Antecedents and Effects of Green

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
BIJ
30,10 Antecedents and effects of green
supply chain management
(GSCM) practices
4014 Dimitrios Chatzoudes and Prodromos Chatzoglou
Department of Production and Management Engineering, School of Engineering,
Received 6 September 2021
Revised 19 June 2022
Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
Accepted 6 November 2022
Abstract
Purpose – During the previous two decades, “Green Supply Chain Management” (GSCM) has been gaining the
attention of researchers and practitioners from various fields (e.g. operations, logistics and supply chain
management). Its significance is constantly growing, and various studies are conducted in order to capture its
overall organizational contribution. The present study attempts to bring together various organizational
aspects that have never been collectively investigated before in the relevant literature. Under that rationale, a
robust conceptual framework is developed and empirically tested. This framework includes 17 factors that are
classified in three dimensions: (1) drivers of GSCM practices, (2) GSCM practices and (3) firm performance
(GSCM outcomes).
Design/methodology/approach – The examination of the proposed conceptual framework was performed
using a newly developed structured questionnaire that was distributed to a sample of Greek manufacturing
organizations. Supply Chain managers and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) were used as key respondents, due
to their knowledge and experience. After the completion of the three-month research period (last quarter of
2019), 292 useable questionnaires were returned. The empirical data were analyzed using the “Structural
Equation Modeling” technique. The study is empirical (based on primary data), explanatory (examines cause
and effect relationships), deductive (tests research hypotheses) and quantitative (includes the analysis of
quantitative data collected with the use of a structured questionnaire).
Findings – Empirical results point out that internal environmental management, green innovative practices
and environmental proactivity are GSCM practices with the most significant impact on firm performance.
Moreover, the mediating role of GSCM practices in the relationship between GSCM drivers and firm
performance is also highlighted. Finally, it was found that GSCM practices can explain 35% of the variance in
firm performance and the drivers of GSCM practices can explain 78% of the variance of these practices.
Originality/value – The proposed three-dimensional conceptual framework of this empirical study and its
underlining rationale has rarely been adopted in the relevant literature. Moreover, the study investigates which
GSCM practices have an impact on firm performance, thus offering value to practitioners of the field. Also, it is
one of the few similar studies that have been conducted on a European country.
Keywords Green supply chain management (GSCM), Environmental proactivity,
Environmental performance, Empirical study, Structural equation modeling (SEM), Greece
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Green supply chain management (GSCM) has been gaining in interest among researchers and
practitioners of supply chain management, operations and logistics, especially over the last
decade (Asif et al., 2020; Perotti et al., 2012; Tseng et al., 2019). GSCM is, nowadays, a
fundamental part of sustainable supply chain management (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Fang
and Zhang, 2018). The growing importance of GSCM has been substantially driven by
increasing environmental concerns, such as environmental pollution (Sheu et al., 2005),
diminishing raw material resources, overflowing waste sites and increasing levels of
pollution (Srivastava, 2007), government regulations, changing consumer demands and the
Benchmarking: An International
Journal development of international certification standards (Dou et al., 2018; Murphy and Poist,
Vol. 30 No. 10, 2023
pp. 4014-4057
2003). Although supply chain management has been widely studied in the last two decades,
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
discussions on GSCM have not gained momentum until the early 2000s (Maditati et al., 2018;
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-09-2021-0524 Mitra and Datta, 2014; Liu et al., 2020a).
According to the popular definition of Sarkis (2012), GSCM is the integration of Antecedents
environmental concerns into supply chain management (SCM) practices. It promotes and effects of
efficiency and synergy among supply chain partners, in an effort to simultaneously minimize
waste and increase operational benefits. As such, it is both a matter of social responsibility
GSCM
and a set of practices that have the ability to increase business value (Wang et al., 2020). practices
Under that context, green business practices in the supply chain have emerged as a priority
for organizations that wish to achieve environmental and organizational goals (Rizzi et al.,
2022). The need for green supply chains has also been highlighted during the COVID-19 4015
pandemic (Kitsis and Chen, 2021). The disruption of global supply chain activities, especially
during the first wave of the health crisis (April 2020) and the significant simultaneous
reduction in CO2 emissions during that period (Le Quere, 2020) was evident of the need for
further greening the supply chains around the globe. According to data provided by Bove
and Swartz (2016) in a McKinsey report, supply chains of consumer goods companies are
responsible for more than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions, while also having a huge effect
on natural, animal and geological resources. Kitsis and Chen (2021) provide various similar
arguments, concluding that the COVID-19 crisis underlines the need for redefining the way
organizations manage their supply chain operations and footprint.
Over the last decade, numerous previous studies have investigated the benefits of
implementing GSCM practices. Researchers found that GSCM practices have an effect on
firm performance (e.g. Bhardwaj, 2016; Dues et al., 2013), operational performance (Vanalle
et al., 2017), stock prices (Bose and Pal, 2012), competitiveness (Yang et al., 2013), recognition
from producers and consumers (Testa and Iraldo, 2010), export performance (Al-Ghwayeen
and Abdallah, 2018), environmental sustainability (Rupa and Saif, 2022) and environmental
collaboration (Trujillo-Gallego et al., 2021).
But despite these tangible benefits, it seems that many organizations are not willing to
change their traditional supply chain operations in the light of mid- and long-term future for
positive outcomes (Asif et al., 2020; Jell-Ojobor and Raha, 2022). Under that context, many
companies adopt environmental practices only after external motivation from governments,
suppliers, customers and various other stakeholders. The present study examines both
internal and external pressures (drivers) for adopting GSCM practices, thus offering a
complete perspective of the investigated phenomenon. Moreover, according to Choudhary
and Sangwan (2022), the adoption of GSCM practices should be justified on the basis of a
formal performance evaluation system that takes under consideration economic,
environmental and operational perspectives. Mishra et al. (2017) argue that very few
previous studies have focused on measuring GSCM performance and ask for further future
research. This study measures GSCM outcomes using a multifaceted approach (operational,
market, financial and environmental performance), thus attempting to bridge that gap in the
literature.
The present study aims to investigate the relationship between various factors of GSCM.
In that direction, a robust conceptual framework has been developed and empirically tested.
It is based on the results of an extensive literature review analysis, which identified the main
factors that have been used by previous similar studies. More analytically, the proposed
conceptual framework includes 17 factors that are further classified into three different
dimensions: (1) drivers for adopting GSCM practices (GSCM drivers), (2) GSCM practices and
(3) GSCM outcomes. In order to empirically test the proposed conceptual framework
(hypothesis testing), a newly developed structured questionnaire was distributed to a random
sample of Greek manufacturing organizations. After the completion of a three-month data
collection period, 292 useable questionnaires were returned.
The proposed three-dimensional conceptual framework of this study answers to the
suggestions of previous systematic literature reviews. For example, the literature review of
Mishra et al. (2017) concluded that limited attention has been placed on examining the effects
BIJ of GSCM practices, while research focuses mainly on established economies, like China and
30,10 the United States. Choudhary and Sangwan (2022), in their recent systematic literature
review, argued that simultaneous analysis of GSCM pressures, practices and performance
measures is required in order to identify the cascading effects and determine the most
significant factors for each country. Tseng et al. (2019) offer similar suggestions, arguing that
future empirical studies should adopt the same three-dimensional approach (GSCM drivers,
GSCM practices and performance outcomes). Balon (2020) shares these views and argues that
4016 examining the mediating effects between GSCM practices and performance measures is a
very interesting direction for future research.
The present paper examines the above-mentioned factors. In line with Tseng et al. (2019), it
includes drivers that have both a positive and a negative effect on the implementation of
GSCM practices; it also considers the downstream supply chain, incorporating cooperation
with customer in its GSCM practices; it uses a holistic approach for the measurement of firm
performance, capturing, among others, the environmental performance of the investigated
organizations. Most of the previous studies have failed to adopt such an enhanced approach.
Under that context, the originality of the present study is rooted in its proposed conceptual
framework. Its three-dimensional approach answers the calls of recent previous systematic
literature reviews (Choudhary and Sangwan, 2022; Balon, 2020; Tseng et al., 2019) for
building coherent research models that take various dimensions and factors into
consideration.
In summary, the significance (contribution) of this study can be summarized in the
following points:
(1) It proposes a three dimensional conceptual framework: (1) drivers for adopting GSCM
practices, (2) GSCM practices and (3) firm performance (GSCM outcomes). Such a
multidimensional approach has randomly been explored in the relevant existing
literature.
(2) The newly developed conceptual framework aspires to provide certain tools for
practitioners. It goes beyond the well-researched approaches of its field and aims to
further enhance the knowledge concerning GSCM practices that have an influence on
various measures of firm performance.
(3) The present study is one of the very few similar empirical attempts that have been
conducted on a European country and especially in a country of south-eastern Europe
(SEE).
(4) It is built upon an extensive analysis of the empirical literature of the field and a
synthesis of previous research (see Appendix), offering room for comparisons and
future replication.
(5) The results of this study may be generalized in other developed countries, European
or not, with similar economic realities and yield interesting outcomes for practitioners
in these countries.
2. Literature review
2.1 Main concepts
During the recent years, the concept of the supply chain has become a constantly growing
field of interest, for both the academic community and the businesses worldwide (Ahmed
et al., 2019; Laari et al., 2016). Nowadays, the management of the supply chain is an important
source of value and profitability (Stevens and Johnson, 2016). Harrison and van Hoek (2005)
define supply chain management as the process of coordination of the flow of materials and
information throughout the supply chain. Mangan et al. (2004) argue that the supply chain Antecedents
includes the promotion, by the most appropriate way, of the right product, in the right and effects of
quantity and appropriate quality, in the right place, at the right time, for the right customer, at
the right price. Recently, there is an increasing number of studies and practices for managing
GSCM
supply chains, associated with converting them into environmentally friendly entities and practices
aiming at improving the efficiency of individual activities and increasing the profitability of
the participating partners (Darnall et al., 2008; Seuring and Muller, 2008).
The interest toward the implementation of GSCM emerged in the late 1980s, when 4017
consumers began to concentrate on the environmental pollution, acid rain and global
warming. In 1978, after a decision by the International Commission for the environment,
impetus was given to environmental issues, not only in economic but, also, in political terms
(Bowen et al., 2001). The transport and distribution industry were the major environmental
polluters, so the newly imposed principles were applied to logistics. The 1990s was seen by
many as a crucial decade for GSCM (Ali et al., 2016; Petljak et al., 2018).
In the recent years, more and more companies seek to convert their supply chain activities
into environmentally friendly entities, especially after having noticed that there is a link
between environmental performance and economic benefits (de Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012;
Do et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020b). This practically means that the environmental objectives and
the measurement of the performance of the supply chain is translated into economic and
operational objectives, in order to reduce the environmental impact, increase consumer
satisfaction and enhance business profits (Eltayeb and Zailani, 2009; Feng et al., 2018;
Longoni and Cagliano, 2018; Laari et al., 2018).
The term “green supply chain management” captures the process of using
environmentally friendly inflows (raw materials) and their conversion into outflows
(finished goods) that can be recovered and reused at the end of their life cycle, creating a
sustainable supply chain (Agarwal et al., 2018; Nikbakhsh, 2009). Expanding the above
definition, a green supply chain attempts to incorporate all the environmental considerations
in a traditional supply chain covering all its stages, such as the design of the product, the
selection of appropriate suppliers and the procurement process, the manufacture and
processing of the product, the packaging and storage, the transport and delivery of finished
products to the consumer, as well as the management of the product after the end of its life
cycle (Fahimnia et al., 2015; Susanty et al., 2018).
2.2 Previous studies

