GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 669

ISSN 2320-9186

GSJ: Volume 6, Issue 8, August 2018, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com

EFFECT OF GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN
KENYA
Achuora John

ABSTRACT

Due to the perceived performance implications of GSCM, research in this area has grown in
recent years. However, the literature is limited on the performance implications of GSCM on
firms especially in the developing countries. Thus, the literature has yet to furnish an accepted
explanation on whether a positive relationship exists between Green Supply Chain Management
(GSCM) Practices and firm performance. This dissertation has responded to this challenge
through the exploration of the consequences of GSCM practices on the performance of
manufacturing firms in Kenya. The study was guided by the following objectives: to establish the
effect of green procurement on the performance of the manufacturing firms, to establish the effect
of green manufacturing on the performance of the manufacturing firms, to establish the influence
of green distribution on the performance of the manufacturing firms, to establish the effect of
environmentally-oriented reverse logistics on the performance of the manufacturing firms and to
establish the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the relationship between green
supply chain practices and the performance of manufacturing firms. The study is built on the
theoretical framework of the ecological modernization, resource based view, stakeholder,
corporate environmental responsibility and social network and investigated four potentially
important dimensions of GSCM and how such dimensions, in turn, shape firm performance.
Specifically, a theoretical model was developed and tested on the basis of the hypothesized
relationships among the four dimensions of GSCM, Supply Chain Ecocentricity as the
moderating factor, and how these dimensions relate to firm performance. Significant results and
good fit indices tested with multiple regression model and confirmatory structural model.
Positivism paradigm approach, mixed method research and the cross-sectional survey research
design were adopted in this study. The target population for this study were the manufacturing
firms in Kenya. The study population were the manufacturing firms registered as members of the
Kenya Association of Manufacturers as at 2014 and the respondents were the designated heads of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 670
ISSN 2320-9186

supply chain management of these firms. A semi- structured questionnaire was administered
through the e-mail survey. Secondary data was obtained from both published and unpublished
records. The questionnaire was tested for validity and reliability. Both quantitative and qualitative
techniques were used to analyse the data with the assistance of SPSS software program version
22, Ms-Excel for window 8 and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) version 18. Supply
chain ecocentricity moderating effect was tested by F-test. The study found that Green
Procurement, Green Manufacturing, Green Distribution and Environmentally Oriented Reverse
Logistics were individually predictors of firm performance with Green Manufacturing being the
most significant predictor. In contrast, the study established that Supply Chain Ecocentricity is
not a moderating factor in the study. The results support the current theories related to the study.
Consequently, this study provides firms‘ managers with insights of how firms can develop a
competitive edge through the implementation of GSCMPs. This study therefore, recommends that
factors associated with Green Supply Chain Management need to be embraced by firms in their
performance strategic plans as they have significant impact on performance. Further, the
government should adopt a mixed policy on ecological management by focusing on both
statutory regulations and internal directives with direct impact on firm performance such as tax
rebate on eco-equipment and processes. The study concludes that greening initiatives within the
manufacturing firms supply chain management has the potential of positively influencing their
performance in terms of cost reduction and environmental product differentiation.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 671
ISSN 2320-9186

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Overview
This chapter reviews the background of the study, statement of the problem, the study
objectives, research hypothesis, justification and the scope of the study. The last section
in the chapter covers the study limitations.

1.1 Background of Study

The primary goal of most businesses is to create and maintain a supply chain that can
improve their business performance (Sirmon, Hitt & Ireland, 2007). Since the early
1990s, researchers have discovered that supply chain management plays an important
role in helping firms improve performance (Mentzer, DeWitt, Keebler, Min, Smith &
Zacharia, 2001). Supply chain management (henceforth SCM) is the strategic
coordination of resource flows among members of the upstream and downstream supply
chain (Mentzer et al., 2001). Ultimately, the goal of SCM is improving the long-term
performance of firms in the chain (Ketchen & Hult 2007; Combs & Todd 2008). To
create value, supply chains need to be managed in a proactive way that creates processes
and common goals among the supply chain members (Min, Mentzer & Ladd, 2007).
Indeed, research supports the idea that proactive supply chain management may represent
an ―inimitable competitive weapon‖ in the business environment, one that can deliver
value for the firm (Ketchen & Hult, 2007).

Within SCM inquiry, researchers have begun to examine the impact of supply chain
operations on the natural environment (Klassen & Johnson 2004; Zhu & Sarkis 2004;
Handfield, Sroufe & Walton, 2005; Rao & Holt 2005; Vachon & Klassen 2008). La and
Masters (1994) as cited in Hult, Ketchen and Slater (2004) trace green supply chain
management practices to the concepts of supply chain and supply chain management.
The simplest conception of a supply chain can be presented as the companies involved in
all aspects of the upstream and downstream movement of products and services (Zhu &

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 672
ISSN 2320-9186

Sarkis, 2006). A typical supply chain consists of companies in a network linked by the
basic processes/practices of supply, transformation, demand and returns (Zhu & Sarkis,
2006). Mentzer et al. (2001:4) more succinctly define a supply chain as: ―a set of two or
more entities (members), directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of
products, services, finances and/or information from a source to a customer‖.

The planning and coordination of these business practices to create a fit which deliver
value to customers is described as supply chain management (Cooper & Schindler, 2006).
Integrating environmental thinking into the planning and coordination of these practices
is what breeds green supply chain management concept (Lambert & Cooper 2000;
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, 2009). Green SCM is defined as the
intra- and inter-firm management of the upstream and downstream supply chain practices
aimed at minimizing the overall environmental impact of both the forward and reverse
flows (Klassen & Johnson 2004; Zhu, Sarkis & Lai, 2008). Green SCM practices fall into
four primary dimensions of supply chain management (Zhu et al., 2008): green
purchasing (in bound greening), green manufacturing (focal company), green distribution
(out bound greening) and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics. These four
dimensions of SCM capture key dimensions of green SCM practices (Zhu et al.
2008).Figure 1.1 brings these dimensions together and figuratively defines green supply
chain.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 673
ISSN 2320-9186

Minimal
Waste
Figure 1. 1 GSCMP dimensions
Source: (Toke, Gupta & Dandekar, 2010)

Green supply chain management, also known as ESCM (environmental supply chain
management) or SSCM (sustainable supply chain management) (Seuring, 2004),
combines green purchasing, green manufacturing/production, green distribution and
environmentally-oriented reverse logistics (Sarkis & Tamarkin, 2005). With increasing
awareness of environmental protection worldwide, the green trend of conserving the
Earth‘s resources and protecting the environment is overwhelming (Sarkis & Tamarkin,
2005). As a result, governments have enacted laws which require firms to take initiatives

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 674
ISSN 2320-9186

that conserve the environment (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006), thereby exerting pressure on firms
(Zhu & Sarkis, 2006). The pressure and drive accompanying globalization has prompted
enterprises to improve their environmental performance (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006).
Consequently, firms have shown growing concern for the environment over the past
years (Harris, 2007).

The pressure on corporations to improve their environmental performances comes from

both globalization and localization (Sarkis & Tamarkin, 2005). As a consequence,
businesses commit substantial resources to environmental initiatives, and some research
suggests that environmental practices in supply chain (Green Supply Chain) management
shape firms‘ performance. When businesses use such practices, they can potentially
improve performance through procedures that involve managing wastes, improving their
reputation, and reducing overall costs (Hoffman 2000; Klassen & Johnson 2004;
Handfield et al. 2005; Vachon & Klassen 2008; Zhu et al. 2008). Therefore, some firms
have adopted Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices as a way of attaining
organization performance (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006).

Environmental or green practices in supply chain management are generally comprised of

actions that reduce or eliminate waste and pollution, eliminate hazardous materials,
consider product life-cycles, review supplier environmental performance, emphasize
compliance, minimize the environmental impact of the firm‘s operations, and remediate
environmental problems (Rao & Holt, 2005; Klassen & Johnson 2004; Handfield et al.
2005; Zhu et al. 2008; Stock, Speh & Shear 2002). In essence, green SCM practices
concentrate on minimizing the environmental impact of the forward and reverse flows of
the supply chain, while possibly creating economic value and lowering costs for the firm
(Zhu & Sarkis 2006; Vachon & Klassen 2008).

Circumstantial evidence shows that firms have used GSCM practices around the globe in
an attempt to improve performance. For example, the Nokia Corporation combines
elements of SCM (supplier network management and supply chain design) with green
capabilities and policies (products designed for the environment and supplier
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 675
ISSN 2320-9186

involvement in environmental management systems) to create integrated GSCM practices

intended to improve the financial performance of the company (Nokia Corporation,
2004). Similarly, 3M, Kodak and Xerox have all integrated aspects of green management
practices in their supply chains with the goal of achieving higher firm performance
(Klassen & Johnson, 2004).

Corporations aiming to implement GSCM may be seeking ways to enhance

environmental and financial performance. However, for organizations to embrace GSCM,
they require it to be tagged with some form of incentives (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006). In this
study, the performance of the organization is singled out. This study is grounded on the
literature that suggests that GSCM practices positively impact on organizational
performance (Chien & Shih, 2007).

Interest in green SCM has been growing among researchers since the early 1990s
(Handfield et al. 2005; Srivastava 2007). Scholars have investigated the benefits related
to green operational practices and processes in the firm (Hart & Dowell 2010). However,
empirical research into the impact of green SCM practices on firm performances has
produced mixed results (Melnyk, Sroufe & Calantone 2003; Arkley & Davis 2007). This
has led to a continuing discussion in the literature regarding whether or not green SCM
practices can lead to higher firm performance. This study therefore attempted to move
this debate forward in the Kenyan context by providing empirical data findings in the
manufacturing sector in Kenya that can be used for in depth understanding of the topic.

1.1.1 Green Supply Chain Management in Kenya

Modern environment management and planning in Kenya can be traced to the Rio Earth
Summit of 1992, which helped a great deal in raising understanding about the link
between environment and development (UNEP, 1996). Following the summit, Kenya
initiated the national environmental action plan (NEAP) process. This was completed in
1994. It recommended the need for a national policy and law on the natural environment
(RoK, 2009). The policy process culminated into the Draft Sessional Paper No. 6 of 1999
entitled ―Environment and Development.‖ The legislative process gave forth the

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 676
ISSN 2320-9186

Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) No. 8 of 1999 as Kenya‘s first
framework of environmental law (RoK, 1999) for addressing environmental challenges
such as environmentally- related diseases, water and air pollution, climate change just to
mention but a few. Indeed it is noted that Kenya‘s population is clearly vulnerable to
environmentally related diseases, where the total disease burden caused by
environmentally related causes stand at 24 percent largely due to manufacturing activities
(WHO, 2004). This made the government, through the National Environmental
Management Authority (NEMA) to act tough on the violators of the environmental
regulations (RoK, 2009).

As a result, various economic sectors have embraced green supply chain practices in
Kenya to comply with the government‘s environmental regulations and to address both
environmental and performance issues (Ondiso, 2012; Jones, 2006). Firms in the
agricultural sector have adopted environmentally friendly pesticides, afforestation, un-
contaminated seedlings and irrigation practices which are eco-friendly. These are
replicated across and within other sectors like tourism, wholesale and retail trade,
manufacturing and construction (Kamande, 2011). For example, British America Tabaco
(BAT) combines elements of SCM (procurement, vendor network management, waste
disposal and product design) with natural environment sustainability capabilities and
policies (products designed for the environment, choosing suppliers with strong
environmental credentials, efficient use of energy, use of tobacco dust as fuel to provide
heat, reduce waste to landfill and water and supplier involvement in environmental
management systems) to create integrated green SCM practices intended to comply with
the government regulations (BAT, 2012).

Similarly, East African Breweries Ltd, Bidco Industries Limited and Unilever Kenya
have all integrated aspects of green management practices in their supply chains with the
goal of complying with the government regulations and gaining acceptance in their
operating environment through corporate social responsibility (CSR) (East African
Breweries Ltd, 2012; Bidco Industries Ltd, 2012; and Unilever Kenya, 2011). Despite the

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 677
ISSN 2320-9186

huge amount of resources involved, minimal attempt has been made to link the adoption
of GSCM practices with the performance of the manufacturing firms in Kenya (Mukiri,
2012) even though there are possible performance benefits accruing to firms with
environmental orientation practices (Seman, Zakuan, Jusoh, Shoki & Arif , 2012).

However, the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 marked an important

chapter in Kenya‘s environmental policy development. Hailed as a green constitution, it
embodies elaborate provisions with considerable implications for sustainable
development (RoK, 2010). These range from the right to clean and healthy environment
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Chapter V of the constitution is entirely dedicated to land
and the environment. It also embodies a host of social, political and economic rights of an
environmental character, such as the right to clean water, food and shelter (RoK, 2010).

The country‘s new constitution (The Constitution Kenya, 2010) envisioned a green
economy where all the players in the economic development of the country are expected
to undertake their economic activities in a manner that minimizes the impact on the
natural environment (RoK, 2010). It established a framework of natural environment
management throughout the entire supply chain- Green Supply Chain Management
(Kamande, 2011). This is in line with sustainable development objective of Vision 2030;
Kenya road map for development (RoK, 2007).

1.1.2 Manufacturing Firms in Kenya

The study intends to look at the performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya with
respect to cost efficiency and environmental differentiation. Manufacturing in Kenya,
apart from being considered as the country‘s economic growth lever under Vision 2030
(RoK, 2007), is also believed to be the main cause of emerging environmental problems
due to its traditional business operations (WHO, 2004). Various industries in the
manufacturing sector such as textile, dyes, chemicals, plastics, rubbers, metals,
machinery and equipment, electronics, automobile, printing, construction and others, are
considered major sources of environmental problems. Traditional polluting industries

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 678
ISSN 2320-9186

such as chemical, electrical and paper industries generally contribute higher

environmental degradation (Lee, 2008).

In analyzing the performances of any entity, both the volume of output as well as the
costs involved in producing that level of output, are taken into account (Hart & Dowel,
2010). While direct costs are easily reflected in prices, indirect costs present as external
effects to the environment are not easy to capture through prices (Corbett & Klassen,
2006). To collect such externalities, the government imposes some penalties, such as
environmental taxes and other environmental policy tools to force firms to internalize any
externalities that arise from their operations. In this way, both the direct and indirect
costs are reflected in the operational costs of the firm. In such a scenario, poor
environmental practices by firms may have an impact on a firm‘s performance through
increased operational costs. These occur as a result of inefficiency while sound
environmental practices may be a source of financial gain for the firm through reduced
waste, increased output per unit, reduced cost of energy and water due to improved
efficiency (Kalirajan, Shand, & Bhide, 2010). In the words of Corbett and Klassen,
(2006), good environmental management practices (green supply management practices)
by manufacturing firms may be the ―firing lever‖ to improved performance.

A study by Seman et al. (2012) amongst Malaysian manufacturing firms establishes that
firms practicing sound environmental management practices within their supply chain
scored 85 percent in technical efficiency with a very good financial and environmental
performance compared to those without sound environmental management practices at 62
percent. Technical efficiency is defined as ―the capacity and willingness of a firm to
produce the maximum possible output from a given set of inputs and technology‖
(Kalirajan et al., 2010). However, a study by Kamande (2011) on the ―Impact of Clean
Production on the Performance of Kenyan Manufacturing Firms‖ establishes that
manufacturing firms in Kenya are technically and environmentally inefficient in the way
they carry out production. The study concludes that this inefficiency might be the cause
of lack of competitiveness of locally manufactured products in the international market

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 679
ISSN 2320-9186

where price and quality drive the market share. Ondiso (2012) and Mukiri (2012)
establish that manufacturing firms in Kenya have embraced green practices as a way of
addressing performance issues. The study however noted that green practices –
performance association has not been confirmed empirically in Kenyan context. It was
therefore imperative that a relationship be established between GSCM practices and
performance in an attempt to qualify the concept as a strategy for improving efficiency
and market share of the manufacturing firms in Kenya.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Manufacturing is a key pillar in promoting economic and social development of a country
(Yamfwa, Szirmai & Lwamba, 2002). Kenya Vision 2030 emphasizes the need for
appropriate manufacturing strategy for efficient and sustainable practices as a way of
making the country globally competitive and a prosperous nation (RoK, 2007).
Nevertheless, most manufacturing firms in Kenya operate at a technical efficiency of
about 59 percent (Kamande, 2011) compared to their counterparts in Malaysia that
average about 74 percent (Kalirajan et al., 2010) raising doubts about the sector‘s
capacity to meet the goals of Vision 2030 (RoK, 2007). Indeed, Chien and Shih (2007)
advise that manufacturing firms should aspire to achieve at least 70 percent technical
efficiency to be competitive and sustainably use natural resources. Their study suggest
that firms operating below 70 percent technical efficiency are likely to experience low
levels of revenue, high cost of production, low output per input, increased solid waste
streams and relatively low survival rates (Chien & Shih, 2007). This then calls for a new
manufacturing approach with the potential of improving the performance of the sector to
be in line with the Vision 2030 (GoK, 2007).

In view of this, several methods of improving performance and efficiency such as quality
assurance (QA), total quality management (TQM) , benchmarking, activity based costing,
value based management and supply chain management are increasingly criticized for
their impact on environment (Klassen & Johnson, 2004). There is a growing concern in
all directions of business and management of developing the culture of green processes

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 680
ISSN 2320-9186

which will be mindful of the environment. In the processes, the concept of GSCM has
been suggested as one of the ways of improving performance while at the same time
being mindful of the environment (Handfield et al., 2005).

Consequently, a number of firms in the manufacturing sector in Kenya have embraced

GSCMPs to address both economic and environmental performance (Ondiso, 2012;
Mukiri, 2012). GSCMPs according to Seman et al. (2012) have the potential of
improving the performance of firms. Hoffman (2000); Klassen and Johnson (2004) and
Handfield et al. (2005) all suggest an association between GSCM and the performance of
firms. However, there has been minimal research on GSCMPs – performance link within
the manufacturing sector in Kenya (Kamande, 2011). The existing literature has focused
on other continents other than Africa such as; America, Europe and some parts of Asia
(Ondiso, 2012; Kamande, 2011; Mukiri, 2012). Indeed, existing research has not
provided clear evidence on the effect of GSCMPs on the performance of firms within the
manufacturing sector in Kenyan (Ondiso, 2012; Mukiri, 2012) hence the study on the
effect of GSCMPs on the performance of the manufacturing firms in Kenya.

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective
The broad objective of the study was to establish the overall effect of green supply chain
management practices on the performance of the manufacturing firms in Kenya.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

Arising from the general objective, the study was guided by the following specific
objectives:

I. To establish the effect of green procurement on the performance of manufacturing

firms in Kenya.

II. To establish the effect of green manufacturing on the performance of

manufacturing firms in Kenya.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 681
ISSN 2320-9186

III. To establish the influence of green distribution on the performance of

manufacturing firms in Kenya.

IV. To establish the effect of environmentally-oriented reverse logistics on the

performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya.

V. To establish the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the

relationship between green supply chain practices and the performance of
manufacturing firms in Kenya.

1.4 Hypotheses
The following six hypotheses were used to address the study objectives;

1. H0: Green procurement does not significantly influence the performance of the
manufacturing firms in Kenya.

2. H0: Green manufacturing does not significantly influence the performance of

manufacturing firms in Kenya.

3. H0: Green distribution does not significantly influence the performance of

manufacturing firms in Kenya.

4. H0: Environmentally-oriented reverse Logistics does not significantly affect

the performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya.

5. H0: Supply chain ecocentricity does not significantly moderate the relationship
between GSCM practices and firm performance in Kenya.

1.5 Justification of the Study

Generally speaking, GSCM is the combination of economic and ecological efficiency to
add more value with less environmental impact. It combines environmental and economic
performance by enhancing the efficiency of production processes and creating new and
better products and services using fewer resources and generating less pollution along
with the entire value chain (Pagell & Wu, 2009). The emphasis of green SCM is not only
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 682
ISSN 2320-9186

on resource use and pollution reduction but rather on value creation along with resource
use and pollution minimization; which is a move towards sustainable growth. Therefore
two primary justifications informed this study:

The first, from the outcome of the study, there would be a justification for firms to
engage in green SCM practices as a strategy to improve both financial and environmental
performance thereby moving towards sustainable growth which is one of the foundations
of Kenyan Vision 2030 (GoK, 2007).

The second is that the study findings might shift environmental management focus from
the statutory driven to business strategy driven which might shape firms‘ propensities to
engage in environmental practices and have a greater impact on the natural environment
management. Research implications of these contributions might benefit scholars and the
arising managerial implications might benefit practitioners as discussed below:

1.5.1 Research Implications

There might be a number of research implications from the results of this study.
Empirical research on performance outcomes from GSCM practices is limited,
conflicting, and often inconclusive (Vachon & Klassen, 2008).First, this research
empirically investigated green SCM practices and their impact on firm performance. The
conclusions of the empirical study would contribute to a greater understanding of the
relationship between green SCM and firm performance to the current knowledge in this
area.

Lastly, this study used the concept of environmental management from management
literature and expanded its role into the SCM literature. The inclusion of environmental
practices in this study might contribute to the SCM literature as both the
operationalization and empirical testing of these constructs are currently limited.

1.5.2 Managerial Implications

This study provides a number of potentially valuable insights for managers. Despite the
scholarly and practitioner interest in green SCM, the literature has struggled to provide
managers with applicable ideas and courses of action to manage green practices in supply
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 683
ISSN 2320-9186

chains that ultimately improve performance (Pagell & Wu, 2009). The results of the
empirical research in this study might provide managers with information on the nature
of the relationship between green supply chain management and firm performance.
Furthermore, the empirical results might help managers recognize that internal corporate
cultures, in the form of environmental orientations aimed at improving firm performance
may lead to the formation of Green SCM practices. This may be in contrast to the
assumption some managers make that the implementation of environmental practices is
based solely on external pressures and threats.

1.5.3 Policy Makers

A regulatory framework is a system of rules and the means to enforce them, usually
established by a government or authority (Srivastsava, 2006). The outcome of the study
might provide the government agencies with information that can be used for policy
development focusing on environmental management by the manufacturing firms.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study examined the effect of GSCM practices on the performance of manufacturing
firms in Kenya. According to Klassen and Johnson (2004); and Christopher and Peck
(2004), GSCM practices fall into four primary dimensions of supply chain management:
green purchasing (in- bound greening), green manufacturing, green distribution (out-
bound greening) and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics. These four dimensions
of SCM capture key dimensions of Green SCM practices (Zhu et al., 2008) and formed
the depth of Green Supply Chain Management practices for this study. The effect of
supply chain ecocentricity as a moderating factor on the combined practices of GSCM
was also tested. Supply chain ecocentricity is defined in this study to include; partnering
with external stakeholders for environmental research, getting sponsorship for
implementation of environmental management practices from the external stakeholders,
participation in external stakeholders‘ eco-oriented workshops, environment fit through
engagement with external stakeholders, environmental benchmarking with external stake
holders and advance knowledge for environmental management practices from external
stakeholders (Tate et al., 2011).
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 684
ISSN 2320-9186

Fugate, Mentzer and Stank, (2010); Christopher and Peck (2004) all used cost efficiency
and environmental differentiation as two dimensions of measuring firm performance.
Shepherd and Gunter (2006) singled out the two as some of the reliable dimensions of
looking at firm performance. Therefore, for this study, firm performance was measured
through cost efficiency and environmental differentiation. The study was confined to the
manufacturing firms which were members of Kenya Association of Manufacturers,
(KAM, 2014). The Kenya Association of Manufacturers directory listed a total of five
hundred and sixty six (566) manufacturing firms as members across the country. The
study was limited to the manufacturing industry because it is believed to be the main
cause of the emerging environmental problems due to the nature of its traditional
business operations (Lee, 2008).

1.7 Limitations of the Study

All research designs and methods are flawed and limited in their validity (McGrath &
Brinberg, 1983). It is desirable for researchers to maximize generalizability, precision in
control, and realism of the context in any research project; all other things being equal or
held constant (McGrath & Brinberg, 1983). In reality, however, research is plagued by
the ―three-horned dilemma‖ that arises with the very choice researchers make: as one
desirable trait is maximized, the other two are diminished (McGrath & Brinberg, 1983).

Survey methodology, in particular, is strong in its ability to maximize the generalizability

of the findings. It is weaker in the areas of precision in control and realism of the context.
Precautions were taken in this research to ensure participants answered the questions
based on their understanding of their positions and the firms where they work. The
wordings of the survey questions were carefully undertaken before and after the pre-test
to ensure the questions were relevant and applicable to the participants. Both actions were
used to improve control and realism.

Despite these precautions, key limitations in the empirical study were present. These
include the weaknesses associated with cross-sectional surveys (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2000), and constraints on the depth of information provided in survey
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 685
ISSN 2320-9186

methodology research (Lilien & Kacker, 2002). The use of a cross-sectional survey
limited the investigation of GSCM to a point in-time assessment. A single cross-section
survey restricted this study‘s ability to capture long term effects and changes. By
contrast, longitudinal research designs might have captured changing phenomena without
relying on static assessments.

Related to survey methodology, the depth and breadth that can be obtained through the
Likert-scale type surveys is limited. Survey items are designed to measure properties of a
latent variable. To that extent, the variance obtained from Likert-scales answers is the
only additional information that can be captured from participants‘ responses. Thus, this
study might have been unable to capture any additional information that might have
related to the phenomenon under investigation. For example, it would have been
interesting to understand participants‘ views on other types of green practices in SCM,
additional ways in which green SCM benefits the firm and constraints to the
implementation of green SCM practices. Answers to all of these questions might have
provided additional information about the relationships among the constructs in the
theoretical model. However, there was an attempt to solve these through open ended
questions in the data collection instrument.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 686
ISSN 2320-9186

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
This section reviewed literature on the effect of GSCM practices on the performance of
the manufacturing firms. The theoretical literature broadly relating to green supply chain
management and literature relating to firm performance was reviewed. Various
dimensions of GSCM practices were considered in terms of the understanding offered by
Klassen and Johnson (2004); green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution
and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics. Supply chain ecocentricity literature was
reviewed according to Pagell and Wu (2009) view. This was followed by a consideration
of the dimensions of firm performance of cost efficiency and environmental
differentiation. A conceptual model was formulated from the theoretical review and
empirical literature was reviewed on different aspects of the study. A critique of the
reviewed literature is presented. This is followed by identification of the research gaps
and finally, the chapter‘s summary.

2.1 Theoretical Framework

Klassen and Johnson (2004) define GSCM as the intra- and inter-firm management of the
upstream and downstream supply chain aimed at minimizing the overall environmental
impact of both the forward and reverse. Zhu et al. (2008a) highlighted that GSCM is
about greening basic supply chain management practices; purchasing, manufacturing,
distribution and reverse logistics. Other theorists have defined green supply chain
management as the planning and coordination of basic business practices or processes in
a manner that reduce or eliminate waste and pollution, eliminate hazardous materials,
consider product life-cycles, review supplier environmental performance, emphasize
environmental compliance, minimize the environmental impact of the firm‘s operations,
and remediate environmental problems (Rao 2002; Klassen & Johnson 2004; Handfield
et al. 2005; Zhu et al. 2008a; Stock, Boyer & Harmon 2010). Sarkis, Zhu and Lai (2010)
define it as integrating environmental concerns into the inter-organizational practices of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 687
ISSN 2320-9186

SCM including reverse logistics. Complimentary to the above definition, Zhu and Sarkis
(2004) present the four dimensions of GSCM as green procurement, green
manufacturing, green distribution and environmentally oriented reverse logistics. Seuring
(2004) asserts that in spite the huge interest in the subject of green SCM, a definition of
the subject is hard to pin down because of the diverse descriptions used by a host of
researchers. Whatever the definition of green SCM is adopted by various authors, this
study espouses the concept that green SCM is about integrating environmental concerns
into the inter-organizational practices of SCM including reverse logistics (Sarkis et al.
2010).

