-mails were sent to the responders. In total, 122 surveys were collected by
e-mail. Later, face-to-face interviews were used to increase the return rate. The face-to-face
data collection process lasted approximately four months. In total, 159 surveys were
collected as a result of the face-to-face interviews, and a total of 281 surveys were returned,
representing a response rate of 27 percent. In general, response rates greater than 20 percent
are recommended in supply chain management research (e.g. Prahinski and Benton, 2004;
Pagell et al., 2004; Darnall et al., 2010; Christmann, 2000).
Of each enterprise, a person in charge on a senior level was interviewed. All respondents
held plant-level management positions at the manufacturing organizations. Of all people
who filled our survey; 59 were plant managers, 47 were assistant managers, 74 were
Green supply
chain
management
105
Green Purchasing
Green Manufacturing
Environmental
Performance
Green Marketing
Green Distribution
Green Packaging
Economic
Performance
Internal
Environmental
Management
Environmental
Education
Investment Recovery
Social Performance
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
JMTM
30,1
106
operations managers, 43 were supply chain managers, 32 were logistics managers and
26 were purchasing managers.
Since different sectors have different environmental arrangements, skills and
experiences, their levels of environmental practices may also be different (Zhu et al.,
2007a). For this reason, we studied different sectors. Our survey respondents were from
three industries. The automotive industry returned 103 questionnaires (36.8 percent), the
chemical industry returned 94 questionnaires (33.4 percent) and the electronics industry
returned 84 questionnaires (29.8 percent).
For the non-response bias test, the participants who responded immediately to the
questionnaire and those who responded at a later stage were compared using t-test in terms
of number of employees and sector (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). For this purpose,
122 questionnaires obtained via e-mail were divided into two groups. The first group
consisted of 81 questionnaires, and the second group consisted of 41 questionnaires. There
was no statistically significant difference in the comparison between the early and late
questionnaires. Additionally, a second test was conducted to determine whether there was a
difference between the results obtained from the two different surveys (face-to-face and
e-mail). The responses obtained face-to-face and via e-mail were compared across both the
numbers of employees and GSCM practices, and there was no statistically significant
difference between the data obtained by the two different methods.
To examine the potential threat of common method variance bias, the one-factor test that
was recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986) was performed. The relevant factor
analysis revealed that neither a single factor emerged, nor a general factor was identified in
the unrotated factor structure. These results ruled out the possibility of any serious common
method variance bias (Chan, 2005).
3.2 Construction of the instrument and measure
Prior to the development of the survey, four academicians and ten supply chain
practitioners were asked to answer which dimensions should be included in GSCM
practices. As a result of these interviews, ten dimensions were determined at the first stage.
These dimensions were: green purchasing, eco-design, green manufacturing, green
packaging, customer cooperation with environmental concerns, green distribution, green
marketing, investment recovery, environmental education and internal environmental
management. A survey instrument was developed based on the literature to measure the
constructs of interest. Since the data would be collected from Turkish companies, the survey
questions were translated into Turkish first by means of the parallel-translation method and
then later translated into English by another person. Then the two translators reconciled all
the differences together. The entire questionnaire was pre-tested before it was sent out to
the respondents. First, a total of seven interviews with four industry experts and three
academicians were separately conducted. These experts were asked to review the
questionnaire for structure, readability, ambiguity and completeness (Dillman, 2000).
Some of the statements in the survey questions were clarified during this process.
A pilot study was conducted at a later stage. The validity and reliability of the eco-design
and customer cooperation with environmental concerns dimensions could not be established
in this first pilot study of 32 companies. As a result, these two dimensions were removed
from the survey, and the pilot study was repeated with the participation of 54 firms.
Cronbach’s α values for all factors were satisfactory, exceeding the threshold value of 0.70
suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The final survey was redesigned in accordance
with the feedback received from the respondents during the pilot test.
The green purchasing scale was mostly adapted from Zhu et al. (2007a). One item
of this scale (which is related to supplier selection) was taken from Shang et al. (2010).
The green manufacturing, green distribution and green packaging scale items were
selected from previous studies including those by Shang et al. (2010), Perotti et al. (2012),
Faruk et al. (2002), Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006) and Lieb and Lieb (2010).
The internal environmental management scale was adapted from Zhu et al. (2007a) and
Shang et al. (2010). The green marketing and environmental education scale items
were adapted from Shang et al. (2010). The investment recovery scale was adapted from
Chan et al. (2012).
Three performance measures were identified as: environmental, economic and
social performances. The environmental performance scale was adapted from Zhu et al.
(2007a) and Paulraj (2011). The economic performance scale was adapted from Zhu
et al. (2007a), Paulraj (2011) and Chan et al. (2012). The social performance scale was
adapted from Paulraj (2011) and Zailani et al. (2012). Additionally, three items in this scale
were developed based on a literature review (e.g. Azapagic, 2003; GRI, 2002). All items
were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree,
3 – neutral, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree).