GSCM drivers, GSCM (or environmental) practices and final outcomes have been investigated
by a number of previous empirical studies (see Appendix for a synopsis of these studies). An
overview of the literature suggests that the wider approach adopted by previous studies
incorporates all three dimensions, namely GSCM drivers, GSCM practices (or other
neighboring concepts) and final organizational outcomes. Many studies have examined two
of these dimensions, while there are few empirical studies that only focus on GSCM practices
or have followed a unique path.
2.2.1 Three-dimensional approaches. El-Garaihy et al. (2022), in a recent empirical study that
has several similar characteristics with the present empirical endeavor, examined two factors
that affect the adoption of GSCM practices, namely institutional pressure (which is based on the
institutional theory) and environmental orientation (which is based on the resource-based
view). They included an extensive list of GSCM practices in their model, but only presented
aggregate results, failing to pinpoint the most significant GSCM practices that have an effect on
final outcomes (environmental, operational and economic performance). Their study followed a
three-dimensional approach and verified all the proposed causal paths in a sample of 351
manufacturers from Saudi Arabia. Using the same rationale, Huang et al. (2021) examined and
BIJ verified the impact of stakeholder pressure on GSCM practices and the effect of those practices
30,10 on environmental and economic performance. They also presented an aggregate perspective of
their results, not focusing on the most significant GSCM practices for enhancing performance.
Nevertheless, they concluded that green resources mediate the relationship between
organizational stakeholder pressure and GSCM practices. Laguir et al. (2021), in a study of
French third-party logistics providers, presented more thoroughly the results of their model
and concluded that among all investigated GSCM practices, distribution and transport,
4018 warehousing and green building and reverse logistics are the three most significant in
improving environmental and economic performance. They also discovered that ecological
firm identity can positively affect the implementation of GSCM practices.
In another study, Ali et al. (2016) examined whether GSCM practices affect the
performance of small- and medium-sized (SMEs) food retailers in the UK. Questionnaires
were collected from 84 SMEs located in London. The empirical results emphatically justified
the hypothesis that key internal drivers influence GSCM practices, while they did not find any
support for the relationship between external pressures and GSCM practices (Ali et al., 2016).
Zhu et al. (2013) developed a research model concerning the various aspects of institutional
pressures which motivate manufacturing enterprises to implement GSCM strategies. The
empirical findings revealed that institutional pressures led manufacturers to implement
internal GSCM practices, which, subsequently, affected the implementation of external
GSCM practices. Additionally, the findings propose that GSCM practices, although do not
directly influence the financial performance of a company, they can enhance it indirectly.
Ateş et al. (2012) examined the antecedents of the implementation of GSCM practices.
Their empirical survey was conducted online, through an online questionnaire and it
collected information from 96 Turkish manufacturers. The collected data bolstered the belief
that green investments function as a mediating factor between the green supply chain
practices and the environmental performance of a company. Additionally, the survey
concluded that the pressure exerted by customers positively influence the degree to which
companies implement GSCM practices (Ateş et al., 2012). Moreover, Aragon-Correa et al.
(2008) investigated the effects of SMEs on their natural habitat and the policies that they
adopt to diminish these effects. Results indicated that SMEs are engaged in a range of
environmentally friendly strategies, from reactionary compliance to the regulations to a
proactive prevention of the pollution and environmental guidance. These strategies correlate
with three organizational abilities: common vision, stakeholder management and strategic
proactivity. Furthermore, their findings indicated that companies that have implemented
many GSCM practices showed an increased economic performance.
2.2.2 Two-dimensional approaches. In a quite recent study, Amjad et al. (2022) investigated
the impact of five GSCM practices on three measures of performance (environmental,
economic and operational performance). They hypothesized that this relationship is mediated
via investment recovery and firm competitiveness. They collected data from Pakistani
leather industries and validated their main hypothesis, also arguing that green purchasing
and internal environmental management are the two most significant GSCM practices.
Nevertheless, their findings seem to be specific to the leather industry of Pakistan, something
that limits their generalizability. Abbas and Hussien (2021) moved in a similar direction,
examining the impact of green management, green food, green environment and equipment
on firm performance via two mediators (operational performance and competitive
advantage). Their study was conducted on Egyptian restaurants and concluded that green
management has an impact on competitive advantage, green environment and equipment
has an impact on operational performance, while green food does not have any impact on
performance measures. Finally, green environment and equipment is the only GSCM practice
that has an indirect impact on firm performance. In the same line with Amjad et al. (2022), the
study of Abbas and Hussien (2021) seems to be specific to only one sector of the economy.
Kim et al. (2021) examined the role of supplier capabilities as a key mediator in the Antecedents
relationship between customer pressure and GSCM practice adoption. Their most interesting and effects of
finding is that the adoption of GSCM practices depends on customer pressure, but the
strength of that relationship also depends on the level of green resources and capabilities
GSCM
available from suppliers. That is because supplier capabilities have a stronger effect on practices
GSCM adoption in case of high-tier firms. These findings were based on a sample of
manufacturing companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Also trying to reveal
mediating effects, Kalyar et al. (2020) examined whether GSCM practices of Pakistani textile 4019
companies affect firm performance directly and/or indirectly, via environmental
performance. Their findings validated a partial mediation model, arguing that the impact
of GSCM practices on firm performance is both direct and indirect.
Huang and Li (2015) examined the factors that have an impact on green innovation and
investigated the correlation between green innovation and performance. Their findings
showed that dynamic capabilities, coordination capacity and social cooperation are
important drivers of green innovation. The innovation of environmentally friendly
products and processes (green products and processes) positively influences the
environmental and organizational performance.
Lee et al. (2014) examined the relationship between GSCM practices and technological
innovation in manufacturing companies. Their results advocated that there is an important
positive correlation between three GSCM practices (i.e. internal ecological management, eco-
design and financial recovery) and technological innovation. However, the survey found that
buying environmentally friendly products and collaborating with customers does not imply
an important positive correlation with technological innovation. In general, the study
confirmed that GSCM practices are important for a company, because they can improve their
level of innovation, as well as the environment.
Sambasivan et al. (2013) confirmed the hypothesis that GSCM positively influences many
aspects of firm performance (operational, environmental, organizational and financial). The
findings of their study also confirmed the assumption that technologies applied to take care of
environmental problems moderate the connection between GSCM and operational
performance. At the same time, environmental performance intervenes in the relationship
between GSCM and stakeholder satisfaction, which, in turn, mediates the relationship
between GSCM and financial performance.
In another study, Zhu et al. (2012) examined the correlations between the external and
internal aspects of GSCM on the environmental, economic and operational performance. The
data collected from 396 manufacturing enterprises in China, were used in order to examine
the mediating effects of external and internal aspects on GSCM practices. The results provide
support for the mediating effects, a fact that reveals the significance of harmonizing the
internal and external aspects of the GSCM practices.
Lee et al. (2012) made an attempt to investigate the impact of GSCM practices and other
organizational factors on the performance of SMEs that supply large companies in the
electronics industry. The empirical data failed to find an immediate correlation between the
implementation of GSCM policies and firm performance. Instead, a significant indirect effect
was found between GSCM practices and business performance, through operational
efficiency and relational efficiency. This outcome reveals that business performance is
enhanced when green practices improve operational efficiency.
Lin and Ho (2011) investigated the factors that affect the implementation of green/
environmental practices in the Chinese logistics industry. Technological, organizational and
environmental dimensions were the determinant factors of their survey. Results revealed that
a company’s relative advantage, compatibility of green practices, organizational and
governmental support, effectiveness of human resources and regulatory pressure are the
main factors that have a positive impact on the implementation of environmental practices.
BIJ However, the implementation of an environmental policy is negatively affected by its
30,10 complexity and the general environmental uncertainty.
Menguc et al. (2010) examined the factors having an impact on the effectiveness of
entrepreneurial orientation on proactive environmental strategy (PES). Additionally, the
authors analyzed whether there is a correlation between PES and financial performance.
They found that entrepreneurial orientation positively influences a PES and that this
influence becomes even stronger as the intensity of government regulation increases.
4020 Additionally, the performance effect of a PES has to do with an increase in sales and economic
benefits.
Zhu and Sarkis (2007) analyzed the relationship between GSCM practices, ecological and
financial performance. Their results highlighted the following: (1) Chinese manufacturers
adopt GSCM practices only after encountering increasing ecological pressures, (2) market
(normative) and regulatory (coercive) pressures led companies to improved environmental
performance, (3) manufacturers confronting higher regulatory pressures have the tendency
to adopt green/ecological purchasing and investment recovery and (4) competitive pressure
considerably enhances the economic benefits of a company from implementing a series of
GSCM practices.
Finally, Wisner et al. (2006) utilized information collected from large US companies that
were specifically interested in environmental management, in order to examine the control
procedures and actions used by the managers and understand which practices affect
environmental performance. Results showed that companies with clear management
commitment, strategic planning and green supply chain practices oriented toward
environmental performance accomplish the best environmental performance. Furthermore,
their study proved that environmental performance is substantially and positively linked
with increased profits and higher returns on investment.
2.2.3 Mono-dimensional/unique approaches. Numerous authors have adopted unique
approaches that do not fit into the main research streams of the field. For example, Kara and
Edinsel (2022) examined the mediating role of green product innovation in the relationship
between green human resource management (HRM) and GSCM practices. Green HRM has
been very rarely examined as a driver of GSCM. Using a sample of automotive companies in
Turkey, Kara and Edinsel (2022) discovered that green HRM has a positive effect on GSCM
practices, with product innovation full mediating this relationship. These findings underline
the importance of human resources in developing a green organizational culture. Rupa and
Saif (2022) tried to determine the impact of GSCM practices on firm performance and
environmental sustainability of a developing country, Bangladesh. Their results failed to
establish a relationship between GSCM practices and profitability. Nevertheless, the impact
of GSCM practices on cost, waste disposal, resource consumption and greenhouse gas
emission was statistically significant.
Laari et al. (2017) analyzed external GSCM strategies. The empirical findings revealed a
correlation between competitive strategy and GSCM strategy. More specifically, marketing
differentiators and companies interested in hybrid strategies are more likely to
use vGSCM strategies in order to deal with the eco-performance of their suppliers.
Implementing GSCM practices appears to be the only way for them to provide unique
characteristics to their products or services, in order to diminish potential losses arising from
their suppliers’ insufficient environmental performance (Laari et al., 2017).
Pondeville et al. (2013) examined the way in which the current perceptible ecological
instability, the pressure from a company’s stakeholders, and the degree of corporate
environmental proactivity affect the development of environmental management control
systems. The survey included 256 manufacturing companies and the results proved that
companies that apprehend more prominent environmental instability are less willing to
implement GSCM practices and environmental information system or to design
environmental management control systems. According to the same survey, the factors that Antecedents
stimulate the creation of a green supply chain and the growth of environmental management and effects of
control systems are the market, society and employees (Pondeville et al., 2013).
Murillo-Luna et al. (2007) examined the external and internal barriers that restrict, or in
GSCM
some cases even prohibit, the implementation of environmental practices. The results of their practices
study revealed that various barriers (e.g. high opportunity costs, obstacles that arise from
bureaucracy and legislation and difficulties emerging from competitor pressure) limit the
implementation of environmental practices. These factors are not the only problems 4021
companies are faced with while trying to implement their environmental policy. There are
other barriers that can be found in the internal environment of a company, which are related
to its inability to develop organizational, financial or strategic policies (Murillo-Luna
et al., 2007).
3. The conceptual framework of the study

The main objective of the present paper is to propose a conceptual framework that sheds
some light on the effects of GSCM practices on the operations of manufacturing companies.
Appendix provides an illustrative presentation of certain factors that are incorporated in the
research models of previous researchers. A first glance can reveal the wide variety of factors
that have been used in the literature. Therefore, the selection of the factors to be integrated in
the conceptual framework of this study was a major challenge for the research team. The
primary objective was to develop a new conceptual framework, which will include the most
important factors that have been used in previous studies. Moreover, special attention was
paid in order to ensure a high degree of relevance of the proposed factors to the research field.
The present study introduces a newly developed conceptual framework that places the
green supply chain practices on the center of attention. The proposed model consists of three
dimensions (see Figure 1): (1) drivers for adopting green supply chain, (2) green supply chain
practices and (3) firm performance. “Drivers” include factors that influence the adoption of
green supply chain; “Green supply chain practices” include factors that are likely to affect
firms’ performance; “Firm performance” captures the effectiveness of the implemented green
supply chain practices. All factors used in the present study have derived from an extensive
review of the relevant literature.
DRIVERS GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN FIRM

MANAGEMENT (GSCM) PRACTICES PERFORMANCE
(GSCM OUTCOMES)
Internal barriers H1 Internal environmental management H7
(DR_IB) (PR_IEM)
Operational
Eco-design performance
Entrepreneurial H2 H8
(PER_O)
(PR_ED)
orientation (DR_EO)
Green material management H9
Market
Government H3 (PR_GMM) performance
regulations (DR_GR) (PER_M)
H10
Customer cooperation
Customer pressure H4 (PR_CC)
(DR_CP) H11 Financial
Green purchasing performance
(PR_GP) (PER_F)
Relative advantage H5 H12
(DR_RA) Green innovative practices Figure 1.
(PR_GIP) Environmental
H13 performance
The proposed
Stakeholder H6
Environmental proactivity (PER_E) conceptual framework
pressures (DR_SP)
(PR_EP) of the study
BIJ The aim of the study is to examine the causal relationships between 17 research factors that
30,10 belong to three dimensions:
(A) First dimension: Drivers for adopting green supply chain practices
A1. Internal barriers (DR_IB), A2. Entrepreneurial orientation (DR_EO), A3. Government
regulations (DR_GR), A4. Customer pressure (DR_CP), A5. Relative advantage (DR_RA)
and A6. Stakeholder pressures (DR_SP).
4022
(B) Second dimension: GSCM practices
B1. Internal environmental management (PR_IEM), B2. Eco-design (PR_ED), B3. Green
material management (investment recovery) (PR_GMM), B4. Customer cooperation
(PR_CC), B5. Green purchasing (PR_GP), B6. Green innovative practices (PR_GIP) and
B7. Environmental proactivity (PR_EP).
(C) Third dimension: Firm performance (GSCM outcomes)
C1. Operational performance (PER_O), C2. Market performance (PER_M), C3. Financial
performance (PER_F) and C4. Environmental performance (PER_E).
3.1 Research hypotheses