According to Ketchen and Hult (2007), the selection of the right theory for defining and
understanding green SCM concept creates puzzling problem for researchers. According
to Cooper and Schindler (2011), a theory is a set of systematic interrelated concepts,
definitions and propositions that are advanced to explain and predict a phenomenon
However, Connelly, Ketchen and Slater (2010), advocate for the advancement of
organizational theory in defining and understanding green SCM concept. Organizational
theory is defined as a management insight that can help explain or describe
organizational behaviors, designs, or structures (Connelly et al., 2010). Green supply
chain management literature is therefore reviewed in this section according to theorists
that focus on the ecological modernization, resource based view, stakeholder, corporate
environmental responsibility and social network. These theories are used as the
theoretical ground for this study as discussed in the next section.

2.1.1 Ecological Modernization Theory

Ecological modernization theory (EMT) has its underpinnings in sociological theory and
has been further developed into policy and organizational theories (Spaargaren & Mol,
1992). As a systematic eco-innovation theory, EMT is geared towards jointly achieving
industrial development and environmental protection through innovation and
technological development, or ‗modernity‘ (Jänicke, 2008; Murphy & Gouldson, 2000).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 688
ISSN 2320-9186

EMT has been widely used to explain environmental planning by firms and the
restructuring of production in a way that lessen environmental impact by major
manufacturers (Murphy, 2000). Jänicke (2008) explains that firms that decided to
ecologically modernize their business practices in Germany benefited from improved
performance both economically and environmentally. Murphy and Gouldson (2000) offer
a conceptual model of GSCM with ecological modernization (EM) as core to GSCM
research which considers eco-design, modernize machines, collaboration with vendors
and ISO14001 certification of vendors as latent variables. Gibbs (2000) offers green
procurement and green manufacturing as elements of eco- supply chain modernization by
firms in improving both environmental and economic performance.

EMT suggests that ecological regulations and policies can motivate GSCM practices
amongst manufacturers (Jänicke (2008). To promote GSCM related practices, proper
institutional arrangements and legal frameworks by governments are needed (Kassolis,
2007). Some researchers have argued that EMT is the basis of environmental policy
integration by manufacturing firms (Gibbs, 2000), and such environmental policy is
necessary for GSCM development (Berger et al., 2001).

The practice of GSCM is consistent with the concept of environmental innovation from
the EMT view, that is, manufacturers implement GSCM through hard (e.g., cleaner
production equipment) and soft (e.g., increased supplier collaboration in eco-design)
technological innovations (Zhu et al., 2010c). Industrial ecology, of which GSCM is an
important aspect, can help to achieve sustainable development as an important ecological
modernization concept (Huber, 2000).

Practical proof that GSCM is related to EMT has included a study of the Danish textile
industry with observations that environmental innovation among enterprises builds new
competencies with their enterprises as well as in their supply chains (Søndergård et al.,
2004). Using EMT as an explanatory theory, an empirical study among German
companies shows that technological environmental innovation most often occurs at the
upstream of a supply chain, but not the downstream side (Huber, 2008b). Thus, an
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 689
ISSN 2320-9186

enterprise should mainly work with suppliers rather than customers to improve its
performance.

EMT-based GSCM studies explain how environmental policy can promote the adoption
of GSCM and demonstrate that GSCM can bring both economic and environmental
performance (Hall, 2001). Revell (2007) uses EMT in explaining the association between
ecological improvement of manufacturing processes by firms and their performance. He
explains that through eco-modernization of machines and processes, firms are able to
reduce solid waste, lower hazardous material, conserve energy and increase customer
loyalty thus improving firm‘s performance. EMT stresses on eco-modernization of
machines and processes as a cornerstone for understanding and defining GSCM practices.

2.1.2 Resource Based View

The resource-based view of competitive advantage suggests that competitive advantage
may be sustained by harnessing unique resources that are rare, valuable, non-substitutable
and imperfectly imitable (Hart & Dowel, 2010). Helfat and Peteraf (2003) define a firm‘s
resources as ‗‗all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
information, and knowledge controlled by an enterprise that enable the firm to conceive
of and implement strategies with the goal to improve its efficiency and effectiveness
(competitiveness)‘‘.

Helfat and Peteraf (2003) and Hart and Dowel (2010) extended the resource based view
to include the integration of dynamic capabilities and natural resources. In contrast with
EMT, which explains and defines GSCM in terms of eco-modernization of machines and
processes, the RBV projects GSCM as a resource with the capability of offering
customers‘ quality, flexibility, and environmental performance (Vachon & Klassen
2006b). Creating these operational capabilities through greening of supply chains
supports the value, rarity, inimitability, and non-substitutability facets of the RBV (Helfat
& Peteraf, 2003).

Vachon & Klassen (2006b) avers that business management practices tagged with
ecological thinking is a potential source for unique resources with capability of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 690
ISSN 2320-9186

improving the overall performance with a positively significant effect on environment.

Vachon & Klassen (2006b) offers a model of GSCM with firm performance as the
dependent variable, with clearly defined explanatory variables relating to green practices.
Lai, Cheng & Tang (2010) list green procurement, green manufacturing and green
distribution as some of the key strategic resources that firms may use to gain competitive
advantage. Using RBV lens, Sarkis (2009) defines GSCM as a strategic resource capable
of improving reputation, image and economic performance of a firm.

Interestingly, when considering the values associated with greening the supply chain, the
competitive advantages are not necessarily in the upstream (vendor management) stages
of the supply chain (read EMT) as they could even be larger in the downstream
(customer) stages within green distribution, green marketing capabilities and resources
(Shang, Lu &Li, 2010; Lai et al., 2010). Hart and Dowel (2010); Lambert & Burduroglu
(2000); Stock et al. (2002); Cheng & Tang (2010) while using RBV, considered
environmentally-oriented reverse logistics practices as an important intangible asset of
the firm capable of improving firm performance through image enhancement, improved
efficiency and effectiveness in management of returned materials, reduction of regulatory
compliance costs and getting new profits from sale or recycling of recovered products.
According to them, eco labeling of products, reduction of packaging, recycling and reuse
of wastes and collaborating with suppliers for eco-design are used as indicators of green
practices within supply chain.

Lai et al. (2010); Gold et al. (2010); Sarkis et al. (2010) consider green procurement
practices such as preferences to recycled products, environmental audit of supply base,
consideration of ISO 14001 as criteria for selecting vendors, preferences to products
which consume fewer natural resources and collaboration with vendors in solving
environmental issues as unique firm resources with the ability to promote cost efficiency
and environmental differentiation of an enterprise.

Environmentally-leaning reverse logistics dimensions of greening supply chains have

also seen inquiry of how internal organizational resources mediate the relationship to
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 691
ISSN 2320-9186

external forces (Sarkis, Gonzalez & Adenso, 2010). For example, it is difficult to
substitute and imitate training which is an important investment in internal capabilities
that allow organizations to respond to various supply chain pressures (Lai et al., 2010).
On the other hand, a lack of capabilities and resources make the realization of
environmentally-oriented reverse logistics practices difficult (Sarkis et al., 2010;
González-Torre, Álvarez, Sarkis & Adenso-Díaz, 2009). According to González-Torre et
al. (2009) these resources are difficult to come by and thus may be strategically
advantageous to firms that have implemented these GSCM practices.

2.1.3 Stakeholder Theory

Freeman (2005) defines a stakeholder as ―any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the activities of an organization‘s objectives‖. Stakeholder theory suggests
that companies produce externalities that affect many parties (stakeholders) which are
both internal and external to the firm (Maignan & Mcalister, 2003). Externalities often
cause stakeholders to increase pressures on companies to reduce negative impacts and
increase positive ones (Björklund, 2010).

Gunther & Scheibe (2005) provided statutory requirement by governments and

stakeholder demands as a forms of pressure on firms to reduce negative impacts on
ecosystem. They noted that even though they are the common forms of pressure, they
have been less effective compared to internal directives such as motivation to increase
performance.

Björklund (2010) uses the following categorizations to group stakeholders: direct or

indirect, primary and secondary, or based on multiple dimensions of legitimacy, urgency,
and power. Thus, many developments and directions for stakeholder theory do exist, but
the basic premise is that internal and external groups will influence organizational
practices (Maignan & Mcalister, 2003). Environmental externalities may be internalized
through these stakeholder pressures within and between supply chain members (Gunther
& Scheibe, 2005). Thus Wuyts et al. (2004) look at GSCM as a strategy of managing
companies or firms externalities that may affect stakeholders. Zhu et al. (2008) suggest

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 692
ISSN 2320-9186

an association between GSCM practices and the performance of firms as a result of a fit
between stakeholders‘ and such firms. By managing externalities, these firms are able to
gain acceptability within the various stakeholders thereby gaining customer loyalty.

Stakeholder analysis for GSCM is especially pertinent as there are views that not all
GSCM practices are conducive for generating competitive advantages for enterprises and
are absolutely necessary due to pressures from stakeholders (Gunther & Scheibe, 2005).
Stakeholder theory is introduced as an explanatory theory related to an association
between GSCM practices and firm performance. Specific stakeholder influences green
purchasing (Björklund, 2010; Maignan & Mcalister, 2003); green manufacturing in the
supply chain (Sarkis et al., 2010); environmentally-oriented reverse logistics (Sarkis et
al., 2010); greening the distribution in supply chains (Zhu et al., 2008), and in general,
GSCM practices have received research attention under the stakeholders‘ theory lens
(Chien & Shih, 2007; González et al., 2008).

Maignan & Mcalister (2003) argue that firms that fail to gain acceptance from the
relevant stakeholders due to negative externalities are likely to perform poorly compared
to those that gain acceptance as a result of deliberate strategic implementation of GSCM
practices. Identifying and investigating the roles of various stakeholders within GSCM
practices has also been an application approach by researchers utilizing stakeholder
theory (Gunther & Scheibe, 2005). Sarkis et al. (2010); Tate, Ellram and Kirchoff
(2010) all use stakeholders theory to explain the adoption of GSCM practices by firms
as a result of pressure from various stakeholders as a way of managing the effects of their
externalities.

2.1.4 Corporate Environmental Responsibility Theory

Understanding the evolution of the relationship between the business environment and
the natural environment is important to better understand the nature of the research
questions and the proposed theoretical framework in this study. A review of the literature
in this section lays the foundation for the current scholarly thoughts on corporate
environmental responsibility.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 693
ISSN 2320-9186

The relationship between business and the natural environment has its origins in the
concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR is broadly defined as the
responsibility expected of businesses to maintain the social norms of the communities in
which they operate and behave at a level that is ―congruent with prevailing social values
and expectations of performance‖ (Rao & Holt, 2005). Thus according to Davis (2009)
and Lacroix & Stamatiou, (2007), the society concurrently expects businesses to work for
the betterment of society while remaining a profitable business entity.

Research suggests that a corporation‘s social responsibility, responsiveness to demands

from the communities in which they operate, and performance are all related (Rao &
Holt, 2005; Lacroix and Stamatiou, 2007). Rao & Holt (2005) identify environmental
management as a key indicator of CSR. Firms that take steps such as; collection of used
packages for proper disposal, eco labeling of products, accept recycling and re-use of
packages, use organic packages and educate customers on proper disposal of used
packages as a mechanism of reducing the impact of their operations on the natural
environment are generally viewed positively by the society (Lacroix & Stamatiou, 2007),
resulting in increase on market share and customer loyalty which in turn positively
contribute to firm performance (Rao & Holt, 2005).

In essence; firms can succeed financially when they focus on social responsibility
(Hoffman, 2000). This occurs because focusing on CSR not only lowers the potential for
costly litigation and helps firms‘ reputations, but also helps firms identify wasteful
activities that, if eliminated, would make the firm more efficient (Hoffman, 2000).

The social performance demands on businesses have expanded to include environmental

values and responsibilities, as concerns over the negative environmental impact of
commercial and manufacturing activities have grown (Preuss, 2005; Rugman & Verbeke,
1998). Thus Preuss (2005) offers a model of GSCM with corporate environmental
responsibility as central to the implementation of GSCM practices.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 694
ISSN 2320-9186

Harris (2007) defines GSCM practices as firm practices geared towards internalizing
firms‘ environmental responsibility to the society. He singled out green procurement,
green manufacturing and green distribution as some of the practices with the potential of
responding to the society environmental demands and at the same time improves the
performance of the firm. It is important to mention here that the intersection of social,
economic, and environmental responsibility in the firm is what Elkington (1997) as sited
in Harris (2007) calls the triple bottom line.

The concept of the triple bottom line, and sustainability, while no less important than
environmental and economic responsibility, is not included in the concepts under
investigation in this proposal. The scope of this study concentrated on environmental and
economic responsibility in the supply chain and in supply chain management, and their
potential impact on firm performance.

2.1.5 Social Network Theory

Social network theory (SNT) has been suggested by Connelly et al. (2010) as a suitable
theory to help understand general sustainability developments by firms. SNT considers
organizational outcomes as a function of the social relationships between firms or
individuals in a firm (Wuyts, Stremersch, Van Den Bulte & Franses, 2004). Firms make
decisions according to information and influence from their social networks (Wuyts et
al., 2004). According to Connelly et al. (2010), SNT examines the network structures and
its role in the diffusion of management practices. An organization can gain benefits by
bridging structural holes in a social network (Wuyts et al., 2004).

Wuyts et al., (2004) outlines density and centrality as two major elements in SNT.
Density measures the relative number of ties in the network that link players‘ together
(Wuyts et al., 2004). Network centrality refers to the position of an individual
organization in the social network and its ability to control the flow of information
(Wuyts et al., 2004). There are two issues related to managing external pressures that
arise from these characteristics. As density increases, the ability to resist external

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 695
ISSN 2320-9186

pressures from network members decreases. As network centrality increases, the ability
to resist external pressures increases.

Few studies within the GSCM research stream have explicitly utilized SNT (Connelly et
al., 2010). However, GSCM studies on buyer-supplier relationships for performance
improvement can be explained or constructed around using an SNT lens (Connelly et al.,
2010). For example, Green et al. (1996) as quoted in Connelly et al. (2010) establish that
at least three types of environmentally related dimensions between customer and supplier
relationships have been studied. One is the environmental requirements in industrial
buyer-supplier relationships such as purchasing requirements, employee training, and
certification under the ISO 14000 series requirements. Consumers‘ requirements are also
SNT-related such as requirements for organic foods which can green the whole supply
chain (Wuyts et al., 2004).

A second dimension is investigation concerning environmental information sharing for

organizational practices such as new product development (Zhu & Liu, 2010). A third
dimension is more cooperatively focused, such as environmental collaboration for co-
developing recyclable products and cleaner processes (Maignan & Mcalister, 2003).
Social networks are multidimensional since organizations that cooperate with customers
tend to cooperate with suppliers, showing greater potential for achieving environmental
success (Wuyts et al., 2004).

Using the notion of density from SNT, it is observed that firms with a greater number of
locations, customers, suppliers, and general awareness in the public are likely to be under
greater pressures to adopt GSCM practices and have less control on whether to adopt or
not to adopt (Maignan & Mcalister, 2003). Using the notion of centrality, it is observed
that firms can control pressures to adopt GSCM practices much more effectively, leaving
the choices of adoption more in the control of the firm. Thus, Wuyts et al. (2004) posit
that SNT explains the behavior of organizations in responding to social preferences for
organic food, clean air, water and clean environment through green supplier
development, eco-design. Zhu and Liu (2010) use SNT in understanding the diffusion of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 696
ISSN 2320-9186

GSCM from proactive firms to lagging firms. For example, the diffusion of eco-design
from the experienced parent firm in a developed country to a subsidiary firm in a
developing country. Table 2.1 summarises the theories related to the study.

Table 2. 1 Summary of Theories Related to the Study

Theory General Theory application

conceptualization
Ecological EMT is concerned with  EMT is applied in this study to explain
Modernization jointly achieving restructuring of production in a way that
(EMT) industrial lessens environmental impact by
development and manufacturers through GSCM related
environmental protection practices (Kassolis, 2007).
through innovation or  The practice of GSCM is consistent with
‗modernity‘ (Jänicke, the concept of environmental innovation
2008) from the EMT view (Zhu, Sarkis et al.,
2010).

Resource The resource-based  Extension of RBV to the competitive

Based View model suggests that advantages across the supply chain can
(RBV) competitive advantage also be applied to greening of supply
may be chains (Gold et al., 2010).
sustained by harnessing  Internal organizational resources
resources that are mediate the relationship to external
valuable, rare, forces (institutional forces) and GSCM
imperfectly imitable, and practices adoption (Sarkis et al., 2010).
non-substitutable
(Barney, 1991).
Stakeholder Stakeholder theory  Specific stakeholder influences green-
Theory suggests that companies purchasing (Maignan & Mcalister,

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 697
ISSN 2320-9186

produce externalities that 2003); green-distribution (Matos & Hall,

affect many parties 2007); environmentally oriented reverse
(stakeholders) which are logistics (Sarkis et al., 2010); ‗green-
both internal and manufacturing (Zhu, Sarkis, & Lai,
external to the firm 2008) and general GSCM practices
(Matos & Hall, 2007). (Chien & Shih, 2007).
Externalities often cause  Identifying and investigating roles of
stakeholders to increase various stakeholders within GSCM
pressures on companies practices has also been studied (Gunther
to reduce negative & Scheibe, 2005).
impacts and increase
positive ones (Chien &
Shih, 2007)
Corporate The social performance  Society concerns over the negative
Environmental demands by society on environmental impact of commercial and
Responsibility businesses have manufacturing activities have grown
Theory expanded to include (Preuss, 2005). As such, firms are
environmental values increasingly embracing GSCM practices
and responsibilities as a way of addressing the
(Preuss, 2005; Rugman environmental concerns of the society
& Verbeke 1998). (Rugman &Verbeke 1998).
 Firms have made it their responsibility
of ensuring their activities do not
negatively impact on the environment
(Preuss, 2005).
Social SNT considers  GSCM studies on buyer-supplier
Network organizational outcomes relationships for performance
Theory (SNT as a function of the improvement can be explained or
social relationships constructed around using a SNT lens

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 698
ISSN 2320-9186

between organizations or (Maignan & Mcalister, 2003).

individuals in an  Using the notion of density from SNT, it
organization (Jones et is observed that organizations with a
al., 1997). SNT has been greater number of locations, customers,
described as having two suppliers, and general awareness in the
major elements, namely public are likely to be under greater
density and centrality pressures to adopt GSCM practices and
(Rowley, 1997). have less control on whether to adopt or
not to adopt (Maignan & Mcalister,
2003).
2.2.1 Green Procurement and Firms’ Performance
Many organizations worldwide are making an effort to purchase products and services
that are less harmful to local and global environments (Lacroix & Stamatiou, 2007). Both
public and private sector organizations are implementing purchasing practices that
include environmental and social considerations—green procurement (Taylor, David &
Walley, 2003). ―Green Procurement‖ (formerly known as Affirmative Procurement) is
the purchase of environmentally preferable products and services in accordance with one
or more of the established ―green‖ procurement preference programs (Vershuren, 2002).
Green procurement is the purchasing of products or services which have a lower impact
on the environment over their whole life cycle than the standard equivalent. It involves
the integration of environmental issues into purchasing decisions based on price,
performance and quality (Zisis, 2003).

This means that products or services that consume fewer natural resources should be
given preference over competing products or services exerting a greater environmental
impact. To prevent waste and pollution, these programs require considering
environmental impacts, along with price, performance, and other traditional factors, when
making purchasing decisions (Lacroix, 2008). For this study, the typical green
procurement programs are: using machines or tools which consume less energy, water,
and fuel, impact and life cycle assessment tools for manufacturing, risk assessment for
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 699
ISSN 2320-9186

energy and resource use, environmental friendly raw material, efficient processes to
reduce solid waste, air emissions and conserve energy and environmental management
system (ems) (Lacroix 2008; Zhu et al. 2008; Melnyk et al. 2003; Newbold, 2006)

According to Lacroix and Stamatiou (2007), Japanese and European leading companies
that decided to go along with green procurement activities are experiencing tangible
benefits. Strategic sourcing can create value through increased overall cost efficiency,
enhanced reputation through product differentiation, market share, and reduced
environmental risks and liabilities (Lacroix & Stamatiou, 2007). Lacroix (2008)
established that by reducing supplier-generated wastes and surpluses, firms decrease
handling expenses and risks associated with waste disposal. In addition, a supplier's
savings from improved efficiencies may be passed along to buyers in the form of reduced
prices.

Lacroix and Stamatiou ( 2007) and Lacroix ( 2008) all agree that green procurement
practices help firms to be cost efficient through lowering waste management fees,
lowering hazardous material management fees, less time and costs for reporting; savings
from conserving energy, water, fuel and other resources. Environmental considerations in
procurement decisions enable firms to produce products with minimal impact to the
natural environment thus differentiating the products from the rest (Lacroix, 2008). Cost
efficiency is the extent to which a firm is able to convert or transform resources / inputs
(such as raw material, funds, expertise, time, etc.) economically into results in order to
achieve the maximum possible outputs, outcomes, and impacts with the minimum
possible inputs (Lacroix, 2008). Handfield et al. (2005) also find firms that implement
green procurement practices are able to improve efficiency by reducing landed costs of
products, reducing disposal costs, reducing costs of complying with hazardous materials
regulation and producing products which are unique.

Green procurement has also been linked to cost, a measure of efficiency in performance.
Support for green practices from top management and employee commitment to green
operations conveys a sense of importance to meeting customer expectations thereby
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 700
ISSN 2320-9186

improving the public image, brand and goodwill of the firm (Zhu et al. 2008).
Management and employee commitment to green procurement practices encourages
innovation and technological advancement in processes and practices in the supply chain
that ultimately help reduce the cost of operations due reduced cycle times, product
development, and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics programs (Krikke, Blanc &
Van de Velde, 2003). Moreover, empirical research has found evidence that speed and
delivery, which are traits of efficiency, positively impact on the cost of production of
firms that prioritize green procurement practices (Vachon & Klassen 2006a; Zhu et al.
2008). Using RBV, Hart and Dowel, (2010) suggest firms that move to practice green
procurement as a strategic resource will have higher chances of minimizing the cost of
production through lowering waste management fees, lowering hazardous material
management fees, less time and costs for reporting; savings from conserving energy,
water, fuel and other resources which will positively impact on performance. Therefore,
the following hypothesis was tested:

H0: Green procurement does not significantly influence performance of

manufacturing firms………………………………………… Hypothesis 1

2.2.2 Green Manufacturing and Firms’ Performance

―Sustainable manufacturing (Green Manufacturing) or Green Production is defined as the
creation of manufactured products that use materials and processes that minimize
negative environmental impacts, conserve energy and natural resources, are safe for
employees, communities, and consumers and are economically sound ‖ (Phungrassami,
2008). Green Manufacturing is part of a continuous improvement strategy helping
manufacturers improve their productivity, profitability and competitiveness (Lacroix,
2008). Green seamlessly integrates with Lean Manufacturing practices to optimize
processes resulting in improved environment, worker health, waste reduction and
reduction of disposal costs, optimization of the use of raw material and maximization of
safety, water and energy performance, and the reduction of the costs of complying with
hazardous materials regulation (Lacroix & Stamatiou, 2007).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 701
ISSN 2320-9186

In the words of Phungrassami (2008), green manufacturing practices include: material

and resources selection, optimization of resources, process improvements, energy
conservation, water conservation, assessments and audits, regulatory compliance, ISO
14001, environmental management system (EMS), and OHSAS 18001 (Occupational
Health And Safety Management System). However, Newbold (2006) mentions design for
sustainability, green machine tools, sustainable packaging, impact and life cycle
assessment tools for manufacturing (including embedded energy, materials, water,
consumables), risk assessment for energy and resource use and enterprise carbon
accounting as practices for green manufacturing. Nevertheless, this study will follow
Newbolt‘s (2006) view on green manufacturing indicators.

Generating waste costs money through payment for it three times over - when buying it,
when processing it and when disposing it (Christmann, 2000). Green Manufacturing
program improves environmental performance and increases profitability of a firm by
minimizing waste throughout transformation processes (Banerjee, 2003). Using
environmental best practices to eliminate the "other wastes" is the next logical step in
improving firms‘ performance (Banerjee, 2003). Lacroix and Stamatiou, (2007) outline
the benefits of green manufacturing to include: reduction of scrap and rework, reduction
of hazardous wastes, improvement of environmental performance, prevention of
compliance and liability costs, reduction of quantity of raw materials, resource and
energy required to realize cost effective products. According to Lacroix and Stamatiou
(2007), firms in both sectors are realizing the benefits of green manufacturing practices
such as customer loyalty due to health consideration, competitive price as a result of cost
savings from reduced energy consumption, resource use, and material management. They
also reap more qualitative benefits such as improved image and achieve general
acceptability due to response to society concerns.

Leading private sector organizations have demonstrated significant movement towards

greening manufacturing practices. Many private firms are working to improve the
environmental performance of their operations and products and green manufacturing has

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 702
ISSN 2320-9186

been a logical extension of this work (Banerjee, 2003). Both public and private sector
organizations have in the last two decades adopted green manufacturing practices such as
environmentally-friendly raw materials; substitution of environmentally questionable
materials; taking environmental criteria into consideration; environmental design
considerations; optimization of process to reduce solid waste and emissions; use of
cleaner technology processes to make savings in energy, water, and waste; internal
recycling of materials within the production phase; and incorporating environmental
total quality management principles such as worker empowerment (Banerjee, 2003).

Mentzer et al. (2001), Min and Mentzer (2004), and Min et al. (2007) establish a critical
relationship between GM and environmental differentiation. They explain that the
process of managing strategic resources can be a key factor of differentiation. As
competitors may hold similar types of resources, the management and use of the
resources can ultimately create a competitive difference among organizations. Firms that
most effectively manage their resources to differentiate themselves can gain a
competitive advantage and potentially improve the financial performance of the firm
(Zott, 2003). According to Mentzer et al. (2001), Min and Mentzer (2004), and Min et al.
(2007), firms which have embraced GM practices have higher potential to improve their
performance through provision of the overall value to the end customer that differentiates
them from the competition. Thus the study tested the following hypothesis:

H0: Green manufacturing does not significantly influence performance of

manufacturing firms…………………………… Hypothesis 2

2.2.3 Green Distribution and Firms’ Performance

On the outbound side of the green supply chain (green distribution), green marketing,
environment-friendly packaging, and environment-friendly transportation, are all
initiatives that might improve the environmental performance of an organization and its
supply chain. Management of wastes in the distribution processes such as re-usable
packaging can lead to cost savings and enhanced competitiveness (Rao & Holt, 2005).
Many of these initiatives involve compromises between various logistics functions and
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 703
ISSN 2320-9186

environmental consideration in order to improve the environmental performance of an

organization (Wu and Dunn, 2008).