3.3 Tests for reliability and validity
This section reports the results of the tests for reliability and three components of construct
validity – unidimensionality, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Using the SPSS
and AMOS statistical programs, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out,
followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). First, the reliability level of each scale of
GSCM and performance constructs was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s α (Table III)
(Cronbach, 1951). All the scales showed acceptable reliability levels (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994).
To establish the unidimensionality of the factors, an EFA was conducted for each
construct using principal component extraction with a varimax rotation. The examination
of eigenvalues and screen test results revealed seven factors of GSCM. The originally
separate scales of “green packaging” and “green distribution” later formed a single factor;
hence, this factor was renamed as “green packaging and distribution.” For the performance
constructs, three factors emerged, as expected: economic, environmental and social
performance. As a result of the EFA, the questions with low factor loads or cross-loaded
questions were removed from the scale. All items were loaded into their respective factors
with loadings greater than 0.50.
The AMOS software was employed to test the measurement models and the research
model. The fit indices used in this study were the ratio of χ2 to the degrees of freedom, root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI). Our
model fit was as follows: χ2/df of 1.482; CFI ¼ 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.041. As it may be seen from
the values, the fit indices were at on acceptable level (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
CFA results can also be used as a proof of convergent validity (Carr and Kaynak,
2007). The standardized factor loading values of all items were above the value of 0.50.
The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.96 (Table II). Additionally,
convergent validity was tested with composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE). The CR for each variable was calculated (Paulraj et al., 2008). All these
values were above the threshold value of 0.70 (Hult et al., 2007). Moreover, the AVE
value was calculated for each variable. The AVE values were above or near 0.50, which was
acceptable (Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Hult et al., 2007). It is also expected that CR is higher
than AVE (CRWAVE and AVEW0.5). Therefore, the convergent validity of the
measurement indicators was supported.
Discriminant validity was estimated through the relationship between correlations
among first-order constructs and the square roots of AVE. The square root of the AVE for
each construct (reported on the diagonal) in Table III was greater than the correlation of the
construct to all the other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Green supply
chain
management
107
JMTM
30,1
108
Items
Green purchasing
GP1. Providing design specification to suppliers that include environmental requirements for
purchased item
GP2. Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives
GP3. Choice of suppliers by environmental criteria
GP4. Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification
GP5. Environmental audit for suppliers’ internal managementa
Green manufacturing
Gma1. The manufacturing process will reduce the noise pollution to the minimumb
Gman2. Substitution of polluting and hazardous materials/parts
Gman3. Filters and controls on emissions and dischargesb
Gman4. Production planning and control focused on reducing waste and optimizing
materials exploitation
Gman5. Process design focused on reducing energy and natural resources consumption
in operations
Green distribution and packaging
GDP1. Reduction of packaging materialsa
GDP2. Ecological materials for primary packaging
GDP3. Recyclable or reusable packaging/containers in logistics
GDP4. Selection of cleaner transportation methods
GDP5. Effective shipment consolidation and full vehicle loading
GDP6. Routing systems to minimize travel distancesa
Internal environmental management
IEM1. Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements
IEM2. Established an environmental protection index of recycling, gaseous reduction and
energy conservation
IEM3. Environmental management system exists
IEM4. Support for environmental practices from senior managers and
mid-level managers
IEM5. The company’s efforts in relation to environmental matters have exceeded the
requirements of the relevant regulationsa
Table II.
Confirmatory factor
analyses results
Factor loading
from CFA
0.66
0.80
0.70
0.67
n/a
n/a
0.70
n/a
0.80
0.65
n/a
0.67
0.55
0.75
0.66
n/a
0.87
0.96
0.93
0.87
n/a
Green marketing
Gmar1. Supply to customers and institutions of regular voluntary information about
environmental management
Gmar2. Sponsoring of environmental events/collaboration with ecological organizations
Gmar3. Use of natural environmental arguments in marketing
Gmar4. Periodic updating of the website on environmental issues
Gmar5. Material packages will be labeled for retrieval purposes
Gmar6. Considered that Eco Products boost the consumers’ purchasing willingness
0.76
0.73
0.69
0.80
0.66
Environmental education
EE1. Holding awareness seminars for suppliers/contractors
EE2. Natural environmental seminars for executives
EE3. Natural environment training programs for managers and employees
EE4. Participation in government-subsidized natural environmental programs
0.74
0.71
0.59
0.80
Investment recovery
IR1. Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials
IR2. Establishing a recycling system for used and defective products
0.83
0.73
0.66
(continued )
Items
Economic performance
ECP1. Decrease in cost of materials purchased
ECP2. Decrease in cost of energy consumption
ECP3. Decrease in fee for waste discharge
ECP4. Improvement in earnings per share
ECP5. Improvement in return on investment
ECP6. Sales growth
ECP7. Profits growth
Social performance
SOP1. Improvement in customer satisfaction
SOP2. Improvement in its image in the eyes of its customers
SOP3. Improvement in investments on social projects (education, culture, sports)
SOP4. Improvement in relations with community stakeholders, e.g., nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and community activists
SOP5. Improved awareness and protection of the claims and rights of people in
community serveda
SOP6. Improvement in employee training and education
SOP7. Improvement in occupational health and safety of employees
SOP8. Improvement in overall stakeholder welfare or betterment
Factor loading
from CFA
0.68
0.77
0.70
0.80
0.77
0.80
0.76
Green supply
chain
management
109
0.81
0.74
0.78
0.61
n/a
0.70
0.71
0.74
Environmental performance
n/a
1. Improvement of an enterprise’s environmental situationb
2. Reduction in waste (water and/or solid)
0.68
3. Reduction in air emission
0.62
4. Decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials
0.83
5. Decrease of frequency for environmental accidents
0.58
Notes: aItems GDP1, GDP6, IEM5, GP5 and SOP5 were dropped according to the exploratory factor analysis
result; bItems of Gman1, Gman3, and ENP1 were dropped according to the confirmatory factor analysis results
4. Results
4.1 Test results of the structural model
Table IV depicts the SEM results of the relationship between GSCM practices and factors of
performance measures (Table V ).
