Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Green supply chain management practices and performance: the role of firm-size for emerging
economies
Lokesh Vijayvargy Jitesh Thakkar Gopal Agarwal
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lokesh Vijayvargy Jitesh Thakkar Gopal Agarwal , (2017)," Green supply chain management practices and performance: the
role of firm-size for emerging economies ", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2016-0123
Downloaded on: 08 March 2017, At: 18:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543096 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Green supply chain management practices and performance: the role of firm-size for
emerging economies

Abstract

Purpose – This paper investigates into the impact of organizational size on adoption of green

supply chain management (GSCM) practices for Indian industry. It also evaluates the impact of

GSCM practices on organizational performance.

Design/methodology/approach – This study sets out to empirically test the GSCM model to

investigate the present orientation of Indian industry towards GSCM practices using a pre-tested
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

structured questionnaire. The statistical inferences were drawn using the data provided by 161

Indian firms. This has compared the GSCM practices implementations among Small-, Medium-

and Large-sized organizations.

Finding – The study reveals that the Indian organizations have shown a satisfactory

implementation of majority of the environmental practices except supplier ISO-14001

certification and Tier-II supplier evaluation. Out of twenty one practices, medium-sized

organizations has adopted GSCM practices at similar level as compared to large organizations,

with three exemptions, existing environmental management systems, support from mid-level &

top management and supplier evaluation for environmental practice. It is noticed that GSCM

adoption can bring equal improvement in operational performance for large and medium size

organizations both.

Originality /Value: – The paper makes two major contributions in the domain of green supply

chain practices in India. First, it investigates a) the adoption of GSCM practices in the different

size (small, medium and large) organizations and b) impact of GSCM practices on the

performance of different size organizations. Second, it identifies the key areas for improvement

1
 and recommends the set of measures for improving the implementation of GSCM practices in

Indian organizations.

Keywords: Green supply chain management, empirical study, organizational size, emerging

economies

1. Introduction

Sustainability and environmental issues are among the most pressing concerns for modern

humanity, governments and environmentally conscious business organizations to promote

organizational sustainability, specifically for the emerging economies (Hsu et al., 2013; Fabbe-
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Costes et al., 2014; Tseng et al., 2015). In the recent time, Dubey et al. (2015) and Zhu et al.

(2012) suggest that the regulatory bodies have forced the industries to improve adoption of

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices. The organizations of 21st century are

operating under the strict evaluation of the government and non-government stake holders for

their accountability towards both environmental and social concerns. For example, the select

leading organizations failed to meet such standards include Sony (unsafe levels of cadmium in

Playstation consoles), Home Depot (sourced logs form protected forests) and Mattel (lead

detected in toys) (Parmigiani et al., 2011; Lee, 2008). Kirchoff et al. (2016) highlight that

managers are motivated by the potential benefits associated with green SCM, including enhanced

reputation, increased efficiency, effectiveness, differentiation, and revenue growth but the

potential for economic benefits is key for managerial adoption of green practices and the

appropriate allocation of resources. The various operational and organizational challenges

involved in the adoption of GSCM make it a promising area within academia and industry both

(Zhu et al., 2013).

2
 Indian organizations have reported cost reduction, increase in profitability and

productivity through enhanced supply chain management (Seuring and Muller, 2008; Ravi and

Shankar, 2005). Indian organizations have reoriented their business practices by focusing on how

to control their supplier’s process, technology and capability to improve their competitive

advantage (Srivastava, 2007). The process of SCM involves extraction and exploitation of the

natural resources; the waste and pollutants emitted by the supply chain have been detrimental

and responsible for global warming and acid rain causing serious environmental hazard

(Hartmann and Moeller, 2014; Seuring and Muller, 2008). Green supply chain policies are thus
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

desirable for reducing these environmental hazards and making businesses sustainable by

greening their supply chain (Jayaram & Avittathur 2015; Mitra and Datta, 2014). Although the

legal framework to support environmental protection in India is at par with any other country in

the world, the degree of enforcement is very low, resulting in very low priority being given to the

environment by the industries. Despite having regulatory framework for ensuring the protection

of the environment, India is lagging far behind the satisfactory standards, mainly owing to lack

of implementation, ease of manipulation, corruption, lack of adoptability and short-term

measures. This justifies the urgent need of GSCM adoption in Indian organizations.

The study developed by the Network for Business Sustainability, NBS, (2011) has noted

various benefits from GSCM. This includes environmental sustainability, improvement in

operational performance by minimizing waste and scrap, improved financial performance by

recycling and reusability, customer retention, competitive advantage, customer attraction,

responding to social pressure, improved productivity and efficiency, risk management. The

remarkable scope for improving economic performance and market image has motivated Indian

organizations to implement GSCM in their supply chain processes. In view of this, the study

3
 reported in this paper intends to investigate the adoption of GSCM practices in Indian

manufacturing organizations.

We derive the motivation and realize the need for this research from the two facts. First,

according to Mitra and Datta (2014) and Kusi-Sarpong et al. (2016), the contemporary research

for emerging economies is limited in assessing the role of GSCM in sustainable consumption and

production. Second, Zhu et al. (2013) argued that the extent of GSCM practices contributing to

organizational performance improvements is also unclear. However, there are select notable

contributions in the research which have drawn the attention towards increasing awareness of
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

GSCM practices in India. Specifically, Govindan et al. (2014) analyze the barriers in

implementing green supply chain management practices in Indian industries. Dubey et al. (2015)

explore the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and

environmental performance. Jayaram and Avittathur (2015) investigate how a firm's

sustainability strategy influences the design and deployment of green supply chain management

strategies with a special focus on emerging economy like India. Lo (2013) reports an interesting

finding that the uncertainties a firm encounters when implementing green practices are related to

its position in the supply chain. The study has revealed that the firms located in the downstream

of supply chain, it emphasizes more on the practices of green design, purchase, and internal

environmental management. If a firm is located in the midstream of supply chain, it will focus

more on the practice of green manufacturing and logistics.

In order to enrich the contemporary research in GSCM adoption in emerging economies,

this research pursues to examine the adoption of GSCM by Indian firms. It investigates whether

organizational size plays a role in the adoption of GSCM practices (such as internal

environmental management (IEM), green purchasing (GP), customer cooperation with

4
 environmental concerns (CCWEC), investment recovery (IR) & eco-design (ED) practices and

its performance in term of Financial Performance (FP), Environmental Performance (EP) and

Operational Performance (OP)). Indian organizations are facing greater environmental

challenges and competitive pressures from both local and multinational organizations. For a

sustainable growth, the GSCM can be used as a competitive strategy.

Indian industries are largely diversified into different sizes – namely small, medium and

large organizations. The challenges and difficulties faced by the organizations differing in size

are also different. This indicates that there is a need to investigate the underlying relationships
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

among the GSCM adoption, organizational size and organizational performance. Hence, taking

into account the research issues highlighted above, an empirical investigation is directed towards

evaluating following research questions (RQs).

RQ1: Is there an influence of organizational size (small, medium and large) on adoption of

GSCM practices in Indian organizations?

RQ2: Is there a role of organizational size (small, medium and large) in reaping the benefits

(operational and financial) of GSCM adoption?

RQ3: What is the present orientation of Indian organizations towards GSCM practices and what

are the key areas of improvement?

The contributions of this study are three-fold. First, the contemporary research has shown

increasing interest in investigating the role of firm-size in adopting GSCM practices. This

research seeks to investigate whether there is a link between organizational size and adoption of

GSCM practices. It also investigates whether GSCM adoption can help organization to improve

their performance. Second, this work is the first to study GSCM adoption practices for Indian

organization in such a detailed manner. Third, the study identifies the key areas for improving

5
 the adoption of GSCM practices in Indian organizations which can help industry and policy

makers to initiate the appropriate actions in the right direction. The study enriches the

understanding of contemporary researchers and policy makers on various GSCM practices and

its diffusion in the organization. This can help to determine how environmental degradation and

consequences can be minimized through improved GSCM practices.

To undertake a scientific study in the domain of GSCM, we outline a comprehensive

literature review in Section 2. Section 3 describes research methodology. Section 4 reports

analysis and results. Section 5 outlines key managerial insights. Finally, Section 6 concludes
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

with a summary of the paper and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

The difficulty arises in implementing GSCM practices due to its complexity, recourse needs, and

coordination issues and less inclination for adopting such practices. Few research reported in

Indian context, for example, Govindan et al. (2014) and Ravi and Shankar (2005) identified

major barriers for implementing GSCM in auto industry, namely: lack of supports from top

management, lack of knowledge of reverse logistics, quality problem, improper planning.