The RBV paradigm explains that firms create strategies through bundling strategic
resources that are based on efficiency-advantages in the firm that can be used to improve
a firm‘s supply chain processes (Sirmon et al., 2007). To be successful, these bundled
resources need to have dynamic qualities and to be adaptable to the ever-changing
business environment (Sirmon et al., 2007). Strategic resources that are identified and
used to create environmental strategies are the product of a firm‘s culture of
environmental responsibility and the recognition that combining environmental and
economic concerns can create value for the firm (Rao & Holt, 2005). Wu and Dunn
(2008) identify warehousing and packaging design as the two most important issues in
distribution. They argue that strategic green distribution practices such as standardized
reusable containers, minimize use of packages, good warehousing layouts, and easy eco-
information access reduce storage and retrieval delay which leads to savings in operating
costs with an ultimate effect of improved firms‘ performance whilst being
environmentally sound.

As part of outbound logistics, green distribution has an important part to play in the link
between environmental innovation and competitive advantage (Preuss, 2005). The impact
of green distribution on customer relationships has been narrowly investigated (Zhu and
Sarkis, 2006). Encouraging suppliers to use re-usable packages is a form of green
initiative that can be an important consideration in greening the distribution function,
with a study by Rao and Holt, (2005) identifying an increase in market share amongst
companies that implemented an environmentally-friendly packaging scheme. Wu and
Dunn (2008) establish an increase in customer loyalty amongst companies that eco-
labeled products. According to Ninlawan et al. (2011), firms which packaged their
products with re-usable packages in Thailand registered high degree of customer
satisfaction in terms of customer service and loyalty in terms of the brand.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 704
ISSN 2320-9186

Currently, most products in the market come in a form of packaging that prevents the
product from damage and makes the product easy to handle (Ninlawan et al., 2011). The
use of packaging, whether it is made of glass, metal, paper or plastic, contributes heavily
to the solid waste stream to the environment (Rao & Holt, 2005). In order to address
these environmental impacts from packaging, many countries now have programs and
legislation with heavy penalties that aim to minimize the amount of packaging that enters
the waste stream, such as the Packaging Directive in the EU (Christmann, 2000).
Recycling and re-use are key strategies that are adopted and several organizations in
South East Asia actively participate in packaging reduction programs (Rao & Holt,
2005). For instance, Amway (Thailand) delivers its detergent and other house cleaning
products to customers in plastic containers. After their use, these plastic containers are
collected by the Amway sales force, brought back to the company and recycled. The
empty paper cartons in which the suppliers deliver the raw materials to the company are
given back to the suppliers for re-use (Rao & Holt, 2005). Ninlawan et al. (2011)
establish that firms that have recycled packages accrue benefits such as minimized waste
disposal cost, save money by not buying new packages and eliminate incidental costs
associated with new packages (branding ,storage). These have a quantum effect of
reducing operating cost, increasing the brand loyalty, hence improving firms‘
performance. Thus, the following hypothesis was tested:

H0: Green distribution does not significantly influence the performance of

manufacturing firms…………………………………… Hypothesis 3

2.2.4 Environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics and Firms’ Performance

In recent years, environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics has become a major issue for
scholars and companies (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2006).
Environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics or Green Reverse Logistics refers to the
process of planning, implementation and efficiently controlling the flow of raw materials,
in-process inventory, finished goods, wastes and related information from the point of
consumption to the point of origin with the purpose of recovering the primary value or

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 705
ISSN 2320-9186

dispose of them properly to minimize environmental impact (Umeda et al, 2003). It

involves such indicators as waste collection for proper disposal and recycling of used
products (re-processing or re-use), recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal,
returning of faulty products for replacement or correction, collection of expired products
for proper disposal, accepting exchange of expired products (Umeda et al, 2003).

Indeed, several scholars have considered environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics to

be a practice within green supply chain management (Rao & Holt, 2005; Hines and
Johns; 2001; Zhu & Sarkis 2004). Gradually, firms give more importance to this aspect,
mainly due to three reasons (Srivastava & Srivastava, 2006): the first one is the growing
importance of environmental issues and their impact on public opinion (Rao & Holt,
2005), the second reason is benefits that the company gains by improving their return
processes such as image enhancement, improved efficiency and effectiveness in
management of returned materials, it allows getting new profits (Lambert & Burduroglu,
2000; Stock et al., 2002) the third one is new and growing environmental regulations
(Stock et al., 2002). Thus, environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics is termed as Green
Reverse Logistics (Guth & Ginsberg, 2001). GRL is essential because of its potential in
improving the organization‘s overall performance (Guth & Ginsberg, 2001)

Many research works have demonstrated that environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics

is important to enhance organizational performance (Umeda et al, 2003; Lambert &
Burduroglu, 2000; Stock et al., 2002). Environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics could
be considered as an important intangible asset of the firm (Hart and Dowel, 2010). Thus
organizations that have been taking account of these assets have obtained benefits that
could support competitive advantage (Stock et al., 2002). Through this intangible, the
firm is able to increase value of its products and service, a much more meaningful
interaction with customers, develop new skills in workers to recover the economic value
of life products and all of this is reflected on performance (Umeda et al, 2003).
Developing an environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics programme is also extremely
important for increasing organizational performance (Umeda et al, 2003).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 706
ISSN 2320-9186

Furthermore, the growing importance of environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics

programs is related to the supposed advantages or benefits for the organization, for
example, it develops and maintains a beneficial customer service policy and reduces
costs, it improves the return processes, it improves the image of the firm, it improves the
efficiency and effectiveness in the management of returned materials (Krikke et al.,
2003), it provides direct and indirect economic benefits such as decreasing costs, reduced
use of materials, or obtaining valuable from spare parts (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000).
Consequently, environmentally-oriented Reverse Logistics improves organizational
performance (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Krikke et al. 2003). Thus the following
hypothesis was tested;

H0: Environmentally–oriented reverse Logistics does not significantly affect

performance of manufacturing firms………………………….. Hypothesis 4

2.2.5 Supply Chain Ecocentricity, Green SCM Practices and Firms’ Performance
Pagell and Wu‘s (2009) case studies‘ findings suggest that firms which have a proclivity
toward environmental sustainability will ―reconceptualize who is in the supply chain‖
such that they will leverage the expertise and skills of environmental external
stakeholders. This notion of reconceptualizing the supply chain stems from literature on
ecocentricity (Seuring, 2004; Tate et al., 2011), which suggests that firms should consider
the well-being and potential benefits gained from learning from their broader constituents
in the environment (social, ecological, and industrial). As noted by Pagell and Wu
(2009), ecocentricity has been discussed in the literature from a theoretical or conceptual
perspective, but has not been the subject of empirical research. Accordingly, this study
examines the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the performance impacts
of cumulative practices of green supply chain management. For this study, supply chain
ecocentricity is defined as a firm‘s tendency to engage and learn from environmental
external stakeholders (Tate et al., 2011)

The importance of supply chain ecocentricity is evident since treating environmental

stakeholders as adversaries and responding to their pressures reactively may result in
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 707
ISSN 2320-9186

negative long-term consequences (Pagell & Wu 2009). Firms are pressured by a number
of environmentally focused external stakeholders, such as regulatory bodies, government,
nongovernmental organizations, and trade associations. Firms that lack supply chain
ecocentricity will view these environmental external stakeholders as adversaries (Pagell
& Wu 2009). They may regard regulatory bodies and government as coercive pressures
(Zhu & Sarkis, 2006) and feel threatened by regulators levying legal penalties and fines if
they do not comply with environmental regulation (Sarkis , Gonzalez-Torre & Adenso-
Diaz, 2010). They may attempt to satisfy the institutional forces in their social context
(Tate et al., 2011) to gain legitimacy with environmental external stakeholders (Bansal &
Clelland, 2004) instead of engaging and learning from their latest research.

Thus, their practices to improve environmental performance may be out-of-date with the
most current, innovative green supply chain management concepts. If ineffective, such
green practices may even be viewed as superficial, ―Green Washing‖ approaches (Bansal
& Clelland, 2004). Ignoring the expertise, such as recently revised standards of
environmental conduct and compliance (Tate et al., 2011), from environmental external
stakeholders may even result in conducting GSCM practices that damage rather than
improves the environment. According to Tate et al., (2011), supply chain ecocentricity
includes measures such as partnering with external stakeholders for environmental
research, getting sponsorship for implementation of environmental management practices
from the external stakeholders, participation in external stakeholders‘ eco-oriented
workshops, environment fit through engagement with external stakeholders,
environmental benchmarking with external stake holders and advance knowledge for
environmental management practices.

Other business organizations, however, actively seek those capabilities embedded in

external stakeholders that can enable substantive environmental improvements (Tate et
al., 2011). These partnerships reflect an integrative arrangement in which actors across
sectors engage in nonhierarchical processes to achieve mutual goals (Visseren-Hamakers,
Arts & Glasbergen, 2011). Engaging environmental stakeholders may result in obtaining

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 708
ISSN 2320-9186

insights about cleaner transportation methods or ecological packaging materials of which

the firm was previously unaware. Learning from environmental external stakeholders
may facilitate more accurate definitions and measurement of standards for green product
purchasing and environmental criteria for supplier selection (Tate et al., 2011). Thus,
firms with a high level of supply chain ecocentricity will proactively engage
environmental stakeholders in these efforts to implement practices that are real,
measureable environmental performance improvements, which collectively enhance
GSCM practices and impact on the firm performance (Banerjee, 2003).

Similarly, engaging and learning from environmental stakeholders should enhance the
cost improvements resulting from GSCM efforts. Firms with higher levels of supply
chain ecocentricity will be more prone to pay attention to and engage with a broader set
of environmental stakeholders. Nontraditional supply chain members such as NGOs,
nonprofits, and local governments can offer the newest and most trustworthy expertise in
environmental technologies and processes that are most economical (Tate et al., 2011).
Such expertise should facilitate planning and operational practices that become embedded
in organizational routines, improving efficiencies, whereas in less proactive firms they
might be nonexistent (Sarkis et al., 2010). Additionally, gaining access to recent
environmental technologies and processes will enable reduced conflicts and confusion
among managers implementing GSCM, which in turn, decrease costs because those
environmental supply chain practices that are selected and implemented should be better
aligned with more relevant environmental issues (Sarkis et al., 2011). Approaches that
foster cooperation and environmental learning from environmental stakeholders should
also result in helpful knowledge that mitigates risks in potential legal costs, penalties, and
fines associated with GSCM implementation (Banerjee, 2003). Supply chain
ecocentricity may even facilitate partnerships with nontraditional environmental supply
chain, members who assist in off-setting costs of GSCM investments (Pagell & Wu
2009). Thus, the following hypothesis was tested:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 709
ISSN 2320-9186

H0: Supply chain ecocentricity does not significantly moderate the relationship
between GSCM practices and firm performance ………………. Hypothesis 5

2.2.6 Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Firms’ Performance

The resource based view (RBV) explains that identification and employment of strategic
resources can improve firm performance. The impact of green SCM on firm performance
is measured through cost efficiency and environmental differentiation in this study
(Fugate et al., 2010; Phungrassami, 2008). GSCM practices include assessing suppliers‘
environmental performance, requiring suppliers to undertake environmental measures,
tracking the cost of waste, informing buyers of ways to reduce environmental impact,
designing for environment, using green energy, using energy efficient machines,
recycling packaging, reducing quantity of packaging, bio-degradable material for
packaging, packaging returns, collecting used items for proper disposal, recycling raw
material and environmental consideration on buying (Phungrassami, 2008).

Hines and Johns (2001) identify the mentoring role within green supply chain
management as an emerging concept that promotes a more significant relationship
between the customer and the supplier. According to them, this mentoring culture goes
beyond mere product promotion and after sales services but extends towards guiding and
supporting customers and requires a substantial change in the attitude of the lead
corporations in a supply chain. Indeed they outline specific operational initiatives
involved in the mentoring process to be; environment-friendly waste management;
environmental improvement of packaging; taking back packaging; eco-labeling; recovery
of company‘s end-of-life products; providing consumers with information on
environmental friendly products and/or production methods; and use of environmentally-
friendly transportation.

Researchers have identified green strategies and practices that are theorized to create
value, are a source of competitive advantage, and improve the bottom line of the firm
(Porter & van der Linde 1995; Banerjee, 2003). In addition, research has found that poor
environmental performance can actually impair firm performance (Corbett & Klassen,
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 710
ISSN 2320-9186

2006). Improving performance may therefore be one of the important motivators for
firms that seek to implement green supply chain management practices and processes
(Zhu & Sarkis 2006). Fugate et al. (2010) establish a relationship between the four green
supply chain management practices (GP, GM, GD and EORL) and firm performance.
The cost saving nature of greening initiatives and improved ability to satisfy customer
demand for environmentally sustainable products implicit in green supply chain practices
should lead to improvement in the overall financial and environmental performance of
the organization (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006). Rao and Holt, (2005) demonstrate a significant
link between green practices and firm performance. They find that green practices lead to
competitiveness and better economic performance. Corbett and Klassen, (2006) were of
the view that GSCM dimensions have significant contribution to firm performance.
Banerjee, (2003) supported their findings but doubted whether implementation of green
distribution practices by firms might provide any significant change on performance.
However, Corbett and Klassen, (2006) study the effect of announcements of winning
environmental awards by the organizations on stock prices and establish an increase in
stock prices of the firms which won the environmental awards. Thus the following
hypothesis was tested:

H0: Green Supply Chain Management practices do not significantly influence the
performance of manufacturing firms.

2.2.7 Firm Performance

Stephens (2000) states that ―If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it. If you cannot
control it, you cannot manage it. If you cannot manage it, you cannot improve it‖. In fact,
the lack of relevant performance measures has been recognized as one of the major
problems in process management and the management of supply chain strategies (Lai,
Ngai, & Cheng, 2002). Performance measurement is the process of quantifying the value
of differentiation and efficiency of various actions of a firm (Williamson, Spitzer and
Bloomberg, 2000). Differentiation is when a firm does something unique from
competitors in ways that are discernible to the customer (Williamson et al., 2000) and

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 711
ISSN 2320-9186

efficiency measures how economically a firm‘s resources are utilized when providing a
pre-specified level of customer satisfaction (Shepherd & Gunte, 2006). Shepherd and
Gunter (2006) describe performance measurement of a firm as the overall set of metrics
used to quantify both the efficiency and differentiated action. The overall firm
performance (P) will be the weighted mean of cost efficiency and environmental
differentiation (Frederick, 2006). Indeed the resource based view (RBV) theory explains
why some firms are able to create a competitive advantage and superior performance
(Ketchen & Hult, 2007). The RBV has also been leveraged to explain the impact of SCM
practices on firm performance outcomes. In fact, the motive behind SCM is to improve
supply chain competitiveness in order to create value for firms (Ketchen & Hult, 2007)
through enhanced efficiency and differentiation (Fugate et al., 2010).

Efficiency focuses on reductions to the total cost of supply chain operations, necessary to
provide a target level of customer value (Christopher and Peck, 2004) that enhance
customer service and customer satisfaction (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In addition, firm
managers are finding that they must work to create value beyond the performance of
efficiency in the highly competitive global business environment (Fugate et al.,
2010).Value can be found through differentiating functions to perform better than the
competition (Christopher & Peck 2004). Differentiation, therefore, focuses on creating
value for the firm through benchmarking and adherence to best practices to differentiate
their supply chains from the competition (Fugate et al., 2010). Thus for this study, firm
performance will be viewed in two dimensions; cost efficiency and environmental
differentiation (Christopher & Peck 2004; Fugate et al. 2010). Shepherd and Gunter,
(2006) singled out the two as some of the reliable dimensions of looking at firm
performance. The two firm performance dimensions of efficiency and differentiation are
discussed in more detail in the next sections.

2.2.8.1 Cost Efficiency

Efficiency is defined as a measure of how well resources are employed (Mentzer et al.,
2001). A key step in value generation for the firm is based on cost reductions and

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 712
ISSN 2320-9186

efficiency improvements (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000). Measuring firms‘ efficiency is

the comparison of the resources that are used for operations, against the outcomes that are
derived and expected from the resource usage (Mentzer et al., 2001). Improving
efficiency is a primary performance objective of firms (Mentzer et al. 2001; Lee, 2002).
This is accomplished through the reduction of operating expenses, the efficient use of
fixed capital, and the efficient use of working capital, while meeting or exceeding a
necessary level of customer service (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000). These are achieved
to a large extent through reduction of cost of inputs, lowering of cost of energy and water,
reduction of waste management cost and reduction of hazardous material management
cost reduction of environmental related liability cost, reduction of cost of storage,
improvement of delivery time, reduction of cost of transportation and reduction product
cycle time in the manufacturing firms (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000).

In essence, efficiency may result when wastes are reduced or eliminated; ideally resulting
in reduced costs (Lee, 2002). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the dimension of
efficiency as an indicator of firm performance and a consequence of green SCM practices
is defined as cost efficiency in this study.

2.2.8.2 Environmental Differentiation

Supply chain management activities improve performance beyond that of efficiency to be

competitive (Fugate et al., 2010). Another way that value can be created is through
differentiation, or when a firm does something unique from competitors in ways that are
discernible to the customer (Williamson et al., 2000).

Differentiation can be applied to green aspects of performance (Christmann, 2000). Firms

which are able to provide products that are designed, manufactured and supplied to the
end customer through processes that are less impactful on the environment can
differentiate themselves from the competition (Reinhardt, 2003). Environmental
differentiation is defined as environmental management that focuses on environmental
product characteristics and environmental product markets (Christmann, 2000).
Ultimately, environmental differentiation equates to the ability of managers to create a
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 713
ISSN 2320-9186

unique image of environmentally friendly products and processes that translate to higher
demand (Banerjee, 2003).

According to Reinhardt, (1998), environmental differentiation is the degree to which

managers find or create a demand for environmental quality in products, establish
credible information about environmental claims, and create inimitability of
environmental products and supply chain operations. Environmental differentiation can
be created via take-back services, recycled materials in products and packaging, the use
of non-hazardous materials in manufacturing and packaging, and durable, high quality
products (Handfield et al. 2005; Preuss 2005). Reinhardt, (2003) added increase of eco-
friendly reputation, higher price (premium) compared to competitors, increment in sales
from eco-products, expansion of eco- market share, improvement of conservation of
energy and water , increment in production of echo-unique products, improvement of
echo-management of hazardous material and increment of brand loyalty from eco-
branding as critical features of environmental differentiation by firms. Therefore,
differentiation, as an indicator of firm performance and as an outcome of green supply
chain management practices, is defined as environmental differentiation in this study.

2.3 Conceptual Framework

The objective of this study was to test the hypotheses that relates to GSCM practices,
supply chain ecocentricity and relate them to firm performance. The framework of the
associations tested is presented in Figure 2.1. According to this model, the association of
individual GSCM practices with firm performance was tested. The association of GSCM
practices cumulatively with firm performance was tested. Lastly, a test was done to
determine the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the association of
GSCM practices cumulatively with firm performance.

Firm performance in this study was taken from Williamson, Spitzer and Bloomberg
(1990) view of performance measure. They view performance as a combination of cost
efficiency and environmental differentiation. Cost efficiency represents reduction of
operation costs and environmental differentiation represents improved reputation and
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 714
ISSN 2320-9186

tagging eco-premium on products. Connelly et al (2010) suggest that GSCM theories

should be tested in terms of their association with performance. Theories relating to
GSCM practices were extended into and tested in the context of Kenya.

Independent Variables Moderating Variable

Green Supply chain

Procurement H0: 1 ecocentricity

Green H0: 5
H0: 2
Manufacturing
Firm Performance:
 Cost efficiency
 Environmental
differentiation
Green
H0: 3
Distribution

Environmentall Dependent Variable

y-oriented H0: 4
reverse
Logistics

Figure 2. 1 Model of Hypothesized Relationships

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 715
ISSN 2320-9186

2.3.1 Operationalization of the Constructs

In order to test the relationships among the constructs in a theoretical model, the
constructs must be operationalized (Dillman, 2000). The theoretical and operational
definitions of the main constructs in the model of this study are shown in Table 2.2.These
definitions enabled the quantitative measurement of the variables for testing of the
formulated hypotheses. Brief explanations of the measurements of these variables are as
follows:

2.3.1.1 Firm’s Performance

In this study, firm‘s performance was measured in terms of efficiency and differentiation.
For this study, performance measurement is the process of quantifying the weighted
mean value of differentiation and cost efficiency of various actions of a firm (Frederick
2006; Shepherd & Gunter 2006). The extent to which each of the measures of efficiency/
differentiation was fulfilled was captured using a 5-point likert type scale.

a. Environmental Differentiation

The degree to which managers find or create a demand for environmental quality in
products, establish credible information about environmental claims, and create
inimitability of environmental products and supply chain operations. Environmental
differentiation is characterized by increase in eco-friendly reputation, higher prices
(premium) compared to competitors, increase in sales from eco-products, expansion of
eco- market share and increment of brand loyalty from eco-branding (Reinhardt, 2003).
The fulfillment of these indicators was captured using an interval scale (Malhotra, 2004)

b. Cost Efficiency

The extent to which a firm achieves reduction of waste management fees, lowering of
hazardous material management fees , lowering of energy and water costs, elimination of
statutory fines for non-environmental compliant and reduced input costs due to
recycle/re-use of material Shepherd & Gunter, 2006). The fulfillment of these indicators
was captured using an interval scale (Malhotra, 2004)

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 716
ISSN 2320-9186

2.3.1.2 Green Procurement

Lacroix, (2008) outline specific programs that support the green procurement practices
as; providing specification to suppliers that includes environmental requirements,
environmental audits of supply base, cooperation with suppliers for environmental
objectives, ISO14001 certification of supply base, Second-tier supplier‘s environmentally
friendly practices evaluations. These programs, according to Zhu et al., (2008); Melnyk
et al., (2003) measure the extent to which a firm practices green procurement. The
fulfillment of these indicators was captured using multiple choices questions and a 5-
point likert type scale (Norman, 2010).

2.3.1.3 Supply Chain Eco-centricity

Supply chain ecocentricity will be measured in terms of partnering with external

stakeholders for environmental research, getting sponsorship for implementation of
environmental management practices from the external stakeholders, participation in
external stakeholders‘ eco-oriented workshops, environment fit through engagement with
external stakeholders, environmental benchmarking with external stake holders and
advance knowledge for environmental management practices (Tate et al., 2011). The
fulfillment of these indicators was captured using multiple choices questions and a 5-
point likert type scale (Norman, 2010).

2.3.1.4 Green Manufacturing

Newbold (2006); Lacroix (2008); Zhu et al. (2008); Melnyk et al. (2003) provide the
following as the indicators for green manufacturing: design for sustainability, green
machine tools, sustainable packaging, impact and life cycle assessment tools for
manufacturing (including embedded energy, materials, water, and consumables), and risk
assessment for energy and resource use is used as green manufacturing indicators. The
extent to which each of these programs was fulfilled was captured using multiple choices
questions and a 5-point likert type scale (Norman, 2010).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 717
ISSN 2320-9186

2.3.1.5 Green Distribution

Rao & Holt, (2005) and Sarkis, (2009) define green distribution as the distribution
activities and processes which minimize negative impact on the natural environment. The
activities are presumed to be environmentally safe. According to Rao & Holt, (2005) and
Sarkis, (2009), it incorporates several indicators: eco labeling of products, environment-
friendly packaging, environment-friendly transportation, providing information to
customers on environment friendly products, re-using packages. The fulfillment of these
indicators was captured using multiple choices questions and a 5-point likert type scale
(Norman, 2010).

2.3.1.6 Environmentally Oriented Reverse logistics

Umeda et al., (2003) outline the following as the indicators of environmentally-oriented

reverse logistics; waste collection for proper disposal, recycling of used products (re-
processing), re- use of the products, recovery of useful parts and proper disposal of
useless parts and recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal. The extent to which
each of these indicators was fulfilled was captured through multiple choices questions
and a 5-point likert type scales (Norman, 2010). Table 2.2 summarizes the
operationalization of the constructs.

Table 2. 2 Operationalization of Constructs

Construct Theoretical Operational Definition Data

Definition Capturing
Firm An assessment of how The extent to which the firm Interval
Performance economically a firm‘s achieves: scale
–Cost Efficiency resources are utilized  reduction of waste (Malhotra,
when providing a pre- management fees 2004).
specified level of  lowering of hazardous
customer satisfaction material management
(Shepherd & Gunter fees

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 718
ISSN 2320-9186

2006)  Lowering of energy

and water costs
 elimination of
statutory fines for non-
environmental
compliant and
 reduction of input
costs due to recycle/re-
use of material
(Shepherd & Gunter
2006)
-Environmental
differentiation An environmental The extent to which the firm Interval
management that achieves: scale
focuses on  Increment of eco- (Malhotra,
environmental friendly reputation of 2004).
product the firm
characteristics and  Higher price
environmental (premium) compared
product markets to competitors
(Christmann 2000)  Increment in sales
from eco-products
 Expansion of eco-
market share
 Increment of eco-
brand loyalty
(Reinhardt, 1998)
Green The purchase of The extent to which the firm Multiple
Procurement environmentally achieves: choices

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 719
ISSN 2320-9186

preferable products  providing specification questions

and services in to suppliers that and a five
accordance with one includes point
or more of the environmental Likert type
established ―green" requirements, scale
procurement  environmental audits (Norman,
preference programs of supply base, 2010)
(Vershuren, 2002)  iso14001 certification
of supply base,
 cooperation with
suppliers for
environmental
objectives,
 Second-tier suppliers‘
environmentally
friendly practices
evaluation (Lacroix,
2008)
Green The creation of The extent to which the firm Multiple
Manufacturing manufacturing achieves: choices
products that use  design for questions
materials and sustainability and a five
processes that:  green machine tools point
 minimize  Sustainable Likert type
negative packaging risk scale
environmental assessment for energy (Norman,
impacts, and resource use 2010)
 are safe for  impact and life cycle
employees, assessment tools for

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 720
ISSN 2320-9186

communities, manufacturing
and  Risk assessment for
consumers energy and resource
 are use
economically
sound
(Phungrassam
i, 2008)
Green The distribution The degree to which the firm Multiple
distribution of activities and achieves: choices
products processes which  Eco labeling of questions
minimize negative products, and a five
impact on the natural  environment-friendly point
environment (Rao & packaging, Likert type
Holt, 2005; Sarkis,  environment-friendly scale
2009) transportation (Norman,

 Re-usable packaging 2010)

 Providing information
to customers on
environment friendly
products
Environmentally- The process of The extent to which the firm Multiple
oriented reverse planning, achieves: choices
logistics implementing and  waste collection for questions
efficiently controlling proper disposal, and a five
the flow of raw  Recycling of used point
materials, in-process products (re- Likert type
inventory, finished processing ) scale
goods, wastes and  recovering of useful (Norman,

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 721
ISSN 2320-9186

related information parts 2010)

from the point of  Re- use of the
consumption to the products
point of origin with  Recovery of hazardous
the purpose of parts for proper
recovering the disposal
primary value or (Umeda et al, 2003)
dispose of them
properly to minimize
environmental impact
" (Umeda et al., 2003)
GSCM practices The intra- and inter- The extent to which the firm Multiple
firm management achieves: choices
practices of the  green purchasing questions
upstream and  green manufacturing and a five
downstream supply  green distribution and point
chain aimed at  environmentally- Likert type
minimizing the oriented reverse scale
overall environmental logistics (Zhu et al., (Norman,
impact of both the 2008) 2010)
forward and reverse
flows ( Klassen &
Johnson 2004)
Supply chain The firm‘s tendency The extent to which the firm Multiple
ecocentricity to engage and learn achieves: choices
from environmental  partner with external questions
external stakeholders stakeholders for and a five
(Tate et al., 2011) environmental research point
 sponsorship for Likert type

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 722
ISSN 2320-9186

implementation of scale
environmental (Norman,
management practices by 2010)
the external stakeholders
 Participation in external
stakeholders eco-oriented
workshops
 Environment fit through
engagement with external
stakeholders
 Advance knowledge for
environmental
management practices
(Tate et al., 2011)
 Benchmarking
environmental practices
with external
stakeholders‘
 Co-investment with
external stakeholders on
environmental
management related
issues
 Use environmental
management experts from
external stakeholders
 Allow environmental
audit by external
stakeholders

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 723
ISSN 2320-9186

2.4 Empirical Framework

The Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) emerges as a new systematic
environmental approach in supply chain management and as such is attracting the interest
of supply chain managers and researchers (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006).The integration of the
‗green concept to the supply chain‘ concept, has created a new research agenda where the
supply chain will have a direct relation to the environment and performance (Thomsen,
2011). Thus, it becomes an interesting issue to researchers in both developed and
developing countries (Srivastava, 2007). Most researches have been conducted in Europe
and Asia regions to examine the integration of environmental concept and supply chain
management (Thomsen, 2011).