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study contributes to the development of GSCM theory by investigating the relationships
between GSCM practices and corporate sustainability performances. The impact of the seven
GSCM dimensions on the three dimensions of sustainability performance (environmental,
economic and social) was examined. This will enable managers to identify appropriate GSCM
practices to strengthen the performance areas that need improvement.
We argued that the NRBV framework will have a positive impact on the sustainability
performance of GSCM practices. Most studies conducted in this field support this argument. For
example, Schmidt et al. (2017) found a positive relationship between GSCM practices and market
performance and financial performance. Chan (2005) found that environmental strategies were
positively related to both environmental performance and economic performance.
However, in the literature, it was also stated that investments made for green practices will
increase the cost burden of the enterprises and affect the economic performance negatively. For
example, Green et al. (2012) found that the relationship between the eco-design and investment
recovery dimensions in relation to environmental performance was positive, but these
dimensions were not related to financial performance. Esfahbodi et al. (2017) found no
relationship of sustainable procurement and sustainable distribution with economic performance.
Table II.
Table III.
Bivariate correlations,
AVE and composite
reliability for
the variables in
research model
2
3
4
1. Green purchasing
(0.71)a
2. Green Manufacturing
0.330** (0.72)a
3. Green marketing
0.489** 0.400** (0.72)a
4. Green distribution and
packaging
0.339** 0.531** 0.426** (0.66)a
5. Internal environmental
management
0.334** 0.319** 0.318** 0.305**
6. Environmental education
0.208** 0.290** 0.301** 0.253**
7. Investment recovery
0.321** 0.317 ** 0.372** 0.358 **
8. Environmental performance 0.350** 0.463** 0.434** 0.475**
9. Economic performance
0.274** 0.362** 0.214** 0.355**
10. Social performance
0.324** 0.403** 0.344** 0.457**
Notes: aSquare root of AVE. **Correlations is significant at 0.01 level
1
(0.91)a
0.173**
0.308**
0.374**
0.256**
0.363**
5
(0.71)a
0.279**
0. 226**
0.348**
0.193**
6
a
8
9
10
0.76
0.438
0.95
0.80
0.76
0.78
0.90
0.89
0.80
0.76
0.87
Composite
reliability
0.503
0.515
0.516
AVE
0.824
0.511
0.61
(0.78)
a
0.47
0.312** (0.68)
0.573
0.296** 0.328** (0.76)a
0.364** 0.465** 0.345** (0.73)a 0.532
7
110
Variables
0.948
0.782
0.770
0.796
0.910
0.891
0.766
0.792
0.765
0.873
Cronbach’s
α
JMTM
30,1
GP
GMan
GMar
GDP
IEM
EE
IR
Environmental performance
β
p
Economic performance
β
p
−0.066
0.299
0.247
0.352
0.161
−0.012
0.185
0.122
0.234
−0.156
0.230
0.089
0.220
0.083
0.471
0.000***
0.006***
0.000***
0.016**
0.862
0.006***
0.129
0.004***
0.059
0.004***
0.162
0.003***
0.197
Social performance
β
p
−0.005
0.251
0.079
0.327
0.149
−0.015
0.226
0.953
0.003***
0.344
0.000***
0.028**
0.835
0.012**
χ2/df ¼ 1,652; IFI ¼ 0.919; CFI ¼ 0.918; RMSEA ¼ 0.048
Notes: **p o0.05; ***p o0.01
Environmental performance
Hypotheses
111
Table IV.