Rao (2002) reports failure of China and Japan in adopting GSCM practices because of

inadequate budget. Linton et al. (2007), Bowen et al. (2001) and Rao (2002) suggested various

benefits of GSCM practices like: cost reduction, improve productivity and profitability, and

reduce supplier environmental issues by integrating suppliers in decision process that promotes

green strategy. Walton et al. (1998) concluded that organizations can focus on environmental

friendly products for a better customer line and improve their profitability and competitiveness.

6
 In order to set an adequate theoretical foundation for the study presented in this paper, we

present a review of key contemporary research in GSCM in Table 1.

“Insert Table 1”

It is evident from the Table 1 that researchers have primarily directed their efforts on

empirical investigations to understand the relationships amongst GSCM practices and GSCM

pressure/drivers issues, implementation of GSCM in different sectors, relationship between

business strategies and GSCM practices etc. The research has delivered various frameworks for
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

green supply chain management which include GSCM practices and drivers for reduction of

energy consumption, emissions and waste, and increased recycling and reuse in an organization.

The contemporary researchers (Debey et al. 2015; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Zhu et al., 2008;

Bowen, 2001) have also advocated the positive results of GSCM implementation in the

organizations.

Table 2 outlines country-specific research efforts in the domain of GSCM, green supplier,

green design, customer collaboration, and reserve logistics conducted on several sectors in

different countries. The noteworthy contributions in the domain of GSCM are reported by select

prolific researchers like Govindan et al. (2014); Wang and Chan (2013), Zhu et al. (2007, 2008,

2012), Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Sarkis (1998, 2003) etc. The researchers (Testa and Iraldo, 2010;

Zhu et al., 2012, 2011, 2008; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) have studied GSCM practices in all sectors

like Electronics/Electrical, Food industry, Auto sector, Machinery/Manufacturing, Petro-

chemical, etc. in various countries like: USA, China, Malaysia, Taiwan, and UK, etc. A recent

study by Kusi-Sarpong et al. (2016) examines the causal relationships between green supply

chain practices for the Ghanaian mining industry. Kirchoff et al. (2016) used the resource-based

and strategic choice theories to investigate the antecedent roles of two strategic orientations,

7
 supply chain orientation (SCO) and environmental orientation (EO), on both the implementation

and outcomes of green SCM practices. The study reports that combination of SCO and EO

capabilities positively influence the implementation of green SCM practices, and positively

impact firm performance. The present body of literature reports only few evidences of research

in the domain of GSCM in India by Mitra and Datta (2014) and Mohanty and Prakash (2014) on

Eco-design, green purchasing, and relationship of GSCM practices etc. A critical overview of the

present body of literature has helped to summarize the present orientation of research in GSCM

as follows.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

GSCM research has focused more on the functional areas of SC, such as purchasing and

supply management whereas the research on adoption of GSCM throughout multiple

internal business units and multiple tiers of suppliers and customers is limited.

The contributions in the domain of GSCM are broadly divided into two categories. The

researchers such as Zhu et al. (2008, 2012; 2013); Mitra and Datta (2014); Kirchoff et al.

(2016) have focused on defining and operationalizing green management activities

through empirical investigation. Whereas the Sarkis (2003); Seuring and Muller (2008);

Sarkis et al. (2011); Shi et al. (2012) and Govindan et al. (2014) have contributed

conceptual frameworks that focusses on strategic implications, enablers and barriers, and

theoretical development.

Research has established evidence of positive tangible economic and ecological outcomes

associated with green SCM practices (e.g. Golicic and Smith, 2013). However, the cost-

benefit trade-offs associated with green SCM continue to be debated. Managers may be

unsure which green practices are the most valuable to develop, or how to most effectively

develop them (Kleindorfer et al., 2005).

8
 “Insert Table 2”

The previous studies have identified the various factors which affect GSCM practices in

organizations. This includes organizational size, type of sectors, level of investment, equipment/

machine age and the size of supply network and customer base. An evaluative review has helped

to identify the set of variables (in Figure 1) for investigating the level of adoption of GSCM

practice in Indian organizations. The figure 1 shows various GSCM practices and the associated

variables.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

“Insert Figure 1”

Environmental considerations touch all aspects of a business’s operations and environmental

issues are forcing all businesses to manage in new ways. Not all companies are equally “green’

or proactive in their response to environmental issues. The researchers have identified five

GSCM practices for implementation which includes:

• Internal environmental management (IEM) practices to green their operations which

consist seven variables like: supports form top and middle management, ISO-14000

certification, Quality Management, environment documentations and auditing etc. (figure

1). Govindan et al. (2014) and Zhu et al. (2011, 2012) proved that the top management

commitment toward to GSCM is most significant in all other practices. Company

managers will set goals in area such as compliance with environmental laws,

minimization of risks to human health and the environment, use of natural policy, as well

as a set of evaluation processes that require organizations to assess their environmental

impacts, implement environmental goal, monitor policy, and undergo management

review (Jayaram & Avittathur, 2015). Zhu and Sarkis (2007) suggested that the

implementation of IEM lead to better environmental performance and organization image

9
 in market.

• Green purchasing is an integration of environmental management into the purchasing

function of an organization that tries to ensure that the purchased materials meets

environmental objectives set by the purchasing companies, such as promoting

reusability, recycling, eliminating hazardous material from product, and substitution of

materials (Min and Galle, 2001; Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001).

• Green purchasing means that purchasing of environment-friendly materials without

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

sacrificing to the traditional purchasing criteria of product quality, cost, delivery time

(Lambert and Cooper, 2000). Several green purchasing activities can be identified from

the literature which shown in figure 1. Sarkis (1998) summarized the green purchasing

practices into eco labeling of product, supplier certification (ISO 14000), supplier

compliance and auditing, cooperation in supplier internal environment and Tier-II

suppliers environmental practice evaluation. Eco labeling of product includes product

content requirements which have desirable environmental attributes that reducing or

eliminating hazardous items, product content restrictions (environmentally undesirable

attributes such as lead, plastic foam in packaging materials), and green product packing.

• It includes involvement of an organization to enhance its customer’s environmental

performance. CCWEC practices involve discussion about technically of process between

an organization and its customers, in addition to willingness to learn about each other’s

operations in order to plan and set goals for environmental improvement (Vachon and

Klassen, 2007). The CCWEC practices are including various activities like: customer

education, customer support for cleaner production, for green packing, and for eco design

10
 • Eco-design aims to minimizing a product’s environmental impact through the process

involved in product development strategy i.e. from acquiring materials to manufacturing

to its use and finally its disposal (Johansson, 2002). Eco-design is considered a GSCM

practice integrating environmental aspects from design till the disposal (Handfild et al.,

2001; Lin et al., 2001; Beamon, 1999; Sarkis, 1998). Designing stage determines the

amount of energy consumption and waste generation, as at design stage the function of

the product design, process and service is finalized; hence raw materials, suppliers and
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

process chemicals are selected.

• Managers are concerned with the effective, efficient, and profitable recovery and disposal

of scrap, surplus, obsolete, and waste materials and assets generated within the firm. In

recent years, disposal problem have become more complex and important as companies

face increasingly stringent environmental legislation and rising disposal costs. The focus

on the entire supply chain means that managers must look for return loops to recapture

their initial materials investment through remanufacturing, repair, reconfiguration, and

recycling. Investment recovery requires attention to environmental issues and regulations

and the ability to identify opportunities to recovery revenues or reduce costs. In many

organizations, investment recovery is the responsibility of the supply function.

The organizational performance various are defined in Table 3. The improvement in

performance depends on level of adoption of GSCM Practices. The adoption level of these

practices is affected by various factors of organizations.

“Insert Table 3”

Zhu and Sarkis (2006) suggested that the organizational size is more crucial for GSCM

practices. Organizational size helps in determining whether skills and resource linked with size

11
 of an organization play a role in embracing GSCM or not. This analysis shall help in exploring

the degree to which small-sized organizations are adopting GSCM as compared to medium- &

large-sized organizations. Organizational size is a vital factor that is commonly used in

environmental management literature and operations strategy (Grant et al., 2002; Green et al.,

2007). Choi et al. (2001) suggested that the organizational size is play major role on

implementation of GSCM practices and its impact on organizational performances. Small-sized

organizations more worried about short-term issues and not concern for GSCM practices (Ray et

al., 2001). Usually smaller organizations invest less in environmental friendly technology while
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

being more reactive to green issues (Grant et al., 2002). Grant et al. (2002) also suggested that

the small-sized organizations have lack of finance and skill to adopt GSCM. Mitra and Datta

(2014) suggested that the large-sized firm have significant difference in GSCM practices as

compared to small- and medium-sized firms because sufficient fund and resource to adopt

GSCM practices and government pressure on adopting green practices in process as compared to

small organizations (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Wu and Pagel, 2011;

Zailani et al., 2012). Barnzei and Vertinsky (2003)’s study on China suggested that organization

size may play positive role on adoption of GSCM practices in China. But this research clearly

study organizational behavior on GSCM practices. It can be revealed from the literature that the

adoption level of GSCM practices may get affected by organizational size but not in all aspect of

green practices.