One study from Germany conducted by Large and Thomsen, (2011) identifies five
potential drivers of green supply chain management performance: green supply
management capabilities, the strategic level of purchasing department, the level of
environmental commitment, the degree of green supplier assessment, and the degree of
green collaboration with suppliers. Hsu and Hu, (2008) examine the links between green
practices of supply chain management and supply chain performance in the context of the
Portuguese automotive supply chain. This study obtains the conceptual model from data
analysis that provides evidence as to which green practices have positive effects on
quality, customer satisfaction and efficiency as well as negative effects on supply chain
performance.

Shang et al., (2010) in Taiwan have explored the correlation between greening the
supplier and green innovation in the Taiwan industry by using Structural Equation
Modeling. They conclude that greening the supplier through green innovation leads to
significant benefits to the environmental performance and competitive advantage of the
firm. Cagno, Guido, Perotti, and Zorzini, (2011) also examine the Green Supply Chain
Practices (GSCP) adopted by Third Party Logistics (3PLs) service providers such as
specific practices implemented and level of adoption of each practices. They also
examine the relationship between various GSCP implementation and company

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 724
ISSN 2320-9186

performance. In this study, the work offers an in-depth understanding of potential effects
of GSCP on company performance.

From Japan, Arimura, Darnalln and Katayama, (2011) determine the influence of ISO
14001 certification on the green supply chain management (GSCM) by using Japanese
facility level data. The study proves that ISO 14001 and voluntary EMS government
program significantly influence GSCM practices. Another study from Japan by Zhu,
Geng, Fujita, and Hashimoto, (2010) seeks to introduce environmental / green supply
chain management experiences of large Japanese manufactures. This work shows that the
large companies can green their supply chain by creating win-win relationships with their
partners, and hence realize the sustainable growth for the entire supply chains. Besides, it
also indicates that suitable regulations and policies set by the government can help
GSCM circulation from larger leading companies to smaller companies.

Hsu and Hu, (2008) investigate the consistency approaches by factor analysis that
determines the adoption and implementation of GSCM in Taiwanese electronic industry.
The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method is applied to prioritize the relative
importance of four dimensions and 20 approaches among nine firms in the electronic
industry. Meanwhile, Shang et al., (2010) explore key green supply chain management
(GSCM) capability dimensions and firm performance based on electronics-related
manufacturing firms in Taiwan. On the basis of a factor analysis, four green supply chain
management dimensions are identified: green manufacturing, green distribution, green
procurement, and environmentally- oriented reverse logistics.

Holt and Ghobadian, (2009) investigate the level and nature of greening the supply chain
in the UK manufacturing sector. This study explores the driving forces behind
environmental management, the specific management practices that result, and the
relationship between them. The study by Nawrocka, Brorson, and Lindhqvist, (2009) in
Sweden, has concentrated on the role of ISO 14001 in environmental supply management
practices in Swedish companies. The study describes the existing and potential role of
ISO 14001 for three key operational tasks of environmental supply chain management: to
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 725
ISSN 2320-9186

communicate the requirements to the supplier, to motivate and enable the supplier, and to
verify that the supplier follows the requirements.

Moreover, the study from South Korea carried out by Lee, (2008) has identified the
drivers of participation in green supply chain initiatives by considering small and
medium-sized suppliers and their most important stakeholders, including buyers and the
government. Raymond, Lopez, Marche, Perron, and Wright, (2008) examine the
relationship between supply chains and environmental performance of SMEs in Canada.
This study proves that time and financial resources are the most limiting factors in
dealing with solid waste and energy issues.

In addition, Chen, (2008) looks into the relationship between green innovation and green
image of companies in Taiwan. The study proposes a new concept of green core
competence. Chien and Shih, (2007) examine the adoption of GSCM practices among the
electrical and electronic industry in Taiwan. They suggest an empirical study on the
relationship between green supply chain management practices and environmental
performance, as well as financial performance. One study from Australia, conducted by
Simpson, Power, and Samson, (2007) explores the moderating impact of relationship
conditions existing between a customer and its suppliers and the effectiveness of the
customer‘s environmental performance requirements (otherwise known as ―green-
supply‖). Simpson et al (2007) propose further research on the moderating effect of
supply chain ecocentricity on the performance of green supply chain management
practices.

In the context of developing countries, little research attention has been devoted to the
concern of GSCM especially in African region. The GSCM concept is a relatively new
concept in the South East Asian and African regions and probably only a few companies
are actually able to implement it (Rao & Holt, 2005). However, as claimed by Rao &
Holt, (2005) in their study on green supply chain in South East Asian region (Philippines,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore) environmental supply chain practices had
started to take place. Thus, the findings from those researches in the Asian region can be
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 726
ISSN 2320-9186

useful for manufacturing in developing countries in order to develop the appropriate

GSCM practices and reducing the environmental problems.

Recent literature shows that most researchers are starting to investigate GSCM in the
East Asian region, especially China as developing country. The issues related to GSCM
have become even more critical in China. Although China gains more opportunities as a
major manufacturing country, she also deals with huge environmental problems with this
opportunity (Rao & Holt, 2005). Zhu, Geng, Sarkis, and Lai, (2011) investigate whether
different Chinese manufacturer clusters varying in their extent of implementing GSCM
exist from the ecological modernization perspective. The study also examines whether
Chinese manufacturers‘ awareness of local and international environmental ESPR-
oriented (enhancing energy savings and pollution reduction) compliance is related to
GSCM implementation and also if a mediating effect of regulatory pressure plays a major
role.

The study by Liu, Yang, Qu, Wang, Shishime, and Bao, (2011) in China has analyzed the
relationship between green supply chain management level (GSCML) and the classified
determinant factors. The study confirms that a company‘s environmental management
capacities will be strongly enhanced by frequent internal training of employees to
increase its involvement in GSCM practices. Another research from China by Li, (2011)
examines the adoption levels of GSCM practices in China and explores the performance
measurement for GSCM. The findings have demonstrated that GSCM is strongly
balancing to other advanced management practices, and contributes to the improvement
of environmental performance. A study of Ninlawan et al., (2011) in Thailand analyzed
the recent green activities in computer parts‘ manufacturers and also measured the level
of green supply chain management

The concept of GSCM is relatively new in developing countries. Recent literature has
established that there are still limited research studies on GSCM adoption and
implementation based on the developing country context. A study of Diabat and
Govindan, (2011) in India analyze the green activities in computer parts‘ manufacturers
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 727
ISSN 2320-9186

and also measures the level of green supply chain management. The study conducted in
India by Diabat and Govindan, (2011) identifies the drivers influencing the
implementation of GSCM using an Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) methodology
and extracts eleven drivers collected through past literature: Certification of suppliers‘
environmental management system; environmental collaboration with suppliers;
collaboration between product designers and suppliers to reduce and eliminate product
environmental impacts; government regulation and legislation; green design; ISO 14001
certification; integrating quality environmental management into planning and operation
process; reducing energy consumption; reusing and recycling materials and packaging;
environmental collaboration with customers; and reverse logistics.

Most researchers use the manufacturing industry as their sample of study in order to
investigate the GSCM adoption and implementation either in developed or developing
countries. Manufacturing is believed to be the main cause of the emerging environmental
problems due to its traditional business operations‘ nature (Lee, 2008). Traditional
polluting industries such as manufacturers in chemical, electrical and paper industries
generally experience higher environmental pressure. Therefore, the manufacturing
industry as traditional polluters tend to be the potential sample of study as they tend to
implement GSCM practices (Lee, 2008). Table 2.3 provides a summary of the past
studies.

Table 2. 3 Summary of the Previous Studies on Various Manufacturing Industries

Author/Year Title/Design Findings Variables Context

Large & Drivers of • Green Supplier • GSCM Germany:
Thomsen, GSCM assessment and capabilities developed
2011 Performance: green collaboration • The strategic country-
Evidence from has direct influence level of Europe
Germany on Environmental Purchasing
• Survey study performance. department
• These two • The level of

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 728
ISSN 2320-9186

practices are driven environment

by the strategic commitment
level of the • Green supplier
purchasing assessment
department and the • Green
level of Collaboration
environmental with suppliers
commitment of the Performance:
firm. Cost efficiency,
• Environmental customer
practices has a effectiveness
positive impact on
financial
performance
Arimura et Is ISO 14001 a • ISO 14001 • ISO 14001 Japan:
al. 2011 gateway to more positively • GSCM developed
advanced contribute to practices: green country-
voluntary implementation of purchasing, green Asia
action? The case GSCM practices by manufacturing,
of green supply firms green distribution
chain • Government
management program of
• Case Study encouraging EMS
adoption directly
influences ISO
14001 adopters to
implement GSCM
practices.
Shang et al. The Influence of • Greening the • Greening the Taiwan:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 729
ISSN 2320-9186

2010 Greening the suppliers leads to suppliers developed-

Suppliers and green innovation • Green Asia
Green and competitive innovation
Innovation on advantage. • Environmental
environmental • The finding also performance
Performance and support that the (environmental
competitive intervening differentiation)
Advantage in variables of green • Competitive
Taiwan innovation advantage (cost
• Descriptive contribute to efficiency,
research competitive customer
advantage. effectiveness)

Liu et al. Sustainable • Chinese • External China:

2011 Production: companies are still pressures developing
Practices and at a preliminary • Internal factors country-
Determinant stage of GSCM • GSCM practices Asia
Factors of Green practices. • Controls
Supply Chain (company‘s size,
Management of • The cooperation industrial sector)
Chinese with external
Companies members of the
•Exploratory GSC issues is very
research marginal.
• A company‘s
GSCM is
significantly and
positively
associated with

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 730
ISSN 2320-9186

external pressures
from regulatory,
domestic clients and
business
competitors.
Zhu et al. Evaluating • The findings s • Environmental China:
2011 Green Supply highlight the regulations/ developing
Chain varying pace of policies country -
Management Chinese • Green Supply Asia
among manufacturers to Chain
Chinese ecological Management
Manufacturers modernization with •Ecological
from the GSCM practices Modernization
Ecological • Positive
modernization relationship
Perspective between regulatory
• Descriptive pressure and
research adoption of GSCM
practices by
Chinese
manufacturing
industry
Cagno et al. The impact of • There is still • Green supply Italy:
2011 green supply limited adoption of chain practices developed
chain practices GSCP among the • 3PLs country-
on company 3PLs service performance: cost Europe
performance: the providers efficiency,
case of 3PLs • Some participant environmental
• Case study have shown a pro- differentiation,

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 731
ISSN 2320-9186

active attitude and customer

gained significant effectiveness
benefit from the
adoption of GSCP.
Zhu et al. Green Supply • It was found that • GSCM drivers: Japan:
2010 Chain large Japanese Normative developed
Management in companies have pressure, country -
Leading made significant Coercive pressure Asia
Manufacturers: improvements for and Mimetic
Case Studies of environmental and pressure
Japanese financial • GSCM practices
Large performance but not • GSCM
Companies for operational Performance
•Case study performance. :Economic,
financial,
operational
Holt & An Empirical • legislation and • External drivers UK:
Ghobadian, Study internal drivers (Legislation, developed
2009 of Green Supply (IDs) provide competitive, country -
Chain greatest pressure to supply chain, Europe
Management the adoption of societal)
Practices GSCM practices • Internal drivers
Amongst • Environmental
UK attitude (EA) is a
manufacturers key predictor of
 Descriptive GSCM activity and
research those organizations
that have
progressive attitude

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 732
ISSN 2320-9186

are also
operationally very
active.

Nawrocka et The role of ISO • ISO 14001 has a • Communication Sweden:

al. 2009 14001 in an facilitating role in of environmental developed
environmentally- the environmental requirements country-
oriented supply activities between a between a Europe
chain practices customer and a customer and a
• exploratory supplier. supplier.
research • Closer relationship • Motivation and
with suppliers was enabling of
seen as beneficial suppliers to
both for the comply with the
successful outcomes requirements.
of projects and as a
facilitator for
environmental
work.
Lee, S. 2008 Drivers for the • Buyer Buyer GSC South
participation of environmental practices, Korea:
small and requirements and Government developed
medium-sized support have involvement, country-
suppliers in positive effect to GSC readiness, Asia
green supply their suppliers‘ GSC
chain initiatives willingness to participation
•Descriptive participate in green
research supply chain
initiatives.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 733
ISSN 2320-9186

• The government
regulatory
requirement.
Raymond et Influences, • SMEs have • Environmental Canada:
al. 2008 practices and difficulties in performance developed
opportunities for allocating resources • Environmental country-
environmental to initiatives that are issues North
supply chain not viewed as America
management: A directly related to
case of Nova their core function,
Scotia SMEs namely
• Case study manufacturing the
product or
providing the
service.

Meanwhile, Table 2.4 also presents a summary of the previous studies among
manufacturing industry (but it only study certain industries from the various type of
industries). These researchers had focused to specific industry in order to get depth
understanding of GSCM practices without comparing to different industries.

Table 2. 4 Summary of the Previous Studies on Focused Manufacturing Industries

Author/Year Title/R. Design Findings Variables Context

Hsu and Hu, The Influence • The most widely • Green practices: Portuguese;
(2008) of Green adopted green green purchasing, Automotive
Practices on practices: (ISO green Sector
Supply Chain 140001, manufacturing,
Performance: A minimizing waste, green distribution
Case Study decreasing the • SC performance:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 734
ISSN 2320-9186

Approach consumption of Cost efficiency,

hazardous and Customer
• Case Study toxic materials and effectiveness,
reverse logistic) Environmental
• GPs positively differentiation
influence SC
performance
Ninlawan et The • Both • GSCM practices: Thailand;
al., (2011) implementation environmental and green purchasing, Electronic
of GSCM positive economic green production, (Computer
Practices in were relatively and reverse Part) sector
Electronics significant in logistics
Industry in GSCM • GSCM
Thailand performance performance: cost
• Pressure from efficiency,
•Descriptive environmental customer
research regulations is the effectiveness,
highest driver, environmental
followed by export differentiation
pressure for • GSCM pressure:
GSCM practices market,
implementation regulatory,
competition
Diabat and An Analysis of • Government Drivers of GSCM India;
Govindan, the regulation and (market, Aluminum
2011 Drivers legislation and regulatory, sector
Affecting reverse logistics competition)
the are significant
Implementation drivers for GSC

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 735
ISSN 2320-9186

of Green management
Supply Chain
Management: A
case of
Aluminum
sector in India
• Case study
Shang et al. A taxonomy of • The green • Green packaging Taiwan;
2010 green SCM marketing oriented • Environmental Electronic
capability group performed participation Industry
among best. • Green marketing
electronics- • The competitive • Green
related capability of the Purchasing
manufacturing green marketing
firms oriented group was
•Descriptive higher than those
research of competitors
Hsu and Hu, Green Supply • The most Approach for Taiwan;
2008 Chain important implementing Electronic
Management in approaches GSCM: Supplier Industry
the Electronic included management,
Industry establishing an product recycling,
• Case study environmental life cycle
database of management
products, asking
for products with
environmental
consideration and
top management

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 736
ISSN 2320-9186

support
Chen, 2008 The Driver of • Green core • Green core Taiwan;
Green competences of competence SMEs
Innovation firms were • Green electronics
and Green positively linked to innovation industry
Image – Green their green • Green image
Core innovation
Competence performance and
• Correlation green images
research
Chien and An empirical Green • GSCM practices Taiwan;
Shih, 2007 study of the procurement and organizational Electrical
implementation green performances and
of green SCM manufacturing •Environmental electronic
practices in practices were Performance (cost industry
relation to found to positively efficiency,
organizational influence customer
Performances environmental and effectiveness)
•Descriptive financial
research performances for
the respective
companies.
Simpson et Greening the • Suppliers were • Customer Australia;
al. 2007 automotive found to be more environmental Automotive
supply responsive to their performance industry
chain: a customers‘ requirements
relationship environmental • Supplier
perspective performance environmental
• Correlation requirements commitment

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 737
ISSN 2320-9186

research where increasing

levels of
relationship-
specific
investment
occurred.

2.5 Critique of the Literature

Although there have been some developments in this area, most of the research is skewed
towards Europe, Asia and Canada and largely narrowed to a specific industry. A study by
Large and Thomsen, (2011), on the Drivers of green SCM Performance: Evidence from
Germany only surveys the manufacturing firms in Germany and is limited to factors such
as green supply management capabilities, the strategic level of purchasing department,
the level of environment commitment, the degree of green supplier assessment and the
degree of green collaboration with suppliers. They fail to recognize other factors such as
technology, organization structure and market structure which have been projected as key
drivers of green SCM Performance (Cagno et al., 2011).

A study by Arimura et al. (2011) titled ―Is ISO 14001 a gateway to more advanced
voluntary action? The case of green supply chain management in Japan‖ establishes that
ISO 14001 contribute to voluntary GSCM practices. However, the same study contradicts
this finding by concluding that government regulatory requirement of EMS adoption
directly influences ISO 14001 adopters to implement GSCM practices. This therefore
means that ISO 14001 is not a voluntary initiative to the adoption of GSCM practices.
This study also falls short of tagging the voluntary adoption of GSCM practices with
economic befits as explained by Large and Thomsen (2011). Hsu and Hu (2008) examine
the links between green practices of supply chain management and supply chain
performance in the context of the Portuguese automotive supply chain. This study
provides evidence that some green practices have negative effects on supply chain

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 738
ISSN 2320-9186

performance. This contradicts the findings by a number of researchers that green

practices positively impact on supply chain performance (Hart & Dowell, 2010).

The study of Shang et al. (2010) in Taiwan explores the correlation between greening the
supplier and green innovation in Taiwan industry by using Structural Equation Modeling.
They conclude that greening the supplier through green innovation leads to significant
benefits to the environmental performance and competitive advantage of the firm.
However, their study fails to recognize the key moderating variable of organization
strategy as having a bearing on environmental performance and competitive advantage as
advocated by Banerjee, (2003). A study in Italy by Cagno et al. (2011) examines the
GSCP adopted by Third Party Logistics (3PLs) service providers such as specific
practices implemented and level of adoption of each practices and also examines the
relationship between various GSCP implementation and company performance. This
study offers an in-depth understanding of potential effects of GSCP on company
performance but falls short of tying specific performance to a particular practice.

Hsu and Hu (2008) investigate factors that determine the adoption and implementation of
GSCM in the Taiwanese electronic industry. This study uses only nine firms to represent
the whole industry. The population size may not be sizeable enough for generalization of
the findings. Meanwhile, Shang et al. (2010) explore key green supply chain
management (GSCM) capability dimensions and firm performance based on electronics-
related manufacturing firms in Taiwan. On the basis of a factor analysis, four green
supply chain management dimensions are identified: green manufacturing, green
distribution, green procurement and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics.
Nevertheless, the study is silent on environmental attitude which according to Holt and
Ghobadian (2009) is a key predictor of GSCM activity.

Holt and Ghobadian (2009) investigate the level and nature of greening the supply chain
in the UK manufacturing sector. In this study, the work explores the driving forces
behind environmental conservation, the resultant specific management practices, and the
relationship between them but fails to quantify the relationships between these variables.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 739
ISSN 2320-9186

The study by Nawrocka et al. (2009) in Sweden, has concentrated on the role of ISO
14001 in environmental supply management practices in Swedish companies. The study
describes the existing and potential role of ISO 14001 for three key operational tasks of
environmental supply chain management: to communicate the requirements to the
supplier, to motivate and enable the supplier, and to verify that the supplier follows the
requirements. Their study does not go far enough to address what happens at the
production stage or at the distribution stage of supply chain management. How will the
firm handle environmental issues at the transformation point and the distribution point of
the supply chain? This study fails to provide answers to these questions. But according to
Hart and Dowell (2010), an effective GSCM must address environmental issues in
totality within a given supply chain.

Indeed in the existing literature, most studies suffer from small sample sizes, one-tier
investigation, lack of theoretical foundation, lack of longitudinal studies, and limited
global green supply chain view. For example: a study by Holt and Ghobadian (2009) only
samples manufacturing firms in the UK and cannot be used to reflect on the global trend
of green supply chain practices. The study is also not hankered on any theoretical base;
Zhu et al. (2008) only focuses on the manufacturing firms to look into green supply chain
management implications rather than across various sectors; Raymond et al. (2008) is
narrowed to Nova Scotia in Canada. The study focuses only on one of the SMEs which
cannot be said to represent all the sectors; and the Diabat and Govindan (2011) study in
India is focused on the manufacturing sector and more specifically on the aluminum
firms and uses a case of a firm to draw conclusions on the drivers of green supply chain
implementations. The small sample size makes the findings lack the generalizability
feature. According to Lenth (2001), a sample size should be of adequate size, relative to
the goals of the study. It should be big enough that an effect of such magnitude is of
scientific and statistical significance. The one-tier investigation restricts the application of
the findings of these studies across the sphere of industries. Being cross-sectional, most
of the studies are not able to report the trends in the theoretical development of GSCM

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 740
ISSN 2320-9186

and since most of them are country specific, they fail to capture the global view of
GSCM.

Within the existing literature, very few researchers have taken an empirical approach on
the green SCM practices – performance link. Most of the studies have focused almost
exclusively on the firm‘s external business environment, such as regulatory and
stakeholder demands, as direct motivators on firms to adopt green practices (Bansal and
Clelland, 2004) and most of them have been in the developed countries in Europe and
America (Diabat and Govindan, 2011). A few which have been undertaken in the
developing countries are skewed towards Asia leaving African countries behind (Zhu et
al., 2008; Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Simpson et al., 2007).None of these studies has
focused in Kenya (Ondiso, 2012; Kamande, 2011; Mukiri, 2012). Therefore this study
tried to fill this void by attempting to establish the effect of green SCM practices – firm
performance link in the African context and more specifically in Kenya.

2.6 Research Gaps

There were three major reasons driving this study; lack of empirical evidence on GSCM
concept–performance link targeting manufacturing firms in Kenya, low performance by
manufacturing firms‘ in Kenya in terms of cost and environment and finally the current
literature largely focusing outside Africa.

2.6.1 Lack of empirical evidence on GSCM concept and firm performance link in
Kenyan context
There are at least two reasons why the extant research has not provided empirical
evidence on the green SCM concept-firm performance relationship in Kenya. The first
reason is that the focus in the literature has been almost exclusively on the firm‘s external
business environment, such as regulatory and stakeholder demands, as direct motivators
on firms to adopt green practices (Ondiso, 2012; Mukiri, 2012; Bansal and Clelland,
2004). While evidence abounds that external motivators play a role in the development of
green practices in the firm, there is lack of focus in the literature on internal directives
such as performance and resources (Mukiri, 2012).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 741
ISSN 2320-9186

The second reason is that the discussion and investigation of GSCM in the literature is
based on the European, American and Asian context and is still limited, and considered
to be in the development stage (Kamande, 2011; Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Zhu et al.
2008a; Stock et al. 2002, Vachon & Klassen 2008). Furthermore, the consideration of the
performance outcomes from reducing the environmental impact of firms‘ supply chain
operations is a concept that has only recently gained momentum (Srivastava, 2007). This
view is supported by Kamande (2011) which concludes that the research linking firm
performance and GSCM is still minimal in Kenya. The lack of research implies that
linkages between green practices in SCM and firm performance have not been thoroughly
examined and that more empirical testing is necessary to investigate additional areas of
the topic (Vachon & Klassen, 2008). Indeed, researchers assert that the attention given to
the potential benefits of GSCM practices has actually raised more questions than answers
(Srivastava, 2007; Harris, 2007). Given the inconclusive and conflicting empirical results
of research into the effects of green supply chain management practices on firm
performance, it was important to investigate these previously unexplored factors that may
impact the GSCM -performance relationship.

2.6.2 Inadequate Performance by the Manufacturing Firms’ in Kenya.

Manufacturing industry in Kenya is believed to be a key pillar in promoting economic
and social development of the country (Yamfya et al., 2002). However Kamande (2011)
establishes that manufacturing firms in Kenya exhibit low performance tendencies in
terms of cost and environmental management raising doubt about the sector‘s capacity to
drive the country towards Vision 2030 (GOK,2007). This therefore calls for a search for
new management practices that have the potential of improving firm performance and
environmental management. Hence the advancement of GSCM concept in this study with
an intension of solving performance issues and environmental problems associated with
the manufacturing firms in Kenya.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 742
ISSN 2320-9186

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
Research methodology refers to the overall approach to the research process. It deals with
the theoretical background of the research to the collection and analysis of data on the
one hand. On the other hand, research methodology refers to the means of data collection
and analysis. This chapter therefore presents the research philosophy, approach, design
and methods used to address the research problem as outlined in Chapter 1. It provides
highlights on the research design, data collection procedures and analysis techniques
which were applied in this study.

3.2 Research Design

There has been debate on the choice of research design centered on varied philosophical
issues. For this study, the choice of the design was centered between two primary
philosophical alternatives: a positivist or a phenomenological philosophy as represented
in Fig. 3.1

Figure 3. 1 Research Philosophy Alternatives

Source: (Hussey and Hussey, 1997).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 743
ISSN 2320-9186

Positivists believe that reality is stable and can be observed and described from an
objective viewpoint (Hirschheim, 2003), i.e. without interfering with the phenomena
being studied. They contend that phenomena should be isolated and that observations
should be repeatable. This often involves manipulation of reality with variations in only a
single independent variable so as to identify regularities in, and to form relationships
between some of the constituent elements of the social world. Predictions can be made on
the basis of the previously observed and explained realities and their inter-relationships.
"Positivism has a long and rich historical tradition. It is so embedded in our society that
knowledge claims not grounded in positivist thought are simply dismissed as unscientific
and therefore invalid" (Hirschheim, 2003). This view is indirectly supported by Alavi and
Carlson (2001) who, in a review of 902 IS research articles; found that all the empirical
studies were positivist in approach.