3.1.1 Drivers of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices. 3.1.1.1 Internal barriers.
Murillo-Luna et al. (2007) conducted a survey concerning the barriers that keep firms from
advancing in their strategic environmental performance. Their survey proposed a
categorization of the barriers to environmental adaptation. This categorization includes
two basic sections: the industry barriers, which are related to the industry/sector and the
organizational barriers, which result from the particular organization and its practices.
Regarding the industry barriers, Post and Altman (1994) firstly took into account the cost
required to put into practice environmental management systems and clean technologies in
order to forestall pollution. The significant cost of these environmental investments forces
industries to switch to other investments, particularly when they are subjected to high
competition (Hillary, 2004; Post and Altman, 1994; Zilahy, 2004). In addition, the interest in
new clean technologies implies not making utilization of current advancements in
technology, which are still beneficial and can result in economies of experience and scale
(Moors et al., 2005).
The implementation of such environmental protection measures includes a number of
risks for the firms. To begin with, there is an absence of information concerning the effect that
such actions may have on the financial results (Hillary, 2004; Moors et al., 2005; Zilahy, 2004).
Another risk is the lack of clarity regarding the ecological advantages that these measures
will have (Van Hemel and Cramer, 2002). Furthermore, there is the fear that other competitive
firms may imitate the implementation of these environmental measures, not to mention the
uncertainty whether the customers will properly evaluate the environmental improvements.
These barriers make it hard to implement proactive strategies in ecological matters (Starik
and Rands, 1995).
Regarding the organizational barriers that make it difficult to develop the environmental
strategy, Post and Altman (1994) argue that these barriers derive from the organization and
running all over the firm. In this context, one of the most important barriers is the lack of
employee training and the lack of commitment toward environmental issues (Hillary, 2004;
Moors et al., 2005).
Zilahy (2004) argues that another organizational barrier is the incompatibility of the
environmental objectives with the individual goals of the managers. Likewise, according to
Post and Altman (1994), other barriers include the communication and operational inertia.
Post and Altman (1994) also pointed out the relationship between an insufficient top Antecedents
management leadership and the difficulty in adopting an environmental strategy. The and effects of
insufficient environmental leadership leads to an inadequate management approach,
characterized by short-term planning (Moors et al., 2005; Zilahy, 2004), an absence of strategic
GSCM
capabilities (Brıo-Gonzalez and Junquera-Cimadevilla, 2002) and a business culture that has practices
limited interest for conducting environmental research (Hillary, 2004; Moors et al., 2005).
Overall, according to Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), the main internal barriers are related with
the lack of capabilities: limited financial and organization capability and limited strategic 4023
capability.
H1. Internal barriers have a negative impact on the implementation of GSCM practices.
3.1.1.2 Entrepreneurial orientation and green supply chain management practices.
Companies do not usually seek to implement GSCM practices, except for cases where
senior executives give priority to entrepreneurial activities, such as innovativeness,
proactiveness, risk-taking, etc (Covin and Slevin, 1989, 1991). When the entrepreneurial
mentality is integrated in the organization of a company, senior managers are more eager to
take risks and endure vagueness and uncertainty. They are more willing to get involved in
promising, though risky, schemes. Also, managers are more prone to perceive new market
segments as opportunities, rather than threats (Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Sharma, 2000).
Sharma (2000) argued that the more managers perceive new market segments as
opportunities rather than threats, the more likely it is for them to endorse GSCM practices.
An entrepreneurial orientation concentrating on searching new ventures, organizational
development and market opportunities is quite coherent with the implementation of an
environmental strategy (Menguc et al., 2010).
H2. Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive impact on the implementation of GSCM
practices.
3.1.1.3 Government regulations and green supply chain management practices. Institutional
pressures are identified as all those social, legal and cultural forces that operate outside the
company. These pressures play an important role, influencing the way managers perceive the
environment and organize and form the strategic decisions and practices of the company
(e.g. DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In the frames of a natural environmental setting, there are
numerous external powers that may reinforce a company’s decision to choose an environmental
strategy related to the company’s entrepreneurial orientation (Menguc et al., 2010).
Nowadays, companies compete in a market where the involvement of the government
regarding ecological issues is intense. Therefore, top managers need to conform to legal
requests. Such an entrepreneurial orientation will positively affect the implementation of a
strategy to prevent environmental pollution (Menguc et al., 2010).
H3. Government regulations have a positive impact on the implementation of GSCM
practices.
3.1.1.4 Customer pressure and green supply chain management practices. Customers,
independent of their relative size and power, appear to have a major stake regarding the
influence they exert on the formation of corporate environmental strategies (Ateş et al., 2012).
Customers are referred to as a cause of nonregulatory pressure for environmental
management in many companies. Also, they are increasingly requesting from the
industries to minimize any negative effect of their products and operations on the natural
habitat (Klassen, 2001). This customer influence in favor of being “greener” attracted the
interest of plant managers and, at the same time, gave rise to higher environmental
investment (Klassen and Vachon, 2003). According to Henriques and Sadorsky (1996),
customer pressure plays a significant role on whether a company has an environmental plan
BIJ or not. More specifically, customer pressure can characterize the range of the environmental
30,10 strategies a company implements. Moreover, it is stated that this pressure is connected with
the adoption and implementation of more GSCM practices (Delmas and Toffel, 2004;
Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2006). It certainly, can be said that customer pressure
is a driver which introduces and motivates companies to adopt GSCM practices (Ateş
et al., 2012).
Customer pressure may also motivate organizations to make higher environmental
4024 investments in order to respond to their customers’ demands. This reaction constitutes a
direct effect, characteristic of a reactive approach. In this case, the pressure exerted from
customers is not enacted in the green supply chain strategy and companies carry out
environmental investments because they feel obliged to and not because they are convinced
of their importance (Ateş et al., 2012).
H4. Customer pressure has a positive impact on the implementation of GSCM practices.
3.1.1.5 Relative advantage and green supply chain management practices. The term relative
advantage determines the extent to which a novelty is believed to be more beneficial for a
company than its alternative. The anticipated benefits can be measured in financial or social
terms, for example, performance, satisfaction, reputation and convenience. It is more
probable for companies to approve a technology which will contribute to better performance
and economic profit than others (Lin and Ho, 2011). The total benefits of environmental
practices will inspire companies to implement such practices. For that reason, relative
advantage is expected to influence companies to implement environmentally friendly
practices (Lin and Ho, 2011).
H5. Relative advantage has a positive impact on the implementation of GSCM practices.
3.1.1.6 Stakeholder pressures and green supply chain management practices. Pressures
exerted by the stakeholders have frequently been cited as factors resulting to the selection of
proactive environmental strategies (Aragon-Correa et al., 2008; Wheeler et al., 2003).
Nevertheless, just because stakeholders are people and groups who can influence firm
performance and are influenced by its actions, organizations that are keen on implementing
proactive environmental policies need to give careful consideration to their stakeholders’
interests (Pondeville et al., 2013).
According to Freeman (1984), a stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect
or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives. There is a quite
extended catalog of stakeholders related to the environmental targets of a company:
suppliers, consumers, competitive firms, legislators, environmental protection
organizations, local communities, media, employees, managers, etc (Pondeville et al.,
2013). Regarding “Corporate Social Responsibility” practices and, more specifically,
environmental responsibility, stakeholders request integrity, respect, standards,
transparency and accountability (Waddock et al., 2003). The environmental policy of a
firm requires environmental actions that need to correspond to the expectations of its
stakeholders (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). Therefore, firm actions are determined by
the pressure received from these stakeholders. The fact that, this pressure is extremely
important for the growth of proactive environmental policies is cited by many authors
(e.g. Berry and Rondinelli, 1998).
Environmental pressures exerted by stakeholders should affect whether a company has
environmental practices. In order to correspond to environmental pressures, managers may
be urged to implement such practices (Pondeville et al., 2013).
H6. Stakeholder pressures have a positive impact on the implementation of GSCM
practices.
3.1.2 Green supply chain management practices and firm performance. The term GSCM Antecedents
practices is commonly used in the relevant literature in order to describe a variety of activities and effects of
that minimize the organizational impact on the natural environment (Vachon and Klassen,
2006; Sarkis et al., 2010; Zaid et al., 2018). However, a clear, widely accepted definition of
GSCM
GSCM practices is still missing (Vachon, 2007). According to Min and Kim (2012), GSCM is a practices
systematic way that helps maintain the natural resources and the surrounding environment.
The present study includes seven GSCM practices: (1) internal environmental management,
(2) eco-design, (3) green material management, (4) customer cooperation, (5) green purchasing, 4025
(6) green innovative practices and (7) environmental proactivity.
It is very challenging, particularly for smaller companies, to adopt GSCM practices, in
light of the fact that they do not have the appropriate knowledge, technologies, expertise and
financial and human resources (Huang et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Yildiz Çankaya and Sezen,
2019). As a result, according to Seuring and M€ uller (2008), organizations are losing their
competitive advantage and, in order to regain it, they realize the importance of implementing
GSCM practices. The implementation of green supply chain practices offers great chances to
upgrade production, decrease costs and minimize environmental destruction (Zhu et al.,
2007). Green supply chain activities are involved with top management support, which helps
exploiting unique competencies (Tseng et al., 2014).
The relationship between GSCM practices and organizational performance is a rather well
studied subject. Several researchers (e.g. Bowen et al., 2001; Zhu et al., 2005; Eltayeb et al.,
2011; Zailani et al., 2012) have concluded that the implementation of GSCM practices
upgrades not only the environmental and economic, but also the operational and general
organizational performance of a firm. However, Lee et al. (2013) argued that this relationship
is quite indirect. Moreover, Rao and Holt (2005) claimed that GSCM polices improve
effectiveness and bring collaboration among the vital units of a firm. This, according to Rao
and Holt (2005), results in the reduction of waste and cost and the increase of environmental
performance. Tseng et al. (2016) argued that the relationship between GSCM practices and
business performance has been thoroughly examined and it is concluded that the wellbeing of
a firm is achieved only through implementing such practices.
Green et al. (2012), after examining GSCM practices and firm performance, proved that
there is a positive correlation with environmental, operational and economic performance.
GSCM practices usually bring profit to large firms as they decrease waste, which results in
the reduction of the increasing supply of inputs held as a reserve to safeguard against
unforeseen shortages or demands (buffer stocks). Additionally, GSCM practices decrease
operating risk and the costs involved in storing goods in a warehouse. Finally, they help in the
reduction of energy consumption and decrease defects, which specifically affect firm
profitability (Green et al., 2012).
There are many examples in the environmental management literature (e.g. Annandale
et al., 2004; Melnyk et al., 2003; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004), proving that the adoption of
environmentally friendly practices usually leads to enhanced environmental performance.
Moreover, as reported by Rao and Holt (2005), the fact that consumers have become more
sensitive to environmental problems, makes companies which are interested in
environmental issues to gain a competitive advantage. GSCM practices provide firms the
opportunity to enhance their operational performance, through increasing the effectiveness
of their processes, recycling their wastes, avoiding fines, disposal expenses and higher future
expenses of compliance. Additionally, GSCM practices help firms to enhance their financial
performance by improving their corporate image, raising their market share and finding
opportunities for new markets (Mitra and Datta, 2014).
Therefore, the literature suggests that there is a positive connection between supply chain
management and environmental performance. However, it still remains the question whether
the economic performance of a company can be improved by GSCM practices (Seuring and
BIJ Muller, 2008). According to Hanna et al. (2000), the operational performance of a company can
30,10 be enhanced with the help of internal GSCM practices, such as an integrated environmental
management system and the involvement of the employees. In this way, through successful
environmental programs, firms can become more competitive in the market (Lee et al., 2012).
Nonetheless, according to Green et al. (2012), there is a worry that practices like these will
not be converted into economic profit (e.g. market share and profitability). But, on the
contrary, various previous surveys (e.g. Rao and Holt, 2005; de Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012; Zhu
4026 et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013) have found a positive relationship between environmental
policies in the supply chain and economic/financial performance.
3.1.2.1 Internal environmental management and firm performance. Internal environmental
management (EM) refers to particular practices which take place inside a company and do not
include the other members of the supply chain. Carter and Dresner (2001) provide an example:
internal environmental management includes adopting recycling and reuse in the purchasing
procedure, making it more “green”. The significance of environmental management has been
highlighted in particular areas, such as logistics (Bowen et al., 2001) and manufacturing
(Sarkis, 1999). The reasons why companies are implementing internal environmental
management practices are many: (1) they seek to accomplish targets determined by their CEOs
and managers or by the legislation and (2) they become eligible candidates for a green supply
chain practice. For example, IBM and Xerox select only suppliers which are internally green
(Guide et al., 2003). Literally, GSCM demands companies to implement interior environmental
programs, as well as to “green” all their actions and procedures (de Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012).
On the other hand, in SMEs, the owners are responsible for most of the operations of the
company and, therefore, their support and dedication are vital (Ali et al., 2016). As indicated by
many authors, internal environmental management is of vital importance for the
environmental performance of an organization (Darnall et al., 2008; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2018).
H7. Internal environmental management has a positive impact on firm performance.
3.1.2.2 Eco-design and firm performance. According to the literature (Eltayeb et al., 2011;
Lee et al., 2014), eco-design is otherwise called “green design” or “design for the environment”. It
specifies all the procedures taken while creating a product in order to decrease its
environmental effects during its lifecycle. In other words, eco-design includes all stages of a
product development, from the procurement of materials, to the production, usage and disposal
stage. Zhu et al. (2008) argued that eco-design deals with the functionality of the product, while
simultaneously decreases the life-cycle effects it has on the environment. Therefore, eco-design
is viewed as a basic initiative of the green supply chain, since it incorporates environmental
attitude into the design and development of the product (Eltayeb and Zailani, 2009).
H8. Eco-design has a positive impact on firm performance.
3.1.2.3 Green material management and firm performance. Zhu et al. (2007) characterized
green material management as the use and offer of abundant inventories, scrap and utilized
materials. Likewise, green material management can be viewed as the use of inactive
resources for better purposes, or a closed loop of reuse and recycle of by-products (Jabbour
et al., 2015). In such a way, companies can function economically and, at the same time,
decrease their negative environmental effects (Lee et al., 2014).
H9. Green material management has a positive impact on firm performance.
3.1.2.4 Customer cooperation and firm performance. Tseng et al. (2016) argued that when
GSCM is practiced without further cooperation, then it is probable firms not to perform well.
Downstream purchasers or customers are basic to lessen the environmental effect of
the organization and customer collaboration essentially regulates profit (Ali et al., 2016).
Collaborating with customers helps customers comprehend an organization’s goal of GSCM
practices and the organization to better comprehend customers desires and prerequisites Antecedents
(Ali et al., 2016). and effects of
H10. Customer cooperation has a positive impact on firm performance. GSCM
3.1.2.5 Green purchasing and firm performance. The term “green purchasing” includes the practices
provision of design specifications that include environmental demands for the purchased
products from the suppliers, the collaboration with the suppliers in order to meet the
environmental objectives, the conduct of audits for the internal management of suppliers, as 4027
well as the cooperation with ISO14001 – certified suppliers (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). Green
purchasing has become more and more important for companies, since it is vital for carrying
out GSCM practices during the production process. Furthermore, the right choice of a
supplier is pivotal and strategic for firms, in order to decrease their environmental effect
(Tseng and Chiu, 2013).
H11. Green purchasing has a positive impact on firm performance.
3.1.2.6 Green innovative practices and firm performance. Innovation, as stated by
Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (2001), can be a procedure or a product; it can even be
technical or radical. According to Mavondo et al. (2005), innovation can refer to a procedure, a
product or a practice, while according to Chuang (2005), being innovative refers in both
practical and administrative operations. Innovative practices are extremely important and
should be adopted by firms that want to be informed about current changes in environmental
regulations through specialized technologies, product designs, procedures and strict green
performance standards (Mutingi et al., 2014).
Organizations are required to have more proactive strategies that incorporate intentional
environmentally friendly practices in order to decrease energy, waste and contamination
prevention policies that require innovations in operations (Aragon-Correa et al., 2008). Innovation
obliges organizations to set stricter environmental standards to their suppliers and embrace a
product life-cycle prospect during their production process. In this way, organizations help their
suppliers to change their operational procedures in order to meet the prerequisites of the current
environmental regulations (Aragon-Correa et al., 2008). Such policies are broadly embraced by the
automotive industry, with Chrysler Corporation as a characteristic example (Mutingi et al., 2014).
H12. Green innovative practices have a positive impact on firm performance.
3.1.2.7 Environmental proactivity and firm performance. Environmental proactivity makes
decisions concerning the environment at the strategic level. The increasing involvement of
firms in environmental proactivity and their effort to decrease the negative effects of their
operations on the environment, may lead to redesign the current ways for obtaining their
materials, as well as the methods used in the production and delivery of their goods or services
(Sambasivan et al., 2013). There are cases where new environmental technologies should be
adopted in order to meet the growing demand for the reduction of contamination. GSCM
practices urges firms to develop skill-based resources and capabilities; for example, new
internal routines and know-how that encourage the investigation of new methods and
technologies for getting things done (Claver et al., 2007). Often, manufacturers, in order to obtain
ISO 14001 certificates, get involved in approaches which indicate environmental proactivity
actions (Jabbour et al., 2015). Firms embracing GSCM practices foresee new environmental
issues, are driven toward new opportunities, advance public worries, put in action voluntary
environmental issues and incorporate those issues over operations (Ateş et al., 2012).
H13. Environmental proactivity has a positive impact on firm performance.
Figure 1 summarizes all the above hypotheses, thus, presenting the proposed conceptual
framework of the study.
BIJ 4. Research methodology
30,10 4.1 Population, sample and data collection
In a very recent systematic literature review, Choudhary and Sangwan (2022) analyzed 189
studies and concluded that GSCM drivers, GSCM practices and their organizational effects
are country specific, meaning that their relationship is different between companies operating
in different countries. As such, the same authors argued that it is interesting to conduct
empirical studies in countries rarely examined by previous research and draw comparisons
4028 with the existing body of literature. The geographical distribution of publications presented
in most literature review studies of the field (e.g. Choudhary and Sangwan, 2022; Balon, 2020;
Tseng et al., 2019; de Oliveira et al., 2018) indicate that very little research has been conducted
in the region of south-eastern Europe (SEE). Therefore, the present study considers that it is
worthwhile to focus in Greece, a peripheral European economy of SEE, with a long
membership in the European Union (EU) and a member of the Eurozone. As mentioned above,
research attention on small economies at the periphery of the EU, such as Greece, has been
limited.
Greece is a country in which supply chains are particularly important. It is a consumption-
driven economy that depends significantly on imports of raw materials, industrial
components and consumer goods (Adamides et al., 2021), while, at the same time, around
25% of its GDP (OECD, 2020) is related to tourism and related logistics services that require
the preservation of the natural environment. As such, green supply chain practices have a
significant importance.
This study is conducted on a random sample of Greek manufacturing companies. The
population of the study includes manufacturing companies, regardless of size, ownership,
year of establishment and location. Based on the most recent data provided by the Hellenic
Statistical Authority (2019), the Greek manufacturing sector consists of 57,903
manufacturing companies, currently registered in official state records. These companies
belong to a wide range of industrial sectors and sizes.
A list including the contact information of 5,036 manufacturing companies was obtained
from the official website of ICAP (a “Business Service Group” that offers reliable
information). Then, using a random number generator, 1,000 of these companies were
selected. An initial contact (telephone call) was made with 928 of these companies (72
companies were not able to be contacted via telephone). The questionnaire, along with a
cover letter including all necessary clarifications, was distributed to 355 companies that
agreed to participate in the empirical survey. Supply chain managers and Chief Executive
Officers (CEOs) were used as key respondents, due to their knowledge and experience.
After numerous phone-calls and electronic reminders, 292 useable questionnaires were
returned. The response rate was 31.4%. The research period lasted for three months (last
quarter of 2019).
An independent-samples t-test was performed in order to control whether the different
sector and size of the companies of the sample could be considered as a significant limitation
for the overall validity of the study. More specifically, we tested whether sector and size
differentiate the mean scores of the various research factors. The appropriate statistical
analysis (conducted with the use of IBM SPSS 25.0) revealed that no statistically significant
differences among the mean scores of these factors exist. Therefore, the impact of size and
sector is not a concern for the present study.
4.2 Measurement
A newly developed structured questionnaire was designed and used for collecting the
appropriate primary data. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section
refers to the general characteristics of the correspondent and the firm, while the second
section includes questions (items) that measure the 17 factors (constructs) of the conceptual Antecedents
framework. All questions (items) measuring the 17 research factors (a total of 113 items) were and effects of
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (totally disagree) to five (totally
agree). Table 1 presents the factors (constructs), the number of items used to measure each
GSCM
construct and the related literature. practices
4.3 Instrument validation 4029