SEM results
Economic performance
Hypotheses
GP
H1a
Not supported
H2a
GMan
H1b
Supported
H2b
GMar
H1c
Supported
H2c
H1d–H1e
Supported
H2d–H2e
GDPa
INV
H1f
Supported
H2f
EE
H1g
Not supported
H2g
IR
H1h
Supported
H2h
Note: aDistribution and packaging are combined
Green supply
chain
management
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Social performance
Hypotheses
H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d–H3e
H3f
H3g
H3h
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
The findings of this study show that GSCM practices affected environmental performance
positively by leading to environmental improvements. However, it seems that GSCM was
not as effective as expected in affecting social performance, and especially economic
performance. In the study, only three of the seven GSCM dimensions were correlated with
economic performance. This may be due to the fact that the initial stages of GSCM usually
require investment (Simpson et al., 2007), which may negatively impact the costs of Turkish
businesses that are newly starting green practices. For this reason, it is not possible to say
that Turkish businesses are on a sufficient level of maturity in green supply chain practices.
5.1 GSCM practices and economic performance
The results of our study show that three of the seven GSCM dimensions were positively
related to economic performance. These dimensions were green production ( β ¼ 0.234),
green distribution and packaging ( β ¼ 0.230) and environmental education ( β ¼ 0.220).
According to prior research, most of the effects of enterprises on the environment are related
to production and distribution (Beamon, 1999). Since legal obligations are closely and
directly related to these areas, firms initiate their environmental practices from production,
distribution and packaging activities. Practices such as resource and energy saving,
reduction of waste and using less packaging help firms develop their environmental
performances, and since these are closely related to economic performance, they are rapidly
adopted by firms. For example, many businesses prefer recycled packages because these
packages are cheaper than others. Similarly, reducing packaging materials will reduce not
only packaging costs, but also transportation costs (Carter et al., 2000). With their green
production, distribution and packaging practices, businesses will be able to use their
Table V.
Hypotheses and
results summary
JMTM
30,1
112
resources more efficiently. This will allow enterprises to reduce their production costs and
increase their efficiency. It was also mentioned in the literature that green production
practices can help businesses improve their productivity (Luthra et al., 2016) and increase
profits (Luthra et al., 2016; Hsu et al., 2016) and market share growth (Hsu et al., 2016).
No significant relationship was found between investment recovery and economic
performance in our study. This result is consistent with those of other studies indicating
that investment recovery is less attracted to interesting developing countries (e.g. Vanalle
et al., 2017; Eltayeb et al., 2011). This may be due to the high investment requirements of
recycling activities (Geng et al., 2017). Because of the lack of recycling infrastructure, this
dimension has not developed much in Turkey (Gilanlı et al., 2012). It maybe stated that
investment recovery is at the beginning stage for Turkish firms, and more experience and
technology investments are needed for them.
Another highly noteworthy finding in the study was that there was no relationship
between the dimensions of green purchasing and corporate sustainability. Green
purchasing is an external GSCM dimension (Zhu et al., 2007a). Therefore, it is not up to
only one firm to control or successfully implement this dimension. As stated by Hall (2000),
participation of dominant organizations is needed for external GSCM practices to be
successful because these firms are under constant environmental pressure, and they have
sufficient impact on their suppliers. Therefore, there should be a strong relationship
between the producer and supplier for the success of green purchasing practices.
It was mentioned in the literature that green marketing practices increase the reputation
and image of the business and lead to an increase in sales, and thus, they affect the economic
performance of the business positively (Chan, 2005). In this study, however, no relationship
was observed between green marketing and economic performance. This may be because,
as some authors suggest, green marketing practices can initially lead to additional costs for
companies (Welling and Chavan, 2010; Jain and Kaur, 2004). Research on green marketing in
Turkey suggests that this concept is still in its infancy (Aslan and Çınar, 2015).
In the study, no relationship was established between economic performance and
internal environmental management. The need to adapt to internal procedures significantly
limits opportunistic behavior of businesses and leads to an increase in operational costs.
This may affect the economic performance of the business in a negative way (Cordeiro and
Sarkis, 1997).
It is very important to investigate how GSCM affects economic performance in terms of
Turkish businesses which are trying to balance environmental protection and financial
concerns. As it may be seen from the results of the study, the other dimensions of GSCM in
Turkey (green production, green packaging and distribution, and environmental education),
except for the three specified three dimensions, did not provide a financial return. As Bowen
et al. (2001) also stated, environment-related practices usually do not provide economic
benefit in the short run, but they do show economic benefits in the long run. It may be stated
that the phenomenon of GSCM is still in its early stages in Turkey. Other studies in this field
in Turkey also agreed with the results of this study (e.g. Altuntaş and Türker, 2012; Atrek
and Özdağoğlu, 2014).