There has, however, been much debate on the issue of whether or not this positivist
paradigm is entirely suitable for the social sciences (Hirschheim, 2003); some authors
(Interpretivists/ phenomenologists) have favored for a more pluralistic attitude towards
social research methodologies (Shuttleworth, 2008). Interpretivists contend that only
through the subjective interpretation of and intervention in reality can that reality be fully
understood. The study of phenomena in their natural environment is key to the
Interpretivists philosophy, together with the acknowledgement that scientists cannot
avoid affecting those phenomena they study. They admit that there may be many
interpretations of reality, but maintain that these interpretations are in themselves a part
of the scientific knowledge they are pursuing.

A number of authors (Shuttleworth, 2008; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2000) have
highlighted the main elements of this choice involving research philosophy. In particular,
Easterby-Smith et al. (2003) as quoted in Shuttleworth, (2008) offer these key features of
the two philosophy paradigm alternatives, Table 3.1.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 744
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 3. 1 Research Paradigms

Dimensions Positivist paradigm Phenomenological paradigm

Basic The world is external and objective The world is socially constructed
beliefs and subjective
Observer is independent Observer is part of what is observed

Science is value-free Science is driven by human

interests
Researcher Focus on facts Focus on meanings
should
Look for causality and fundamental Try to understand what is
laws happening
Reduce phenomenon to simplest Look at the totality of each situation
elements
Formulate hypotheses and then test Develop ideas through induction
them from data

Preferred Operationalizing concepts so that Using multiple methods to establish

methods they can be measured different views of phenomena
include
Taking large samples Small samples investigated in depth
or over time

Source: (Easterby - Smith et al., 2003)

Indeed a large number of research methodologies have been identified under the two
philosophies; Galliers (2002) for example lists fourteen, while Alavi and Carlson (2001)
use a hierarchical taxonomy with three levels and eighteen categories. For this study,
methodologies as identified by Galliers (2002), Table 3.2 were considered.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 745
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 3. 2 Taxonomy of Research Methodologies

Scientific/Positivist Interpretivist/Anti-positivist
Laboratory Experiments Subjective/Argumentative
Field Experiments Reviews

Descriptive/Surveys Action Research

Case Studies Case Studies
Theorem Proof Descriptive/Interpretive
Forecasting Futures Research

Simulation Role/Game Playing

Source: (Galliers ,2002)

Given the research problem and research objectives as outlined in Chapter 1, the study
used Positivist paradigm. The choice of this approach was based on the argument that to
empirically establish the relationships between the variables of interest, formulation and
testing of appropriate hypotheses and generalize findings are necessary (Hirschheim,
2003; Alavi & Carlson, 2001). Further, there was need to translate the underlying
concepts into measurable forms to facilitate testing of the formulated hypotheses
(Galliers, 2002). A quantitative analytical approach was employed in an attempt to
empirically determine the relationship between the variables of interest by applying
appropriate statistical data analysis techniques (Hirschheim, 2003).

As a result, the study adopted descriptive cross-sectional survey research design. A cross-
sectional survey is a data-gathering and analysis approach in which respondents answer
questions or respond to statements that were developed in advance at a point in time
(Kasunic, 2005). According to Shuttleworth, (2008), cross-sectional survey approach is
used when a great deal of information is required from a large population at a point in
time as in this study. Creswell (2003) advocates for its application in positivists research
paradigms because of its ability to collect quantitative data which are analyzable.
According to Alavi & Carlson, (2001), cross-sectional surveys are relatively economical
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 746
ISSN 2320-9186

with high accuracy, especially when good sampling procedures are followed. Another
reason for the adoption of survey design in this study was its unique advantage among
scientific methods of checking the reliability and validity of survey data, using various
statistical methods (Alavi & Carlson, 2001). Positivists such as Hirschheim (2003); Alavi
and Carlson (2001) hold that the validity of assertions of a quantitative study is enhanced
through a survey approach.

In this study, descriptive cross-sectional survey was used to obtain information from a
sample of respondents for testing of hypotheses on the effect of GSCM dimensions on the
performance manufacturing firms in Kenya. Descriptive cross-sectional survey was
flexible enough to provide opportunity for considering different aspects of the study
problem (Delgado-Rodriquez & Llorca, 2004). The design was appropriate for this study
as advised by Shuttleworth, (2008) that descriptive cross-sectional survey design
produces quality statistical information about aspects of the study that may interest policy
makers, industry players and academicians.

3.3 Population
Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2003); Schidler & Cooper (2006); and Kothari and Warner
(2008) all describe a population as the total collection of elements about which one
wishes to make inferences while the sample size is a representative of a population. The
target population of the study was the manufacturing firms in Kenya. The study
population comprised five hundred and sixty six (566) manufacturing firms registered by
Kenya Association of Manufacturers under the following categories (sectors): Building,
Construction and Mining, 14 firms; Chemical and Allied, 65 firms; Energy, Electricals
and Electronics, 34 firms; Food and Beverages, 145 firms; Leather and Footwear,6 firms;
Metal and Allied ,60 firms; Motor Vehicle and Accessories ,24 firms; Paper and Board
,64 firms; Pharmaceutical and Medical Equipment, 22 firms; Plastic and Rubber, 63
firms; Textile and Apparel ,52 firms and Timber, Wood and Furniture, 17 firms (KAM,
2014). The unit of analysis for this study consisted of the manufacturing firms who are
members of KAM (KAM, 2014).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 747
ISSN 2320-9186

The choice of unit of observation for the study was based on the following attributes;
knowledge of strategic SCM practices and processes, knowledge of aspects of GSCM, an
understanding of corporate green attitudes and culture and knowledge of main
competitors and their behavior. Given these desired attributes, all supply chain
management designate senior officers (heads from logistics /procurement/ operations,
general managers, and directors) were targeted as the ideal unit of observations.

Saunders et al. (2003) propose that for any probability sample, the sampling frame is a
complete list of all the cases in the population from which the sample is to be drawn.
According to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), (2007) a
sample frame is the list from which a sample is chosen that contains all of the elements in
the population. The sample frame for this study was the entire list of five hundred and
sixty six (566) manufacturing firms as listed in the Kenya Association of Manufacturers
directory, (2014).

3.4 Sample and Sampling Technique

The study used two steps sampling approaches. It used stratified random sampling to
sample the unit of analysis and purposive sampling to sample the unit of observation.
Stratified random sampling approach was chosen to ensure all categories (sectors) of the
manufacturing firms were proportionally represented in the sample (Black, 2004). The
purposive sampling approach helped in selecting experts in SCM and GSCM who were
well placed to advance the study interests. This approach can also be termed as expert
sampling (Black, 2004).

Under random sampling approach, the population was divided into twelve (12) relevant
and significant stratum based on the type of the products firms were dealing in and
grouped under various sectors as in Table 3.3. From each stratum (sector), a sample of
pre-specified size (41%) – obtained from Yamane, 1967 formula for sample size; was
drawn independently using simple random sampling table. The collection of these
samples constituted stratified sample for the study (Saunders et al., 2003). The
stratification of the study population is presented in Table 3.3.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 748
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 3. 3 Number of Manufacturing Firms per Sector

Sector Number of manufacturing Firms

Building, Construction and Mining 14
Chemical and Allied 65
Energy, Electricals and Electronics 34
Food and Beverages 145
Leather and Footwear 6
Metal and Allied 60
Motor Vehicle and Accessories 24
Paper and Board 64
Pharmaceutical and Medical Equipment 22
Plastic and Rubber 63
Textile and Apparel 52
Timber, Wood and Furniture 17
Grand Total 566
Source: (Kenya Association of Manufacturers, 2014)

According to Lenth (2001), the sample size should be of adequate size, relative to the
goals of the study. It should be big enough so that an effect of such magnitude is of
scientific and statistical significance. Sample size is important for economic reasons: An
under-sized study can be a waste of resources for not having the capability to produce
useful results, while an over-sized one uses more resources than are necessary (Lenth,
2001). This research used the sample size formula developed by Yamane (1967) to
calculate the actual sample size of 234 firms from a population of 566 firms at a
confidence level of 95 percent and a precision or error of 5 percent as in Equation 3.1

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 749
ISSN 2320-9186

N 566
n n  234.36853  234.
1  N e  1  566  0.05
2 2

Equation 3. 1 Computation of Sample Size

Source: (Yamane, 1967)

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision
desired, where e =1- Confidence level (Yamane, 1967). This formula was preferred in
this study because of its simplicity in usage, scientific and applicability in large
populations (Yamane, 1967). Table 3.4 shows the sample size in each category arrived at
through stratified sampling, with sampling fraction of  0.41. Sample fraction = actual
sample size /total population.

Table 3. 4 Stratified Sample

No. of Stratified
Sectors Firms Proportions Sample
Building, Construction and Mining 14 2.47% 6
Chemical and Allied 65 11.48% 27
Energy, Electricals and Electronics 34 6.01% 14
Food and Beverages 145 25.62% 60
Leather and Footwear 6 1.06% 2
Metal and Allied 60 10.60% 25
Motor Vehicle and Accessories 24 4.24% 10
Paper and Board 64 11.31% 26
Pharmaceutical and Medical Equipment 22 3.89% 9
Plastic and Rubber 63 11.13% 26
Textile and Apparel 52 9.19% 22
Timber, Wood and Furniture 17 3.00% 7
Grand Total 566 100% 234
Sample size (Yamane, 1967 formula ) 234
Sampling fraction 0.41
(KAM, 2014)

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 750
ISSN 2320-9186

3.5 Data Collection Methods

3.5.1 Type and nature of data
Both primary and secondary data were obtained and utilized for purposes of addressing
the research objectives. Secondary data was sourced from both published and
unpublished records such as the National Environmental Management Authority, Kenya
Association of Manufacturer and Ministry of Environment annual reports, journals and
books. Primary data was collected on GSCM practices (green procurement, green
manufacturing, green distribution and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics), supply
chain ecocentricity (moderating variable) and also on firm performance indicators as
shown in Table 2.2.

3.5.2 Data collection instrument

The main primary data collection instrument was a survey questionnaire consisting of
structured closed and open-ended questions (see appendix I). The questionnaire consisted
of six key parts, all aimed towards capturing the relevant information in respect of the
study objectives. Part 1 dealt with general information about the respondent and the firm,
Part 2 facilitated capturing of data on various green SCM practices adopted by firms, Part
3 facilitated recording of data on the moderating variable (supply chain ecocentricity),
Part 4 dealt with performance of firms, Part 5 facilitated capturing of data on the
realization of green SCM practices benefits, lastly, Part 6 dealt with the number of years
of practicing GSCM by the manufacturing firms. The primary data was captured using
multiple choices questions and a five point likert type scale. In applied management
studies, the likert type scale is one of the acceptable techniques for measurement of
attitudes in a ―scientific‖ way which allows the use of statistical tools to analyze data
(Blaikie, 2003).

3.5.3 Instrument Administration

The study used an e-mail survey to collect primary data to test the hypotheses generated
in Chapter 2. E-mail surveys are employed extensively in research due to their ease of
use, flexibility of responding, confidentiality and relatively low-cost (Dillman, 2000).
Online surveys are easily quantifiable and suitable for statistical testing, as the results are

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 751
ISSN 2320-9186

typically collected in a file that is easily manipulated for analysis. In addition, e-mail
surveys reduce the degree of interviewer bias and are appropriate for collecting a large
number of geographically dispersed respondents in a cost-effective manner (Dillman,
2000)

The challenge of e-mail survey in this study was gaining the trust of potential
respondents. With the deluge of e-mail traffic that most business professionals receive,
potential respondents were reluctant in taking part in the survey, believing it to be an
internet marketing promotion. A second challenge was of a survey methodology in
general. Researchers often find that business professionals do not have time to complete
a survey and/or are over-surveyed, resulting in ―survey fatigue‖ (Cooper & Schindler,
2006). These challenges were addressed through employing a two-phased approach to
reaching potential participants. The first phase consisted of sending out a mass e-mail to a
list of potential participants using the outlook e-mail program. Outlook allowed sending
of individualized e-mails to each potential participant containing a reminder alarm of a
completion date of two weeks from the send date of the e-mail. The program was
automatically activated to send reminder alarm at the end of the two weeks window to the
respondents. However, a polite reminder e-mail was sent to those who may have not
responded at the end of the two weeks window.

The second phase started after the final reminder e-mail. Once the results of the
personalized e-mails and reminders were collected, the remaining valid contact
information for participants that had not responded to the survey, a follow-up contact was
made as reminders until the completed survey was received. Follow-up contact included
additional reminder phone calls and e-mails.

3.5.4 Data Retrieval and Response Rate

The returned questionnaires were checked for consistency and validity of the
respondents‘ answers. An effort was further made to control the research process through
the installation of anti-sperm software on the outlook system to prevent e-mails from un-
recognized sources from finding their way into the questionnaire file. A random double

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 752
ISSN 2320-9186

checking for authenticity of the data was conducted to ensure the officers who were the
unit of observations did not delegate the filling of the questionnaires to their assistants.
This was however established to be not an issue in this study. To improve the response
rate, a continuous follow up were made by phones and e-emails after the initial e-mail
contact which resulted in receiving back a total of 179 out of 234 responses. However, 18
were found to be incomplete and therefore were not analyzed. This left 161 valid
responses or 69 percent which is considered high rate of returns for a survey research
(Keeter, Scott, Kennedy, Dimock, Best & Craighill. 2006). According to Richardson
(2005), 50 percent response rate is regarded as an acceptable in a social research survey.
Baruch (2007) established that the average response rate in social research surveys is 55.6
percent. Therefore, the study valid response rate of 69 percent was considered high and
acceptable for this study.

The study is a wake to the fact that data is ordinarily received in different forms. Cooper
and Schindler (2006) suggested two of the formats to be textual and numeric data. This
study collected both for addressing the study objectives. Malhotra (2004) explains that
data preparation precedes data analysis. The process of data preparation imparts on data
accuracy and enforces a conversion from raw to classified data that can benefit analysis
and interpretation. Therefore the study applied coding, editing and tabulation as forms of
data preparation (Malhotra, 2004).

3.6 Pilot Study

To ascertain reliability, validity and reduce measurement error, a pilot test was conducted
(Dillman, 2000). The objective of the pretest was to establish any potential problems with
the design and instrumentation and to provide proxy data for selection of a probability
sample (Billé, 2010). The researcher used the pretest to assess the clarity, complexity and
the face validity of the measure. As a result, revisions were made that improved the
overall look and content of the final data collection instrument in terms of readability,
wording and arrangement (Teijlingen& Hundley, 2001)

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 753
ISSN 2320-9186

A total of 20 respondents (manufacturing firms) were used in the pretest as

recommended by Monette, Sullivan and DeJong, (2002) for a survey study. The
respondents were drawn from the same population frame that was similar to the one used
for the actual survey in terms of background features and familiarity with the study topic.
The reactions received were instrumental in refining the questionnaire before it was
finalized for the study. Background information obtained through pretesting process
provided insights into the simplification and strengthening of the process in this regard,
and allowed for greater understanding of the specific context and the respondents as
individuals to the extent that the process was tailored to the specific context.

3.6.1 Scale Construction

The questionnaire was abridged after pretesting to attain a balance between data required
and the time needed to collect the data and to decrease the chance of lethargy for the
respondents. The final questionnaire was profoundly composed of simple and un-
ambiguous closed and open ended questions designed for multiple linear regression
analysis.

3.6.2 Reliability
The measurement of human behavior belongs to the widely accepted positivist view, or
empirical analytic approach, to discern reality (Smallbone & Quinton, 2004). Because
most behavioral research takes place within this paradigm, measurement instruments
must be reliable. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement (Bollen, 1989), or
stability of measurement over a variety of conditions in which basically the same results
should be obtained (Ritter, 2010). According to Smallbone and Quinton, (2004), a
reliable measure is characterized by stability over time, and internal consistency. A
measure would exhibit stability if little variation over time was found when the measure
was re-administered and would exhibit internal consistency if the ―indicators that make
up the scale‖ are dependable (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2001).

The most popular method of testing for internal consistency in the behavioural sciences is
coefficient alpha. Coefficient alpha was popularised by Cronbach (1951), who recognized
its general usefulness. As a result, it is often referred to as Cronbach‘s alpha. According
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 754
ISSN 2320-9186

to Smallbone and Quinton, (2004), the coefficient alpha is suitable in measuring variance
attributable to the subject and variance attributable to the interaction between subjects
and items. Zikmund, (2003); Ritter, (2010) provided a measuring scale for acceptable
alpha as 0.60 and above. According to them, above 0.60 is considered as an indicator of a
good internal reliability. This study therefore used the Cronbach‘s alpha to test the
internal reliability of the measures. For the specific tests of internal reliability for the
dimensions of GSCM, the Cronbach‘s alpha results are presented in section 4.3.

3.6.3 Validity
According to Knapp (1998); Carter and Porter (2000); Peat (2002), validity is defined as
the extent to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure. It is a direct
check on how the instrument fulfills its function. A test of validity is therefore whether
the measure of a concept really measures that concept (Peat, 2002). There are several
measures of validity that provide evidence of the quality of a study. Internal and external
validity relate to the overall study design. Internal validity relates to the extent to which
the design of a research study is a good test of the hypothesis or is appropriate for the
research question (Carter & Porter, 2000). External validity, meanwhile, relates to
whether or not research findings can be generalized beyond the immediate study sample
and setting (Carter & Porter, 2000). Therefore this study used Peat (2002) measures to
assess the validity of data collection tool as follows:

(a) Content validity

Content validity is a qualitative type of validity where the domain of the concept is made
clear and the analyst judges whether the measures fully represent the domain. It is
whether a tool appears to others to be measuring what it says it does. Face validity is a
simple form of content validity. The researcher built content validity into the measures
through the derivation of the scales from theories related to GSCM practices and firm
performance (Carter & Porter, 2000) and also by incorporating comments from experts in
GSCM in the content of the instrument (Peat, 2002). As such, the study considered the

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 755
ISSN 2320-9186

content of the instrument to be valid implying that the study instrument measured what it
was supposed to measure i.e. the measure fully represented the domain of the study.

(b) Criterion validity

Concurrent or predictive validity are both measures of criterion validity (Trochim, 2006).
Concurrent validity uses an already existing and well-accepted measure against which the
new measure can be compared. Predictive validity refers to the ability of a test to predict
an event in the future (Smallbone & Quinton, 2004). Criterion validation therefore refers
to the effectiveness of a measure in terms of being able to predict an event related to
relevant criteria (Trochim, 2006). This was not however considered to be an issue with
respect to the surveying of the respondents in the study.

(c) Construct validity

Construct validity is the degree to which an instrument measures the trait or theoretical
construct that it is intended to measure (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2001). Construct
validity was ensured in this study through derivation of the measures from GSCM
theories which were to be tested in the study. To confirm construct validity of the
measures, factor analysis was performed and the results of Eigen values is presented in
Table 3.5

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 756
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 3. 5 Result of Eigen values

Exploratory Factor Analysis (validity)

Variables Question Number of Eigen Total variance Interpretation
Values of 1 or higher explained
h2
Green procurement 1 63% Unidimensional
Green manufacturing 1 62.52% Unidimensional
Green distribution 1 70.32% Unidimensional
Environmentally 2 79.14% Unidimensional
oriented reverse
logistics

Eigen values are used to establish the construct validity of the instrument (Brown, 2001).
According to Hair, Andrson, Tatham & Black. (2006) a factor with an Eigenvalue of 1 or
higher and a minimum variance of 60 percent signify unidimensionality or communality
of the scale. These findings confirm the unidimensionality of the scale used in the study
and therefore the scale measures the traits of the constructs (Brown, 2001).

3.7 Data Analysis and Presentation

Once the data was captured from the completed survey instruments, the process of
analyzing the data commenced. The items in the likert scale were measured using mean
index values. Descriptive statistics were generated in the form of frequency data and
statistical testing performed. Other statistical testing processes considered in this section
are: the confidence levels applied; the use of Cronbach‘s alphas; Shapiro Wilk test;
Breusch-Pagan test; correlation matrix; confirmatory factor analysis and the multiple
linear regression process for testing of the hypotheses. Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) program version 22 and the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS)
version 18 facilitated data analysis. SPSS version 22 was chosen because it has
Automated Data Preparation feature (ADPF), allows table customization and was

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 757
ISSN 2320-9186

accessible to the researcher. The SPSS- Analysis of Moment Structures (SPSS-AMOS)

version 18 was chosen because it allows specification, estimation, assessment and
presentation of models to show hypothesized relationships among variables. The software
allows building of models more accurately than with standard multivariate statistics
techniques. Users can choose either the graphical user interface or non-graphical,
programmatic interface. It is capable of building attitudinal and behavioral models that
reflect complex relationships in any given study.

3.7.1 Confidence Levels for Statistical Testing

In testing the null hypothesis for significance, the significance of 5 percent, or α ꞊ 0.05
was chosen for the study. In line with this, the chance that a Type I error would not be
made where a true null hypothesis is rejected in accordance with Frankfort-Nachmias and
Leon-Guerrero (2006) would be equal to: 1 – α ꞊ 0.95

The confidence level in this study was determined from a normal probability density
function (Hazewinkel, 2001) as follows;

( ) ∫ ( )

Which shows that lies in the interval [ ] with confidence C. C is a probability

according to the frequency limit.

If ( ) is a normal distribution with mean and variance , then the

confidence interval will be given by;

In other words, the lower and the upper endpoint of the 95% confidence interval is:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 758
ISSN 2320-9186

Figure 3. 2 The lower and the upper endpoint of the 95% confidence interval
95% of the area under the normal distribution lies within 1.96 standard deviations of the
mean.

Although a more stringent level of significant such as 1 percent level could have been
used, the 5 percent level was chosen due to large range of variables tested and the
potential for greater insight provided through the interpretation of marginal associations
of various constructs of the study. The choice of 5 percent level of significant for social
studies is supported by Bland (2000).

3.7.2 Shapiro Wilk test

The study used Shapiro Wilk test of normality to test the normality of the data. The
Shapiro–Wilk test utilizes the null hypothesis principle to check whether a sample x1... xn
came from a normally distributed population. The test statistic is:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 759
ISSN 2320-9186

Where

 x(i) (with parentheses enclosing the subscript index i) is the ith order statistic, i.e., the
ith is the smallest number in the sample;

 is the sample mean;

 the constants ai are given by[1]

Where

and are the expected values of the order statistics of independent and
identically distributed random variables sampled from the standard normal distribution,
and is the covariance matrix of those order statistics. The null hypothesis is rejected if
is below a predetermined threshold (Shapiro; Wilk, 1965) - in this study the chosen
alpha value of 0.05. The null-hypothesis of this test was that the population is normally
distributed. Thus if the p-value was less than the chosen alpha level, then the null
hypothesis would be rejected and the implication of the test would be that the data tested
would not be from a normally distributed population (Field, Andy, 2009; Razali,
Nornadiah; Wah, Yap Bee, 2011). In other words, the data would not be normal. On the
contrary, if the p-value was greater than the chosen alpha level, then the null hypothesis
that the data came from a normally distributed population would be accepted, implying
that the data would be normally distributed E.g. for an alpha level of 0.05, a data set with
a p-value of 0.02 would rejects the null hypothesis that the data would be from a
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 760
ISSN 2320-9186

normally distributed population (Field, Andy, 2009; Razali, Nornadiah; Wah, Yap Bee,
2011).

3.7.3 Breusch-Pagan test

The study applied Breusch-Pagan test of post-estimation to test the assumption of
constancy of variance for fitting a linear regression model in data analysis. In statistics,
the Breusch–Pagan test (named after Trevor Breusch and Adrian Pagan) is used to test for
heteroscedasticity in a linear regression model (Gujarati, Damodar; Porter, Dawn, 2009).
It tests whether the estimated variance of the residuals from a regression are dependent on
the values of the independent variables.

The test statistic for the Breusch-Pagan test is;

( ) ( ) ( )

where ( ) is a vector of ones, is a matrix composed of the

values of the variables and

∑( )

According to Breusch-Pagan (1979), if the p-value of the test is greater than the chosen
alpha value, in this study 0.05, then the H0 of constant variance (homoscedasticity) is
accepted. This would indicate that heteroskedasticity was probably not a problem (or at
least that if it was a problem, it wasn‘t a multiplicative function of the predicted values)
implying that the study rightfully fitted the regression model in the data analysis.
However, if the p-value of the test is smaller than the critical value, the H0 of constant
variance is rejected. This would signify the presence of heteroscedasticity meaning that
fitting a regression model for data analysis would not be appropriate (Heij; de Boer,
2004)

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 761
ISSN 2320-9186

3.7.4 Correlation matrix

The study used correlation matrix to ascertain that one predictor variable could not be
linearly predicted from the others (non-multi-collinearity) as a condition for applying
multiple regression model in analyzing the study data. According to Pedace (2013), small
correlation values less than 0.4 between the predictor variables means no multi-
collinearity between the predictor variables. This would imply that one predictor variable
would not be linearly predicted from the others. Therefore, the assumption for application
of the linear regression model in data analysis would be observed.

3.7.5 Measurement Development : Confirmatory factor analysis

The study sought to develop measures for the study constructs. Therefore, the study used
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the internal consistency (reliability) of the
items in the measure to determine the retention of each item as a measure of the
observed factor (variable) or any exclusion of the item from the measure should be done.
Consequently, the study developed individual measurement model for each construct
measure to confirmatory factor analysis (CAF) and the overall measurement model to
check the dimensionality of the construct and the validity of the measures.