4.3.1 Content validity. The content validity of the questionnaire was established through an
analytical pre-testing process (Zikmund, 2003). During this process, the researchers
personally visited several potential participants (managers) and relevant academics. In
total, 11 mini unstructured interviews were taken. The interviewees were asked to comment
on the level of difficulty and/or the lack of clarity of the items of the questionnaire, as well as
the instructions provided. After the completion of that procedure, the proposed modifications
were fully incorporated. At the same time, a number of modifications were made in order to
ensure that the original text was clearly interpreted in the target language (Greek). The back
translation method was also used to validate the translated instrument (questionnaire).
Moreover, the wording of the questions was slightly modified before the final draft was
developed, based on the final remarks and instructions of the pre-test process participants.
4.3.2 Construct validity. The control for the construct validity of the questionnaire was
conducted in two steps. Each of the 17 factors (constructs) was evaluated (1) for its
Number of
Factors Sources items
(A) FIRST DIMENSION: drivers for adopting green supply chain management (GSCM) practices
A1. Internal barriers Murillo-Luna et al. (2007) 7
A2. Entrepreneurial Menguc et al. (2010) 6
orientation
A3. Government regulations Menguc et al. (2010) 5
A4. Customer pressure Menguc et al. (2010), Ateş et al. (2012), Laari et al. (2017) 6
A5. Relative advantage Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Lee et al. (2014) 4
A6. Stakeholder pressures Pondeville et al. (2013), Aragon-Correa et al. (2008), Gonzalez- 12
Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006)
(B) SECOND DIMENSION: Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) Practices
B1. Internal environmental Lee et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2012) 10
management
B2. Eco-design Lee et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2012) 5
B3. Green material Lee et al. (2014), Lee et al. (2012) 5
management
B4. Customer cooperation Lee et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2012), Perotti et al. 5
(2012)
B5. Green purchasing Lee et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2012), Eltayeb et al. (2011) 8
B6. Green innovative practices Aragon-Correa et al. (2008) 6
B7. Environmental Sambasivan et al. (2013) 6
proactivity
(C) THIRD DIMENSION: Firm performance
C1. Operational performance Perotti et al. (2012), Sambasivan et al. (2013) 5
C2. Market performance Perotti et al. (2012), Sambasivan et al. (2013) 5
C3. Financial performance Mitra and Datta (2014), Laari et al. (2016) 8
C4. Environmental Zhu et al. (2012), Laari et al. (2016), Perotti et al. (2012), 10
performance Sambasivan et al. (2013) Table 1.
Total 113 Factor measurement
BIJ unidimensionality and reliability (using the IBM SPSS 25.0 software) and (2) for its goodness
30,10 of fit to the proposed research model (using the IBM AMOS 21.0 software).
(1) The examination of the unidimensionality of each of the research factors was
conducted using explanatory factor analysis (EFA) (using principal component
analysis and varimax rotation). Moreover, the statistical measure “Cronbach Alpha”
was used for estimating the reliability of the same factors. In total, seventeen analyses
4030 were conducted, each for every factor of the proposed research model. On the same
vein, the statistical measure “Cronbach Alpha” was also calculated 17 times. Then,
second-order EFA was conducted, treating the various sub-factors of every
dimension, as items.
For the appropriate statistical analysis, the following measures were examined (Hair et al.,
2014; Cooper and Schindler, 2003; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994):
The statistical test of “Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin” (KMO) (values over 0.7 are satisfactory,
while values over 0.5 are acceptable).
The “Bartlett’s test of Sphericity” (it should be statistically significant, at the 0.05 level).
The criterion of “eigenvalue”. Factors whose “eigenvalue” is over one (1) are selected.
For determining the percent of the total variance that is explained by the proposed
factor(s), total variance explained (TVE) was used. TVE should be more than 50%.
For testing the significance of the items, their factor loadings were examined. A
loading over 0.5 was considered significant.
In order to test the reliability of the various factors, the statistical measure “Cronbach
Alpha” was being used. In general, values greater than 0.7 are considered to be valid.
After making all the proposed modifications (removal of few items), the appropriate tests
concluded that all the scales used are valid and reliable (see Table 2 below for the main results).
(2) After taking under consideration all modifications proposed from the EFA, the
evaluation of the goodness of fit of the seventeen research factors (constructs) was
conducted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). More specifically, the following
measures have been examined (Hair et al., 2014; Schumacker and Lomax, 2010; Smith
and McMillan, 2001):
Normed X2 (X2/df): Values between 1 and 3 indicate a statistically significant
model, while values between 1 and 5 are also considered acceptable.
Composite/construct reliability (CR): A measure of internal consistency that is
used complimentary with “Cronbach Alpha”. It should higher than 0.7.
Average variance extracted (AVE): Assesses the convergent validity of factors. It
should be higher than 50%.
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation): Measures the error of
approximation, while taking sample size into account. RMSEA should be less
than 0.08 (or 0.1).
CFI (comparative fit index)/GFI (goodness of fit index): Values over 0.90 indicate
an acceptable model fit.
All tests conducted produced quite satisfactory results (see Table 2 below for the main
results).
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Bartlett’s Eigen- Cronbach Normed
2
Dimensions/Factors Mean S.D KMO test value TVE alpha X C.R AV.E RMSEA CFI/GFI
(A) FIRST DIMENSION: drivers for adopting green supply chain management (GSCM) practices
A1. Internal barriers 2,541 0.860 0.744 p < 0.05 2,264 66.76% 0.819 2.79 0.83 59.2% 0.074 0.91/0.93
A2. Entrepreneurial 3,541 0.823 0.813 p < 0.05 3,070 76.45% 0.806 2.23 0.76 64.6% 0.066 0.99/0.97
orientation
A3. Government regulations 3,314 0.967 0.842 p < 0.05 2,655 65.42% 0.862 3.57 0.74 68.0% 0.053 0.90/0.94
A4. Customer pressure 2,952 0.997 0.872 p < 0.05 1,781 66.04% 0.894 3.14 0.83 72.6% 0.071 0.94/0.96
A5. Relative advantage 3,883 0.881 0.765 p < 0.05 2,411 68.73% 0.847 1.97 0.79 59.3% 0.068 0.99/0.99
A6. Stakeholder pressures 2,858 0.828 0.739 p < 0.05 1,731 69.32% 0.889 3.16 0.72 58.7% 0.071 0.91/0.93
Second-order EFA/CFA 0.712 p < 0.05 1,841 61.56% 0.831 2.23 0.76 61.2% 0.056 0.94/0.99
(B) SECOND DIMENSION: green supply chain management (GSCM) practices
B1. Internal environmental 3,689 0.786 0.624 p < 0.05 1,813 63.61% 0.739 3.14 0.77 67.4% 0.082 0.92/0.93
management
B2. Eco-design 3,575 0.859 0.751 p < 0.05 2,489 55.48% 0.755 3.66 0.74 72.1% 0.081 0.93/0.95
B3. Green material 3,400 1,028 0.690 p < 0.05 2,543 67.43% 0.878 2.63 0.76 73.4% 0.084 0.91/0.93
management
B4. Customer cooperation 3,420 1,049 0.862 p < 0.05 3,223 69.90% 0.891 2.41 0.81 69.6% 0.074 0.99/0.97
B5. Green purchasing 3,229 1,021 0.905 p < 0.05 2,633 65.39% 0.921 3.33 0.83 56.9% 0.069 0.97/0.97
B6. Green innovative practices 3,247 0.916 0.818 p < 0.05 1,533 70.72% 0.892 2.74 0.74 62.6% 0.078 0.97/0.99
B7. Environmental proactivity 3,755 0.940 0.801 p < 0.05 2,537 70.84% 0.916 2.49 0.76 58.2% 0.082 0.96/0.94
(C) THIRD DIMENSION: firm performance
C1. Operational performance 4,215 0.570 0.854 p < 0.05 1,254 64.94% 0.714 2.77 0.79 66.4% 0.067 0.97/0.99
C2. Market performance 3,741 0.870 0.813 p < 0.05 1,491 63.85% 0.744 3.25 0.81 71.2% 0.069 0.91/0.93
C3. Financial performance 3,725 0.902 0.715 p < 0.05 2,541 64.55% 0.755 3.36 0.88 59.6% 0.083 0.94/0.92
C4. Environmental 3,875 0.748 0.711 p < 0.05 2,743 72.83% 0.847 2.17 0.69 63.7% 0.078 0.97/0.97
performance
Antecedents
practices
4031
GSCM
and effects of
Mean scores and

construct validity
Table 2.
BIJ 5. Results
30,10 5.1 Demographics
The participants of the survey were 79.8% male and 20.2% female, while the mean age score
was 44.2 years, respectively. Moreover, the majority of the participants had a university
degree (53.1%), while another 23.3% attended a postgraduate program . Finally, the mean
score of the work experience of employees was 18.3 years. When it comes to the profile of the
manufacturing organizations of the sample, it should be underlined that they employed, in
4032 average, 79.15 permanent and 22.6 seasonal employees. Further, 35.3% employed less than
10 employees (very small enterprises), something which is in line with the size of the Greek
manufacturing companies, while 31.2% employed 11 to 50 employees. In general, SMEs (less
than 250 employees) were 93.20% of the final sample. The majority of the companies are
located in big cities (40.5%), while only 12.1% are located in small towns. Finally, the net sales
of the companies of the sample for the year 2016 was approximately 20.6 million Euros.
5.2 Hypothesis testing