5.2 GSCM practices and environmental performance
The results of our study show that five of the seven GSCM dimensions were positively
related to environmental performance. These dimensions were green production ( β ¼ 0.299),
green marketing ( β ¼ 0.274), green packaging and distribution ( β ¼ 0.352), internal
environmental management ( β ¼ 0.161) and investment recovery ( β ¼ 0.185). It may be
stated that the improvement in the environmental performance of businesses in Turkey
stem substantially from these variables. The green packaging and distribution dimension is
the variable that affects environmental performance to the highest extent. Green packaging
is packaging a product in an environmentally sensitive manner, which reduces the
environmental impact caused by packaging. One of the processes that maybe carried out for
environmentally sensitive packaging is to reduce packaging material. This way, fewer
resources will be consumed in addition to the fact that the amount of waste that is generated
will be reduced. Another process is preferring reusable packages. Although these packages
are initially more expensive than disposable packages, they will reduce procurement and
waste costs, as they are used multiple times. Another process that maybe carried out for
environmentally sensitive packaging is recycling. Through recycling practices, the
amount of waste created by a business can be reduced (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). Green
distribution tries to minimize environmental impacts caused by distribution.
Green distribution contributes to the improvement of environmental performance by
reducing fuel consumption, optimizing the distribution route and ensuring that containers
are fully loaded (Kumar et al., 2015).
In the study, no relationship was found between green purchasing and environmental
performance. This may be due to the fact that green purchasing practices may focus on
improving the environmental performance of suppliers, largely due to the company’s own
environmental performance (Eltayeb et al., 2011).
5.3 GSCM practices and social performance
Finally, the results of our study show that four of the seven GSCM dimensions were
positively related to social performance. These were green production ( β ¼ 0.251), green
distribution and packaging ( β ¼ 0.352), internal environmental management ( β ¼ 0.149) and
investment recovery ( β ¼ 0.226).
As it may be seen, GSCM practices positively affect not only the environmental and
economic performance but also the social performance of businesses. Businesses that adopt
and implement an environmentally sensitive production approach will be able to develop
better relationships with the society through such sensitivities. With the help of green
production activities, removal of harmful chemicals from the production process will
prevent workers from being exposed to pollutants and dangerous substances.
In the study, no relationship was observed between green marketing and social
performance. In fact, green marketing is an important tool by which a business can develop
relationships with all its stakeholders. However, Gottlieb et al. (1995) reported that the vast
majority of green marketing practices were unsuccessful. The authors stated that the
exaggerated and contradictory impression given to the consumer might be the cause of this
situation. Such situations cause consumers to become increasingly insecure about green
products. As a result, it is necessary for Turkish businesses to include more realistic and
consistent messages in their promotional activities so that this dimension can improve
social performance.
In the study, no relationship was found between environmental education and social
performance. Employees, managers and distribution channel partners need to be aware of
environmental issues along with increased environmental pollution. Environmental
education contributes to increased awareness of the environment and achievement of
green strategy adopted by the business to reach a broad mass. However, it may take some
time for green strategies to reach abroad mass. As in the case of green marketing,
environmental education is not a practice whose outcomes we can observe in a short time.
These are long running, self-sacrificing processes.
In the study, no relationship was observed between green purchasing and social
performance. This practice had an indirect effect on the business by obtaining green inputs,
while the direct effect was on the suppliers. Eltayeb et al. (2011) found no relationship
between green purchasing practices, and environmental outcomes, economic outcomes, cost
reductions and intangible outcomes in Malaysia.
Green supply
chain
management
113
JMTM
30,1
114
5.4 Managerial implications
This study provides practical implications for both practitioners in the manufacturing
context and policy makers. Most producers’ priorities in developing countries such as
Turkey are to improve their economic situation and avoid economic risks. However, Hart
(1995) argued that it is not possible for businesses that pursue short-term profits to be
successful in the long run by ignoring the environment. This study reports the importance
of acting with a win-win principle where profit objectives overlap with not only profit
maximization but also social benefits. Furthermore, with this study, managers will be able to
obtain information about the relative benefits of each green practice.
The formula of a GSCM strategy is not a very simple matter. This is because, as a result
of green practices, while some cost items increase (e.g. investment cost, operational cost,
training cost, procurement cost), other cost items may decrease. It is, therefore, important for
managers to conduct a cost-benefit analysis correctly. Our research results show that,
especially with green production and green distribution-packaging practices, businesses
can obtain some economic benefits.
Green purchasing practices seem to have been neglected in Turkey. Green purchasing is
an important element that will reduce the environmental impact of the product throughout
its life. Turkish businesses need to establish closer relationships with their suppliers in
environmental matters and support their suppliers in environmental practices.
Another concept that is not adequately addressed by Turkish businesses is
environmental education. Nevertheless, environmental education has a key role in the
realization of green practices (Stone, 2000). With this practice, more effective cooperation
can be realized with customers, suppliers and distribution channel partners on environmentrelated issues (Teixeira et al., 2016). Therefore, Turkish businesses should invest more in
green education, and the gaps and needs in this area should be analyzed in an effective way.
Investment recovery is another issue that Turkish businesses should focus on. In
addition to the economic benefits it provides to businesses, it is a collection of activities that
help conserve natural resources, save energy and reduce the harm to the environment by
disposing off products that have completed their lives. Turkish businesses need to be
encouraged more about recycling practices (both financially and educationally). Such
assistance programs may allow Turkish producers to reduce the costs associated with
implementing investment recovery programs and obtain significant financial
improvements. Changes to processes, such as incentives, environmental policies and
regulations, are not enough to achieve the desired outcomes. At the same time, there is a
need for a set of regulations (e.g. forecasting, production, logistics) in the operational sense
(Linton et al., 2007).