3. Research Methodology

The research employs a survey based analysis to investigate the influence of firm size on

adoption of GSCM practices by Indian organizations. The research methodology is based on

12
 empirical data collected through questionnaire and focus of the study is cross-sectional. The

research problem and variables were selected based on a detailed review of contemporary

research and through field visits. A database of manufacturing companies was extracted from

industrial directory and a structured questionnaire was developed (Appendix 1). The target

population of this research is Indian industries which are divided into three categories based on

Zhu et al. (2008) classification on organizational size not on the turnover basis. The categories

are Small-sized (employees < 300), Medium-sized (employees between 300-2000) and Large-

sized (employees > 2000) organization. The sample comprises of several Indian industries like
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

automobile, electrical/electronic, cement, food processing, paint, chemical, and manufacturing/

Machining tools industries. The data was collected by various modes like: offline, postal, face-to-

face, email and interview etc. The data has been collected from 161 Indian organizations which

represented 37% small-sized, 41% medium-sized and 22% large-sized organizations. Common

method bias can have an adverse effect on the outcomes of survey research. To avoid ‘item characteristic’

effects as one of the key causes for common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) due to ambiguous items

that can result in unreliable answers, a pretest for the survey questionnaire (measurement) items were

carried out for evaluating the theoretical constructs on the implementation of GSCM in Indian industry

and its implications on organizational performance. The pretest was conducted by interviewing four

enterprises (two from manufacturing and one each from automobile and electronics industries). The

pretest has helped to understand the relevance of the questionnaire items for the industry and whether

there is a need to include more items to ensure the completeness of the questionnaire to obtain answers for

the research under consideration. The questionnaire was administered in 600 manufacturing

companies differing in size (Small, Medium and Large).

The critical interactions among GSCM practices and organizational performance are

examined using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The literature review in the area of the

13
 GSCM revealed that very limited efforts are reported in the domain of GSCM practices in Indian

organizations. No existing questionnaires were found to be directly applicable to investigate the

GSCM pressure/drivers factors, perceptive GSCM practices and GSCM performance and

implementation issues for Indian organizations of varying size. In order to understand the

industry perspective and their understanding on GSCM practices, initially, semi-structured

interviews were conducted with seven managers of Indian industry. The open ended questions

included their perception on business environmental management, green purchasing, eco design,

investment recovery, relative importance of GSCM, methods to implementation of GSCM and

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

preferences of performance measures. Based on the outcomes of literature review and

preliminary interviews, the questionnaire was developed to investigate the research objectives.

This analysis helped to explore the relationships of GSCM drivers, GSCM practices and

performance parameters.

The questionnaire included fifty-one questions divided into three sections which is given in

Appendix 1. Section A (Question A1 to A8) is designed to gather background and demographic

information about the respondents and industry. Section B (Questions B1-B21) comprises of

questions about perceptions of GSCM practices and in Section C (Questions C1-C22) questions

are designed to measure the performance of industries. The questionnaire was designed to

include broadly two types of questions: a) what is the level of adoption of a particular GSCM

practice in the organization? and b) what is the impact of various GSCM practices on the

organizational performance? The majority of the variables are measured using ordinal scales

wherein, respondents provide rating on a five point Likert scale. The precision of measurement is

improved by using several items to measure the same concept (multi-item scaling).

14
 4. Analysis and Results

4.1 Reliability and Validity

Skewness is a measure of symmetry or more precisely, the lack of symmetry while the kurtosis

examines the peakness or flatness of the distribution. For perfectly normal distribution of the

data these values will be zero. Leech et al. (2005) recommends that the acceptable limits are:

skewness and kurtosis should be less than ±1 and 10 respectively for accepting the distribution

to be approximately normal. In the present study, most values of skewness and kurtosis of the
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

parameters are found between -1 to 1 or near to zero, which indicates that the survey items are

approximately normally distributed and comply with the conditions for statistical tests employed

in this research. Table 4 reports the values of skewness, kurtosis and preliminary statistics of

various variables considered in the study.

The reliability of the data is examined using a well-known measure Cronbach’s alpha.

Zhu et al. (2008) advocated that if alpha value is more than 0.60 than data have greater

acceptability. To see internal correlation of factor, item-total correlation was used. Table 4

summarizes the reliability analysis of GSCM factors and organizational performance. The alpha

values for all the constructs are found greater than the acceptable limit (>0.6).

“Insert Table 4”

The validity checks for GSCM model are performed as follows. The content validity of

the measurement items was established through an extensive review of the literature, and pre-

survey interviews with operational and environmental professionals in the targeted industries.

This has helped to adjust number and nature of questions. The convergent validity demonstrates

whether the set of alternative measures accurately measure the construct under consideration

(Hair et al. 2006). The significant path loading indicates that the measurement items (indicators)

15
 are effectively converging to the same construct. The large and significant (p<0.01) path loading

in Figure 2 gives an evidence of convergent validity for this study. Average variance extracted

(AVE) is also estimated which represents the variance in the indicators explained by the common

factor and average trait-related variance extracted as shown in Eq. (1). It reflects the measure of

convergence among a set of indicators representing a latent construct. AVE's above 0.5 are

treated as indications of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). The relation to estimate the AVE

is given as:

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) =(∑

λi 2)/n ……………………………………………..(1)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Here,

λ is the standardized factor loading of items to their construct;

n is the number of items associated to particular construct

It can be observed that the AVE value for construct GP is close to 0.5 (it is 0.560) while

for IEM, CCWEC, ED, IR, EP, FP and OP the value are 0.768, 0.729, 0.723,0.712, 0.76, and

0.69 respectively which are well above the recommended value 0.5.

Composite reliability is estimated for internal consistency of the items to their constructs

which is expressed in Eq. (2). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested that for path analysis

composite reliability is better option than Cronbach alpha reliability index. The composite

reliability can be expressed as:

Composite reliability (ρ) =(∑  λi) 2 / [ (∑  λi) 2 + (∑ (1 − λi2)]……………………..…...(2)

Here,

λ represents the standardized factor loading of items; and

n represents the number of items associated to particular construct

“Insert Figure 2”

16
 Hair et al. (2006) recommend the acceptable value of composite reliability ρ≥ .7. But for

the new scale, the value ≥ 0.6 can also be accepted. The estimated value of composite reliability

(in Figure 2) is well above the recommended value and hence satisfies the necessary condition.

The adequacy of the proposed GSCM model for empirical investigation is validated

through content validity, convergent validity and composite reliability. The validity checks are

satisfied against the recommended values and hence it is fairly acceptable to proceed further to

analyze the impact of GSCM on Indian industries.

4.2 Analysis of GSCM model

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

This section reports the effect of organizational size on GSCM adoption in Indian

organizations. The descriptive analysis of GSCM shows that the Indian organizations are at

primary stage in adoption of GSCM practices, with a mean value between 2.32 and 3.28 (3 =

Moderate). Overall, internal practices such as internal management, investment recovery and

eco-design practices have received more attention for implementing GSCM in Indian

organizations, with mean values of 3.283, 3.142 and 3.094 respectively (Table 4). External

practices such as green purchasing and customer cooptation for green practice received the least

attention with mean values of 2.89 and 3.06, respectively.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests are used to assess the impact of organizational

size on variations in GSCM practices. The analysis reveals that GSCM initiatives result in

significant improvement in the organizational performance for large-sized organizations as

compared to medium and small sized organizations. It is noticed that GSCM adoption can bring

equal improvement in operational performance for large and medium size organizations both.

The effect of GSCM practices on environmental performance is similar for all types of

organizations except reduction in air emission. The impact of organization size on

17
 implementation of GSCM practices and performances are explained in detail in the subsequent

sections.

4.2.1 Internal environmental management (IEM) practice

As shown in Table 5, IEM practices have been initiated in all three types of (small-, medium-

and large-sized) organizations. Internal environmental management has the highest mean value

of environmental quality management (IEM4) and Environmental programs for process (IEM5)

in the large organization (mean value 3.89) among all the GSCM practices. But overall,

“commitment to top management towards GSCM practices” (IEM1) receives the highest
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

attention for implementing GSCM in Indian organizations, with 3.43 mean value.

The analysis reports that there is a high level of implementation of IEM practices in

large-sized organization as compared to small- and medium-sized organizations. The ANOVA

result indicates that large-, medium- and small-sized organizations have shown significant

difference in implementation of all internal environmental practices. The t-test indicates that

except environmental program practice (IEM5), small- and medium-sized organizations have

significant difference to large-sized organization in implementing IEM practices. It is also

revealed that implementation of IEM practices in small and medium scale organizations are at

equal level. However, F-test shows that there is a significant difference in the implementation of

IEM (p<0.001) when all the three size organized are compared simultaneously.