SEM is a quantitative data analytical method which specifies, estimates, and tests
hypothetical relationships between observed endogenous factors (variables) and latent,
unobserved exogenous factors (Byrne,2001). SEM is not a title for a single statistical
procedure but a family of relevant procedures including analysis of covariance structure
which combines factor analysis and regression analysis as well (Diamantopoulos and
Siguaw,2000). The approach started with model specification which linked the items
hypothesized to affect the individual study constructs and the directionalities of their
effects (Kline, 2005). Model specification is a visual representation of hypothesized
relationships between various factors (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). In the
estimation process, SEM produced regression weights, variances, covariances and
correlations which converged on a set of parameters estimates on iteration (Holmes-
Smith et al., 2004).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 762
ISSN 2320-9186

Through the process of estimation, fit statistics was evaluated to check whether the
proposed model was a fit to the data or not, or whether any modification was required to
increase the fit. The model fit statistics is divided into absolute fit indices, incremental fit
or comparative fit indices and indices of model parsimony (Holmes-Smith et al., 2004).
In each of these types, there are different fit indices and rule of thumb about the required
minimum level of score/value for good fit propagated by different authors (Arbuckle,
199; Byrne, 2001). However, this study, in consideration of sample sensitivity and model
complexity effect, used χ2/df (chi-square mean -CMIN/ degree of freedom-Df),
incremental fit index (IFI), tucker lewis index (TLI), component fit index (CFI) and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) fit statistics to assess the degree of overall
fitness of the measurement model and the structural model (Truxillo, 2003). Additional
reason for the choice of these model fit measures was because they have been commonly
used and reported in the literature (Truxillo, 2003). The scale for measuring model fitness
in this study according to Byrne (2001); Holmes-Smith et al., (2004); Truxillo, (2003);
and Kline (2005) is presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3. 6 Scale for SEM Fit Indices

Level of Model Overall Model Fit

Fit
Model Fit Model Comparison

Fit Measures CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

Recommended for Further >2 >0.08 0.90 <0.90 <0.90

Analysis if

Acceptable Scale for Good as ≤2 <0.06 ≥0.90 ≥0.90 ≥0.90

well as Adequate Fit (Reasonable fit
up to 0.08)

Source: Adopted from Byrne (2001), Holmes-Smith et al. (2004), and Kline (2005)

Holmes-Smith et al. (2004) observed that in a large sample size, χ2 test may show that the
data are significantly different from those expected on a given theory even though the
difference may be negligible or unimportant on other criteria. Based on this, Holmes-
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 763
ISSN 2320-9186

Smith et al., (2004) preferred the use of ―normed‖ χ2 where χ2 is divided by the degree of
freedom. The normed χ2 is given by χ2∕ df. Accordingly, a value of normed χ2 greater
than 1 and smaller than 2 indicates a very good model fit (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al. 2006).
However, given the limitation of χ2 statistics for assessing structural model fit (Bentler,
1990), CIF, TLI and IFI were preferred for baseline comparison and were used to
evaluate and report the model fit in this study. IFI, TLI and CFI were used to evaluate the
relative improvement in fit to the model based on the baseline model. IFI, TLI and CFI
values range from zero to one. Values close to one (e.g. 0.90 to 0.95) suggests adequate
fit and more than 0.95 suggests a very well fit model (Truxillo, 2003). Thus this study
considered values between 0.90 and 1.00 as adequate to evaluate the incremental fitness
of the model (Holmes-Smith et al., 2004; Kline, 2005). RMSEA values less than 0.05
indicates good fit and values between 0.06 and 0.08 are considered reasonable fit (Byrne,
2001). These model fit indices were used in assessing the initial measurement models for
the construct measures and the final structural model for the variable measures reported
in the section four of this study.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) incorporates the testing of unidimensionality and

evaluation of data set by confirming the underlying structure on the basis of theoretical
ground (Kline, 2005). It further proposes adjustment, simplification, and/or any required
improvement in the measurement model for hypothesis testing and probing the level of fit
(Truxillo, 2003). Even though model identification is the requirement of CFA,
modification and standardized loadings (standardized regression weights) in the SPSS-
Amos output were the options to verify the dimensionality of the measurement or verify
the model fit. Modification indices (MIs) comprised of variances, covariance, and
regression weights. These indices were examined during evaluation of model fit to get the
direction of adjustment, for example, whether freeing or incorporating parameters either
between or among unobserved factors is required in attaining better model fit (Holmes-
Smith et al., 2004; Kline, 2005). Holmes-Smith et al., (2004) suggested deletion and
adding a new path indicator as best ways to get better fitting model. A change or deletion

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 764
ISSN 2320-9186

of item in iterative processes results in changes in parameters and model fit statistics
(Holmes-Smith et al., 2004).

3.7.6 Regression Analysis

The study used multiple regression analysis to evaluate and establish relationships
between dependent (Firm Performance), moderating factor (Supply Chain Ecocentricity)
and multiple independent factors (Green Procurement, Green Manufacturing, Green
Distribution, and Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics) and the causal effects.
This was made possible through testing of the study hypothesises formulated to address
the research objectives. Multiple linear regression attempts to model the relationship
between two or more explanatory variables and a response variable by fitting a linear
equation to the observed data, where every value of the independent variable X is
associated with a value of the dependent variable y (Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008). Since

the observed values for y vary about their means y, the multiple regression model
(MRM) includes a term for this variation. In words, the model is expressed as DATA =

FIT + RESIDUAL, where the "FIT" term represents the expression 0 + 1X1 + 2 X2

+....................... pXp. The "RESIDUAL" term represents the deviations of the observed

values y from their means y, and is denoted by . Therefore, the multiple regression
equation for this study which represent the relationship between the dependent variable
(P) as a linear function of the independent variables (Green Procurement-GP, Green
Manufacturing-GM, Green Distribution-GD and Environmentally Oriented Reverse

Logistics-EORL), with representing the model deviations (error term) (Cooper &
Schindler, 2006; Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008) is given by :

P  0  1GP   2GM   3GD   4 EORL  

………… (3.2)

Equation 3. 2 MRM for dependent and independent variables association

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 765
ISSN 2320-9186

To establish the effect of the moderating variable in the study, an additional term was
added to the multiple regression equation to incorporate the influence of the moderating
variable (SCEC) on Equation 3.2. Thus the regression model:

P  0   1 GP   2GM  3GD   4 EORL  5 SCEC  

…… (3.3)
Equation 3. 3 MRM for the dependent, independent and moderating variable

Where P=Performance (dependent variable), P=Green Procurement, GM=Green

Manufacturing, GD=Green Distribution, and EORL=Environmentally-oriented Reverse
Logistics are respective independent variables; SCEC= supply chain ecocentricity
(moderating variable);  0 (Alpha) is constant or P intercept,  1 = slope or the

coefficient of GP,  2 = coefficient of GM,  3 = coefficient of GD,  4 = coefficient of

EORL,  5 = coefficient of SCEC and  = error term (Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008). In

this case the role of SCEC as a moderating variable is accomplished by evaluating  5 , the

parameter estimate for the modarating term.

The measure of how well the model as a whole ―fits the data‖ or, put differently, to what
extent the model explains the variability of the dependent variable is a function of R2,
which varies conveniently between zero and one. A value of R2 = 0 means that the
regression does not explain any of the variability of the dependent variable, while a value
R2 = 1 means that the regression explain all such variability (if the R2 = 1, all data points
lie on the regression line or all the data values are on the regression line i.e. explained)
and the R2Adj is used to describe the relationship for parent (study) population (Hesketh &
Skrondal, 2008). F and t values of the data output explain the relationship between the
variables; F explains the overall relationship between the variables. The significance of F
tests the hypothesis of the relationships, while ‗t‘ explains the relationships between the
individual variables and its significance tests the hypothesis for the individual variables.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 766
ISSN 2320-9186

The smaller the F, the more likely it is that the null hypothesis is rejected. In the case of
‗t‘, the levels of significance tests the hypothesis for individual variables.

Multiple regression analysis offers a more accurate explanation of the performance

(dependent variable) since more explanatory variables, in this case, green procurement,
green manufacturing, green distribution, environmentally oriented reverse logistics and
supply chain ecocentricity can be fitted into the model for analysis. Certainty of the effect
of individual independent variable eliminates the possibility of the distorting influence
from other independent variables (Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008). According to Cooper and
Schindler (2006), the multiple regression technique has the capability of analyzing
virtually any set of quantitative data. This capability fits the analysis of a range of
associations between performance, supply chain ecocentricity and GSCM practices in
this study. However, the following assumptions are made under the multiple regression
model: that all variables are included in the equation, that multicollinearity is not an
issue, that no change in regime has occurred and that errors have the same variance
throughout.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 767
ISSN 2320-9186

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
The study aimed to establish the link between GSCM dimensions and firm performance.
As a result, the chapter reports in terms of summary statistics, the results of respondents‘
responses, pilot study and descriptive statistics for the characteristics of each tested
factor. The mean, standard deviation, percentages and frequencies are reported for some
tested variables. Tables and bar chats illustrate the frequency distributions for each tested
factor. The results of diagnostic statistics tests for the regression model are reported
including the diagnostic procedures. The findings for the tested hypotheses are reported
according to each study hypothesis for addressing each of the study objectives. The
statistical procedures followed in terms of testing and reporting on the diagnostic
statistics and regression analysis are reported.

4.2 Results of the Pilot Study

In reference to reliability test section, the alpha test was done on the items on the
instrument to ascertain their reliability. A total of 20 respondents (manufacturing firms)
were used in the pretest as recommended by Monette, Sullivan and DeJong, (2002) for a
survey study. Coefficient alpha was used for reliability test (Cronbach, 1951).The data
findings indicate the highest alpha value of 0.894 for the green manufacturing and the
least alpha value of 0.67 for green distribution.

In this study, the items in the instrument which had Cronbach‘s alpha score of less than
0.6 were to be rejected according to Zikmund, (2003); and Nunnally and Bernstein,
(2004). However, all the factors had Cronbach‘s alphas of above 0.6 with the least being
alpha value of 0.67 (green distribution), signifying that all factors were within the
threshold of acceptable alphas (Zikmund, 2003; Ritter, 2010). These imply that the study
survey instrument was reliable and met the requirement of an acceptable data collection

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 768
ISSN 2320-9186

instrument in a survey study (Zikmund, 2003). The alpha scores of the GSCM
dimensions are exemplified in Table 4.1.

Table 4. 1: Scale Reliability Coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) for GSCM Dimension

GSCM dimension Number of Alpha value Interpretation (Zikmund,

items 2003; Ritter, 2010)
Green procurement 5 0.85 Good
Green manufacturing 6 0.894 Acceptable
Green distribution 5 0.67 Good
Environmentally oriented 5 0.763 Good
reverse logistics
Supply Chain 5 0.697 Good
Ecocentricity

4.3 Response Rate

This section sought to ascertain the response rate of the respondents. The researcher
distributed a total of 234 questionnaires. Out of these, 179 (76 percent) questionnaires
were returned filled and 55 (24 percent) respondents declined participation. Out of 179
filled questionnaires returned, 18 (8 percent) were incompletely filled leaving 161 valid
questionnaires which were analyzed. This translated to 69 percent respondents‘ response
rate for the study.

The response rate of 69 percent was considered acceptable for the study. This is
supported by Richardson (2005) which regarded 50 percent response rate as an
acceptable in a social research survey. Baruch (2007) established that the average
response rate in social research surveys is 55.6 %. Therefore, the study response rate of
69 percent is considered high and acceptable in this study. Table 4.2 illustrates the study
response rate.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 769
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 2: Response rate

Particulars Respondents’ Responses None- Questionnaire

Responsive None- Responses Distributed
Responses Responsive
responses
Frequencies 161 18 55 234
Percentages 69% 8% 23% 100

4.4 Background of the Respondents

4.4.1 Classification of the Respondents’ Firms
To establish the sectors of the respondents firms, the respondents were required to
indicate the sector which best described their firms. The data findings indicate that 2
percent of the respondents were best described as belonging to building, construction and
mining sector; 13 percent to chemical and allied sector; 6 percent to energy, electrical and
electronics sector; 26 percent to food and beverages sector; 1 percent to leather and
footwear sector; 12 percent to metal and allied sector; 4 percent to motor vehicle and
accessories sector; 11 percent to paper and boards sector; 4 percent to pharmaceutical and
medical equipment sector; 10 percent to plastic and rubber sector; 9 percent to textile and
apparel sector; and 3 percent to timber, wood and furniture sector. These data findings
mean that majority of the manufacturing firms in Kenya are producing food and
beverages, the common characteristic of manufacturing sectors in the third world
countries (Kaliraja et al., 2010). This implies that a policy initiative aimed at
improvement of green practices in the manufacturing sector in the country should target
food and beverages sub-sector in order to achieve a significant impact. The comparative
frequencies of the above statistical findings are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4. 3 Sectors of the respondents Firm

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 770
ISSN 2320-9186

Sectors of the Firm, Stratified Questionnaires Valid Sector

N=161 Sampled Distributed Questionnaires wise
Population Returned valid
responses
in %
Building, Construction 6 6 4 2
and Mining
Chemical and Allied 27 27 21 13
Energy, Electricals and 14 14 9 6
Electronics
Food and Beverages 60 60 42 26
Leather and Footwear 2 2 2 1
Metal and Allied 25 25 19 12
Motor Vehicle and 10 10 6 4
Accessories
Paper and Boards 26 26 17 11
Pharmaceutical and 9 9 6 4
Medical Equipment
Plastic and Rubber 26 26 16 10
Textile and apparel 22 22 14 9
Timber, Wood and 7 7 5 3
Furniture
Total 234 234 161 100

4.4.2 Size of firms

The study sought to use the number of employees to establish the sizes of the
manufacturing firms in Kenya. As a result, the respondents were asked to indicate the
number of employees in their firms. The results indicate that majority of the firms at 32

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
 GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 771
ISSN 2320-9186

percent had employees ranging from 50 to 100 employees and the least number of the
firms at 3 percent had above 250 employees. The data results imply that most
manufacturing firms in Kenya are medium enterprises, employing between 51-100 paid
employees. According to William and Litabingwa (2005), medium enterprises are
defined in Kenya as those enterprises employing between 51-100 paid employees. These
findings are presented in Fig.4.1.

32%
30

24%

20%
% of the firms

20

16%
10

4%
3%
0

<50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 >250

Number of employees

Figure 4. 1 Number of employees in the respondents firms

4.4.3 Positions held by the respondents in their firms

In gauging the respondents‘ capacity to respond effectively to the study survey questions,
the respondents were required to indicate the position they hold in their firms. The study
targeted all supply chain management designate senior officers (heads from logistics
/procurement/ operations, general managers, and directors) as the study unit of
observations. However, in some firms, other categories such as brand manager and

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 772
ISSN 2320-9186

occupational safety, health and environment officers answered the questionnaire. This
could be as a result of lack of the supply chain management related designate in such
firms (Lacroix, 2008).Consequently, the study established that 6.2 percent were
occupational safety, health and environment officers; 1.2 percent brand managers; 9.9
percent managing directors; 7.5 percent head of supply chain management; 27.3 percent
operations managers; 35.4 percent procurement managers; and production managers
accounted for 12.4 percent.

The results indicate that about 94 percent of respondents occupying the positions of
manager and above ranks. This could mean that the information obtained from the study
survey instruments were robust enough to address the study objectives since majority of
the respondents had access to relevant information to the study due to their positions in
the firms. Additional finding was that most firms have not embraced the title of ―Head of
Supply Chain Management‖ within their operations since it accounted for only 7.6
percent compared to operation and procurement heads at 27.8 and 35.4 percent
respectively. This implies that not many firms in Kenya have changed the way they name
their supply chain managers even though they have embraced the concept of supply chain
management within their operations. These confirm the notion propounded by Ondiso,
(2012) that in Kenya, most organizations regards procurement function and operation
function as key elements in supply chain management. These statistical findings are
shown in Table 4.4 in terms of frequencies and percentages.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 773
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 4 Respondents Positions

Positions held by the respondents Frequency Percent (%)

Occupational Safety Health and Environment 10 6.2
officer
Brand Manager 2 1.2
Managing Director 16 9.9
Head of SCM 12 7.5
Operations Manager 44 27.3
Procurement Manager 57 35.4
Production Manager 20 12.4
Total 161 100

4.5 Descriptive Analysis

4.5.1 Green Procurement
The study aimed to establish firm practices that constitute green procurement in the
manufacturing industry. The respondents were required to indicate the level of these
practices within their firms and the results were as follows: use specifications with
environmental requirement (mean 4.24, SD 0.679), preference to products that consumed
fewer natural resources (mean 4.24, SD 0.612), collaboration with vendors to address
environmental problems (mean 4.16, SD 0.672), environmental audit (mean 4.01, SD
0.541) and ISO14001 certification of supply base as a criteria for selecting vendor (mean
3.80, SD 1.319) .

The data findings indicate that using environmental requirements as specification for
purchases, environmental audits of supply base, preference to products that consumed
fewer natural resources, and working with suppliers to address environmental problems
were explicit across the firms surveyed having an overall scores of mean 4.24, SD 0.679;
mean 4.01, SD 0.541; mean 4.24, SD 0.612; and 4.16, SD 0.672 respectively out of the
maximum possible score of 5 points. These imply that manufacturing firms in Kenya

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 774
ISSN 2320-9186

have embraced similar green procurement practices as the rest of the world (Handfield et
al., 2005; Newbold, 2006).These results are presented in table 4.5.

Table 4. 5 Green Procurement Indicators

Percent (%)
1 2 3 4 5 Standard
Item NA SE A LE VLE Mean Deviation
Using environmental 3.1 2.5 3.1 49.7 41.6 4.24 0.679
requirements as specification for
purchases
Environmental audits of supply 4.4 7.5 8.1 42.9 37.3 4.01 0.541
base
ISO14001 Certification of supply 13.7 3.7 5.6 43.5 33.5 3.80 1.319
base as a criteria for selecting
vendor
Prefer products that consumed 2.5 3.1 10.6 35.4 48.5 4.24 0.612
fewer natural resources
Working with suppliers to 1.2 6.2 8.7 43.5 40.4 4.16 0.672
address environmental problems
Key: n=161; 1= NA=Not All; 2= SE=Small Extent; 3= A=Average; 4= LE=Large
Extent; 5= VLE=Very Large Extent

4.5.2 Green Manufacturing

The study intended to establish firm practices that constitute green manufacturing. The
respondents were required to indicate the level of these practices within their respective
firms. The findings indicate that use of efficient processes scored (mean 4.63, SD 0.586),
environmental friendly raw material (mean 4.56, SD 0.531), tools which consume fewer
resources (mean 4.44, SD 0.605), assessment of the life cycle of tools (mean 4.33, SD
0.734), assessment of risk for energy and resource use (mean 4.33, SD 0.686), and
environmental management systems scored a mean 4.16 with an SD of 0.602.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 775
ISSN 2320-9186

The results indicate that use of efficient processes to reduce solid waste, air emissions
and conserve energy; environmental friendly raw material ; tools which consume fewer
resources; assessment of the life cycle of tools ; assessment of risk for energy and
resource use ; and environmental management systems were explicit across the firms
studied having an overall scores of mean 4.63, STD 0.586; mean 4.56, STD 0.531; mean
4.44, SD 0.605; mean 4.33, SD 0.734; mean 4.33, STD 0.686 ; and mean 4.16, SD 0.602
respectively out of a possible maximum 5 points. This implies that green manufacturing
practices in Kenya are not unique from the rest of the world (Lacroix, 2008; Zhuet et al.,
2008; Melnyk et al., 2003). The findings further confirm green manufacturing practices
by firms as propounded by Vachon and Klassen (2006b) under the resource based view.
These findings are presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4. 6 Green manufacturing indicators

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 776
ISSN 2320-9186

Item Percent (%) Mean Standard

1 2 3 4 5 Deviation
NA SE A LE VLE
Using machines or tools which 1.3 1.2 8.7 29.8 59.0 4.44 0.605
consume less energy, water, and
fuel
Impact and life cycle assessment 3.1 1.2 9.9 31.1 54.7 4.33 0.734
tools for manufacturing
Risk assessment for energy and 3.1 0.6 7.5 37.9 50.9 4.33 0.686
resource use
Environmental friendly raw 0.6 1.2 6.8 24.2 67.1 4.56 0.531
material
Efficient processes to reduce 1.2 1.2 0.6 26.7 70.2 4.63 0.586
solid waste, air emissions and
conserve energy
Environmental Management 5.0 5.7 4.4 38.4 46.5 4.16 0.602
System (EMS)
Key: n=161; 1= NA=Not All; 2= SE=Small Extent; 3= A=Average; 4= LE=Large
Extent; 5= VLE=Very Large Extent

4.5.3 Green Distribution

The study sought to ascertain factors which constitute green distribution in the
manufacturing firms in Kenya. To achieve this, the responded were asked to rate the level
of green distribution practices within their firms. These were the findings: collection of
used packages for proper disposal (mean 4.57, SD 0.764), environment-friendly
packaging and transportation (mean 4.36, SD 0.898), provision of information to
customers on environment friendly products (mean 4.34, SD 0.712), downsize packaging
(mean 4.24, SD 0.672), re-using and recycling of packages (mean 4.22, SD 0.687) and
eco labeling of products (mean 4.15, SD 0.917).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 777
ISSN 2320-9186

The data results imply that to a large extend, collection of used packages for proper
disposal (mean 4.57, SD 0.764), environment-friendly packaging and transportation
(mean 4.36, SD 0.898), provision of information to customers on environment friendly
products (mean 4.34, SD 0.712), re-using and recycling of packages (mean 4.22, SD
0.687) and eco labeling of products (mean 4.15, SD 0.917) were used across the firms
surveyed. They all have a mean score of above four out of a possible maximum 5 points
indicating that green distribution practices by firms in Kenya are similar to those being
practiced by firms in other countries (Rao & Holt, 2005; Preuss, 2005). The findings
further concur with the theoretical view of Christmann, (2000) on the measures of green
distribution. The data findings are shown in Table 4.7.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 778
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 7 Green distribution indicators

Indicators Percent (%) Mean Standard

1 2 3 4 5 Deviation
NA SE A LE VLE
Eco labeling of products 3.1 3.7 5.6 50.3 37.3 4.15 0.917
Environment-friendly packaging 1.2 1.2 9.9 37.3 50.3 4.36 0.898
and transportation
Providing information to 6.2 1.2 9.3 19.3 64.0 4.34 0.712
customers on environment
friendly products
Re-using and recycling of 6.8 3.7 9.3 21.1 59.0 4.22 0.687
packages
Collection of used packages for 1.2 0.6 7.5 21.1 69.6 4.57 0.764
proper disposal
Downsize packaging 4.2 3.8 9.6 37.9 44.5 4.24 0.672

Key: n=161; 1= NA=Not All; 2= SE=Small Extent; 3= A=Average; 4= LE=Large

Extent; 5= VLE=Very Large Extent

4.5.4 Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics

The study intended to establish practices that constitute environmentally oriented reverse
logistics in the manufacturing firms in Kenya. In this regard, the respondents were
required to indicate the level of EORL practices in their firms. The mean findings are
presented on Table 4.8 as follows: use waste collection for proper disposal (mean 4.57,
SD 0.664), recycling, re-use and recovery of useful parts of the products (mean 4.61, SD
0.543), recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal (mean 4.30, SD 0.728),
arrangements with customers to return used packages (mean 4.06, SD 1.001), and easy
availability of information about returning of products (mean 4.26, SD 0.937).

The data outcomes indicate that waste collection for proper disposal , recycling, re-use
and recovery of useful parts of the products , recovery of hazardous parts for proper
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 779
ISSN 2320-9186

disposal, arrangements with customers to return used packages , and easy availability of
information about returning of products were explicit across the firms surveyed having an
overall scores of mean 4.57, SD 0.664; 4.61, SD 0.543; 4.30, SD 0.728; 4.06, SD 1.001;
and 4.26, SD 0.937 respectively out of possible maximum score of 5 points. This
indicates that environmentally oriented reverse logistics practices by firms in Kenya are
not unique to Kenyan firms but are similar to those being practiced by firms in other
countries (Umeda et al., 2003; Zhu & Sarkis, 2004). The findings further concur with the
view of Hines and Johns, (2001) on the measures of environmentally oriented reverse
logistics. The study data findings are presented in Table 4.8.

Table 4. 8 Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics indicators

Indicators Percent (%) Mean Standard

1 2 3 4 5 Deviation
NA SE A LE VLE
Waste collection for proper 1.2 0.6 7.5 21.1 69.6 4.57 0.664
disposal
Recycling, re-use and recovery of 1.2 0.6 6.2 19.9 72.1 4.61 0.543
useful parts of the products
Recovery of hazardous parts for 1.2 1.2 12.4 36.7 48.5 4.30 0.728
proper disposal
Arrangements with customers to 8.7 4.4 12.4 21.7 52.8 4.06 1.001
return used packages
Easy availability of information 4.4 3.8 6.3 32.5 53.1 4.26 0.937
about returning of products

Key: n=161; 1= NA=Not at All; 2= SE=Small Extent; 3= A=Average; 4= LE=Large

Extent; 5= VLE=Very Large Extent
4.5.5 Supply Chain Ecocentricity
To establish the level of adoption of supply chain ecocentricity by the manufacturing
firms, the respondents were required to confirm the adoption levels of various SCE

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 780
ISSN 2320-9186

practices within their firms. The results were as follows: on average, about 40 percent of
the firms have embraced some form of SCE.

This is in contrast with Seuring (2004) assertion that above 60 percent of manufacturing
firms in Germany are willing to engage and learn from environmental external
stakeholders‘ new ways of greening their supply chain. This could be due to the fact that
European customers and authorities are more conscious to green issues compare to
customers and authorities in the developing world (Tate et al., 2011). In connection to
individual practices, use of experts from external stakeholders for implementation of eco-
best practices and environmental audit by external stakeholders scored the highest at
about 46 percent. This is probably because most environmental training and audit are
externally facilitated by donors in Kenya (Ondiso, 2012) and therefore are largely not
expenditure to individual firms. The rest of the practices scored lower than 45 percent
individually and the least score being for co-investment with external stakeholders on
environmental management related issues at 24.85 percent. This indicates that
manufacturing firms in Kenya have not fully embraced the concept of partnering with
other players in environmental management issues. In fact some view government
agencies and environmentally oriented non-governmental organizations as unfriendly
groups out to interfere with their operations (Jones, 2006).These results are shown in
Table 4.9.

Table 4. 9 Supply chain ecocentricity

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 781
ISSN 2320-9186

Variable, N=161 Yes

Partner with external stakeholders of environmental research 41.85%
Sponsorship for implementation of environmental management practices by the 36.00%
external stakeholders
Participation in external stakeholders eco-oriented workshops 43.80%
Use of experts from external stakeholders for implementation eco-best practices 45.9%
Environmental audit by external stakeholders 45.2%
Co-investment with external stakeholders on environmental management 24.85%
related issues

4.5.6 Firm Performance

The study used cost efficiency as one of the performance measure. To establish the
measures which constitute cost efficiency as a performance measure in the manufacturing
firms in Kenya, the respondents were asked to rank the cost efficiency measures
according to their level of usage in their firms on a scale of 1 to 5. The scale respectively
represent: not at all, small extent, average, large extent and very large extent. The data
findings were as follows: reduction of cost of inputs due to recycle/re-use of material
scored a mean 0f 4.25 with a SD of 0.522), lowering of cost of energy and water (mean
4.19, SD 0.694), reduction of waste management cost (mean 4.11, SD 0.673), reduction
of statutory fines (mean 4.16, SD 0.776), and reduction of hazardous material
management cost scored a mean of 4.08 with a SD of 0.538. However, reduction of cost
of transport scored a mean of less than 4 at 3.60, SD 0.996.

The findings imply that reduction of cost of inputs , lowering of cost of energy and water,
reduction of waste management cost, reduction of statutory fines and reduction of
hazardous material management cost were explicit across all the firms surveyed with a
mean score of above four out of the possible maximum points of 5. These findings are in
agreement with Lambert and Burduroglu, (2000) which used them as a measure of cost
efficiency in their study. The findings are presented in Table 4.10.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 782
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 10 Cost Efficiency Indicators

Percent (%)
1 2 3 4 5 Standard
Item Mean Deviation
Cost Efficiency
Waste management fee has been 1.9 4.4 20.5 27.3 46.0 4.11 0.673
reduced
Hazardous material management 2.5 7.6 12.0 35.4 42.4 4.08 0.538
fees has been lowered
Cost of energy and water has 3.1 3.8 11.3 34.4 47.5 4.19 0.694
been lowered
Statutory fines for non- 1.9 9.3 11.8 25.5 51.6 4.16 0.776
environmental compliant is
reduced
Input cost have reduced due to 1.2 3.7 14.3 30.4 50.3 4.25 0.522
recycle/re-use of material
Cost of transport has been 3.7 8.7 29.2 41.0 17.4 3.60 0.996
reduced
Key: n=161: 1= NA=Not All; 2= SE=Small Extent; 3= A=Average; 4= LE=Large
Extent; 5= VLE=Very Large Extent

A second performance measure used in the study is environmental differentiation. To

ascertain the practices which constitute environmental differentiation as a non-financial
measure of firm performance, the respondents were asked to rank the environmental
differentiation measures according to their level of usage in their firms on a scale of 1 to
5. The scale respectively represent: not at all, small extent, average, large extent and very
large extent. The data findings as shown in Table 4.11 were as follows: improvement of
conservation of energy and water (mean 4.38, SD 0.666), improvement of eco-waste

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 783
ISSN 2320-9186

management (mean 4.36, SD 0.584) and improvement of eco-management of hazardous

material (mean 4.13, SD 0.596).