The examination of the proposed conceptual framework (research model) was conducted
with the use of the “Structural Equation Modelling” (SEM) technique. More specifically, the
estimation of the structural model was conducted with the maximum likelihood estimation
method (Kline, 2011; Hoyle, 2012). The covariance matrix was used as the table of entry
(covariance-based SEM) and the extraction of the standardized completely solution was
requested. IBM AMOS 21.0 was used for conducting the appropriate analyses.
In order to fully examine the investigated phenomenon, three different analyses were
conducted: (1) initial model, (2) first alternative model and (3) second alternative model.
More analytically, in order to evaluate the overall fit of these models, the chi-square value
(X2) and the p-value were estimated. However, the sensitivity of the X2 statistic to the sample
size forces towards the adoption of other supplementary measures for evaluating the overall
model (Smith and McMillan, 2001), such as the “Normed-X2” index, the RSMEA index, the
RMR, the CFI and the GFI. As demonstrated in Tables 4 and 5, the corresponding values
indicate a good fit of the data to the investigated models.
5.2.1 Initial model. Firstly, the 13 hypotheses proposed in this study were analytically
tested. Table 3 illustrates the results of this analysis. Since the proposed conceptual
framework is quite complex (it consists of three dimensions and seventeen factors), every
hypothesis includes several sub-hypotheses.
The empirical results (Table 3) offer full support to two research hypotheses (H5, H6).
More specifically, (1) “relative advantage” and (2) “stakeholder pressures” have an effect on
all the GSCM practices that were used in this study.
Moreover, three research hypotheses were fully rejected by the statistical analysis (H3, H8
and H11): (1) “Government regulations” do not have any effect on any of the GSCM practices
that were used in this study (H3), (2) “Eco-design” does not have any effect on any of the
measures of “firm performance” that were used in this study (H8) and (3) “Green purchasing”
does not have any effect on any of the measures of “firm performance” that were used in this
study (H11).
Moreover, two hypotheses (H9, H10) were supported by the statistical analysis, but this
support was very week: (1) “Green material management” only has a statistically significant
impact of one of the four measures that were used for capturing “firm performance” (Green
material management→ environmental performance) (H9), (2) “Customer cooperation” only
has a statistically significant impact of one of the four measures that were used for capturing
“firm performance” (Green material management → market performance) (H10).
Additionally, the empirical data revealed that (1) “Internal barriers”, (2) “Entrepreneurial
orientation” and (3) “Customer pressure” have an effect on six of the seven GSCM practices that
H Path Estimate (r) p Result
Antecedents
and effects of
H1 Internal barriers → GSCM practices Partially GSCM
supported
H1a Internal barriers → Internal environmental 0.209 *** Supported practices
management
H1b Internal barriers → Eco-design 0.112 0.042 Supported
H1c Internal barriers → Green material management 0.068 0.261 Rejected 4033
H1d Internal barriers → Customer cooperation 0.094 0.087 Supported
H1e Internal barriers → Green purchasing 0.124 0.028 Supported
H1f Internal barriers → Green innovative practices 0.130 0.016 Supported
H1g Internal barriers → Environmental proactivity 0.210 *** Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial orientation → GSCM practices Partially
supported
H2a Entrepreneurial orientation → Internal environmental 0.179 0.002 Supported
management
H2b Entrepreneurial orientation → Eco-design 0.261 *** Supported
H2c Entrepreneurial orientation → Green material management 0.010 0.879 Rejected
H2d Entrepreneurial orientation → Customer cooperation 0.151 0.010 Supported
H2e Entrepreneurial orientation → Green purchasing 0.165 0.006 Supported
H2f Entrepreneurial orientation → Green innovative practices 0.268 *** Supported
H2g Entrepreneurial orientation → Environmental proactivity 0.217 *** Supported
H3 Government regulations → GSCM practices Fully rejected
H3a Government regulations → Internal environmental 0.040 0.454 Rejected
management
H3b Government regulations → Eco-design 0.006 0.909 Rejected
H3c Government regulations → Green material management 0.100 0.094 Rejected
H3d Government regulations → Customer cooperation 0.064 0.241 Rejected
H3e Government regulations → Green purchasing 0.029 0.601 Rejected
H3f Government regulations → Green innovative practices 0.004 0.939 Rejected
H3g Government regulations → Environmental proactivity 0.078 0.148 Rejected
H4 Customer pressure → GSCM practices Partially
supported
H4a Customer pressure → Internal environmental 0.246 *** Supported
management
H4b Customer pressure → Eco-design 0.106 0.084 Supported
H4c Customer pressure → Green material management 0.099 0.142 Rejected
H4d Customer pressure → Customer cooperation 0.321 *** Supported
H4e Customer pressure → Green purchasing 0.264 *** Supported
H4f Customer pressure → Green innovative practices 0.225 *** Supported
H4g Customer pressure → Environmental proactivity 0.179 0.003 Supported
H5 Relative advantage → GSCM practices Fully Supported
H5a Relative advantage → Internal environmental 0.198 *** Supported
management
H5b Relative advantage → Eco-design 0.156 0.008 Supported
H5c Relative advantage → Green material management 0.117 0.070 Supported
H5d Relative advantage → Customer cooperation 0.185 0.002 Supported
H5e Relative advantage → Green purchasing 0.172 0.004 Supported
H5f Relative advantage → Green innovative practices 0.210 *** Supported
H5g Relative advantage → Environmental proactivity 0.219 *** Supported
H6 Stakeholder pressures → GSCM practices Fully supported
H6a Stakeholder pressures → Internal environmental 0.271 *** Supported
management Table 3.
Hypothesis testing–
(continued ) Initial results
BIJ H Path Estimate (r) p Result
30,10
H6b Stakeholder pressures → Eco-design 0.299 *** Supported
H6c Stakeholder pressures → Green material management 0.113 0.086 Supported
H6d Stakeholder pressures → Customer cooperation 0.211 *** Supported
H6e Stakeholder pressures → Green purchasing 0.180 0.003 Supported
H6f Stakeholder pressures → Green innovative practices 0.221 *** Supported
4034 H6g Stakeholder pressures → Environmental proactivity 0.225 *** Supported
H7 Internal environmental → Firm performance Partially
management Supported
H7a Internal environmental → Operational performance 0.161 0.036 Supported
management
H7b Internal environmental → Market performance 0.223 0.005 Supported
management
H7c Internal environmental → Financial performance 0.108 0.186 Rejected
management
H7d Internal environmental → Environmental performance 0.274 *** Supported
management
H8 Eco-design → Firm performance Fully
Rejected
H8a Eco-design → Operational performance 0.100 0.164 Rejected
H8b Eco-design → Market performance 0.067 0.363 Rejected
H8c Eco-design → Financial performance 0.018 0.817 Rejected
H8d Eco-design → Environmental performance 0.040 0.579 Rejected
H9 Green material management → Firm performance Weak support
H9a Green material management → Operational performance 0.027 0.639 Rejected
H9b Green material management → Market performance 0.047 0.430 Rejected
H9c Green material management → Financial performance 0.036 0.571 Rejected
H9d Green material management → Environmental performance 0.146 0.013 Supported
H10 Customer cooperation → Firm performance Weak support
H10a Customer cooperation → Operational performance 0.004 0.958 Rejected
H10b Customer cooperation → Market performance 0.157 0.037 Supported
H10c Customer cooperation → Financial performance 0.083 0.296 Rejected
H10d Customer cooperation → Environmental performance 0.072 0.332 Rejected
H11 Green purchasing → Firm performance Fully rejected
H11a Green purchasing → Operational performance 0.117 0.124 Rejected
H11b Green purchasing → Market performance 0.083 0.291 Rejected
H11c Green purchasing → Financial performance 0.040 0.628 Rejected
H11d Green purchasing → Environmental performance 0.087 0.258 Rejected
H12 Green innovative practices → Firm performance Partially
supported
H12a Green innovative practices → Operational performance 0.272 0.001 Supported
H12b Green innovative practices → Market performance 0.229 0.008 Supported
H12c Green innovative practices → Financial performance 0.126 0.162 Rejected
H12d Green innovative practices → Environmental performance 0.009 0.920 Rejected
H13 Environmental proactivity → Firm performance Partially
supported
H13a Environmental proactivity → Operational performance 0.157 0.042 Supported
H13b Environmental proactivity → Market performance 0.095 0.232 Rejected
H13c Environmental proactivity → Financial performance 0.157 0.057 Supported
Table 3. H13d Environmental proactivity → Environmental performance 0.258 *** Supported
Model fit summary
Antecedents
and effects of
CMIN/DF 2.471 GSCM
RMR 0.052
GFI 0.895 practices
CFI 0.920
RMSEA 0.071
4035
Squared multiple correlations
Estimate
GSCM Practices 0.784/78.4%

Overall Performance 0.354/35.4%
Standardized regression weights

Path r p
Drivers → GSCM Practices 0.886 *** Table 4.

GSCM practices → Overall performance 0.595 *** First alternative
Note(s): *** p < 0.001 model–Main results
were used in this study. As it can be seen on Table 3, these three factors do not have any effect
on “Green material management”. Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2 and H4 are supported by the
empirical data. The support is considered partial, but it can be easily perceived as “full support”.
Finally, three other hypotheses (H7, H12 and H13) were partially supported by the
statistical analysis: (1) “Internal environmental management” has a statistically significant
impact of three of the four measures that were used for capturing “firm performance”
(operational performance, market performance and environmental performance) (H7), (2)
“Green Innovative Practices” has a significant impact on three of these measures (operational
performance, market performance and environmental performance) (H12) and (3)
“Environmental proactivity” has a statistically significant impact on three of these
measures (operational, financial and environmental performance) (H13).
In summary:
(1) Two hypotheses were fully supported (H5, H6).
(2) Three hypotheses were fully rejected (H3, H8 and H11).
(3) Two hypotheses were supported, but this support was very week (H9, H10).
(4) Three hypotheses were partially supported; but this is almost a “full support” (H1, H2
and H4).
(5) Three hypotheses were partially supported (H7, H12 and H13).
5.2.2 First alternative model. The first alternative structural model includes the three
dimensions of the present study: (1) Drivers for adopting GSCM practices, (2) GSCM practices
and (3) firm performance (Figure 2). As mentioned earlier, second-order factor analysis was
conducted, in order to test this model.
The first alternate model fitted the data well, while the factors it includes can satisfactory
explain the variance of the main dependent factors of the study; for example, “GSCM Practices”
can be explained by 78%, while overall performance by 35%. Moreover, all the measures that
are used in order to evaluate the fit of the overall model indicate a very good fit (see Table 4).
BIJ Model fit summary
30,10
CMIN/DF 3.089
RMR 0.049
GFI 0.948
CFI 0.952
RMSEA 0.085
4036
Squared multiple correlations
Estimate
Internal Environmental Management (PR_IEM) 0.392/39.2%

Environmental Proactivity (PR_EP) 0.510/51.0%
Green Innovative Practices (PR_GIP) 0.634/63.4%
Environmental Performance (PERF_E) 0.208/20.8%
Financial Performance (PERF_F) 0.081/8.1%
Market Performance (PERF_M) 0.139/13.9%
Operational Performance (PERF_O) 0.259/25.9%
Standardized regression weights

Path r p
Stakeholder pressures (DR_SP) → Internal environmental management (PR_IEM) 0.274 ***

Entrepreneurial orientation (DR_EO) → Internal environmental management (PR_IEM) 0.192 ***
Customer pressure (DR_CP) → Internal environmental management (PR_IEM) 0.238 ***
Relative advantage (DR_RA) → Internal environmental management (PR_IEM) 0.169 0.001
Entrepreneurial orientation (DR_EO) → Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) 0.141 0.002
Relative advantage (DR_RA) → Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) 0.115 0.013
Stakeholder pressures (DR_SP) → Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) 0.120 0.011
Internal environmental management → Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) 0.516 ***
(PR_IEM)
Entrepreneurial orientation (DR_EO) → Green innovative practices (PR_GIP) 0.119 0.003
Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) → Green innovative practices (PR_GIP) 0.399 ***
Internal environmental management → Green innovative practices (PR_GIP) 0.404 ***
(PR_IEM)
Internal environmental management → Operational performance (PERF_O) 0.300 ***
(PR_IEM)
Internal environmental management → Market performance (PERF_M) 0.373 ***
(PR_IEM)
Internal environmental management → Financial performance (PERF_F) 0.284 ***
(PR_IEM)
Internal environmental management → Environmental performance (PERF_E) 0.267 ***
(PR_IEM)
Table 5. Green innovative practices (PR_GIP) → Operational performance (PERF_O) 0.247 ***
Second alternative Environmental proactivity (PR_EP) → Environmental performance (PERF_E) 0.230 0.001
model – main results Note(s): *** p < 0.001
5.2.3 Second alternative model. The second alternative structural model includes only those
relationships that were found to be statistically significant (Figure 3). It must be stressed out
that various new paths were added to the model, based on modification indexes function of
IBM AMOS. This resulted in a structural model with improved fit and explanatory power.
The second alternate model also fitted the data well, while the factors it includes can
satisfactory explain the variance of the main dependent factors of the study; for example,
“operational performance” can be explained by 26%. Moreover, all the measures that are used
in order to evaluate the fit of the overall model indicate a very good fit (see Table 5).
DR_IB PR_IEM PR_ED PR_GMM PR_CC PR_GP PR_GIP PR_EP Antecedents
and effects of
0.76 0.43 0.78 0.78 0.86 GSCM
DR_EO 0.40 0.84 0.84 practices
0.57
GSCM
practices
DR_GR PER_O 4037
0.29
0.71
0.89 0.59
DR_CP 0.63 0.77 PER_M

Drivers Firm
performance
0.73
0.54
DR_RA PER_F
0.42
0.60
DR_SP PER_E
DR_IB = Internal barriers DR_EO = Entrepreneurial orientation DR_GR = Government regulations

Figure 2.
DR_CP = Customer pressure DR_RA = Relative advantage DR_SP = Stakeholder pressures First alternative
PR_IEM = Internal environmental management PR_ED = Eco-design PR_GMM = Green material management
PR_CC = Customer cooperation PR_GP = Green purchasing PR_GIP = Green innovative practices PR_EP = Environmental proactivity
model–Main results
PER_O = Operational performance PER_M = Market performance PER_F = Financial performance PER_E = Environmental performance
GSCM Firm
Drivers
practices performance
R2 = 0.39 R2 = 0.26
0.27 0.30
DR_SP PR_IEM PER_O
0.12
0.17
0.24 0.37
0.52 R2 = 0.14
0.40
DR_RA PER_M
0.12 0.25
R2 = 0.63
PR_GIP 0.28
R2 = 0.08
DR_CP PER_F
0.40
0.19
0.27
0.12
2
R = 0.51 R2 = 0.21
DR_EO 0.14 PR_EP 0.23 PER_E