“Insert Table 5”

The small-sized organizations show lowest adoption for the IEM practices as compared

to the other two. Except for IEM3 where small-sized organization have high mean as compared

to Medium-sized organizations. In India, small scale organizations always focus on cost

reduction and productivity. The implementation of GSCM practices requires huge investment,

18
 time and skills and in absence of such enablers, small scale organizations are in the nascent stage

of implementing environmental practices, with a mean value of 3.07 and standard deviation 0.97.

Normally, larger organizations are equipped with adequate skills and resources for the

implementation of GSCM practices. The training framework for GSCM practices in large

organizations is well developed as they are exposed to competitors and market pressures for

adoption of GSCM. In addition, the directives of Indian government support large-size

organizations for adopting environmental management practices.

4.2.2 Green purchasing (GP) practice

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

The analysis shows that the adoption of GP practices is quite low in Indian organizations. . Table

5 supports this with less than 3.00 mean values for all GP practices. However, in recent time few

Indian organizations have collaborated with their suppliers for GSCM implementation in their

process. In many countries like USA, UK, Japan etc., the product quality is evaluated not only

based on Tier-I suppliers but also considers Tier-II suppliers. The present study reports an

inadequate attention of environmental practices at Tier-II suppliers. The environmental programs

for Tier-II suppliers are still lagging with lowest score of 2.31 in all GSCM practices with

standard deviation 0.95.

ANOVA results indicate that the organizational size is not influencing the

implementation of green purchasing practices in Indian organizations. However, GP practices are

found significantly varying in the small, medium and large size organizations.

The t-test results for small- and large-sized organizations show significant difference in

implementation of GP1, GP3 and overall GP. However, t-test indicates that the eco-friendly

design specifications for purchased items, environmental audit for suppliers, and cooperation

with suppliers in formulating environmental goals have mean value (Mean=3.40) which falls

19
 above the average overall value of green purchasing (Mean=2.89) in large-sized organizations. It

is noteworthy to report that the large organization have low mean value (Mean=2.14) for Tier-II

suppliers’ environmental friendly practice evaluation (GP5) compared to medium- and small-

sized organization. The results of GP practice partially support the research question 1.

4.2.3 Customer cooperation with environmental concerns (CCWEC)

Table 5 shows that CCWEC practices are in the initial stage compared to IEM practice but have

better acceptability when compared to green purchasing (GP) with 3.06 mean values and

standard deviation 0.80. The CCWEC values are from 3.01 to 3.09. While cooperation with
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

customer for green packaging (CCWEC3) have high mean value 3.09 with standard deviation of

0.89. The result shows that the large-sized organizations are giving more attention on customer

cooperation for eco-design (CCWEC1) while medium-sized organization focus on customer

cooperation for cleaner production. The study suggest that the Indian organizations are more

attending to adopt customer cooperation for eco-design, cleaner manufacturing and green

transport which consume less energy as compared to other CCWEC practices.

The ANOVA results report the similar finding for CCWEC practice when compared with

green purchasing practice. This means, the organizational size doesn’t impact on implementation

of CCWEC practices in Indian organizations. However, t-test results indicate that the larger

organizations have significant difference (at p<0.10) with medium-sized in green packing

practices. F-test values are low which show that there is no significant difference in

implementation of any CCWEC practices in all size organizations. In summary, the results do

not support research question 1.

4.2.4 Eco-design (ED) practice

20
 From Table 5, it is evident that ED has had the same emphasis as CCWEC and IR, especially for

design of products that reduce consumption of materials and energy. One can also conclude that

most organizations have considered design of products to either avoid or reduce the use of

harmful products in their manufacturing process. The organizations with mean value for ED

practices between 3 to 3.2 are found to be practicing fragmented ED practices internal to their

organization. The organizations with more than 3.2 mean value have shown a strong preference

for adopting designs which can consume less material. A major reason could be the alarming

scarcity of resources in India; thereby increasing the cost of energy and materials.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

The t-test in Table 5 report that the small-sized organizations have shown significant

implementation of ED practices as compared to medium-sized organizations (t-value=2.59).

Large-sized organization has shown similar kind of implementation of ED practices as compared

to medium-sized organizations (t-value =1.45). A closer examination of each ED practice using

t-test suggests that large and medium scaled organizations are better suited to initiate eco-design

for reuse, recycle and recovery of raw materials or component parts. However, one could

speculate that small scale organizations are much below in their implementation of ED due to

lack of resources, skills and awareness. The collaboration with large-sized organizations can help

small scale organizations for capability building in Eco-design practices. Quarshie et al. (2016)

insisted on evolving deeper understanding on collaborative partnerships with supplier in which

suppliers can have an ownership of the Sustainable Supply Chain Management agenda.

4.2.5 Investment recovery (IR) practice

The analysis shows that Indian organizations pay slightly less attention on investment recovery

practice as compared to IEM practice with mean value of 3.14. Zhu and Zhao (2003)’s study has

suggested that the investment recovery practice is low due to lack of awareness on the benefits of

21
 recycling and reuse processes in industry. The results of ANOVA and t-tests in Table 5 reports

that all the three type of organizations have significant difference in implementing investment

recovery practices (at value p<0.05). The results indicate that the small-sized firms are less

responsive to investment recovery as compared to other two. Sale from excess inventories (IR1)

has highest mean value of 3.25 and investment recoveries from scrap (IR2) have lowest mean

value of 3.02. All the mean values of small-sized organizations are less than 3.00. As the

organizations are facing increasing product prices and disposal costs, it has become mandatory

for the organizations to pay more attention on reduction of scrap and generate profit from waste
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

and used material through green practices such as investment recovery.

4.2.6 Organizational performance

The improvement in organizational performance depends on level of adoption of GSCM

practices by the organizations (Zhu et al., 2007). The analysis of GSCM practices indicates

aggressive adoption of GSCM practices by large organizations and eventually should lead to

better organizational performance. In order to validate this for Indian organizations, the present

study has investigated organizational performance in terms of environmental, financial and

operational performance.

“Insert Table 6”

The environmental performance has minor differences in the three types of organizations

at the significance level of p<0.10. Table 6 indicates that the larger organizations have improved

their environmental performance with highest level (mean=4.00), followed by the medium-sized

organization (score=3.74) and the small-sized organization (score=3.65). This can be attributed

to the difference in level of GSCM adoption. In addition, the large-sized organizations have to

face higher regulatory pressures for environmental practices in their supply chain from state and

22
 central government both. Enterprise's environmental situation (EP6) shows highest improvement

amongst all EP’s variable with significant (p<0.05). The ANOVA results in Table 6 indicate that

the environmental performance in all size organizations is same after implementation of GSCM

practices. Some performance variables are significant on 10% p-value like EP6 for whole

industry, EP2 for small-sized and medium-sized, EP5 for small-sized and large-sized

organization. The reduction in consumption of harmful and toxic materials is significant (at

p=0.05) for small- and large-size organizations.

The financial performance (FP) (mean=3.34) is partially significant for all the three types
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

of organizations. FP3 is highly significant at p=0.05 for all the three types of organizations.

Table 6 shows that all the FP constructs have mean values in the range of 3.00 to 3.53. The

implementation of GSCM practices has reduced environmental accidents (FP5) resulting in

improved financial performance (highest mean value 3.53).

The analysis shows that the operational performance is significant in all the organizations at

p<0.10. However, the improvement in capacity utilization is found to be significantly high in all

size of organizations at p<0.0001 (F value=5.200). The result also indicates that the adoption of

GSCM practices has shown improvement in product quality for all size organizations.

5. Discussion and Managerial Implications

From a managerial viewpoint, this study extends some valuable insights for policy and

practice. It is evident from the results that small scale organizations show lower levels of GSCM

implementations. Some plausible reasons could be lack of adequate resources and deficiency in

external pressures. Consequently, such organizations pay the least attention to environmental

management systems. However; the central and some of the state governments (for example,

23
 Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra) extended subsidies and training to aid such organizations in

establishing environmental management systems, especially for ISO: 14001 certification.

On the other side, medium and large-sized organizations clearly have an added incentive

over small scale organizations in terms of availability of resources and knowhow. They are more

likely to

• Formalize goals

• Establish adequate measures

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

• Apt organizational procedures

This enables them to attain a higher level of GSCM implementation; thus enhancing their

performance.

• The result shows that the green purchasing, eco design and investment recovery

practices are significant (at p<0.05) whereas

• Customer cooperation with environmental consideration is insignificant (at

p<0.05).