The findings indicate that improvement of conservation of energy and water,

improvement of eco-waste management and improvement of eco-management of
hazardous material stood out across the firms surveyed with means above four points out
of the maximum possible score of five. However, improvement of eco-friendly
reputation, charging higher premium price on eco-products, improvement of eco-
management of hazardous material and increment in eco-brand loyalty were found to be
used in an average extent scoring means ranging from three to less than four out of the
maximum possible score of 5. These findings are in agreement with Christmann, (2000)
which used them as a measure of environmental differentiation in their study. The
findings are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4. 11 Environmental differentiation indicators

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 784
ISSN 2320-9186

Percent (%)
1 2 3 4 5 Standard
Item Mean Deviation
Environmental differentiation
Eco-friendly reputation has 1.2 5.0 26.7 43.5 23.6 3.83 0.889
increased
Charge higher price (premium) 6.2 20.5 22.4 39.8 11.2 3.29 1.122
compared to competitors
Eco-brand loyalty has increased 4.4 3.8 21.9 45.6 24.4 3.82 0.990
Eco-waste management has 1.2 3.1 10.6 28.6 56.5 4.36 0.584
improved
Eco-management of hazardous 3.1 8.7 9.3 29.8 49.1 4.13 0.596
material has improved
Conservation of energy and water 1.2 1.2 14.3 24.8 58.4 4.38 0.666
has improved
Production of eco-unique 5.0 8.7 15.5 32.9 37.9 3.90 0.952
products has increased
Key: n=161, 1= NA=Not All, 2= SE=Small Extent, 3= A=Average, 4= LE=Large Extent,
5= LE=Very Large Extent

4.6 Requisite Tests

4.6.1 Test of Normality of Data Distribution
The study sought to ascertain the normality of the predictor variables data in terms of the
underlying distribution of the errors as a prerequisite for the application of the regression
model in the study. As a result, Shapiro Wilk test for normality was used to test the
underlying distribution of the errors. The statistical findings were as follows: green
procurement (p = 0.827), green manufacturing (p =0.832), EORL (p = 0.727), green
distribution (p = 0.623) and SCE (p = 0.635).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 785
ISSN 2320-9186

The results of data tests show that all the p-values are greater than the chosen alpha level
of 0.05. This implies that the ‗variables are normally distributed‘. According to Shapiro,
(1965), any value above 0.05 (chosen alpha) indicates normality of the data. Hence the
data findings imply that the errors were normally distributed in the study as a prerequisite
to the application of the regression model in the study. The statistical findings are
presented in Table 4.12.

Table 4. 12 Shapiro Wilk test for normality results

Variable Obs Prob>z Chosen alpha (0.05)

Green Procurement 161 0.827 0.05
Green Manufacturing 161 0.832 0.05
EORL 161 0.727 0.05
Green Distribution 161 0.623 0.05
Supply Ecocentricity 161 0.635 0.05

4.6.2 Test of Equal variance (homoscedasticity)

This is a post-estimation test that confirms the assumptions of constancy of variance for
fitting a linear regression model in data analysis. To determine that the variances of the
predictor variables are the same for all the data (homoscedasticity) as a requirement in
regression model, the study used Breusch-Pagan test for heteroscedasticity. According
Breusch; Pagan, (1979) if the p-value of the test is greater than critical value, in this study
0.05, then the variance is constant. The p-value of this test is 0.4485 (which is greater
than 0.05) meaning the study the variation in data is uniform. This indicates
homoscedasticity in the data and therefore the use of multiple regression model is
supported. The results of the tests are shown in Table 4.13

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 786
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 13 Breusch-Pagan test for heteroscedasticity

Variable Chi-square value P-value

Fitted values of performance 0.57 0.4485

4.6.3 Test for multi-collinearity

The study sought to establish that one predictor variable could not be linearly predicted
from the others (non-multi – collinearity) as a condition for applying multiple regression
model in analyzing the study data. To achieve this, the study used the correlation matrix.
The results indicate that the correlation values (off-diagonal elements) are all below 0.4.
This comply with Pedace (2013) recommendation that small correlation values of less
than 0.4 between the predictor variables signify that there was no multicollinearity
between the predictor variables. This implies that one predictor variable could not be
linearly predicted from the others and therefore the assumption for application of the
linear regression model of ―no multi-collinearity‖ was observed in the study. The data
findings are presented on Table 4.14.

Table 4. 14 Results for test of multi-collinearity

Green proc Green man Green dist EORL prac Supply econ
Green proc 1.0000
Green man 0.3336 1.0000
Green dist 0.2472 0.1019 1.0000
EORL prac 0.1452 0.1044 0.2064 1.0000
Supply eco 0.2088 0.3024 0.0065 0.1422 1.0000

4.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Inferential Tests)

In order to address the study objectives outlined in chapter 1, this section reports the
results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under the Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under the structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used in this study to determine the items which could be used to measure the
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 787
ISSN 2320-9186

study constructs. SEM is a quantitative data analysis method which specifies , estimates,
and tests hypothetical relationships between observed endogenous factors (variables) and
latent, unobserved exogenous factors (Byrne, 2001). SEM is not a title for a single
statistical procedure but a family of relevant procedures including analysis of covariance
structure which combines factor analysis and regression analysis as well
(Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000).

In the estimation process, SEM produces regression weights, variances, covariance and
correlations which converges on a set of parameters estimates on iteration (Holmes-Smith
et al., 2004). In this study, a scale proposed by Byrne (2001); Holmes-Smith et al. (2004);
Truxillo, (2003); and Kline (2005) was used to measure model fitness of items for
measuring the study constructs. According to Byrne, (2001) a measuring model with a
normed degree of freedom (Chi-square mean - CMIN/ degree of freedom –DF) of ≤2,
root mean square error of approximation – RMSEA of <0.08, incremental fit index –IFI,
tucker lewis index-TLI and component fit index-CFI of ≥0.90 respectively are considered
acceptable scale for good as well as adequate fit model for measuring a study factor,
Table 4.15. Consequently, the measurement models for each factor (construct) for this
study are discussed in the section to follow.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 788
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 15 Scale for SEM Fit Indices

Level of Model Fit Overall Model Fit

Model Fit Model Comparison

Fit Measures CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

Recommended for Further >2 >0.08 0.90 <0.90 <0.90

Analysis if
Acceptable Scale for Good as well ≤2 <0.06 ≥0.90 ≥0.90 ≥0.90
as Adequate Fit (Reasonable
fit up to 0.08)
Source: Byrne (2001); Holmes-Smith et al. (2004); Truxillo, (2003); and Kline (2005)

4.7.1 Green Procurement: Initial/final Findings

Green procurement was measured using seven items. Initial assessment of the inter-item
correlation matrix shown that green procurement items, ―GP6‖ (second-tier supplier
environmentally friendly practice evaluation) and ―GP7‖ (eco labeling of products) were
poorly correlated with all other items in the scale. The seven ―GP‖ items were subjected
to a CFA and the results are shown in Table 4.16. The fit indices gave a poor picture with
regard to the adequacy of the fit of normed χ2 and RMSEA with values 3.342 (df=9 and
p=.001) and 0.102 respectively. Examination of the loadings indicated that standardized
regression weight for ―GP6‖ and ―GP7‖ were very low (0.44 and 0.36 respectively). GP6
item asked for the respondent‘s evaluation of second tier suppliers as a criteria for
purchasing decision which seemed not be adequately perceived factor of green
procurement. Item GP7 (eco labeling of products) was perceived to be slightly different
from other items in the scale. While the other green procurement items have been
adopted locally as both operational and strategic practices, eco labeling is still a new
concept. It is also possible that the ambiguity of the wording of this item contributed to
its lower loading of 0.36. However, upon deletion of ―GP6‖ and ―GP7‖ (Table 4.16) all
fit indices showed significant improvement which exhibited high loadings with reduced

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 789
ISSN 2320-9186

χ2 value from 30.08 (df =9 and p =0.001) to 6.28 (df=2 and p =0.42). The modification
further resulted in a reduction of RMSEA from initial value of 0.102 to a final value of
0.097 which is within acceptable level of adequate fit (Byrne, 2001), improved
incremental fit index (IFI), tucker lewis index (TLI), and component fit index (CFI) by
values 0.994, 0.979, and 0.994 respectively (Table 4.16) which indicate a very well fit
model (Truxillo, 2003). The composite construct reliability for this 5-item measure is
0.92 which is well above the acceptable level of 0.70 as recommended by Hair et al.,
(2006); Nunnally and Brernstein (2004) for an adequate model fit. This implies that the
retained five items are considered reliable as well as valid for measuring the factor -
green procurement in this study. The use of the five items to measure green procurement
as a factor in this study is in agreement with Lacroix and Stamatiou (2007) study which
used a 5-item scale in measuring green procurement for a study in Japan. The results of
the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Table 4.16.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 790
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 16 Results of CFA for green procurement measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Items Standardized Standardized C.R

Loadings Loadings (t)

GP1 Providing specification to 0.86 0.88 16.20

suppliers that includes
environmental requirements
GP2 Environmental audits of supply 0.91 0.92 17.28
base
GP3 ISO14001 certification of supply 0.80 0.80 13.92
base as a criteria for selecting
vendor
GP4 Prefer products that consumed 0.82 0.79 13.81
fewer natural resources

GP5 Working with suppliers to 0.75 0.76 11.56

address environmental problems
GP6 Second-tier supplier 0.44
environmentally friendly practice
evaluation
GP7 Eco labeling of products 0.36

Achieved Fit Indices

CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

(χ2/df)

Initial 3.342 0.102 0.975 0.957 0.975

(30.08/9)
Final 3.136 0.097 0.994 0.979 0.994
(6.28/2)

Composite Construct Reliability 0.92

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 791
ISSN 2320-9186

4.7.2 Green Manufacturing: Initial/final Findings

Green manufacturing was measured by seven items. The inter-item correlation matrix
initial analysis established that green procurement ‗item GM7‘ was relatively poorly
correlated with all other items in the scale for measuring green manufacturing. All the
seven items were subjected to a critical factor analysis (CFA). The initial CFA results are
presented in Table 4.17 which indicated that the model was a poor fit to the data and
required adjustment as the designated limit of fit indices are below the recommended
levels with a high χ2 value of 24.325 (df=7 and p =0.003) and unreasonable root mean
square approximation (RMSEA) of 0.103 implying relatively poor model fit, Table 4.17.
In terms of item ‗GM7‘ (design of products for reuse, recycle, and recovery of material
and/or component parts), it appeared not to be sufficiently perceived green manufacturing
factor in the present context. As a result, upon deleting of green manufacturing item
‗GM7‘, the better fitted model was achieved with reduced χ2 value from 24.325 to 3.60
(df =2 and p=0.164) and all the other fit indices displayed considerable improvement to
the overall fit to the model (Table 4.17). Even though item GM7 covered a specific
additional aspect of green manufacturing, some researchers (Saki, 2006; Phungrassami,
2008) have ignored its inclusion as a measure of green manufacturing. Consequently,
deletion of item GM7 does not remove any important component that should be reserved
for the measure and will not affect the content and face validity of the construct. The
composite reliability score for the six measure was 0.70 which implies that the retained
six items (Table 4.17) are considered reliable for measuring green manufacturing (Hair et
al., 2006).

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 792
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 17 Results of CFA for green manufacturing measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Items Standardized Standardized C.R

Loadings Loadings (t)

GM1 Using machines or tools which 0.71 0.68 10.67

consume less energy, water and fuel

GM2 Impact and life cycle assessment 0.69 0.72 11.09

tools for manufacturing

GM3 Risk assessment for energy and 0.80 0.82 12.98

resource use

GM4 Environmental friendly raw material 0.71 0.66 9.90

GM5 Efficient processes to reduce solid 0.75 0.81 12.06

waste , air emissions and conserve
energy and water

GM6 Environmental Management System 0.69 0.72 11.07

GM7 Design of products for reuse, 0.63

recycle, recovery of material and/or
component parts

Achieved Fit Indices

CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

(χ2/df)

Initial 3.475 0.103 0.968 0.934 0.967

(24.325/7)
Final 1.80 0.059 0.994 0.981 0.994
(3.60/2)

Composite Construct Reliability 0.70

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 793
ISSN 2320-9186

4.7.3 Green distribution: Initial/final Findings

Green distribution as a dimension of GSCM was measured using seven item scale. All
the seven items were subjected to a critical factor analysis (CFA), the initial results are
presented in Table 4.18. The findings of the CFA of the seven items showed that the
model was a poor fit to the data with unacceptable high chi-square value of 50.036
(df=7, P=0.001) and unacceptable RMSEA score of 0.164 even though IFI, TLI and CFI
scores were acceptable at >0.90, Table 4.18. The overall findings of the initial analysis
for this construct measure suggests that item ‗GD6‘ (distribute products together, rather
than in smaller batches) was responsible for the poor fit to the model although it is one of
the high loaded items (Standardized loading score of 0.77) in the model, Table 4.18. The
poor fit to the model required re-specification of the measures of green distribution in
order to improve the model fit. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham, (2006)
recommended that under such circumstances, relating or deleting the indicator from the
model are the preferred basic ways to re-specify the model. Therefore, on exclusion of
item ‗GD6‘, the overall model fit was significantly enriched with χ2 value reduced from
50.036 to 1.941, Table 4.18. The possible explanation for excluding item ‗GD6‘is that it
is not clear how it relates to eco initiatives within distribution practices. Ninlawan et al.,
(2011) used six different items to measure green distribution. Therefore, for this study,
the remaining six items were considered adequate for measuring green distribution.
Accordingly, exclusion of one item and using six items for measuring green distribution
would not impact on the content and face validity of the measurement because these
items are not losing any basic element of green distribution which they are supposed to
measure. The composite construct reliability for this measure was 0.80 which is well
above the acceptable level as indicated in the literature (Hair et al., 2006). This implies
that the retained six items are reliable measures of green distribution for in this study.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 794
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 18 Results of CFA for green distribution measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Item Standardized Standardized C.R
Loadings Loadings (t)
GD1 Eco labeling of products 0.71 0.67 10.69
GD2 Environment-friendly packaging 0.75 0.72 11.95
and transportation
GD3 Providing information to 0.80 0.82 12.98
customers on environment
friendly products
GD4 Re-using and recycling of 0.82 0.86 15.16
packages
GD5 Collection of packages for proper 0.87 0.90 16.20
disposal
GD6 Distribute products together, 0.77
rather than in smaller batches
GD7 Downsize packaging 0.84 0.88 15.38
Achieved Fit Indices
CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
(χ2/df)
Initial 7.148 0.164 0.953 0.904 0.951
(50.036/7)
Final 0.970 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
(1.94/2)
Composite Construct Reliability 0.80

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 795
ISSN 2320-9186

4.7.4 Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics: Initial/final Findings

Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics was measured by seven items. The initial
verification of the inter-item correlation matrix established that items ‗EORL7‘ and
‗EORL6‘ are poorly correlated with other items in the scale (correlation coefficient as
low as 0.12 and a high of 0.45 respectively). Notwithstanding the concerns about these
items, all the seven items were subjected to a CFA, the findings of which are presented in
Table 4.19. The critical factor analysis results indicated that the model was a poor fit to
the data with a large χ2 value of 32.683 (df =10, p= 0.001) and with irrational normed χ2
and RMSEA scores of 3.268 and 0.098 respectively. Scrutiny of the standardized
regression weights in initial analysis revealed that ‗item EORL6‘ and ‗item EORL7‘had
relatively low loadings of 0.49 and 0.38 respectively. The two error covariance in the MIs
with expected changes revealed misspecification affiliated with ‗item EORL7‘ and ‗item
EORL6‘. Further, looking at the mean scores of the items, it was evident that the items
EORL7 and EORL6 were relatively low scored.

The two least correlated as well as least loading items (EORL7 = 0.38 and EORL6 =0.49)
and their indicated misspecification require a justification. Environmentally oriented
reverse logistics ‗item EORL6‘ (encourage standardization of packages ) was established
not to be a relevant item for measuring EORL in the current industry context because
manufacturers in Kenya normally produce variety of products which are distributed in
several forms to different kinds of customers with different tastes that may not make it
easy to standardized the packages. Again, the wording was not clear in relation to eco
reverse logistics. ‗Item EORL7‘ (provide incentives for return of used packages) on the
other hand, exhibited misspecification associated with item EORL4. Such
misspecification could mean that item EORL7‘ shares the sense of item EORL4 which
measures manufacturer propensity to arrange with customers to return used packages.
The poor fit of the model (Table 4.19) required modification of the measures to EORL in
order to enhance the model fit. Upon deletion of the two items EORL6 and EORL7, the
better fitted model was achieved with reduced χ2 value from 32.68 to 0.323 (df =2 and
p=0.00). The use of the five item construct measure in CFA is consistent with some of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 796
ISSN 2320-9186

the measures used in other studies (Umeda et al., 2003). Therefore, deleting the two items
do not seem to remove anything that is supposed to be used to measure the factor
(EORL). Furthermore, the composite construct reliability score for this measure was 0.74
which demonstrated that the retained items are thought to be reliable measures for
environmentally oriented reverse logistics in this study (Hair et al., 2006)1). The other fit
indices as displayed on this CAF analysis, Table 4.19 are good.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 797
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 19 Results of CFA for EORL measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Item Standardized Standardized C.R

Loadings Loadings (t)

EORL1 Waste collection for proper disposal 0.79 0.83 12.95

EORL2 Recycling, re-use and recovery of 0.80 0.80 12.38

useful parts of the products

EORL3 Recovery of hazardous parts for 0.79 0.77 13.12

proper disposal

EORL4 Arrangement with customers to 0.76 0.81 12.65

return used packages

EORL5 Easy availability of information 0.71 0.67 9.89

about returning of products

EORL6 Encourage standardization of 0.49

packages

EORL7 Provide incentives for return of used 0.38

packages

Achieved Fit Indices

CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

(χ2/df)

Initial 3.268 0.098 0.968 0.934 0.967

(32.68/10)

Final 0.1615 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

(0.323/2)

Composite Construct Reliability 0.74

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 798
ISSN 2320-9186

4.7.5 Supply Chain Ecocentricity: Initial/final Findings

Supply chain ecocentricity (SEC) as the moderating factor in the hypothesized model was
measured by seven items. The inter-item correlation matrix revealed that item SCE6 was
poorly correlated with all the other items in the measuring scale. All seven items were
subjected to a critical factor analysis (CFA), the findings are shown in Table 4.20. CAF
findings of the seven items showed that the model was a poor fit to the data because the
results were far from the commended levels with a very high χ2 value of 88.89 (df=7,
p=0.001), normed χ2 =9.877 and RMSEA=0.198.

Examination of the loadings revealed that the standardized regression weights for item
SCE6 (advance knowledge for environmental management practices) was relatively low
(0.47). Moreover, seven associated error covariance explicitly established that at least one
adjustment was necessary to enhance the model fit. To detect the directions, expected
change statistics of error covariance indicated six of the seven misspecifications were
connected to item SCE6. This suggested that item SCE6 is problematic as well as
responsible for the poor fit to the data, hence should be omitted from the measurement to
ascertain the better fitting model, Table 4.20.

The disagreement on confirming the convergent factor, however, in terms of SCE6 needs
explanation. The item SCE6 (advance knowledge for environmental management
practices) seems not be quite clearly stated as to relate with the factor supply chain
ecocentricity in the current context thus deletion of this item is more meaningful. Upon
deletion of ‗item SCE6‘, a better model fit was estimated which reduced χ2 value from
88.89 to 3.39 and the cut-off values achieved the recommended level of fit in the other
model fit indices (Table 4.20). Although this one item was deleted, the retained six item
factor for measuring SCE is in line with the literature (Tate et al., 2011) and this achieved
the face and content validity of the measure.

The composite reliability for this six item factor is reasonable with the score of 0.79
which is considered reliable measure. This implies that the retained six items (Table 4.20)

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 799
ISSN 2320-9186

are reliable measures for supply chain ecocentricity and therefore their application in this
study is acceptable (Hair et al., 2006). Table 4.20 exemplified CA analysis results.

Table 4. 20 Results of CFA for supply chain ecocentricity measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Item Standardized
Standardized C.R
Loadings
Loadings (t)
SCE1 Partner with external stakeholders 0.80 0.78 13.12
for environmental research
SCE2 Sponsorship for implementation of 0.94 0.90 15.83
environmental management
practices by the external
stakeholders
SCE3 Participation in external 0.63 0.66 10.53
stakeholders eco-oriented
workshops
SCE4 Use of experts from external 0.79 0.84 14.67
stakeholders for implementation
eco-best practices
SCE5 Environmental audit by external 0.92 0.88 15.79
stakeholders
SCE6 Advance knowledge for 0.47
environmental management
practices
SCE7 Co-investment with external 0.86 0.89 16.19
stakeholders on environmental
management related issues
Achieved Fit Indices
CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
(χ2/df)
Initial 9.877 0.198 0.916 0.853 0.912
(88.89/9)
Final 1.695 0.056 0.998 0.993 0.997
(3.39/2)
Composite Construct Reliability 0.79

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 800
ISSN 2320-9186

4.7.6 Performance: Initial/final Findings

Environmental differentiation as a performance measure was measured using seven

items. The initial scrutiny of the inter-correlation matrix demonstrated a strong significant
correlation among the items (all above 0.50). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
showed a good fit of the model to the data (Table 4.21). The findings confirmed the
validity of the model with excellent model fit statistics (normed χ2 =1.723, RMSEA =
0.056, IFI = 0.978, TLI 0.986 and CFI =0.992) for this factor measure as reported in
Table 4.21.

The seven item factor for measuring performance in terms of environmental

differentiation has been used in the existing literature (Handfield et al. 2005; Preuss
2005) which approved the content and face validity of the measure. Further, the
composite reliability score for this construct measure is 0.79 which is considered reliable
measure (Hair et al., 2006). This means that the retained seven items (Table 4.21) were
reliable measures for environmental differentiation as a measure of firm performance.
The CF analysis findings are presented on Table 4.21.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 801
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 21 Results of CFA for environmental differentiation measures

Quest. Item wording Standardized C.R

Item Loadings (t)
PED1 Eco-friendly reputation has increased by 0.72 11.54
PED2 Charge higher price (premium) compared to 0.92 17.96
competitors
PED3 Conservation of energy and water has improved 0.93 18.28
PED4 Production of echo-unique products has increased 0.89 15.96
PED5 Increase of eco- brand loyalty 0.77 12.69
PED6 Improvement of echo-waste management 0.81 13.93
PED7 Improvement of echo-management of hazardous 0.84 14.75
material
Achieved Fit Indices
CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
(χ2/df)
1.623 0.056 0.978 0.986 0.992
(11.361/7)
Composite Construct Reliability 0. 79

Another performance measure in this study is cost efficiency. Cost efficiency was
measured using seven items. The initial analysis of the inter-correlation matrix
established that ‗item PC6‘was relatively poorly correlated with all other items. The CFA
of the seven items demonstrated that the model (Table 4.22) was a poor fit to the data
because the cut-off ranges of fit indices were beyond the recommended levels (Table
4.22) with a highly scored χ2 of 48.902 (df=7, p=000), normed χ2 6.986 and RMSEA
0.159. The modification indices of this analysis indicated ways to improve the model fit.
Modification indices with expected change statistics of error covariance denoted
misspecification affiliated with ‗item PC6‘ and showed that ‗item PC6‘ is responsible for

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 802
ISSN 2320-9186

the lack of fit to the data. Even though this item was loaded reasonably to the measure
with score of 0.72, this item was found to be responsible for the weak fit.

Investigation of the poorly performing ‗item PC6‘ shows that it might share the
perceptual meaning as well as sense of ‗item PC5‘ where input storage costs is part of
cost of input – using cost of input caters for input storage cost hence the measure of the
factor will not be affected by dropping ‗item PC6‘. Even though ‗item PC6‘ showed a
reasonable loading score of 0.72, removing it from this measure had a big effect on the
level of overall measurement model fit, Table 4.22.

Finally, on deletion of ‗item PC6‘, the measurement model was rerun which
demonstrated significant enrichment to the overall model fit (Table 4.22) with
significantly changed χ2 value from 48.902 to 4.442. It was not a problem for the six item
factor to attain content and face validity covering reduction of waste management fee,
reduction of hazardous material management fees, reduction of cost of energy and water,
reduction of statutory fines for non-environmental compliant, reduction of input costs due
to recycle/re-use of material and efficient use of input and reduction of cost of
transportation.

In terms of removing ‗item PC6‘ (reduction of cost of storage) from the measure, Lee,
(2002) used only five items in measuring cost efficiency in a different context.
Additionally, the composite reliability score for this six item factor model combines
scored 0.89 which is deemed to be an indication of reliability (Hair et al., 2006).Thus the
result of the CAF (Table 4.22) indicates that the six items are reliable measure for cost
efficiency in this study.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 803
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 22 Results of CFA for cost efficiency measures

Quest. Item wording Initial Final

Items Standardized Standardized C.R
Loadings Loadings (t)
PC1 Reduction of waste management 0.80 0.82 14.09
fee
PC2 Reduction of hazardous material 0.78 0.81 13.92
management fees
PC3 Reduction of cost of energy and 0.84 0.84 14.73
water
PC4 Reduction of statutory fines for 0.82 0.79 13.33
non-environmental compliant
PC5 Reduction of input costs due to 0.74 0.76 12.14
recycle/re-use of material and
efficient use of input
PC6 Reduction of cost of storage 0.72
PC7 Reduction of cost of 0.79 0.79 12.37
transportation
Achieved Fit Indices
CMIN/DF RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
(χ2/df)
Initial 6.986 0.159 0.956 0.911 0.956
(48.902/7)
Final 2.221 0.073 0.996 0.986 0.996
(4.442/2)
Composite Construct Reliability 0.89

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 804
ISSN 2320-9186

4.8 Regression Analysis (Inferential Tests)

In order to address the study objectives outlined in chapter 1, this section reports the
results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses of tested hypothesized model in
chapter 2. The regression tests were conducted to determine the relationship between
firms‘ performance as dependent factor, the predictor factors such as green procurement,
green manufacturing, green distribution, environmentally oriented reverse logistics and
supply chain ecocentricity as a moderating factor. The results of the regression analyses
tests are reported in the following sub-sections.

4.8.1 Green Procurement and Firm Performance

The study null hypothesis was derived from the study specific objective: ―To investigate
the effect of green procurement on the performance of the manufacturing firms.‖

Null Hypothesis 1 (H0): Green procurement does not significantly influence the
performance of the manufacturing firms.