Figure 3.
Second alternative
DR_SP = Stakeholder pressures
PR_IEM = Internal environmental management
DR_RA = Relative advantage
PR_GIP = Green innovative practices
DR_CP = Customer pressure
PR_EP = Environmental proactivity
DR_EO = Entrepreneurial orientation
model–Main results
PER_O = Operational performance PER_M = Market performance PER_F = Financial performance PER_E = Environmental performance
BIJ The main empirical findings of the study are summarized below.
30,10 (1) Drivers of GSCM practices:
“Relative advantage” and “stakeholder pressures” are the most significant
drivers of GSCM practices.
“Entrepreneurial orientation” and “customer pressure” are also significant
4038 drivers of GSCM practices.
“Government regulations” and “internal barriers” do not have any effect on any of
the GSCM practices that were used in this study.
In general, four of the six drivers of GSCM practices have a significant impact of
the use of these practices.
(2) GSCM practices and “firm performance”:
“Eco-design” and “Green purchasing” do not have an effect on any of the measures
of “firm performance” that were used in this study (operational performance,
market performance, financial performance and environmental performance).
“Green material management” and “customer cooperation” have a very week
impact on “firm performance. More specifically, “green material management”
has an impact on “environmental performance” and “customer cooperation” on
“market performance”.
“Internal environmental management”, “green innovative practices” and
“environmental proactivity” are the only three GSCM practices that have sufficient
impact on several of the measures of “firm performance” that were used in this study.
In general, only three of the seven GSCM practices have a significant impact on
“firm performance”. This is a very interesting observation, urging business
organizations to focus on enhancing these three specific factors (“internal
environmental management”, “green innovative practices”, “environmental
proactivity”).
(3) Results from the “first alternative model”:
The drivers of GSCM practices that have been used in the present study have a
significant cumulative effect on the implementation of these practices. More
specifically, the drivers of GSCM practices can explain 78% (R2 5 78%) of the
variance of these practices.
On the same vein, the GSCM practices that have been used in the study have a
significant cumulative effect on “firm performance”. More specifically, GSCM
practices can explain 35% (R2 5 35%) of the variance in “firm performance”.
(4) Results from the “second alternative model:
As stated earlier, only three GSCM practices (“internal environmental
management”, “green innovative practices” and “environmental proactivity”)
have an impact on the various measures of “firm performance”. Their impact is
both direct and indirect. When taking under consideration the total effects,
“internal environmental management” seems to have the stronger impact on
the various measures of “firm performance”. More specifically, it has a direct
effect on operational, market, financial and environmental performance and an
indirect effect on operational and environmental performance (see Table 6).
Internal Green
Stakeholder Relative Customer Entrepreneurial environmental Environmental innovative
pressures advantage pressure orientation management proactivity practices
Internal Direct 0.274 0.169 0.238 0.192 0.000 0.000 0.000

environmental Indirect 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
management Total 0.274 0.169 0.238 0.192 0.000 0.000 0.000
Environmental Direct 0.120 0.115 0.000 0.141 0.516 0.000 0.000
proactivity Indirect 0.142 0.087 0.123 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total 0.261 0.203 0.123 0.241 0.516 0.000 0.000
Green innovative Direct 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.119 0.404 0.399 0.000
practices Indirect 0.215 0.149 0.145 0.174 0.206 0.000 0.000
Total 0.215 0.149 0.145 0.292 0.610 0.399 0.000
Environmental Direct 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.267 0.230 0.000
performance Indirect 0.133 0.092 0.092 0.107 0.119 0.000 0.000
Total 0.133 0.092 0.092 0.107 0.386 0.230 0.000
Financial Direct 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.284 0.000 0.000
Total 0.078 0.048 0.068 0.055 0.284 0.000 0.000
Market performance Direct 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.373 0.000 0.000
Indirect 0.102 0.063 0.089 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total 0.102 0.063 0.089 0.072 0.373 0.000 0.000
Operational Direct 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.247
Total 0.135 0.088 0.108 0.130 0.451 0.099 0.247
Note(s): *** p < 0.001
Antecedents
practices
4039
GSCM
and effects of
Table 6.
and total effects

model – direct, indirect
Second alternative
BIJ The total effects of “internal environmental management” are: (1) on
30,10 operational performance (r 5 0.451), on market performance (r 5 0.373), on
financial performance (r 5 0.284) and on environmental performance
(r 5 0.386). For the sake of comparison, “green innovative practices” only
have an effect on operational performance (r 5 0.247), and “environmental
proactivity” has an effect on environmental performance (r 5 0.230) and a very
weak impact on operational performance (r 5 0.099). Therefore, “internal
4040 environmental management” is, undeniably, the most significant practice of
GSCM.
As stated earlier, various drivers of GSCM practices (namely, “stakeholder
pressures”, “relative advantage”, “customer pressure, and “entrepreneurial
orientation”) have a statistically significant impact on these practices.
But, as indicated by Table 6, these four factors also have an indirect effect on the various
measures of “firm performance”. When taking under consideration the total indirect effects,
“stakeholder pressures” seem to have the stronger impact on the various measures of “firm
performance”. More specifically, they have an indirect effect on “operational performance”
(r 5 0.135), “market performance” (r 5 0.102), “financial performance” (r 5 0.078) and
“environmental performance” (r 5 0.133). Also, “relative advantage” has an indirect effect on
“operational performance” (r 5 0.088), “market performance” (r 5 0.063), “financial
performance” (r 5 0.048) and “environmental performance” (r 5 0.092). The same applies for
“customer pressure” and “entrepreneurial orientation”.
Therefore, it is concluded that “stakeholder pressures” is, undeniably, the most significant
driver of GSCM practices.
Moreover, it seems that the GSCM practices mediate the relationship between the
“drivers” and “firm performance”.
6. Summary and conclusions

The present study aimed to (1) develop and (2) empirically test a conceptual framework that
focuses on the relationship between various factors of GSCM. More specifically, this study
proposes a three-dimensional approach, including (1) drivers for adopting GSCM practices
(antecedents), (2) GSCM practices and (3) firm performance (GSCM outcomes). Such a
multidimensional approach has never been explored in the existing literature of the field,
making the examination of the proposed conceptual framework an interesting
research topic.
The examination of the proposed conceptual framework was made with the use of a
newly developed structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to a group
of Greek manufacturing companies. The questionnaire, consisting of 113 questions which
measure 17 research factors (constructs), was targeted to 928 companies. After the
completion of the four month long data collection period, 292 useable questionnaires were
returned (response rate 5 31.4%). The SEM technique was mainly used to analyze
the data.
Firstly, the results of the statistical analysis point out the various practices of GSCMthat
have a statistically significant impact on firm performance. More specifically, “internal
environmental management”, “green innovative practices” and “environmental proactivity”
are those practices that have a significant impact on the different measures of “firm
performance” that were included in the present study (i.e. “operational performance”, “market
performance”, “financial performance”, and “environmental performance”). Among these
three GSCM practices, “internal environmental management” has, undeniably, the most
significant impact on “firm performance”.
Overall, the GSCM practices that have been used in the study have a significant Antecedents
cumulative effect on firm performance. More specifically, GSCM practices can explain 35% of and effects of
the variance of firm performance. The direct relationship between GSCM practices, on the one
hand, and economic and environmental performance, on the other, is quite promising. It
GSCM
seems that significant “win-win” opportunities exist for manufacturing companies that seek practices
to implement GSCM practices. These practices seem to be doing what is expected of them, in
terms of positive environmental performance. The economic performance is a plus, urging
even further organizations to focus on their implementation. 4041
Secondly, results point out the most significant drivers (antecedents) of implementing
GSCM practices. “Government regulations” and “internal barriers”, on the one hand, do not
seem to have any impact on the implementation of GSCM practices, while, on the other hand,
“relative advantage” and “stakeholder pressures” are the two most significant GSCM
antecedents. Actually, four out of the six antecedents of GSCM practices that were included in
the proposed conceptual framework of the study were proved to have a significant impact on
the use of these practices, while “stakeholder pressures” is, undeniably, the most significant
antecedent.
Overall, the drivers (antecedents) of GSCM practices have a significant cumulative effect
on their actual implementation. More specifically, GSCM drivers can explain 78% of the
variance of GSCM practices. Moreover, results indicate that the implementation of green
practices in the supply chain is a decision influenced by both internal (i.e. relative advantage,
entrepreneurial orientation) and external drivers (i.e. stakeholder pressures, customer
pressure), meaning that both organizations and stakeholders (e.g. societies) have the power to
impact change in the manufacturing status quo.
Companies that think reactively and only implement GSCM practices after the external
pressure becomes overwhelming will not be able to take advantage of the potential benefits of
going green. When these companies finally decide to adopt sustainable practices, their
competitors will have already enjoyed positive results. According to Roy et al. (2020), reactive
companies implement green practices under external pressure and, thus, have a fire-fighting
approach, while proactive companies rely on the mentality of their managers that strive for
organizational improvement and, thus, achieve enhanced supply chain performance outcomes.
Thirdly, the present study empirically supported that the drivers (antecedents) of GSCM
practices also have an indirect effect of on the various measures of firm performance. This
finding is quite interesting and not thoroughly examined in the relevant literature, since
many previous studies (e.g. El-Garaihy et al., 2022; Habib et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Ali
et al., 2016) fail to examine (or report) the indirect effects between GSCM drivers and
performance measures. This study discovered that stakeholder pressure is the driver with the
stronger impact on the various measures of firm performance (as seen on Table 6). This
impact is mediated through three GSCM practices (see Figure 3). In other words, these three
GSCM practices mediate the relationship between the four drivers (antecedents) and the four
measures of firm performance.
Laguir et al. (2021) also examined the indirect effect of two GSCM drivers (eco-efficiency
and eco-branding) on environmental performance. They found that environmental
performance is indirectly influenced by both eco-efficiency and eco-branding, through
three GSCM practices (i.e. distribution and transport, warehousing and green building and
reverse logistics). Their results indicate that when companies have ecological concerns, they
enhance their environmental performance through the better implementation of GSCM
practices. Under that context, cultures that prioritize ecological concerns can more effectively
green their supply chains. Ateş et al. (2012) found similar results, revealing that
environmental investments mediate the relationship between PES and environmental
performance. The same authors argue that mediation effects can better explain the
inconsistencies in past research.
BIJ This study concluded that two external factors, i.e. stakeholder pressure (e.g. legislators,
30,10 regulatory authorities, press/media, local communities, shareholders and employees) and
customer pressure, can indirectly affect the performance of manufacturing organizations.
Paradoxical as it may seem, companies that receive high external pressure toward
implementing green practices can actually achieve better performance. That finding
insinuates that external pressure, a negative circumstance, especially for managers that
avoid change, is actually beneficial for the company. Hence, receiving pressure from
4042 stakeholders and customers indirectly leads to performance enhancement. On the contrary,
low levels of external pressure can be proven to counter organizational goals. That finding
may explain why companies that operate in demanding environments can achieve better
performance (Fynes et al., 2005). Organizations operating in such environments are more
likely to have a greater need for implementing GSCP practices, in order to comply and satisfy
external pressures. Moreover, internal pressure, measured via two factors (relative
advantage and entrepreneurial orientation), was also found to indirectly affect
performance. That finding insinuates that companies that have really accepted the green
philosophy are keener to implement GSCM practices and, hence, enjoy higher levels of
performance. Future studies are invited to look further into these indirect relationships.
6.1 Implications
6.1.1 Implications to theory. This study examines the importance of green practices in supply
chain. It identifies the most crucial practices for Greek manufacturing companies, something
which can assist the industry leaders turn to the right direction. As such, this study improves
the comprehension of researchers and managers concerning which GSCM practices have the
stronger effect on performance measures. Hence, it can assist with deciding how to better
allocate limited resources, in order to transform supply chains into green entities. On a
theoretical level, this study has three main areas of implications.
Firstly, it adopts an extended three-dimensional approach and utilizes previous studies in
order to capture its research conducts (GSCM drivers, GSCM practices and GSCM outcomes).
By doing that, it answers to the call of recent previous papers (e.g. Choudhary and Sangwan,
2022; Balon, 2020; Tseng et al., 2019). Under that rationale, each construct is measured via
multiple sub-factors (e.g. GSCM practices are measured via seven sub-factors). This approach
offers a better picture of the investigated phenomenon. Hence, this study contributes to the
SCM literature by determining the role of each GSCM practice in achieving better operational,
market, financial and environmental performance in the manufacturing context. Also, it
better describes the factors that have an effect on the implementation of GSCM practices.
These arguments are supported by the empirical results of the study, which revealed that not
all sub-factors of each dimension are equally important.
Secondly, this study proved that stakeholder and customer pressure is very important for
GSCM. The pressure from regulators, suppliers, customers and societies can directly impact the
adoption of GSCM practices and indirectly impact firm performance, including environmental
performance. In the existing literature, GSCM practices and firm performance have rarely been
studied through the lens of external pressures. These findings indicate that manufacturing
companies are social entities and need to take under consideration institutional pressures if they
wish to ensure their financial, operational and market competitiveness. In line with the
institutional theory, this study argues that organizational decisions and policies depend on the
actions of regulatory and other external bodies, and business strategies must be also studied
from an institutional perspective (Kalyar et al., 2020). Despite that, the present study also
discovered that the implementation of GSCM practices and the corresponding benefits also
depend on internal pressures. That finding indicates that organizations should not be reactive,
only responding to external stakeholder pressures, but embrace a proactive approach, thus
attempting to direct their internal resources and capabilities into better managing their green Antecedents
supply chain. This approach is in line with the resource-based view of the firm. Overall, this and effects of
study verified the significance of both theories discussed above (institutional theory and RBV).
Thirdly, the present study indicated that the implementation of green practices in the
GSCM
supply chain creates a win–win scenario for both companies and societies. On the one hand, practices
manufacturers gain operational, market and financial benefits, while, on the other hand,
societies benefit from higher compliance with environmental regulations and the prevention
of harmful environmental wastes. As such, the adoption of GSCM practices is highlighted as a 4043
reasonable step forward for both companies (since they enhance firm performance) and
policy makers/societies (since they ensure environmental sustainability). These findings are
in line with the recent study of Khan et al. (2021), who argued that GSCM practices ensure
environmental sustainability, through a reduction in carbon emissions and dangerous
atmospheric particulate matters (PM 2.5).
6.1.2 Implications to practice (managerial implications). As mentioned above, the empirical
results of this study offer suggestions to public policy makers and regulators, urging them to
develop legislative activities that encourage manufacturers to adopt green practices in their
supply chain. By offering incentives that encourage the transformation of traditional supply
chains into green entities, public policy makers can affect the decisions of industry leaders
and managers. This is very important, since industry officials are the ones with the authority
to enforce environmentally-friendly changes in their internal manufacturing processes.
Moreover, leaders and managers should determine which GSCM practices have the
propensity to increase firm performance. The present study takes a step in that road, arguing
that three GSCM practices are the most significant in affecting the measures of firm
performance included in this study (operational performance, market performance, financial
performance and environmental performance).
As stated earlier, “internal environmental management” is the most significant practice of
GSCM. In that direction, organizations are urged to do the following:
(1) Ensure that senior managers are highly committed toward the principles of GSCM.
Moreover, ensure that mid-level managers have also become zealots of the principles
of the green supply chain, since their contribution in building an appropriate business
culture is vital.
(2) Develop and implement environmental compliance and green auditing programs.
Adopt an environmental management system.
(3) Offer special training to all employees concerning environmental issues.
(4) Try to attain an ISO 14000 certification. Nevertheless, focus on really adopting the
principles of such a certification and not on just “keeping the records straight”.
Since “green innovative practices” and “environmental proactivity” also have a significant
effect on “firm performance” the following proposals could be made:
(1) Employees should be encouraged to develop new and innovative green ideas in order
to enhance the environmental performance of the company.
(2) Organizations should design products with environmental-friendly packaging and
acquire an “eco-label”. Also, they should make efforts in order to be more creative in
green product development than their competitors. Finally, they should always try to
find innovative ways to reduce waste and prevent emissions.
(3) Moreover, environmental criteria should be used when starting a new project and/or
when making decisions about the production equipment.
BIJ (4) Finally, raw materials should be chosen based on their potential to minimize the
30,10 waste of the productions facilities. Also, new production processes should result in
minimal environmental emissions. When it comes to the products of the company,
they should be specifically designed to minimize their environmental impact.
Given the extremely significant role of “stakeholder pressures” in the implementation of
GSCM practices and firm performance, organizations should try to take advantage of the
4044 input provided by these groups (e.g. suppliers, customers, European and national legislators,
regulatory authorities, local communities, employees, etc.). Their “pressure” should not be
considered as a negative parameter, since it has been empirically proven to enhance the
effectiveness and financial efficiency of the organization. Therefore, special “meetings”
should be organized, in order to gather information about the environmental issues raised by
the various groups of stakeholders.
6.2 Limitations and future research