Green marketing offers significant opportunities for businesses that want to relocate
themselves and connect with other segments of the society, especially target consumers. While
some businesses only try to achieve this by greening their advertisements, other businesses
that are genuinely sensitive to the environment and incur additional costs for it are unable to
achieve the desired results because they cannot adequately express themselves to consumers.
Businesses that are sensitive to the environment in their operations need to benefit more
effectively from persuasive communication, so that they can better express this situation.
5.5 Limitations and future studies
Every effort was made at the design stage of this study to obtain reliable and valid findings
as presented in previous sections. Nevertheless, several limitations of this study should be
discussed in this section.
This study focused on implementation of GSCM practices in manufacturing
organizations. The model can also be modified to reflect other types of organizations,
such as wholesalers and retailers.
This study utilized the cross-sectional survey method. Causal inference cannot be
explained due to the cross-sectional structure of the study. Nevertheless, the surveys were
applied to sincere, knowledgeable and authorized people, and the validity and reliability of
the collected data were ensured through credible statistical tests and an adequate sample
size (Sezen et al., 2012).
As mentioned above, there was no relationship between some of the variables in this
study. In particular, GSCM could not show the expected effect on economic performance.
Therefore, in future studies, these relationships maybe followed closely to investigate how
GSCM affects economic performance.
Although the number of studies conducted on environmental issues increases in Turkey,
the number of empirical studies on GSCM is very limited. Since the direct effect between
GSCM dimensions and performance was not measured before, we only measured the main
effect between the two concepts. In future studies, moderator effects may be explored to
better understand the effect of GSCM on performance.
References
Adriana, B. (2009), “Environmental supply chain management in tourism: the case of large tour
operators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 16, pp. 1385-1392.
Agenda 21 (1992), “Promoting education, public awareness and training”, The United Nations, Rio de
Janeiro, Chapter 36, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/a21/a21-36education.html (accessed July 21, 2013).
Altuntaş, C. and Türker, D. (2012), “Sustainable supply chains: a content analysis of sustainability
reports”, Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 39-64.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Aslan, F. and Çınar, R. (2015), “A study intended for determining environmental products tendency of
Kafkas university students within green marketing activities”, Kafkas University Economics
and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 169-184.
Atrek, B. and Özdağoğlu, A. (2014), “Green supply chain applications: aluminum joinery sector Izmir
example”, Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 13-26.
Ayres, R., Ferrer, G. and Van Leynseele, T. (1997), “Eco-efficiency, asset recovery and
remanufacturing”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 557-574.
Azapagic, A. (2003), “Systems approach to corporate sustainability a general management
framework”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 303-316.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Machado, V.C. (2011), “The influence of green practices on supply
chain performance: a case study approach”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 850-871.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-56.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Designing the green supply chain”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001), “Horse for courses: explaining the
gap between the theory and practice of green supply”, Greener Management International, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 41-60.
Carr, A.S. and Kaynak, H. (2007), “Communication methods, information sharing, supplier development
and performance: an empirical study of their relationships”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-370.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R. and Grimm, C.M. (2000), “Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an
empirical investigation”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
Green supply
chain
management
115
JMTM
30,1
Chan, R.Y.K. (2005), “Does the natural-resource-based view of the firm apply in an emerging economy?
A survey of foreign invested enterprises in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 625-672.
Chan, R.Y.K., He, H., Chan, H.K. and Wang, W.Y.C. (2012), “Environmental orientation and corporate
performance: the mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating
effect of competitive intensity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 621-630.
116
Chien, M.K. and Shih, L.H. (2007), “An empirical study of the implementation of green supply chain
management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and their relation to
organizational performances”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 383-394.
Choi, D. and Hwang, T. (2015), “The impact of green supply chain management practices on firm
performance: the role of collaborative capability”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 8
Nos 3/4, pp. 69-83.
Christmann, P. (2000), “Effects of ‘best practices’ of environmental management on cost advantage: the
role of complementary assets”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 663-680.
Cordeiro, J. and Sarkis, J. (1997), “Environmental proactivism and firm performance: evidence from
security analyst forecasts”, Business Strategy and Environment, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 104-114.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16
No. 8, pp. 297-334.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (2010), “Adopting proactive environmental strategy:
the influence of stakeholders and firm size”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 1072-1094.
Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011), “An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation
of green supply chain management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 659-667.
Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S. and Ramayah, T. (2011), “Green supply chain initiatives among certified
companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the outcomes”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 495-506.
Endrikat, J., Guenther, E. and Hoppe, H. (2014), “Making sense of conflicting empirical findings:
a meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial
performance”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 735-751.