Internal environmental management practice receives significant importance with the highest

mean value 3.28. This is due to the commitment of top management for GSCM and

implementation of ISO: 14000 in the organizations. The small-sized organizations are at infant

stage in implementation of GSCM practices and need the training and technological support. A

strong support from Government and large organizations in the supply chain may help them to

overcome finance, skill and awareness barriers and see the way forward to sustainable supply

chain practices. The success of GSCM adoption is mainly governed by the willingness and

abilities of the supply chain partners to match their relational specificities and synergize

complementary skills (Touboulic and Walker, 2015).

24
 1. The implementation of green purchasing is at very low level (mean value is less

than 3.00). This demands organizations to work on green supplier selection,

supplier training, and supplier evaluation.

2. Walker et al. (2008) have also argued that there is a lack of previous research that

identified suppliers as a key driver of environmental supply chain management

practices. It has been realized that supplier can provide valuable ideas for

implementing green supply chain practices if involved in the product and process

design adequately through partnership.

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

3. The supply chain entities should conceive collaboration as the most effective

mechanism to enhance their supply chain sustainability (Touboulic and Walker,

2015).

4. It has been advocated that companies implementing GSCM practices often deal

with legacy suppliers (Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby, 2012) and it is crucial to

devise a suitable mechanism for evolving such relationships.

5. Buyers and procurement managers may face resistance from long-term suppliers

on the basis of evolving requirements to encompass sustainability (Touboulic and

Walker, 2015).

GSCM should be seen as a competitive advantage to do business in the 21st century. This

is only possible through collaborative and constructive relationships among supply chain

partners. It is necessary for the OEMs to select and develop suppliers for sustainable green

supply chain management. The opportunistic or short-term behavior of the suppliers towards

adopting GSCM should be identified through a well-designed GSCM matrix. When purchasers

evaluate the willingness of suppliers to participate in sustainability initiatives of OEMs they

25
 should be aware of the different points of departure of suppliers with regard to GSCM readiness

(Caniels et al., 2013). A methodology may be devised to classify the suppliers into white, grey

and black box. The suppliers showing highest long-term commitment to GSCM practices will

fall under white box and should be adequately supported by the OEMs through resource sharing,

technological know-how and long-term purchase contracts. Usually, a cooperative relationship

with these suppliers can help to build long-term collaboration and trust. The suppliers under grey

box exhibit the characteristic of aggressive adoption of GSCM practices in order to win the

purchase contract. The long-term contracts to such suppliers even if their prices are competitive
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

and low compared to white box suppliers, should be discouraged. It is advisable for the OEMs to

actively engage such suppliers in GSCM initiatives and incentivize their commitment for GSCM

adoption. OEMs can create a way forward to convert grey box suppliers into white box by

awarding short-term or medium-term contracts and not putting unreasonable contracts in-terms

of price, flexibility and responsiveness. In future, this can help to create a positive competition

for price, quality and green supply chain practices among the suppliers. It is imperative for

OEMs to evaluate the overall attitude and willingness of the suppliers for GSCM by devising

appropriate supplier selection criteria.

6. Conclusions and future research

6.1 Conclusions

The study reveals that the Indian organizations have shown a satisfactory implementation of

majority of the environmental practices except supplier ISO-14001 certification and Tier-II

supplier evaluation. Out of twenty one practices, medium-sized organizations have adopted

GSCM practices at similar level as compared to large organizations, with three exceptions.

26
 • This includes existing environmental management systems, support from mid-level and

top management and supplier evaluation for environmental practice.

• The result also shows that internal environmental management practice has an important

role to play for reducing environmental impacts and increase profitability and

productivity of an organization.

• The study reports that Indian organizations have paid little attention on adoption of green

purchasing practices.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Specifically, it has been revealed that green purchasing is lagging for organizations of all

sizes. This demands an intervention from government and professional industry organizations for

diffusing appropriate green purchasing practices. The Indian government can support green

purchasing practices by either creating and endorsing regulations, or establishing GSCM

awareness campus across the country for convincing the organizations about effectiveness of the

green purchasing practices. Organizations also need to focus on green supplier selection and

supplier training on environmental issues through appropriate collaboration with the suppliers.

Green purchasing strategies should include the evaluation of suppliers’ environmental

performance and mentoring to assist suppliers in improving their GSCM performance (Rao and

Holt, 2005). Tachizawa et al. (2015) report that when working with suppliers, monitoring alone

has no direct effect on performance whereas joint collaborative initiatives with suppliers have a

significant effect on environmental performance.

In general, larger organizations are implementing GSCM practices aggressively

compared to smaller organizations. Hence, larger-sized organizations can be viewed as a

diffusion mechanism for initiating collaborations with others companies to adopt GSCM. In

India, 80% of the manufacturing is done by small and medium organizations in collaboration

27
 with large organization and hence the large organization should transfer GSCM practices through

appropriate supply chain contracts on environmental practices. If environmental concern is to be

prioritized, greening of supply chain shall go a long way in enhancing sustainable manufacturing

(Carter and Carter, 1998). This may lead to environmental practices in small-sized and medium-

sized organizations. Market and regulatory pressures today have a great influence on

environmental performance.

o Rao (2002) suggested that Green manufacturing have been taken critical issues in major

part of the world like Japan, USA and UK since last two decade.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

o Countries having similar market and socio-cultural aspects with India like China,

Thailand, Nepal, Korea, and Indonesia can adopt the findings of the present study.

o Implementation and maintenance of GSCM practices in Indian organizations requires

strong interventions of Governmental and Multinational Corporation through deployment

of GSCM framework and regulatory norms.

Due to this, Indian organizations are taking GSCM practices on first priority for sustainability in

market as well as environment. Indian organizations have shown sincere interest in adopting

GSCM practices; however it is still relatively immature.

6.2. Limitations and future research directions

There are some limitations to our study which could also be considered as the scope for

future research.

o First, it is necessary to investigate into the international and indigenous pressures such as

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), joint ventures, original equipment manufacturer

(OEM), independent enterprises etc. experienced by Indian organizations and its severity

28
 for different size organizations which may have some impact on adoption of GSCM

practices.

o Second, this study examines the adoption of GSCM practices for different size

organizations drawn from the various industry segments. An industry specific

investigation may help tease out additional information on industry practices and

differences.

o Third, the findings of this study are based on data collected mainly on the opinions of the

experts as such it lacks on various important parameters of environmental and economic

Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

performance such as reduction in waste water, air & solid pollution, market share, cost of

resource etc.

o Finally, even though adequate information is provided to the respondent about GSCM

practices and its importance, it is likely that some respondents may not fully grasp the

principles. However, the considered sample size is large enough to overcome any such

anomalies and overall, we do believe the validity of the results is not hindered for this

sample.

Overall, this study provided an additional insight into the growing field of the relationships

between adaptation of GSCM practices and organizational size in Indian context. The Indian

industry is exposed to globalization since last two decades and hence operating under set of

competitive pressures which are equally prevailing in other emerging economies like China,

Brazil, and Malaysia etc. In view of this, the findings of this study can be extended to the other

developing countries.

• The study shows that organizational size has a significant impact on adoption of GSCM

practices in Indian organizations. However, other factors like market size, market share,

29
 sale volume etc., need to be investigated to see overall impact on organizational

performance.

• This research has created the scope for contemporary researchers to investigate into the

impact of indigenous and international pressures on such relationships.

• A study may be replicated for a specific industry environment to understand the level of

difficulty in adopting GSCM practices for different size organizations in detail. As the

framework proposed by this research is generic, this can be used for other developing
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

countries. Clearly, the field has ample space to grow in terms of research and practice.

• Finally, an inclusion of social consideration with economic and environmental

dimensions as a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) sustainability approach would enhance the

value of the proposed framework and motivate the industry to focus on a holistic

sustainability.

Despite of the limitations cited above, we believe that this study has extended the

understanding on relationship between organizational size and GSCM adoption and has

recognized key valuable insights that managers from OEMs as well as supplier firms can adopt

to improve their orientation towards GSCM.

References

1. Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk. A.C. (2001), “The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply”, International Journal of Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 174-189.
2. Branzei, O. and Vertinsky. I. (2003), “Eco-sustainability orientation in China and Japan: Differences between
proactive and reactive times”, In Researcher in Corporate Sustainability, Nortnsmpton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 85-122.
3. Caniels, M.C.J., Gehrsitz, M.H., and Semeijn, J. (2013), “Participation of suppliers in greening supply chains:
An empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 134–143.
4. Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Inter-organizational determinants of environmental purchasing: initial
evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 659-684.