A limitation stemming from the implemented methodology is the use of self-report scales
to measure the constructs of the proposed model. Hence, future research should attempt to assess
its research factors employing both subjective (self-report) and objective measures to increase the
reliability of the findings. Moreover, the present paper lacks a longitudinal approach, since it is
cross-sectional and provides a static picture of the subject under consideration. Another
limitation of the present study is that the conceptual framework it proposes has been tested only
on companies operating in the Greek economic environment. It would be useful to be replicated in
other countries with different structural characteristics. Its replication in other countries would
surely produce some interesting results. Moreover, a number of other factors could also be
included in the model, in order to explain the reality in a more precise and accurate way.
References
Abbas, T.M. and Hussien, F.M. (2021), “The effects of green supply chain management practices on
firm performance: empirical evidence from restaurants in Egypt”, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 358-373.
Adamides, E.D., Mouzakitis, Y. and Zygouris, A. (2021), “Green supply chain management in Greece:
practices and attitudes in environmental assessment and selection of suppliers”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, Springer, Singapore, pp. 214-223.
Agarwal, A., Giraud-Carrier, F.C. and Li, Y. (2018), “A mediation model of green supply chain
management adoption: the role of internal impetus”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 205, pp. 342-358.
Ahmed, W., Najmi, A., Arif, M. and Younus, M. (2019), “Exploring firm performance by institutional
pressures driven green supply chain management practices”, Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 415-437.
Al-Ghwayeen, W.S. and Abdallah, A.B. (2018), “Green supply chain management and export
performance: the mediating role of environmental performance”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1233-1252.
Ali, A., Bentley, Y., Cao, G. and Habib, F. (2016), “Green supply chain management-food for thought?”,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Altaf, B., Ali, S.S. and Weber, G.W. (2020), “Modeling the relationship between organizational
performance and green supply chain practices using canonical correlation analysis”, Wireless
Networks, Vol. 26, pp. 5835-5853.
Amjad, A., Abbass, K., Hussain, Y., Khan, F. and Sadiq, S. (2022), “Effects of the green supply chain
management practices on firm performance and sustainable development”, Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 29, pp. 66622-66639, doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19954-w.
Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Bouma, G. (2004), “The impact of voluntary environmental Antecedents
protection instruments on company environmental performance”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 1-12. and effects of
Aragon-Correa, J.A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S. and Garcıa-Morales, V.J. (2008), “Environmental
GSCM
strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of practices
Environmental Management, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 88-103.
Asif, M.S., Lau, H., Nakandala, D., Fan, Y. and Hurriyet, H. (2020), “Adoption of green supply chain
management practices through collaboration approach in developing countries - from literature 4045
review to conceptual framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 276, 124191.
Ateş, M.A., Bloemhof, J., Van Raaij, E.M. and Wynstra, F. (2012), “Proactive environmental strategy in
a supply chain context: the mediating role of investments”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 1079-1095.
Balon, V. (2020), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices, and performance - an
integrative literature review”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 226-244.
Berry, M.A. and Rondinelli, D.A. (1998), “Proactive corporate environmental management: a new
industrial revolution”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 38-50.
Bhardwaj, B.R. (2016), “Role of green policy on sustainable supply chain management: a model for
implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 456-468.
Bose, I. and Pal, R. (2012), “Do green supply chain management initiatives impact stock prices of
firms?”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 624-634.
Bove, A.T. and Swartz, S. (2016), “Starting at the source: sustainability in supply chains”, McKinsey on
Sustainability and Resource Productivity, Vol. 4, pp. 36-43.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001), “The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 174-189.
Brıo-Gonzalez, J.A. and Junquera-Cimadevilla, B. (2002), “Implicaciones organizativas de la
introduccion de tecnologıas medioambientales en las empresas: un estudio empırico de
Espa~na”, Informacion Comercial Espa~
nola, Vol. 803, pp. 163-175.
Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasing’s role in environmental management: cross-functional
development of grounded theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 12-27.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.
Choudhary, K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2022), “Green supply chain management pressures, practices and
performance: a critical literature review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 1393-1428.
Chuang, L.M. (2005), “An empirical study of the construction of measuring model for organizational
innovation in Taiwanese high-tech enterprises”, The Journal of American Academy of Business,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 299-304.
Claver, E., Lopez, M.D., Molina, J.F. and Tarı, J.J. (2007), “Environmental management and firm
performance: a case study”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 84, pp. 606-619.
Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2003), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, January, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), “The dynamics of the product and process innovations
in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
BIJ Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R. (2008), “Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability?”, Business Strategy and the
30,10 Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-45.
de Giovanni, P. and Vinzi, V.E. (2012), “Covariance versus component-based estimations of
performance in green supply chain management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 907-916.
de Oliveira, U.R., Espindola, L.S., da Silva, I.R., da Silva, I.N. and Rocha, H.M. (2018), “A systematic
4046 literature review on green supply chain management: research implications and future
perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 187, pp. 537-561.
Delmas, M. and Toffel, M. (2004), “Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an
institutional framework”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 209-222.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 147-160.
Do, A.D., Nguyen, Q.V., Le, Q.H. and Ta, V.L. (2020), “Green supply chain management in Vietnam
industrial zone: province-level evidence”, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and
Business, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 403-412.
Dou, Y., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2018), “Green multi-tier supply chain management: an enabler
investigation”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 95-107.
Dues, C.M., Tan, K.H. and Lim, M. (2013), “Green as the new lean: how to use lean practices as a
catalyst to greening your supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 93-100.
Dutton, J.E. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Categorizing strategic issues: links to organizational action”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 76-90.
El-Garaihy, W.H., Badawi, U.A., Seddik, W.A. and Torky, M.S. (2022), “Investigating performance
outcomes under institutional pressures and environmental orientation motivated Green Supply
Chain Management Practices”, Sustainability, Vol. 14, p. 1523.
Eltayeb, T.K. and Zailani, S. (2009), “Going green through green supply chain initiatives
towards environmental sustainability”, Operations and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 93-110.
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.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J. and Davarzani, H. (2015), “Green supply chain management: a review and
bibliometric analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 162, pp. 101-114.
Fang, C. and Zhang, J. (2018), “Performance of green supply chain management: a systematic review
and meta analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 183, pp. 1064-1081.
Feng, M., Yu, W., Wang, X., Wong, C.Y., Xu, M. and Xiao, Z. (2018), “Green supply chain management
and financial performance: the mediating roles of operational and environmental performance”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 811-824.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing, Boston.
Fynes, B., De Burca, S. and Voss, C. (2005), “Supply chain relationship quality, the competitive
environment and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16,
pp. 3303-3320.
Gonzalez-Benito, J. and Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2006), “A review of determinant factors of environmental
proactivity”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 87-102.
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.
Guide, V.D.R., Jayaraman, V. and Linton, J.D. (2003), “Building contingency planning for closed-loop Antecedents
supply chains with product recovery”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 259-279.
and effects of
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-486.
GSCM
Habib, M.A., Bao, Y., Nabi, N., Dulal, M., Asha, A.A. and Islam, M. (2021), “Impact of strategic
practices
orientations on the implementation of green supply chain management practices and
sustainable firm performance”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, p. 340.
4047
Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2014), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings,
Prentice-Hall International, London.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), “Linking operational and environmental
improvement through employee involvement”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 148-165.
Harrison, A. and van Hoek, R.I. (2005), Logistics Management and Strategy, Pearson Education, Essex.
Hellenic Statistical Authority (2019), “Statistical bussines register/2019”, available at: https://www.
statistics.gr/en/statistics/-/publication/SBR01 (accessed 16 June 2022).
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1996), “The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an
empirical approach”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 381-395.
Hillary, R. (2004), “Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp. 561-569.
Hoyle, R.H. (2012), Handbook of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford Press, New York.
Huang, J.W. and Li, Y.H. (2015), “Green innovation and performance: the view of organizational
capability and social reciprocity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Huang, X., Tan, B.L. and Ding, X. (2012), “Green supply chain management practices: an investigation
of manufacturing SMEs in China”, International Journal of Technology Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 139-153.
Huang, Y.C., Borazon, E.Q. and Liu, J.M. (2021), “Antecedents and consequences of green supply chain
management in Taiwan’s electric and electronic industry”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1066-1093.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A. and Latan, H. (2015), “Green
product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and
technical aspects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87, pp. 442-451.
Jell-Ojobor, M. and Raha, A. (2022), “Being good at being good - the mediating role of an
environmental management system in value-creating green supply chain management
practices”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1964-1984, doi: 10.1002/
bse.2993.
Kalyar, M.N., Shoukat, A. and Shafique, I. (2020), “Enhancing firms’ environmental performance and
financial performance through green supply chain management practices and institutional
pressures”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 451-476.
Kara, K. and Edinsel, S. (2022), “The mediating role of green product innovation (GPI) between green
human resources management (GHRM) and green supply chain management (GSCM): evidence
from automotive industry companies in Turkey”, Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal, doi: 10.1080/16258312.2022.2045873.
Khan, S.A.R., Yu, Z. and Sharif, A. (2021), “No silver bullet for de-carbonization: preparing for
tomorrow, today”, Resources Policy, Vol. 71, 101942.
Kim, S., Foerstl, K., Schmidt, C.G. and Wagner, S.M. (2021), “Adoption of green supply chain
management practices in multi-tier supply chains: examining the differences between higher
and lower tier firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 60 No. 21, pp. 6451-
6468, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1992032.
BIJ Kitsis, A.M. and Chen, I.J. (2021), “Does environmental proactivity make a difference? The critical roles
of green operations and collaboration in GSCM”, Supply Chain Management: An International
30,10 Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/SCM-09-2020-0499.
Klassen, R.D. (2001), “Plant-level environmental management orientation: the influence of
management views and plant characteristics”, Production and Operations Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 257-275.
Klassen, R.D. and Vachon, S. (2003), “Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on
4048 plant-level environmental investment”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 336-352.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford press, New York.
Laari, S., T€oyli, J., Solakivi, T. and Ojala, L. (2016), “Firm performance and customer-driven green
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1960-1970.
Laari, S., T€oyli, J. and Ojala, L. (2017), “Supply chain perspective on competitive strategies and
green supply chain management strategies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141,
pp. 1303-1315.
Laari, S., T€oyli, J. and Ojala, L. (2018), “The effect of a competitive strategy and green supply chain
management on the financial and environmental performance of logistics service providers”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 872-883.
Laguir, I., Stekelorum, R. and El Baz, J. (2021), “Going green? Investigating the relationships
between proactive environmental strategy, GSCM practices and performances of third-
party logistics providers (TPLs)”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 32 No. 13,
pp. 1049-1062.
Le Quere, C., Jackson, R.B., Jones, M.W., Smith, A.J.P., Abernethy, S., Andrew, R.M., De-Gol, A.J.,
Willis, D.R., Shan, Y., Canadell, J.G., Friedlingstein, P., Creutzig, F. and Peters, G.P. (2020),
“Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement”,
Nature Climate Change, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 647-653.
Lee, S.M., Tae Kim, S. and Choi, D. (2012), “Green supply chain management and organizational
performance”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 8, pp. 1148-1180.
Lee, S.M., Sung Rha, J., Choi, D. and Noh, Y. (2013), “Pressures affecting green supply chain
performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1753-1768.
Lee, V.H., Ooi, K.B., Chong, A.Y.L. and Seow, C. (2014), “Creating technological innovation via green
supply chain management: an empirical analysis”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41
No. 16, pp. 6983-6994.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2011), “Determinants of green practice adoption for logistics companies in
China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Liu, S., Eweje, G., He, Q. and Lin, Z. (2020a), “Turning motivation into action: a strategic orientation
model for green supply chain management”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 2908-2918.
Liu, J., Hu, H., Tong, X. and Zhu, Q. (2020b), “Behavioral and technical perspectives of green supply
chain management practices: empirical evidence from an emerging market”, Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 140, 102013.
Longoni, A. and Cagliano, R. (2018), “Inclusive environmental disclosure practices and firm
performance: the role of green supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1815-1835.
Maditati, D.R., Munim, Z.H., Schramm, H.J. and Kummer, S. (2018), “A review of green supply chain
management: from bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework and future research
directions”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 139, pp. 150-162.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. and Gardner, B. (2004), “Combining quantitative and qualitative
methodologies in logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 565-578.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Datta, U., Singla, A. and Krishnamoorthi, S. (2018), “Identification and Antecedents
prioritization of motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: case
from Indian construction industries”, OPSEARCH, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 202-219. and effects of
Mavondo, F.T., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), “Learning orientation and market orientation:
GSCM
relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance”, European Journal of practices
Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1235-1263.
Melnyk, S., Sroufe, R. and Calantone, R. (2003), “Assessing the impact of environmental management
systems on corporate and environmental performance”, Journal of Operations Management, 4049
Vol. 21, pp. 329-351.
Menguc, B., Auh, S. and Ozanne, L. (2010), “The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a
proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 279-298.
Min, H. and Kim, I. (2012), “Green supply chain research: past, present, and future”, Logistics Research,
Vol. 4 Nos 1-2, pp. 39-47.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T. and Hazen, B. (2017), “Green supply chain performance
measures: a review and bibliometric analysis”, Sustainable Production and Consumption,
Vol. 10, pp. 85-99.
Mitra, S. and Datta, P.P. (2014), “Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their
impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 2085-2107.
Moors, E.H.M., Mulder, K.F. and Vergragt, P.J. (2005), “Towards cleaner production: barriers and
strategies in the base metals producing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13 No. 7,
pp. 657-668.
Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garces-Ayerbe, C. and Rivera-Torres, P. (2007), “What prevents firms from
advancing in their environmental strategy?”, International Advances in Economic Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2003), “Green perspectives and practices: a ‘comparative logistics’
study”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 122-131.
Mutingi, M., Mapfaira, H. and Monageng, R. (2014), “Developing performance management systems
for the green supply chain”, Journal of Remanufacturing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 6-24.
Nikbakhsh, E. (2009), “Green supply chain management”, Supply Chain and Logistics in National,
International and Governmental Environment, Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 195-220.
Nunnaly, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
OECD (2020), “OECD economic surveys: greece (july 2020)”, available at: https://www.oecd.org/
economy/surveys/Greece-2020-OECD-economic-survey-Overview.pdf (accessed 16 June 2022).
Perotti, S., Zorzini, M., Cagno, E. and Micheli, G.J. (2012), “Green supply chain practices and company
performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 640-672.

