Antecedents and Outcomes of
Supplier Proactive Environmental
Responsiveness
Olga Kaminer
Advisors: Markus Biehl, Ashwin Joshi
Schulich School of Business, York University
Introduction

Manufacturing has a negative impact on the
environment



Direct – gaseous, liquid and solid waste
Indirect – product use and disposal
Focus on one’s own operations is not sufficient
• Manufacturing versus assembly
• Outsourcing trends
• Integrating suppliers
Research Objectives


Identify and statistically confirm the conditions
and the relative effectiveness of customer
actions on their supplier’s environmental
performance.
Identify and statistically confirm the competitive
and business outcomes of suppliers’ enhanced
environmental performance in reaction to their
customers’ actions.
Research Questions



What customer actions are most effective in
enhancing suppliers’ proactive environmental
responsiveness?
What are the moderating factors which might
influence effectiveness of the above actions?
What are the competitive and business
outcomes of suppliers’ proactive environmental
responsiveness for both suppliers and
customers?
Literature

Green Supply Chain

Barron, 1993; Bowen et al., 2001; Carter and Dresner, 2001; Geffen and Rotherberg, 2000; King and Lenox, 2002; Klassen and Vachon, 2003;
Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996; Klassen and Whybark, 1999b; Lloyd, 1994; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Shrivastava, 1995; Walton et al., 1998
• SPER
• Selection, evaluation, and collaboration activities
• Outcomes for suppliers from improved environmental performance

Lean Manufacturing/TQM

Johannson, 1994; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993; Lippman, 1999; Porter and van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b; Reid and Sanders, 2002; Remich,
1993
• Outcomes for both the customer and the supplier’s companies from
collaboration

Resource-based View

Barney, 1991
• Competitive outcomes for suppliers from smart use of resources

Inter-firm Governance

Heide and John, 1988; Williamson and Ouchi, 1981
• Possible moderators – availability of alternative suppliers, supplier’s asset
specificity

Absorptive Capacity

Azzone and Noci, 1998; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Klassen and Whybark, 1999a; Szulanski, 1996
• Possible moderator – supplier’s absorptive capacity
Measuring Environmental Performance (Klassen
and Whybark, 1999a)
Reactive
Opportunistic
Proactive
Pollution Control
Pollution Prevention
Management Systems
low
SPER
high
Definitions

Selection – initial selection of suppliers into the
supply base of a customer.

Evaluation – monitoring and assessment of the
existing suppliers by a customer.

Collaboration – knowledge integration activities
between customers and suppliers.
Model
Customer Actions
Supplier Reaction
Outcomes
For supplier
•Availability of
alternatives suppliers
Increased market share of a
customer; improved manufacturing,
envl. and financial performance;
improved reputation
Selection
•Supplier’s asset
specificity
•Supplier’s
absorptive capacity
Evaluation
SPER
For manufacturer
Collaboration
Competitive advantage, improved
manufacturing, envl. and financial
performance; improved reputation
Hypotheses – (1) selection process
H1: The suppliers’ selection process is positively
related to SPER.

Lloyd, 1994; Noci, 1997; Walton et al., 1998
H1a: The positive effect of the selection process
on SPER is enhanced when competitive
pressure on the supplier is high.

Heide and John, 1988; Williamson and Ouchi, 1981
Hypotheses – (2) evaluation process

H2: The evaluation of suppliers has a
positive effect on SPER.
Klassen and Vachon, 2003

The positive effect of evaluation process
on SPER is enhanced when
H2a: competitive pressure on the supplier is high.
• Heide and John, 1988; Williamson and Ouchi, 1981
H2b: supplier specific asset investments are high.
• Heide and John, 1988
H2c: a supplier has high levels of absorptive
capacity.
• Azzone and Noci, 1998; Christmann, 2000; Cohen and Levinthal,
1990; Klassen and Whybark, 1999a; Szulanski, 1996
Hypotheses – (3) collaboration
activities

H3: Collaboration activities have a positive effect on
SPER.
Christensen and Bower, 1996; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Klassen
and Vachon, 2003; Lippman, 1999

The positive effect of collaboration activities on
SPER is enhanced when
H3a: competitive pressure on the supplier is high.
• Heide and John, 1988; Williamson and Ouchi, 1981
H3b: supplier specific asset investments are high.
• Heide and John, 1988
H3c: a supplier has high levels of absorptive
capacity.
• Azzone and Noci, 1998; Christmann, 2000; Cohen and Levinthal,
1990; Klassen and Whybark, 1999a; Szulanski, 1996
Hypotheses – (4) outcomes of SPER
H5: SPER positively impacts supplier’s
(a) manufacturing performance,
(b) environmental performance, (c) reputation
(d) customer (market) share, and (e) profitability.

Barney, 1991; Burgess et al., 1997; Burnes and New, 1997; Carter and
Dresner, 2001; Christmann, 2000; Dyer, 1997; King and Lenox, 2002;
Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996; Klassen and Whybark, 1999b; Porter and
van der Linde, 1995; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Shrivastava, 1995
H4: SPER positively impacts customer’s
(a) manufacturing performance,
(b) environmental performance, (c) reputation,
(d) market share, and (e) profitability.

Johannson, 1994; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993 ; Klassen and Vachon,
2003; Klassen and Whybark, 1999; Lippman, 1999; Reid and Sanders,
2002; Remich, 1993
Research Methodology

Exploratory research using qualitative data
analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss,
1967; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003)


Sample size – 3 or more
Large scale survey (Dillman, 1978)


Small to large firms
Phone survey
• Easier to reach SMEs
• Avoid skipping of questions

Sample size – 1200 or more
Expected Contributions




Integrate disparate streams in the literature.
Identify and confirm the mechanisms that
manufacturers can employ to foster SPER.
Identify and confirm factors that influence the
effectiveness of those mechanisms.
Identify and confirm competitive and business
outcomes of SPER for both customers and
suppliers.