30
 5. Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001), “Supply network and complex adaptive system:
control versus emergence.” Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 351-366.
6. Chuang, S. and Yang, C. (2014), “Key success factors when implementing a green manufacturing system”,
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 923-937.
7. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Ali, S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational
practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: A framework for green supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 120–132.
8. Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C., Taylor, M., and Taylor, A. (2014), “Sustainable supply chains: A framework for
environmental scanning practices”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 34 (5),
pp. 664-694.
9. Geffen, C., Rothenberg, S. (2000), “Suppliers and environmental innovation: the automotive paint process”
International Journal of Production and Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 166-186.
10. Govindan, K., Kailyan, M., Kannan, D. and Haq, A. (2014), “Barriers analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 555-568.
11. Golicic, S.L. and Smith, C.D. (2013), “A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain
management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 78-95.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

12. Green, K.W., Whitten, D. and Inman, R.A. (2007), “The impact of timely information on organizational
performance in a supply chain”, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, Vol.18,
No.4, pp. 274-82.
13. Grant, D.S., Bergesen, D.S. and Jones, A.W. (2002), “Organizational size and pollution: the case of the U.S.
chemical industry”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 389–405.
14. Hartmann, J. and Moeller, S. (2014), “Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for
unsustainable supplier behavior”, Journal of Operations management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 281-294.
15. Hoejmose, S.U., Adrien-Kirby, A.J. (2012), “Socially and environmentally responsible procurement: a literature
review and future research agenda of a managerial issue in the21st century, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 232–242.
16. Holt, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2009), “An empirical study of green supply chain management practices amongst
UK manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 933-956.
17. Hsu, C., Tan, K.C., Zailani, S.H.M., and Jayaraman, V. (2013), “Supply chain drivers that foster the
development of green initiatives in an emerging economy”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6 pp. 656 – 688.
18. Hutchinson, C. (1996), “Integrating environmental strategy with business strategy”, Long Range Planning, Vol.
29 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
19. Jayaram, J. and Ayittathur, B. (2015), “Green supply chains: A perspective from an emerging economy”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 164, pp. 234-224.
20. Kenneth, W., Green, P., Zelbst, J. and Bhadauria, S. (2012), “Green supply chain management practices: impact
on performance” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
21. Kirchoff, J.F., Tate, W.L., Mollenkopf, D.A. (2016), “The impact of strategic organizational orientations on
green supply chain management and firm performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 46 Iss 3 pp. 269 – 292.
22. Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operations management”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
23. Kusi-Sarpong, S., Sarkis, J. and Wang, X. (2016), “Assessing green supply chain practices in the Ghanaian
mining industry: A framework and evaluation”, International Journal of Production Economics, In press,
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.002.
24. Lee, S.Y. (2008), “Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain
initiatives”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 185–198.
25. Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. and Morgan, G.A. (2005), “SPSS for intermediate statistics use and interpretation”,
Second Edition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Pub. London.
26. Lin, B., Jones, C. and Hsieh, C. (2001), “Environmental practices and assessment: a process perspective”,
Industrial Management & Data System, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 71-80.
27. Linton, J., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, R. (2007), “Sustainable supply chain: an introduction”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082.
28. Lo, S.M. (2013), “Effects of supply chain position on the motivation and practices of firms going green”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 1 pp. 93 – 114.

31
 29. Luken, R. and Stares, R. (2005), “Small business responsibility in developing countries: a threat or an
opportunity?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.14 No. 1, pp. 38-53.
30. Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms.”, International Journal of
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 21No. 9, pp.1222-1238.
31. Mitra, S. and Datta, 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 and
Operations Management, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 2085-2107.
32. Mohanty, P.R. and Prakash, A. (2014), “Green supply chain management practices in India: an empirical
study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 No. 16, pp.1322-1337.
33. Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R., Russo, M. (2011), “Efficiency meets accountability: performance implications of
supply chain configuration, control and capabilities”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, pp. 212–
223.
34. Olugu, U. E., Wong, Y.K. and Shaharoun, M.A. (2010), “Development of key performance measures for the
automobile green supply chain”, Resource Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 567–579.
35. Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A. and Leuschner, R. (2016), “Sustainability and corporate social responsibility in
supply chains: The state of research in supply chain management and business ethics journals”, Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 82–97.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

36. Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in south East Asia”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 632-655.
37. Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005),"Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9 pp. 898 – 91.
38. Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 72, No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
39. Robert, S.Q., Hsu, L. and Chen, C.H. (2012), “Green supply chain management systems: a case study in the
textile industry”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 31, pp. 111-121.
40. Roy, M.J., Boiral, O. and Lagace, D. (2001), “Environmental commitment and manufacturing excellence: a
comparative study within Canadian industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10 No.5, pp.257-
268.
41. Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
42. Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management
literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp.1-15.
43. 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.
44. Srivastava, S. (2007), “Green supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”, International
Journal of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53–80.
45. Tachizawa, E.M., Gimenez, C. and Sierra, V. (2015), “Green supply chain management approaches: drivers and
performance implications”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 11 pp.
1546 – 1566.
46. Testa, F. and Iraldo, F. (2010), “Shadow and lights of GSCM: determinants and effects of these practices based
on a multi-national study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 953-962.
47. Touboulic, A. and Walker, H. (2015), “Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable
supply chains”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 178–191.
48. Tseng, M.L., Lim, K.M., Wong, W.P. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network
approach”, Industrial Management and Data System, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 436–461.
49. Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of
upstream integration”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-
821.
50. Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, M.A. (1998), “The green supply chain: suppliers into environment
management processes”, International Journal of Purchasing & Material Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 2-11.
51. Walker, H., Sisto, L.D. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain
management practices: Lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69–85.
52. Wu, Z. and Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: decision-making in sustainable supply chain management”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 577-590.

32
 53. Wang, X. and Chan, H. (2013), “A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach to assess improvement areas when
implementing green supply chain initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No.10,
3117-3130.
54. Zailani, S.H.M., Eltayeb, T.K., Hsu, C.C. and Tan, K.C. (2012), “The impact of external institutional drivers
and internal strategy on environmental performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 721-745.
55. 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.
56. Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2006), “An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in china:
drivers and practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 472-486.
57. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Yeng, G. (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.
58. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: pressure, practices and performance
within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 1041-1052.
59. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H. and Yeng, G. (2008), “The role of organizational size in the adoption of green
supply chain management practices in China”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 322-337.

60. Zhu, Q., Yeng, G., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2011), “Evaluating green supply chain management among Chinese
manufacturers from the ecological modernization perspective”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 808-821.
61. Zhu, Q., Tian, Y. and Sarkis, J. (2012), “Diffusion of selected green supply chain management practices: an
assessment of Chinese enterprises”, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 837-850.
62. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H. (2013), “Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and
external green supply chain management practices”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Vol. 19 No.
2 pp. 106–117.
63. Zsidisin, G.A. and Hendrick, T.E. (1998), “Purchasing’s Involvement in Environmental Issues: A Multi-
Country Perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 98 No. 7, pp. 313-320.
64. Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001), “Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory development”,
European Journal of purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.

About the authors

Lokesh Vijayvargy is an Associate Professor at Jaipuria Institute of Management, Jaipur, India.

E mail: [email protected]

Jitesh Thakkar* is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering at
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. He has published extensively in the various peer-
reviewed international journals like Production Planning and Control, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Computers & Industrial Engineering, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
International Journal of Innovation and Learning etc. He is presently a reviewer for select international
journals in the area of quality and supply chain management.
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

33
 Gopal Agarwal is a Professor at Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India. His areas of
interest include operations management, supply chain management and total quality management.
E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

34
 Support for Top
& Mid-level
Environmental Management Supplier
auditing programs Total quality Certification
environmental Supplier
Questionnaires

Cross functional Eco labeling of

Synergy products

Internal
Environmental
Environment Supplier Compliance
Management Green
al Auditing
System Purchas-
Management
ing
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Tier-II Suppliers
ISO 14001
Environmental Practice
certification
Evaluation
GSCM
Practices
Design for Resource
Recovery (sale) of
Efficiency
excess
Inventories/Materials

Invest-
Eco-
ment Design for Reuse
Design
Recovery
Design for
Sale of excess Customer Recycling
capital Environmental
equipment
Collaboration
Design for
Remanufacturing
Sale of scrap and
used materials
Design for Reduction of
Customers support for Environmentally
cleaner production Customers
Hazardous Materials
Customers support for green
support for eco packaging
design

Figure 1: Various GSCM Practices and their factors

 1
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
0.9
IEM 0.8
1 0.7
0.8 0.6
0.6
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

0.4 0.5
IR GP
0.2 0.4
0 EP FP OP

Average Variance Extracted

(AVE)
ED CCWEC
Composite Reliability (ρ)

Figure 2: Composite reliability and average variance extracted for GSCM practices and Performances
 Table 1: List of key research in green supply chain management (GSCM)

Authors Key findings

Kusi-Sarpong et al.
Investigates into the relationships among key GSCM practices for Ghanaian mining industry
(2016)
Reports an empirical study of 287 firms to see impact of supplier management and quality management
Debey et al. (2015) on GSCM, study confirmed positive relationship between GSCM practices and these factor with help of
CFA and regression analysis

Govindam et al. Identified 47 barriers for implementations of GSCM practices in industries with help of analytic
(2014) Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Empirical study of 178 UK Firms suggests that there is a relationship between the business strategies and
Hoejmose et al.
GSCM practices. It has also been reported that most of the low cost manufacturers neglect their GSCM
(2013)
practices.
Proposed 15 criteria that influence organizational performance of auto sector. The finding suggests that
Lin et al. (2011)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

the green purchasing is most significant criterion for performance.