Petljak, K., Zulauf, K., Stulec, I., Seuring, S. and Wagner, R. (2018), “Green supply chain management
in food retailing: survey-based evidence in Croatia”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Pondeville, S., Swaen, V. and De Ronge, Y. (2013), “Environmental management control systems: the
role of contextual and strategic factors”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 317-332.
Post, J.E. and Altman, B.W. (1994), “Managing the environmental change process: barriers and
opportunities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 64-81.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,
pp. 898-916.
BIJ Rizzi, F., Gigliotti, M. and Annunziata, E. (2022), “Exploring the nexus between GSCM and
organisational culture: insights on the role of supply chain integration”, Supply Chain
30,10 Management: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/
SCM-07-2021-0326.
Roy, V., Silvestre, B.S. and Singh, S. (2020), “Reactive and proactive pathways to sustainable apparel
supply chains: manufacturer’s perspective on stakeholder salience and organizational learning
toward responsible management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 227, 107672.
4050 Rupa, R.A. and Saif, A.N.M. (2022), “Impact of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) on business
performance and environmental sustainability: case of a developing country”, Business
Perspectives and Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 140-163.
Sambasivan, M., Bah, S.M. and Jo-Ann, H. (2013), “Making the case for operating ‘Green’: impact of
environmental proactivity on multiple performance outcomes of Malaysian firms”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 42, pp. 69-82.
Sarkis, J. (1999), How Green Is the Supply Chain? Practice and Research, Graduate School of
Management, Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
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.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2010), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Routledge Academic, New York.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1699-1710.
Sharma, S. (2000), “Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate
choice of environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 681-697.
Sheu, J.B., Chou, Y.H. and Hu, C.C. (2005), “An integrated logistics operational model for green-supply
chain management”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 41, pp. 287-313.
Smith, T.D. and McMillan, B.F. (2001), “A primer of model fit indices in structural equation modeling”,
Annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, February 1-3,
available at: https://ia800205.us.archive.org/19/items/ERIC_ED449231/ERIC_ED449231.pdf
(accessed 23 April 2018).
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.
Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), “Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 908-935.
Stevens, G.C. and Johnson, M. (2016), “Integrating the supply chain: 25 years on”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 19-42.
Susanty, A., Puspita Sari, D., Rinawati, D.I. and Setiawan, L. (2018), “Impact of internal driver on
implementation of GSCM practice”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management Bandung, Indonesia, March 6-8, pp. 149-156.
Testa, F. and Iraldo, F. (2010), “Shadows and lights of GSCM (Green Supply Chain Management):
determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-national study”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18 Nos 10-11, pp. 953-962.
Trujillo-Gallego, M., Sarache, W. and Sellitto, M.A. (2021), “Identification of practices that facilitate Antecedents
manufacturing companies’ environmental collaboration and their influence on sustainable
production”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 1372-1391. and effects of
Tseng, M.-L. and Chiu, A.S.F. (2013), “Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic
GSCM
preferences”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 22-31. practices
Tseng, M.L., Lin, R.J., Lin, Y.H., Chen, R.H. and Tan, K. (2014), “Close-loop or open hierarchical
structures in green supply chain management under uncertainty”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 3250-3260. 4051
Tseng, M.-L., Tan, K. and Chiu, A.S. (2016), “Identifying the competitive determinants of firms’ green
supply chain capabilities under uncertainty”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1247-1262.
Tseng, M.L., Islam, M.S., Karia, N., Fauzi, F.A. and Afrin, S. (2019), “A literature review on green
supply chain management: trends and future challenges”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 145-162.
Vachon, S. (2007), “Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental technologies”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 Nos 18/19, pp. 4357-4379.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of
upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Van Hemel, C. and Cramer, J. (2002), “Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 10, pp. 439-453.
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.
Waddock, S.A., Bodwell, C. and Graves, S.R. (2003), “Responsibility: the new business imperative”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 132-148.
Wang, C., Zhang, Q. and Zhang, W. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility, Green supply chain
management and firm performance: the moderating role of big-data analytics capability”,
Research in Transportation Business and Management, Vol. 37, 100557.
Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. and Freeman, R.E. (2003), “Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social
responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world”, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1-28.
Wisner, P.S., Epstein, M.J. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2006), Environmental Accounting (Advances in
Environmental Accounting and Management), Freedman, M. and Jaggi, B. (Eds), Emerald
Group Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 3, pp. 143-167, doi: 10.1016/S1479-3598(06)03005-6.
Yang, C.-S., Lu, C.-S., Haider, J.J. and Marlow, P.B. (2013), “The effect of green supply chain management
on green performance and firm competitiveness in the context of container shipping in Taiwan”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 55, pp. 55-73.
Yildiz Çankaya, S. and Sezen, B. (2019), “Effects of green supply chain management practices on
sustainability performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 98-121.
Zaid, A.A., Jaaron, A.A. and Bon, A.T. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management and
green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: an empirical study”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 204, pp. 965-979.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a survey”, International Journal of 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.
BIJ 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
30,10 Nos 18-19, pp. 4333-4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and
4052 performance within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
Nos 11-12, pp. 1041-1052.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J. and Lai, K.H. (2008), “Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply
chain management practices in the Chinese context”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 577-591.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2012), “Examining the effects of green supply chain management
practices and their mediations on performance improvements”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1377-1394.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2013), “Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of
internal and external green supply chain management practices”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
Zikmund, W.G. (2003), Business Research Methods, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.
Zilahy, G. (2004), “Organizational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production
measures in the corporate sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp. 311-319.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001), “Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Corresponding author
Dimitrios Chatzoudes can be contacted at: dchatzoudes@yahoo.gr
Study Methodology Sample Drivers GSCM practices Statistical analysis
El-Garaihy Survey 351 manufacturing Institutional pressure, Supplier environmental collaboration, PLS-SEM approach
et al. (2022) companies in Saudi Environmental orientation Customer environmental collaboration, Appendix
Arabia Internal environmental management,
Eco-design, Reverse logistics,
Investment recovery, Green information
technology and systems, Green
compliance, Green purchasing, Green
manufacturing and Green logistics
Amjad et al. Survey 216 medium- and large- – Eco-Design, Internal Environmental PLS-SEM approach
(2022) scale leather industries Management System, Green distribution,
in Pakistan Green purchasing and Co-operation with
customers
Laguir et al. Survey 232 French third-party Eco-efficiency Intentions, Distribution and transport, Warehousing PLS-SEM approach
(2021) logistics providers Eco-branding intentions and green building, Eco design and
packaging, Reverse logistics, Green
supply and Cooperation with customers
Abbas and Survey 478 international – Green management, Green food, Structural
Hussien quick-service Green environment and equipment Equation Modeling
(2021) restaurants in Egypt (SEM)
Kim et al. Survey 284 manufacturing Customer pressure, Supplier GSCM practices (measured via 6 items) Multiple regression
(2021) companies in capabilities analysis (PROCESS
Germany, Austria and function)
Switzerland
Huang et al. Survey 194 questionnaires Stakeholder pressure, Internal environmental management, Structural
(2021) were from Taiwan’s Corporate green resources Green procurement, Cooperation with Equation Modeling
electric and electronic customers, Ecological design, (SEM)
product manufacturers Investment waste recycling and Green
information system
Habib et al. Survey 266 textile Green entrepreneurial Internal environmental management, PLS-SEM approach
(2021) manufacturing firms in orientation, market Eco-design and Cooperation with
Bangladesh orientation and knowledge customer
management orientation
(continued )
Antecedents
practices
4053
GSCM
and effects of
literature review
Synopsis of the
Table A1.
analysis
BIJ
30,10
4054
Table A1.
Kalyar et al. Survey 238 textile companies – Green manufacturing, Green purchasing, Regression analysis
(2020) in Pakistan Cooperation with customers, Eco-design (PROCESS function)
and Green Information System
Liu et al. Survey 296 manufacturing Strategic emphasis, Resource Internal coordination, Supply chain PLS-SEM approach
(2020a) companies in China commitment and coordination, Eco-design and Investment
Management support recovery
Liu et al. Survey 200 Chinese Behavioral GSCM practices Technical GSCM practices (Eco-design, Structural
(2020b) manufacturers (Internal management Green manufacturing, Reverse logistics, Equation Modeling
support, Customer Environment management tools) (SEM), Confirmatory
involvement, Supplier Factor Analysis (CFA)
involvement)
Altaf et al. Survey 54 Indian industrial Environmental performance Green purchasing, Eco-design and Canonical correlation
(2020) organizations aspects, Economics Cooperation with customers analysis, Structural
performance aspects Equation Modeling
(SEM)
Do et al. Survey 322 companies in Bac Internal awareness, GSCM practice PLS-SEM approach
(2020) Ninh Province’s Suppliers’ pressure,
industrial zones, Customers awareness and
Vietnam Regulations pressure
Ahmed et al. Survey 229 supply chain Environmental Orientation, GSCM Practices (Internal PLS-SEM approach
(2019) professionals and Institutional Pressure E-Management, Supply Chain
managers from ISO (Institutional pressure/ Partnering and Eco-design)
14000 and ISO 14001- Coercive, Institutional
certified companies pressure/Normative and
from Karachi, Pakistan Institutional pressure/
Mimetic)
Susanty et al. Survey 90 SMEs of the Internal drivers (Involvement Internal Environmental Management, PLS-SEM approach
(2018) furniture industry and support from to Green Purchasing, Customer
(Indonesia) management and employee, Cooperation with environmental
Technology, Knowledge and concern, Eco-design and Investment
Financial) recovery
(continued )
Laari et al. Survey 382 top or middle Monitoring by Suppliers and Collaboration with Suppliers and Correlation analysis
(2017) managers of Finnish Customers, Sources of Customers
firms Competitive Advantage
Ali et al. Survey 84 owners of SMEs in Internal Drivers, External Green Supply Chain Management PLS-SEM approach
(2016) London Pressures Practices
Huang and Li Survey 418 CEOs or managers Social Reciprocity, Green Product Innovation, Green Structural
(2015) of information and Coordination Process Innovation Equation Modeling
communication firms Capability, Dynamic (SEM), Confirmatory
in Taiwan Capability Factor Analysis (CFA)
Lee et al. Pilot test, 133 managers of – Internal Environmental Management, Partial Least Square-
(2014) Survey Malaysian firms Eco-Design, Green Purchasing, Structural
Investment Recovery and Customer Equation Modeling
Cooperation (PLS-SEM approach)
Pondeville Survey 256 CEOs/Managers of Perceived Ecological Environmental Management Control Regression analysis
et al. (2013) Belgian manufacturing Environmental Uncertainty Systems and Corporate Environmental
firms and Perceived Stakeholder Proactivity
Pressures
Sambasivan Survey 291 Malaysian firms – Environmental Proactivity Structural
et al. (2013) Equation Modeling
(SEM), Correlation
analysis
Zhu et al. Survey 396 mid-level or senior Coercive Pressure, Normative Eco-Design, Internal Environmental Confirmatory Factor
(2013) managers of Chinese Pressure, Competitive Management, Green Purchasing, Analysis (CFA),
manufacturing firms Pressure and Institutional Customer Cooperation with Correlation Analysis
Pressure Environmental Concerns
Investment Recovery
Ateş et al. Survey 96 purchasing Customer Pressure, Proactive Environmental Strategy, Partial Least
(2012) or environmental Organizational Commitment Environmental Investments Squares (PLS)
manager of Turkish
manufacturing firms
(continued )
Antecedents
practices
4055
GSCM
and effects of
Table A1.
BIJ
30,10
4056
Table A1.
Zhu et al. Survey 396 mid-level or senior – Eco-Design, Internal Environmental Correlation Analysis
(2012) managers of Chinese Management, Green Purchasing,
manufacturing firms Investment Recovery, Internal Financial
Policies and Customer Cooperation
Lee et al. Survey 223 operations/supply – Internal Environmental Management, Correlation analysis,
(2012) chain managers of Green Purchasing and Cooperation with Structural
SMEs in the electronics customers, Eco-design Equation Modeling
industry in Korea (SEM) approach
Lin and Ho Survey 322 owners or senior Technological Factors, Correlation analysis
(2011) managers of Chinese Relative Advantage,
firms Compatibility,
Organizational Support,
Human Resources Quality,
Regulatory Pressure, And
Governmental Support,
Customer Pressure and
Environmental Uncertainty
Menguc et al. Survey 325 CEOs and/or key Entrepreneurial Orientation, Proactive Environmental, Strategy Post-hoc analysis
(2010) managers of New Government Regulations and
Zealand firms Customer Environmental
Sensitivity
Aragon- Survey 108 CEOs of SMEs in Strategic Proactivity, Eco-efficient Practices, Innovative Cluster Analysis
Correa et al. Southern Spain Stakeholder Management Preventive Practices
(2008) and Shared Vision
Zhu and Survey 341 manufacturers of Market, Regulatory and Internal Environmental Management, Regression Analysis
Sarkis (2007) Chinese Competitive Institutional Green Purchasing, Eco-Design,
manufacturing firms Pressures Cooperation With Customers and
Investment Recovery
Murillo-Luna Survey 240 managers of External, Internal Barriers of Environmental Proactivity Principal Components
et al. (2007) Spanish firms Implementing Analysis, Regression
Environmental Strategies Analysis
(continued )
Wisner et al. Survey 179 environmental Management Commitment, Environmental Proactivity Structural
(2006) managers of large US Strategic Planning Equation Modeling
firms (SEM), Correlation
analysis
Rao and Holt Survey 52 environmental – Outbound, Inbound and Production Structural
(2005) management Greening Equation Modeling
representatives (EMR) (SEM), Regression
or Chief Executives of analysis
South East Asian firms
Antecedents
practices
4057
GSCM
and effects of
Table A1.

Antecedents and Effects of Green

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antecedents and Effects of Green

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antecedents and Effects of Green

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

2.2 Previous studies

3. The conceptual framework of the study

DRIVERS GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN FIRM

3.1 Research hypotheses

4.3 Instrument validation 4029

Mean scores and

5.2 Hypothesis testing

GSCM Practices 0.784/78.4%

Standardized regression weights

Drivers → GSCM Practices 0.886 *** Table 4.

Internal Environmental Management (PR_IEM) 0.392/39.2%

Standardized regression weights

Stakeholder pressures (DR_SP) → Internal environmental management (PR_IEM) 0.274 ***

DR_CP 0.63 0.77 PER_M

DR_IB = Internal barriers DR_EO = Entrepreneurial orientation DR_GR = Government regulations

DR_EO 0.14 PR_EP 0.23 PER_E

Internal Direct 0.274 0.169 0.238 0.192 0.000 0.000 0.000

and total effects

6. Summary and conclusions

6.2 Limitations and future research

You might also like