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., Watson, G. and Zhang, T. (2017), “Governance pressures and performance
outcomes of sustainable supply chain management – an empirical analysis of UK
manufacturing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 155, pp. 66-78.
Famiyeh, S., Adaku, E., Kwasi, A.-G., Disraeli, A.-D. and Charles, T.A. (2018), “Environmental
management practices, operational competitiveness and environmental performance: empirical
evidence from a developing country”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 588-607.
Faruk, A.C., Lamming, R.C., Cousins, P.D. and Bowen, F.E. (2002), “Analyzing, mapping, and managing
environmental impacts along supply chains”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 13-36.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Freeman, R.E. (1994), “The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-421.
Gao, Y., Li, J. and Song, Y. (2009), “Performance evaluation of green supply chain management based
on membership conversion algorithm”, ISECS International Colloquium on Computing,
Communication, Control, and Management, IEEE, Sanya, pp. 237-240.
Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), “Logistics research methods: employing structural equation
modelling to test for construct validity”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Geng, R., Mansouri, S.A. and Aktas, E. (2017), “The relationship between green supply chain
management and performance: a meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging
economies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 183, Part A, pp. 245-258.
Gilanlı, E., Altuğ, N. and Oğuzhan, A. (2012), “Reverse logistics activities in Turkey”, Ege Academic
Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 391-399.
Gonzalez-Benito, J. and Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2006), “The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial
values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1353-1373.
Gottlieb, R., Smith, M. and Roque, J. (1995), “Greening or green washing?: the evolution of industry
decision making”, in Gottlieb, R. (Ed.), Reducing Toxics, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 170-208.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 290-305.
GRI (2002), “Sustainability reporting guidelines”, Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, MA, available at:
www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002/gri_2002_guidelines (accessed June 24, 2012).
Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chain dynamics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 206-225.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural resource based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Hart, S.L. and Ahuja, G. (1996), “Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between emission reduction and firm performance”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Hoffman, A.J. (2001), “Linking organizational and field-level analysis: the diffusion of corporate
environmental practice”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 133-156.
Hsu, C.C., Tan, K.C. and Zailani, S.H.M. (2016), “Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain
initiatives, and reverse logistics empirical evidence from an emerging market”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-110.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Arrfelt, M. (2007), “Strategic supply chain management: improving
performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 1035-1052.
Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2004), “Green marketing: an attitudinal and behavioral analysis of Indian
consumers”, Global Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Kirchoff, J.F., Tate, W.L. and Mollenkopf, D.A. (2016), “The impact of strategic organizational
orientations on green supply chain management and firm performance”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 269-292.
Kumar, N., Agrahari, R.P. and Roy, D. (2015), “Review of green supply chain processes”, IFAC-Papers
on Line, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 374-381.
Kung, F.H., Huang, C.L. and Cheng, C.L. (2012), “Assessing the green value chain to improve
environmental performance evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industry”, International
Journal of Development Issues, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-128.
Laari, S., Töyli, J., Solakivi, T. and Ojala, L. (2016), “Firm performance and customer-driven green
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, Part 3, pp. 1960-1970.
Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D. and Tan, H.C. (2013), “Green supply chain management practices
and performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 8, pp. 1088-1109.
Lee, K.-H. (2009), “Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations? The case
study of Korean SMEs in manufacturing industry”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1101-1121.
Green supply
chain
management
117
JMTM
30,1
118
Lee, S., Kim, S.T. and Choi, D. (2012), “Green supply chain management and organizational
performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 8, pp. 1148-1180.
Li, S., Jayaraman, V., Paulraj, A. and Shang, K.C. (2016), “Proactive environmental strategies and
performance: role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese
high-tech industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 2136-2151.
Lieb, K.J. and Lieb, R.C. (2010), “Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL)
industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 524-533.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082.
Longoni, A. and Cagliano, R. (2018), “Inclusive environmental disclosure practices and firm
performance: the role of green supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1815-1835, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-12-2016-0728
Luthra, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2016), “The impacts of critical success factors for implementing
green supply chain management towards sustainability: an empirical investigation of Indian
automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 121, pp. 142-158.
Mahoney, J.T. and Pandian, J.R. (1992), “The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 363-380.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-1238.
Molina-Azorin, J.F., Claver-Cortes, E., Lopez-Gamero, M.D. and Tari, J.J. (2009), “Green management
and financial performance: a literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1080-1100.
Murphy, P. and Poist, R. (2003), “Green perspectives and practices: a ‘comparative logistics’ study”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-131.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pagell, M., Yang, C., Krumwiede, D.K. and Sheu, C. (2004), “Does the competitive environment influence
the efficacy of investments in environmental management?”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 30-39.
Paulraj, A. (2011), “Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities,
sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A. and Chen, I.J. (2008), “Inter-organizational communication as a relational
competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Perotti, S., Zorzini, M., Cagno, E. and Micheli, G.J.L. (2012), “Green supply chain practices and company
performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 640-672.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-543.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W.C. (2004), “Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve
supplier performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1993), Marketing, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “Evolution of sustainability in supply chain
management: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 299-314.
Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 632-655.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 898-916.
Rivera-Camino, J. (2007), “Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1328-1358.
Routroy, S. (2009), “Antecedents and drivers for green supply chain management implementation in
manufacturing environment”, ICFAI Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 20-35.
Sammalisto, K. and Brorson, T. (2008), “Training and communication in the implementation of
environmental management systems (ISO 14001): a case study at the University of Gävle,
Sweden”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 299-309.
Sarkis, J. (1999), How Green is the Supply Chain? Practice and Research, Clark University,
Worcester, MA.
Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H. (2003), “Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures”, Methods of Psychological
Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 23-74.
Schmidt, C.G., Foerstl, K. and Schaltenbrand, B. (2017), “The supply chain position paradox: green
practices and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Sezen, B., Karakadilar, İ.S. and Buyukozkan, G. (2012), “Proposition of a model for measuring
adherence to lean practices: applied to Turkish automotive part suppliers”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3878-3894.
Shang, K., Lu, C. and Li, S. (2010), “Taxonomy of green supply chain management capability among
electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1209-1217.
Sharma, V.K., Chandana, P. and Bhardwaj, A. (2015), “Critical factors analysis and its ranking for
implementation of GSCM in Indian dairy industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 911-922.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. S1, pp. 183-200.
Simpson, D., Power, D. and Samson, D. (2007), “Greening the automotive supply chain: a relationship
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 28-48.
Singh, P.B. and Pandey, K.K. (2012), “Green marketing: policies and practices for sustainable
development”, Integral Review: A Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-30.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Stone, L. (2000), “When case studies are not enough: the influence of corporate culture and employee
attitudes on the success of cleaner production initiatives”, Journal Cleaner Production, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 353-359.
Tang, A.K.Y., Lai, K.H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2012), “Environmental governance of enterprises and their
economic upshot through corporate reputation and customer satisfaction”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 401-411.
Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Latan, H. and Oliveira, J.H.C. (2016), “Green training
and green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian firms”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 116, pp. 170-176.
Green supply
chain
management
119
JMTM
30,1
120
Testa, F. and Iraldo, F. (2010), “Shadows and lights of GSCM (green supply chain management):
determinants and effects of these practices based on a multinational study”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18 Nos 10/11, pp. 953-962.
Tukker, A., Eder, P., Charter, M., Haag, E., Vercalsteren, A. and Wiedmann, T. (2001), “Eco-design: the
state of implementation in Europe – conclusions of a state of the art study for IPTS”, The Journal
of Sustainable Product Design, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 171-181.
Vanalle, R.M., Ganga, G.M.D., Godinho Filho, M. and Lucato, W.C. (2017), “Green supply chain
management: an investigation of pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian
automotive supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 151, pp. 250-259.
Vijayvargy, L., Thakkar, J. and Agarwal, G. (2017), “Green supply chain management practices and
performance the role of firm-size for emerging economies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 299-323.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain
management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Welling, M.N. and Chavan, A.S. (2010), “Analyzing the feasibility of green marketing in small &
medium scale manufacturers”, Sri Krishna International Research& Educational Consortium,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Wijethilake, C. (2017), “Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: the
mediating effect of sustainability control systems”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 196, pp. 569-582.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), “Our common future”, The Brundtland
report, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Xie, Y. and Breen, L. (2012), “Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a cross boundary
approach”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 40-53.
Younis, H., Sundarakani, B. and Vel, P. (2016), “The impact of implementing green supply chain
management practices on corporate performance”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 216-245.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a survey”, International Journal Production Economics,
Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 330-340.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2006), “An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in
China: drivers and practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 472-486.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green
supply chain practices and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45
Nos 18/19, pp. 4333-4355.
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y. and Choi, S.B. (2017), “The role of customer relational governance in environmental
and economic performance improvement through green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 155, Part 2, pp. 46-53.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 449-468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2007a), “Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain management
implementation by Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 85
No. 1, pp. 179-189.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2007b), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and
performance within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
Nos 11/12, pp. 1041-1052.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2008), “Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111
No. 2, pp. 261-273.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2013), “Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of
internal and external green supply chain management practices”, Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001), “Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Further reading
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Is there source-based view a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Yes”, Academy Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 41-56.
About the authors
Sibel Yildiz Çankaya is Assistant Professor at Abant Izzet Baysal University. She earned her PhD
Degree from the Gebze Technical University. Her research interests focus on supply chain management.
Sibel Yildiz Çankaya is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sibelyildiz@ibu.edu.tr
Bulent Sezen is Professor of Operations Management at Gebze Institute of Technology.
He graduated from the Department of Industrial Engineering in İstanbul Technical University.
He received his MSc Degree from Industrial Engineering Department in Virginia Tech/USA. His PhD is
from the Gebze Institute of Technology in Department of Business Administration. His research areas
include operations management, logistics and supply chain management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Green supply
chain
management
121