On the basis on empirical study, they identified six GSCM capability factors such as green purchasing,
Shang et al. (2010)
environmental management, eco-design, green packing and etc.
Testa and Iraldo
Identified motivators and determinants for GSCM by studying of 4000 manufacturing firms
(2010)
Holt and Ghobadian After implementation of GSCM, operational efficiency will improve in UK. UK industries focus on
(2009) internal activity of company rather than external activities.
Shukla et al. Study concluded that GSCM practice have positive impact on operational and environmental performance
(2009) in Indian automobile industry.
Zhu et al., (2008) Organization size and GSCM performance are directly related in China.
Luken and
Proposed road map for implementing green purchasing in SMEs
Stares (2005)
Zhu et al. (2005) Reports EFA analysis to extract variables for GSCM drivers
GSCM practices have direct and positive impact on environmental and operational processes of an
Sarkis (2003)
organization
Geffen and
Integration of supplier toward environmental issues with manufacturers enhances the productivity and
Rothenberg (2000)
relationship among them.
 Table 2: Reported studies on GSCM in different countries

Country Authors Key findings

Mirta and Datta Identified green design, investment recovery and green purchasing practices to have
(2014) significant impact on environmental performance of firms.
Identified external factors like: suppliers, market pressure, competitors and internal
Mohanty and
India drivers like: on-the-job training forces, commitment of management which are crucial
Prakash (2014)
for the implementation of GSCM in SMEs.
Shukla, et al.
Proposed road map for implementing GSCM Practices in Indian Automobile sector.
(2009)
Zhu and Sarkis Investigated and developed positive relationship between GSCM practices, total
(2004) quality management, lean production, and organizational performance.
Identified determinants for drivers of GSCM Practice, various GSCM practices and
Zhu et al. (2005)
organizational performance.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Zhu and Sarkis Investigated that Chinese companies have significant differences in implementation of
China
(2007) GSCM in automobile, power plant and electronics sectors.
Reports that Chinese organizations have positive relationship with environmental and
Zhu et al. (2011)
operational performances due to active drivers of GSCM practices on Chinese’s firm.
Wang and Chan. Proposed model between GSCM practices and competitive advantage’s parameters of
(2013) firm using fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS approach,.
Kenneth, et al. Concluded that the environmental performance has improved by adoption of GSCM
USA
(2012) practices in USA Industry.
Developed a theoretical framework for examining the organizational performance of
Olugu, et al.
Malaysia the auto green supply chain. The study identified 10 measures for upstream supply
(2010)
chain and 6 measures for downstream supply chain’s performance.
Robert et al. Investigated framework of GSCM for textile industry and found that customer loyalty
(2012) and satisfaction will increase due to implementation of GSCM.
Taiwan
Chuang and Recommends green manufacturing assessment model which has identified 70
Tang (2014) assessment parameters by using ANP
Dey and Cheffi Developed a framework for GSCM performances at UK’s manufacturing firms by
UK (2013) using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
 Table 3: The operational definitions of the research variables

. Key Constructs
Variable Operational definition Reference
No.
Pollution Reduction of Air (EP1), Pollution
The Environmental performance is Reduction of Water (EP2), Solid Waste Mitra & Datta
Environmental
related to decreasing level of emission Reduction (EP3), Reduction into (2014);
Performance
6. into air, water, & solid, and also Toxic/Harmful Material Consumption (EP4), Green et al.
(EP)
measure by no. of environmental Reduction into Environmental Accident’s Rate (2007),
accidents in an organization. (EP5), Improve an organization's Sarkis (2003)
Environmental Situation (EP6)
Cost Reduction in Purchasing of Material
Financial FP is cost benefits that result from (FP1), Cost Reduction for Energy/water Zhu et al. (2007),
Performance GSCM practices. It comprises cost Consumption (FP2), Cost reduction for Waste Green et al.
7.
(FP) reduction, profit maximization, income Treatment (FP3), Reduction into charge for (2007); Zhu and
growth, and increase in market share. Waste Discharge (FP4), Decrease Cost of Sarkis (2003)
Environmental Accidents (FP5)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

OP represent effects of GSCM practices Improvement in Delivery on time (OP1),

on production process which include Decrease Inventory levels (OP2), Reduction
Operational Mohanty and
quality improvements, productivity, into Scrap Rate (OP3), Improvement into
8. Performance Prakash (2014),
cost minimization, waste reductions, Products Quality (OP4), Improved Product
(OP) Zhu et al. (2011)
enhance capacity of process, Line (OP5), Enhanced Capacity Utilization
improvements in delivery. (OP6)
 Table 4: Descriptive statistics on assessment of normality

Number Cronbach
Range of Standard
Factors of alpha Kurtosis Skewness Mean
Correlations Deviation
variables index (α)
Internal Environmental
7 0.960 0.680 - 0.860 0.617 -0.634 3.283 0.871
Management (IEM)
Green Purchasing (GP) 5 0.910 0.460 - 0.740 1.312 -0.124 2.892 0.680
Customer Cooperation with
Environmental Concerns 3 0.890 0.510 - 0.661 1.318 -0.324 3.063 0.793
(CCWEC)
Eco-Design (ED) 3 0.850 0.541 - 0.742 0.088 -0.146 3.094 0.810
Investment Recovery (IR) 3 0.840 0.673 - 0.731 0.526 -0.553 3.142 0.774
Environmental Performance
6 0.950 0.680 - 0.840 1.541 -0.809 3.771 0.841
(EP)
Financial Performance (FP) 5 0.940 0.691 - 0.781 1.688 -0.466 3.343 0.793
Operational Performance (OP) 6 0.930 0.570 - 0.782 2.614 -1.210 3.742 0.820
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)
 Table 5: Comparison of GSCM practices in Indian organizations of different size

Size ≤ 300 300 < Size ≤ Size > Overall Comparison among three groups
Items 2000 2000
(n = 60) (n = 161)
Mea S.D. Mean = 66)
(n S.D. Mea= 35)
(n S.D Mea S.D. 1&2 1&3 2&3 F
IEM n
3.07 0.97 3.22 0.79 n
3.77 0.6 . n
3.28 0.87 -1.354 -3.782*** -3.150** 8.204**
*
IEM1 3.22 1.01 3.39 0.96 3.86 0.8 1 3.43 0.97 -1.370 -3.380** -2.678** 6.651**
IEM2 2.90 1.08 3.11 0.95 3.71 0.7 1 3.16 1.01 -1.189 -3.237** -2.630** 6.029**
IEM3 2.93 1.22 2.86 0.86 3.60 0.7 9 3.05 1.03 0.094 -2.805** -3.061** 5.597**
IEM4 3.07 1.06 3.32 0.84 3.89 0.5 7 3.35 0.93 -1.701+ -3.345** -3.625*** 7.082**
*
IEM5 3.13 1.05 3.42 0.99 3.89 0.8 8 3.42 1.01 -1.992* -3.761*** -1.837+ 6.195**
IEM6 3.13 0.96 3.18 0.89 3.69 0.6 0 3.27 0.89 -0.585 -3.124** -2.445* 4.964**
IEM7 3.12 1.04 3.24 0.86 3.77 0.7 3 3.31 0.94 -1.131 -3.551*** -2.266* 6.810**
*
3
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

GP 2.79 0.81 2.86 0.59 3.11 0.5 2.89 0.68 -0.677 -2.205* -1.609 3.82*
GP1 2.92 0.98 3.09 0.85 3.46 7
0.6 3.11 0.88 -1.285 -2.138* -1.501 2.793+
GP2 3.02 0.97 3.03 0.84 3.40 6
0.8 3.11 0.90 -0.017 -1.747+ -1.360 1.715
GP3 2.90 0.93 2.95 0.71 3.40 5
0.7 3.03 0.82 -0.714 -2.532* -1.785+ 3.682*
GP4 2.70 0.98 2.89 0.79 3.17 4
0.7 2.88 0.86 -1.150 -1.785* -0.597 1.732
GP5 2.40 1.03 2.33 0.95 2.14 1
0.8 2.32 0.95 0.510 -1.540 -1.426 1.316
1
CCWEC 2.96 0.81 3.03 0.82 3.28 0.6 3.06 0.79 -0.463 -1.177 -1.376 1.36
CCWEC1 2.98 0.81 2.97 0.84 3.31 6
0.7 3.05 0.81 -0.105 -1.358 -1.54 1.33
CCWEC2 2.90 0.92 3.00 0.89 3.23 2
0.8 3.01 0.89 -0.017 -0.942 -1.378 0.93
CCWEC3 2.95 0.85 3.12 0.97 3.29 1
0.7 3.09 0.89 -0.852 -1.244 -1.682+ 0.65
5
ED 2.88 0.86 3.19 0.85 3.26 0.5 3.09 0.81 - -1.457 -0.217 3.82*
**
ED1 3.00 0.88 3.29 0.87 3.40 7
0.5 3.20 0.82 2.596
-2.476* -1.766+ -0.475 1.15
ED2 2.88 0.94 3.09 0.94 3.17 0
0.6 3.03 0.89 -1.303 -0.798 -0.158 0.376
ED3 2.75 1.02 3.18 0.98 3.20 6
0.8 3.02 0.99 -2.96** -1.435 -0.025 1.36
7
IR 2.94 0.89 3.23 0.72 3.33 0.5 3.14 0.77 - -1.776+ 0.295 3.41*
**
IR1 3.05 1.03 3.30 0.76 3.49 0.6 8 3.25 0.87 2.534 -2.01* -1.785+ -0.517 2.12
IR2 2.82 1.00 3.14 0.84 3.14 0.6 6 3.02 0.88 -1.71 +
-1.435 1.00 2.70+
IR3 2.95 0.93 3.24 0.77 3.37 0.7 9 3.16 0.84 -2.41* -1.582 -0.158 1.74
3
1=No consideration it, 2= A little consideration it, 3= Moderate, 4= Practicing, 5= Actively practicing
1 represents size ≤ 300; 2 represent 300 < size ≤ 2000; 3 represents size > 200; ‘i&j’ means Group i compared with
Group j in t-tests.
+
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
 Table 6: Comparison of Organizational Performance on adaptation of GSCM practices in Indian
organizations of different size

Items Size ≤ 300 300 < Size ≤ Size > 2000 Overall Comparison among three groups
(n = 60)
Mean S.D. Mean 2000S.D. (n = 35)S.D
Mean (n = 161)
Mean S.D. 1&2 1&3 2&3 F
. + +
EP 3.65 0.84 3.74 0.91 4.00 0.6 3.77 0.84 -0.99 -1.772 -1.152 2.061
EP1 3.88 0.96 3.85 0.95 4.06 0.7 3.91 0.91 -0.244 -0.40 -0.75 0.319
EP2 3.47 0.96 3.70 0.98 3.89 0.8 3.65 0.94 -1.77+ -1.625 -0.88 1.428
EP3 3.50 0.98 3.65 1.07 3.91 0.7 3.65 0.99 -1.13 -1.48 -1.05 1.132
EP4 3.63 0.94 3.62 1.08 4.03 0.7 3.71 0.97 -0.19 -1.96* -1.43 2.00
+
EP5 3.60 0.98 3.73 0.99 3.97 0.8 3.73 0.95 -1.01 -1.74 -1.08 1.311
EP6 3.80 0.92 3.92 0.88 4.17 0.7 3.93 0.88 -0.87 -2.41* -1.20 2.42+

FP 3.30 0.84 3.26 0.81 3.57 0.6 3.34 0.79 0.025 -1.648+ -1.301 1.732
FP1 3.58 0.93 3.41 0.88 3.69 0.8 3.53 0.88 0.652 -1.07 -0.68 0.534
-2.45* 2.791+
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

FP2 3.17 0.96 3.27 0.80 3.60 0.7 3.30 0.86 -1.00 -1.51
FP3 3.20 0.95 3.11 1.04 3.69 0.7 3.27 0.97 -0.505 -2.03* -2.347* 3.412*
FP4 3.23 0.91 3.24 0.80 3.34 0.6 3.26 0.82 -0.353 -0.59 -0.572 0.224
FP5 3.33 0.88 3.26 0.97 3.54 0.8 3.35 0.92 0.216 -1.20 -0.657 0.657

OP 3.65 0.85 3.70 0.86 3.99 0.5 3.74 0.80 -0.338 -1.733+ -1.619+ 2.45*
OP1 3.67 0.95 3.85 0.96 3.94 0.7 3.80 0.91 -0.76 -0.627 -0.669 0.274
OP2 3.65 1.01 3.55 1.06 3.91 0.6 3.66 0.97 0.085 -1.217 -1.304 0.911
OP3 3.63 1.01 3.61 1.04 3.86 0.6 3.67 0.96 0.096 -0.847 -1.710+ 1.535
**
OP4 3.60 0.94 3.80 1.06 4.11 0.6 3.80 0.95 -1.162 -2.850 -0.984 2.494+
OP5 3.55 0.98 3.67 0.92 3.83 0.7 3.66 0.90 -0.782 -0.828 -0.724 0.386
OP6 3.78 0.88 3.73 0.87 4.26 0.6 3.86 0.86 0.723 -2.38* -3.260** 5.200**
1=No consideration it, 2= A little consideration it, 3= Moderate, 4= Practicing, 5= Actively practicing
1 represents size ≤ 300; 2 represent 300 < size ≤ 2000; 3 represents size > 200; ‘i&j’ means Group i compared with
Group j in t-tests.
+
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
 Appendix A1: Questionnaire on Implementation Green Supply Chain Management Practices
and Organizational Performance

Section A: Respondent’s Profile

A1 Name of Respondent:
A2 Designation in the organization:
A3 (A) Name of organization:
(B) Type of Business:
A4 Age and Experience:
A5 Your area of work in the organization (Please tick)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

a) Supply Chain
b) Operation
c) Marketing
d) Finance
e) Any other (Specify)
A6 How long you been with your current organization
a) Less than 3 years (b) 3-6 years
c) 6-12 years (d) More than 12 years
A7 Do you have supply chain function?
(a) Yes (b) No
If yes, what is its scope?
A8 Please indicate the number of employees at your organization
(a) Less than 300
(b) 300 to 2000
(c) More than 2000
 Section B: Green Supply Management Practices
Please indicate the level of GSCM Practice using in your company, and use 1-5 point
scale (1= No consideration, 2= A little consideration 3= Moderate 4= Practicing 5=
actively practicing

No A little Actively
S. Pl. rate the following strategies which you Moderate Practicing
consideration consideration practicing
No. adopt to manage the GSCM practices
1 2 3 4 5
B1 ISO 14001 certification
B2 Environmental Management System exist
Environmental compliance and auditing
B3
programs
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

B4 Total quality environmental management

Cross functional corporation for environmental
B5
improvements
B6 Support for GSCM from mid level managers
B7 Commitment of GSCM from senior managers
Cooperative with suppliers for environmental
B8
objectives
Environmental audit for suppliers internal
B9
management
Providing design specification to suppliers that
B10 include environmental requirements for
purchased item
B11 Suppliers ISO 14001 certification
Second-tier suppliers environmental friendly
B12
practice evaluation
B13 Cooperation with customer for eco-design
B14 Cooperation with customer for cleaner production
B15 Cooperation with customer for green packaging
Design of products for reduced consumption of
B16
material/energy
Design of product for reuse, recycle, recovery of
B17
materials, component parts
Design of products to avoid or reduce use of
B18 hazardous products and /or their manufacturing
process
Investment recovery (sale) of excess
B19
inventories/materials
B20 sale of scrap and used materials
B21 Sale of excess capital equipment
 Section C: Performance Measurement
Please indicate the level of performance improvement after implementation of GSCM’s
practices using in your company, and use 1-5 point scale (1= Not at all, 2= A little bit,
3= To some degree, 4= Relatively significant, 5= Significant

To
Not at A little Relatively
Performance measures some Significant
S. No. all bit significant
Pl. rank your performance under following criteria degree
1 2 3 4 5
C1 Reduction of air emission
C2 Reduction of waste water
C3 Reduction of solid wastes
Downloaded by Fudan University At 18:55 08 March 2017 (PT)

Decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic

C4
materials
C5 Decrease of frequency for environmental accidents
C6 Improve an enterprise's environmental situation
C7 Decrease of cost for materials purchasing
C8 Decrease of cost for energy consumption
C9 Decrease of fee for waste treatment
C10 Decrease of fee for waste discharge
C11 Decrease of fine for environmental accidents
C12 Increase amount of goods delivered on time
C13 Decrease inventory of levels
C14 Decrease scrap rate
C15 Promote products quality
C16 Increased product line
C17 Improved capacity utilization
C18 Average return on investment over the past three years
C19 Profit growth over the past three years
C20 Average return on sales over the past three years
C21 Average market share growth over the past three years
C22 Average sales volume growth over the past three years