The multiple regression analysis ( y  B0  B1 X 1  E ) was run with firm performance as

the dependent factor and green procurement as tested predictor factor. Data from one
hundred and sixty one respondents were tested.

The value of variance R2 = 0.3386, shows that 33.86% of the firms performance is
explained by green procurement (regression line). The values of F (1, 159) = 101.36, P <
0.05, shows that green procurement is statistically significant predictor of the firms
performance (the regression model is a good fit of the data).Therefore, the null hypothesis
1; that ―green procurement does not significantly influence the performance of the
manufacturing firms‖ was rejected and the alternative accepted. The value of green
procurement is statistically significant (t=10.07, p < .05), it affects firm performance. The
regression model explaining the results in Table 4.23 from SPSS software (version 21) is
given by:

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 805
ISSN 2320-9186

The model shows that green procurement positively affects the performance (an increase
in mean index of green procurement increases the performance of the company by a
positive unit of mean index value of 0.691). The results are illustrated in Table 4.23.

Table 4. 23 Significant Association between Green Procurement and Firm

Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

Green Procurement 0.691 0.0687 10.07 0.000
Constant 0.846 0.3125 2.71 0.008
F (1, 159) = 101.36, P < 0.001, R-squared = 0.3386, Adj R-squared = 0.3357

4.8.2 Green Manufacturing and Firm Performance

The study null hypothesis was established from the study specific objective: ―To establish
the effect of green manufacturing on the performance of the manufacturing firms.‖
Null hypothesis 2(H0): Green manufacturing does not significantly influence the
performance of manufacturing firms.

The multiple regression analysis ( y  B0  B1 X1   ) was performed with firm

performance as the dependent factor and green manufacturing as tested predictor factor.
Data from one hundred and sixty one respondents were tested.

The value of R2 = 0.4027, shows that 40.27% of the firms‘ performance is explained by
green manufacturing (regression line). The values of F (1, 159) = 160.72, P < 0.05, show
that green manufacturing statistically significantly predicts the firms performance ( the
regression model is a good fit of the data) hence the rejection of the null hypothesis 2;
that ―green manufacturing does not significantly influence the performance of
manufacturing firms‖ and accepting the alternative hypothesis. The coefficient value of
green manufacturing is statistically significant (t=13.94, p < .05), it affects firm

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 806
ISSN 2320-9186

performance significantly (t=13.94, p < .05). The regression model which explains Table
4.24 is given by:

The model shows that green manufacturing positively affects the performance; an
increase in unit of mean index of green manufacturing increases the performance of the
company by a positive unit mean index value of 0.744. The results are exemplified in
Table 4.24.

Table 4. 24 Significant Association between Green Manufacturing and Firm

Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

Green Manufacturing 0.744** 0.0534 13.94 0.000
Constant 0.609** 0.2438 2.50 0.013
F (1, 159) = 160.72, P<0.001, R-squared = 0.4027, Adj R-squared = 0.3996

4.8.3 Green Distribution and Firm Performance

The study null hypothesis was determined from the study specific objective: ―To
establish the influence of green distribution on the performance of the manufacturing
firms in Kenya.‖
Null hypothesis 3(H0): Green distribution does not significantly influence the
performance of manufacturing firms.

The multiple regression analysis ( y  B0  B1 X1   ) was performed with firm

performance as the dependent factor and green distribution as tested predictor factor.
Data from one hundred and sixty one respondents were tested.

The value of R2 = 0.3042, shows that 30.42% of the firms performance is explained by
green distribution (regression line). The value of F (1, 159) = 117.50, P-value < 0.05,

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 807
ISSN 2320-9186

shows that green distribution statistically significantly predicts the firms performance , p
value is smaller than the alpha value (0.05). As a result, the null hypothesis; ―green
distribution does not significantly influence the performance of manufacturing firms‖ was
rejected (p< 0.05 at p = 0.047) and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The value of
green distribution is statistically significant, it affects the firm performance (t=2.31, p <
.05). The multiple regression model which explains the results in Table 4.25 is given by:

The model implies that green distribution positively affects the performance of the firm;
an increase in mean index of green distribution increases the performance of the firm by a
positive unit of mean index value of 0.018. The results are illustrated in Table 4.25.

Table 4. 25 Significant relationship between Green Distribution and Firm

Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

Green Distribution 0.018** 0.0672 2.31 0.047
Constant 1.484** 0.302 4.91 0.000
F (1, 159) = 117.50, P-value <0.001, R-squared = 0.3042, Adj R-squared = 0.2998

4.8.4 Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics and Firm Performance

The study null hypothesis was formulated from the study specific objective: ―To
investigate the effect of environmentally-oriented reverse logistics on the performance of
the manufacturing firms.‖
Null hypothesis 4(H0): Environmentally-oriented reverse Logistics does not significantly
affect the performance of manufacturing firms.

The multiple regression analysis ( y  B0  B1 X1   ) was done with firm performance as

the dependent factor and environmentally-oriented reverse logistics as tested predictor

factor. Data from one hundred and sixty one respondents were tested.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 808
ISSN 2320-9186

The value of R2 = 0.3893, shows that 38.93% of the firms performance is explained by
EORL practices (regression line). The value of F (1, 159) = 185.59, P-value < 0.05,
shows that EORL practices statistically significantly predicts the firms performance (the
regression model is a good fit of the data).The null hypothesis was consequently rejected
and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The EORL is statistically significant (t=11.95, p
< .05), it is significantly affects firm performance (t=11.95, p < .05). The regression
model which explains the results in Table 4.26 is given by:

The model shows that EORL practices positively affects the performance; an increase in
mean index of EORL practices increases the performance of the company by a positive
unit of mean index value of 0.701. The results are exemplified in Table 4.26.

Table 4. 26 Significant Association between Environmentally- oriented Reverse

Logistics and Firm Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

EORL Practices 0.701** 0.0586 11.95 0.000
**
Constant 0.775 0.2692 2.88 0.005
F (1, 159) = 185.59, P-value <0.001, R-squared = 0.3893, Adj R-squared = 0.3855

4.8.5 Green Supply Chain Management dimensions and Firm Performance

Based on the study global objective: ―To establish the effect of green supply chain
management practices on the performance of the manufacturing firms,‖ the study sought
to establish the aggregate effect of green supply chain management dimensions on the
performance of manufacturing firms. Consequently, a null hypothesis that “Green
Supply Chain Management dimensions do not significantly influence the performance of
manufacturing firms‖ was tested using multiple regression analysis:
y  B0  B1 X1  B2 X 2  B3 X 3  B4 X 4   . Where firm performance is the dependent

factor and the dimensions of GSCM as the tested predictor factors. Data from one
hundred and sixty one respondents were analyzed.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 809
ISSN 2320-9186

The value of Adjusted R2 = 0.5810, shows that 58.10% of the firms performance is
explained by GSCM dimensions collectively. The value of F (4, 156) = 57.07, P-value <
0.05, shows that GSCM dimensions collectively predicts the firms performance (the
regression model is a good fit of the data) thus rejection of the null hypothesis; ―green
supply chain management practices do not significantly influence the performance of
manufacturing firms‖ and acceptance of alternative hypothesis.

The data findings indicate that individually, green procurement (t=2.18, p < 0.05), green
manufacturing (t=3.81, p < 0.05), green distribution (t=2.11, p<0.05) and EORL practices
(t=2.36, p < 0.05) are statistically significant values and therefore significantly affecting
the performance of the manufacturing firms. The regression model is given by;

The model shows that green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution and
EORL practices collectively (GSCM dimensions) significantly affect the firm
performance positively; an increase in of each of the mean index of factors/variables
increases the performance of the company by a positive unit mean index value of the
respective factors. The results are presented in Table 4.27.

Table 4. 27 Significant relationship between Green Supply Chain Management

dimensions and Firm Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

**
Green Procurement 0.154 0.1282 2.18 0.032
Green Manufacturing 0.481** 0.1208 3.81 0.000
Green Distribution 0.144** 0.0917 2.11 0.044
EORL Practices 0.231** 0.0977 2.36 0.019
Constant 0.322 0.2801 1.15 0.252
F (4, 156) = 57.07, P-value <0.001, R-squared = 0.5890, Adj R-squared = 0.5810
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 810
ISSN 2320-9186

4.8.6 Green Supply Chain Management dimensions, Supply Chain Ecocentricity

and Firm Performance (F-Test comparing Model 5 and 6)

The study sought to establish the effect of supply chain ecocentricity (moderating
variable) in the hypothesized model (Fig 2.1). Table 4.28 presents the findings for Model
6 as given by:

In order to establish the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the

relationship between green SCM practices and firm performance, the study compared the
model with all the factors (Model 6) versus the model with all the factors except supply
chain ecocentricity (Model 5). Consequently, the study used F-Test to test the following
hypothesises:

H0: There is no significant change in model 5 by adding SC ecocentricity in the model

H1: There is significant change in model 5 by adding SC ecocentricity in the model

From the tests, the following values were obtained;

The F-value, F (5,155) = 0.01, P-value=0.9057

This shows that the two models were not statistically significantly different (p>0.05).
Hence the acceptance of the H0: the moderating variable has no statistical significant
effect on the model after its introduction and rejecting H1. The data findings from the
stepwise regression model show that the values of adjusted R2 remains almost the same in
the two models. These mean that supply chain ecocentricity is not a moderating factor in
this study. The results of the fitted model (Model 6) with an additional factor (moderating
factor) is presented in Table 4.28.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 811
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 28 Significant Relationship between Green Supply Chain Management

dimensions, Supply Chain Ecocentricity and Firm Performance

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

Green Procurement 0.155** 0.1380 2.09 0.048
Green Manufacturing 0.478** 0.1213 3.79 0.000
Green Distribution 0.148** 0.0926 2.16 0.045
EORL Practice 0.234** 0.1025 2.29 0.024
Supply Chain Ecocentricity -0.031 0.2644 -0.12 0.906
Constant 0.309 0.3012 1.03 0.252
F (5,155) =45.36, P-value<0.001, R-squared=0.5886, Adj R-squared=0.5808

4.9 Optimal model

From the tested hypothesized models, the researcher sought to establish the optimal
model for the study. Subsequently, a stepwise regression analysis was performed and
only variables with significant values were included in the model (p<0.05). The value of
variance Adjusted R2 = 0.5810, shows that 58.10% of the firms performance is of green
procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution and EORL practices.

The value of F (4, 156) = 57.07, P < 0.05, shows that supply chain management practices
statistically significantly predicts the firms performance ( the regression model is a good
fit of the data).The green procurement (t=2. 18, p < .05), green manufacturing (t=3.81, p
< .05), green distribution (t= 2.11) and EORL practices (t=2.36, p < .05) are statistically
significant values; implying that they exert significant influence on firm performance.
The results are presented in Table 4.29.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 812
ISSN 2320-9186

Table 4. 29 Results of the Optimal Model

Performance Coefficient Std. Error t P>|t|

Green Procurement 0.154** 0.1282 2. 18 0.032
**
Green Manufacturing 0.481 0.1208 3.81 0.000
Green Distribution 0.144** 0.0917 2.11 0.044
EORL Practices 0.231** 0.0977 2.36 0.019
Constant 0.322 0.2801 1.15 0.157
F (4,156) =57.07, P-value <0.001, R-squared=0.5890, Adj R-squared=0.5810,

The optimal regression model is given by:

The model shows that green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution and
EORL practices have fundamental positive effect on firm performance i.e. an increase in
each of the mean index of factors/variables increases the performance of the company by
a positive unit mean index value of the respective factor. Green manufacturing is the
factor which increases the firm performance by higher value (0.481), followed by EORL
practices (0.231) and the least is green distribution (0.144). Thus, the study optimal
model is given by Fig. 4.2

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 813
ISSN 2320-9186

Green Procurement SC Ecocentricity

Green Manufacturing

Firm Performance
 Cost
Green Distribution  Environmental Differentiation

Environmentally Key:
Oriented Reverse Significant
Logistics
Not
significant
Figure 4. 2 Optimal Model

4.10 Discussion of the Results

The goal of this section is to discuss the findings of this study in line with the reviewed
literature, the findings and the research hypothesises. The results of the tested null
hypotheses are summarized in Table 4.30

Table 4. 30 Summary of the Results of the Tested Null Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis Results Implications

1 Green procurement does not Null hypothesis Rejected
significantly influence the Alternative Hypothesis Green procurement is
performance of the Accepted a significant factor in
manufacturing firms. firm performance
2 Green manufacturing does not Null hypothesis Rejected
significantly influence the Alternative Hypothesis Green manufacturing
performance of manufacturing Accepted significantly
firms. influence firm
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 814
ISSN 2320-9186

performance

3 Green distribution does not Null hypothesis Rejected

significantly influence the Alternative Hypothesis Green distribution
performance of manufacturing Accepted does influence firm
firms. performance
significantly
4 Environmentally-oriented Null hypothesis Rejected
reverse Logistics does not Alternative hypothesis EORL influence firm
significantly affect the accepted performance
performance of manufacturing significantly
firms
5 Green Supply Chain Null hypothesis Rejected
Management dimensions do not Alternative Hypothesis GSCM dimensions
significantly influence the Accepted collectively
performance of manufacturing significantly
firms. influence firm
performance
6 Supply chain ecocentricity does Null hypothesis SEC does not
not moderate the relationship Accepted moderate the
between green SCM dimensions Alternative Hypothesis influence of GSCM
and firm performance Rejected dimensions on firm
performance

4.10.1 Green procurement and firm performance

The study sought to establish the effect of green procurement as a dimension of green
SCM on the performance of the manufacturing firms in Kenya. Numerous studies have
posited that green procurement practices lead to improvement of the performance of
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 815
ISSN 2320-9186

firms in both financial and non-financial fronts. This study postulation was grounded on
such studies in examining the effect of green procurement on the performance of
manufacturing firms in Kenya.

The study findings indicate that firms that have internalized green procurement practices
within their operations experience improvement in their performance outcomes. The
multiple regression analysis results indicate that green procurement has a positive
statistically significant effect on the performance of manufacturing firms; p < 0.05
(P=0.000) with an explanatory power of 33.86 percent. Therefore, the null hypothesis
―green procurement does not significantly influence firm performance‖ was rejected.

This finding agrees with Gibbs (2000) findings under ecological modernization theory
which espouses the positive contribution of green procurement to economic performance
of manufacturing firms. It supports Lacroix and Stamatiou, (2007) contention that
Japanese and European leading companies that decided to go along with green
procurement activities were experiencing improved performance through increased
overall cost efficiency, enhanced reputation through product differentiation, market share,
and reduced environmental risks and liabilities. The study finding on the significant
effect of green procurement on firm performance conforms to Lacroix, (2008) findings
that companies register improved performance once they effectively adopt ecological
practices within procurement. Zhu et al., (2008) Melnyk et al., (2003) all concluded that
there is a link between green procurement and firm performance.

The study results showed that, environmental requirements as a specification for

purchases, preference products that consumed fewer natural resources, working with
suppliers to address environmental problems and environmental audits of supply base as
indicators of green procurement were explicit across the firms studied having an overall
scores of mean 4.24, STD 0.679; mean 4.01, STD 0.541; mean 4.24 STD 0.612 and mean
4.16, STD 0.672 respectively out of a possible maximum 5 points. An average STD value
of 0.7646 implies small variations across the firms studied. These findings conform to the
theoretical arguments by Lacroix and Stamatiou, (2007) that Japanese companies‘ record
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 816
ISSN 2320-9186

improved performance as a result of embracing procurement eco-practices such

environmental requirements as a specification for purchases, preference products that
consumed fewer natural resources, working with suppliers to address environmental
problems and environmental audits. This may be due to recognition by firms that by
reducing the supplier generated wastes and surpluses at source, firms essentially decrease
handling expenses, risks and costs associated with waste management. In addition, a
vendor‘s savings from improved efficiencies may be passed along to buyers in the form
of reduced prices which may greatly affect the firm‘s bottom line in terms of reduced
operation costs.

The study finding re-enforces an emerging argument within the supply chain
management theory that the performance of a given firm can no longer be viewed in
isolation but rather within a global network of members within a certain supply chain
(Zhu et al., 2008). This findings, therefore, is an indication that results from preceding
studies, undertaken in the context of developed countries, in different time periods,
within the manufacturing firms and utilizing both financial and non-financial measures
are in agreement with the ones from developing countries context. It can therefore be
stated that the effect of eco practices within procurement function on firm performance
does not recognize geographical or business environment of the manufacturing firms.

4.10.2 Green manufacturing and firm performance

The study pursued to establish the effect of green manufacturing on the performance of
manufacturing firms in Kenya. The study outcomes indicate that injection of ecological
practices to manufacturing functions positively affect the firm performance. Results of
regression analysis indicate that there is a significant relationship between green
manufacturing practices and firm performance; p < 0.05 (P=0.000) with an explanatory
power of 40.27 percent. Therefore, the null hypothesis ―green manufacturing does not
significantly influence firm performance‖ was rejected. Further, the study findings
indicate that using machines or tools which consume less energy, water, and fuel; impact
and life cycle assessment tools for manufacturing; risk assessment for energy and
resource use; environmental friendly raw material; efficient processes to reduce solid
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 817
ISSN 2320-9186

waste, air emissions and conserve energy; and environmental management system
(EMS) were explicit across the firms studied having an overall scores of mean 4.44, STD
0.605; mean 4.33, STD 0.734; mean 4.33 STD 0.686; mean 4.56,STD 0.531; mean 4.63
STD 0.586; and mean 4.16, STD 0.602 respectively out of a possible maximum 5
points. An average STD value of 0.624 implies small variations across the firms studied.

The results of the analysis revealed that the influence of green manufacturing on
performance is significant and is propelled by activities such as using machines or tools
which consume less energy, water, and fuel; impact and life cycle assessment tools for
manufacturing; risk assessment for energy and resource use; environmental friendly raw
material; efficient processes to reduce solid waste, air emissions and conserve energy;
and environmental management system. The results may explain the movement by the
firms towards greening manufacturing practices. It can also be used to support the notion
that generating waste costs money through payment for it three times over – when buying
it, when processing it, and when disposing it. As such, firms which are able to drastically
reduce the number of times they pay for wastes in a manufacturing process experience
improved performance through cost reduction and product and processes differentiation.

These findings are in agreement with the contention by: Phungrassami, (2008) that green
manufacturing is a continuous strategy used by firms in improving their performance
both financially and in non-financial fronts; Lacroix, (2008) that ecological practices
within manufacturing activity result in improved environment, workers‘ health, waste
reduction and reduction of disposal costs, optimization of the use of raw material , water,
energy and maximization of safety thus impacting positively on the overall performance
of the firm; Banerjee, (2003) that green manufacturing program improves environmental
performance and increases profitability of a firm by minimizing waste throughout
transformation process thus impacting significantly on the performance of firms.

In addition, Lacroix and Stamatiou, (2008) conclusion that firms in both sectors (public
and private) are realizing performance improvement as a result of green manufacturing
practices is supported by the study findings. According to them, eco initiatives within
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 818
ISSN 2320-9186

manufacturing set up improve efficiency in managing energy, water, material, and

workers‘ health thereby positively impacting on the overall performance of firms. This
findings, therefore, is an sign that results from previous studies, undertaken in the context
of developed countries, in different time periods, within the manufacturing firms and
utilizing both financial and non-financial measures are in agreement with the ones from
developing countries context ; the influence of green manufacturing on firm performance
could exist irrespective of the context of the study.

4.10.3 Green distribution and firm performance

The influence of green distribution on the performance of the manufacturing firms was
examined. The study findings indicate that firms that have embraced ecological practices
within their distribution activities do experience improved performance. Results of
regression analysis show that green distribution statistically significantly influence the
performance of firms, p < 0.05 (P=0.047) with an explanatory power of 30.42 percent.
Therefore, the null hypothesis ―green distribution does not significantly influence the
performance of manufacturing‖ was rejected. Further the study established that green
distribution practices such as; eco labeling of products, environment-friendly packaging
and transportation, providing information to customers on environment friendly products,
re-using and recycling of packages and collection of used packages for proper disposal
were explicit across the firms studied having an overall scores of mean 4.15, STD 0.917;
mean 4.36, STD 0.898; mean 4.34, STD 0.712; mean 4.22,STD 0.687; and mean 4.57,
STD 0.764 respectively out of a possible maximum 5 points. An average STD value of
0.775 implies small variations across the firms studied.

The explicit use of eco labeling of products and providing information to customers on
ecological friendly products within the concept of green distribution across the firms
surveyed might be an indication that firms have recognized that customers prefer
products with less impact to their environment and may be willing to pay premium in
order to support their sustainability. The use of environment-friendly packaging and
transportation, re-using and recycling of packages, and collection of used packages for

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 819
ISSN 2320-9186

proper disposal across the surveyed firms as green distribution practices might be due to
the realization by firms that organic packages or re-usable packages are cost effective and
may contribute significantly to the firms‘ cost efficiency. The wide spread use of
recycling packages across the surveyed firms might be due to compliance with
environment regulations as required by various government agencies.

These findings are in agreement with the contentions by: Rao and Holt (2005) that
management of wastes in the distribution processes such as re-usable packaging leads to
cost savings and enhanced competitiveness of companies thereby positively influencing
overall firm performance; Wu and Dunn (2008) that strategic green distribution practices
such as standardized reusable containers, minimize use of packages, good warehousing
layouts, and easy eco-information access reduce storage and retrieval delay which leads
to savings in operating costs with an ultimate effect of improved firms‘ performance
whilst being environmentally sound.

The study findings support Rao and Holt, (2005) contention that green distribution has a
positive and significant influence on the performance of firms through an increase in
market share; Sirmon et al. (1995) that companies that implemented an environmentally-
friendly packaging schemes experience an increase in customer loyalty and increase in
sales; Ninlawan et al. (2011) that firms which packaged their products with re-usable
packages in Thailand registered high degree of customer satisfaction in terms of customer
service and loyalty in terms of the brand; Preuss (2005) that firms that have recycled
packages accrue benefits such as minimized waste disposal cost, save money by not
buying new packages and eliminate incidental costs associated with new packages
(branding ,storage). According to Rao and Holt (2005), these have a quantum effect of
reducing operating cost, increasing the brand loyalty, hence improving firms‘
performance. Christmann (2000) noted that EU companies that embraced ecological
practices in distributing products registered improvement in their performance. Ninlawan
et al. (2011) observed that green distribution generally significantly influence the
performance of firms.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 820
ISSN 2320-9186

4.10.4 Environmentally oriented reverse logistics and firm performance

The study was interested in finding out whether environmentally-oriented reverse
logistics has any effect on the performance of the manufacturing firms. The study
findings indicate that firms which have embraced ecologically oriented reverse logistics
practices within their supply chain management experience improvement in their
performance.

The results of regression analysis indicate that there is a strong link between
environmentally oriented reverse logistics and the performance of the manufacturing
firms; p < 0.05 (P=0.000) with an explanatory power of 38.93 percent. Therefore, the
null hypothesis that ―environmentally-oriented reverse Logistics does not significantly
affect the performance of manufacturing firms‖ was rejected. Additionally, the study
findings indicate that waste collection for proper disposal; recycling, re-use and recovery
of useful parts of the products; recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal;
arrangements with customers to return used packages; and easy availability of
information about returning of products were explicit across the firms studied as
indicators of EORL having an overall scores of mean 4.57, STD 0.764; mean 4.61, STD
0.743; mean 4.30 STD 0.828; mean 4.06, STD 1.271; and mean 4.26 STD 1.037
respectively out of a possible maximum 5 points.

The results of the analysis revealed that the influence of EORL on performance is
significant and is pushed by activities such as waste collection for proper disposal;
recycling, re-use and recovery of useful parts of the products; recovery of hazardous parts
for proper disposal; arrangements with customers to return used packages; and easy
availability of information about returning of products. These may explain the increased
investment by firms on packages that are re-usable for the same products or for other
products, used packages collection points within the major retail shops around the
country and warnings and instructions on how to handle the disposal of particular items
considered hazardous by the manufacturers.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 821
ISSN 2320-9186

These findings approve Zhu, Sarkis et al., (2010) postulation under the ecological
modernization theory (EMT) that environmentally oriented reverse logistics is an eco-
innovative way with positive effect on the performance of firms. Lambert & Burduroglu,
(2000); Stock et al., (2002) support these findings with their studies establishing positive
relationship between environmentally oriented reverse logistics and firm performance.
The findings agree with Umeda et al. ( 2003) contention that EORL constitutes
indicators such as waste collection for proper disposal and recycling of used products
(re-processing or re-use), recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal, returning of
faulty products for replacement or correction, collection of expired products for proper
disposal, accepting exchange of expired products.

The study results support Lambert & Burduroglu (2000); Stock et al. ( 2002) that
companies accrue benefits such image enhancement, improved efficiency and
effectiveness in management of returned materials, and generation of new profits. The
results are also in conformity with the argument by Guth & Ginsberg, (2001) that EORL
activities significantly influence the performance of firms through the development and
maintenance of a beneficial customer service policy and reduces costs, improvement of
the return processes, improvement of the image of the firm, and improvement of the
efficiency and effectiveness in the management of returned materials. Further, the study
findings back Krikke et al., (2003) view that EORL activities to a large extend influence
the performance of firm by facilitating compliance to environmental management
statutory requirements thereby reducing non-compliance fines. Consequently, companies
are increasingly embracing EORL as a strategic tool to performance improvement (Guth
& Ginsberg, 2001).

4.10.5 Green Supply Chain Management Practices and firm performance

The study sought to establish the effect of green supply chain management dimensions on
the performance of the manufacturing firms. Numerous studies have theorized that green
SCM dimensions positively influence the performance of companies in both financial and
non-financial fronts. This study hypothesis was grounded on such studies in examining

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 822
ISSN 2320-9186

the effect of green SCM dimensions on the performance of manufacturing firms in

Kenya. In terms of the multiple linear regression model run with green SCM dimensions
as the predictor variables and performance as the dependent variable, GSCM dimensions
were found to be positively significantly (p < 0.05) associated with firm performance.
Table 4.29 gives a summary of GSCM dimensions with significant prediction power on
performance.

Table 4.29 Significant predictors of performance

GSCM dimensions with positive influence Significance

Green Procurement P<0.032
Green Manufacturing P<0.000
Green Distribution P<0.044
EORL Practices P<0.019

It is argued that GSCM dimensions contribute to firm performance. The finding of a

significant relationship between green SCM dimensions and the performance of firms
was found to support this conception. Examining individual green SCM dimensions and
there link to performance, it was evident that no doubt there are relationship between
these factors and performance. However, it appears that individually, green
manufacturing was the factor with the highest influence on performance, followed by
EORL practices, green procurement and the least is green distribution. Probably this is an
indication of the attention the management gives to manufacturing processes since it is
their core activity. The findings could be different if the target firms were to be in a
different industry, for example, retail industry or transport industry.

The study finding on the relationship between green supply chain management and firm
performance conforms to the theoretical contention of Fugate et al. (2010) that firms‘
record improved performance as a result of embracing green SCM concept. The study
results are in agreement with those other studies which concluded that certainly there is a

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 823
ISSN 2320-9186

relationship between green SCM dimensions and firm performance. These include
studies by Banerjee, (2003); Corbett and Klassen, (2006); and Rao and Holt, (2005) all of
which concluded that there is a relationship between green SCM dimensions and firm
performance.

However, the result on green distribution contradicts Fugate et al. (2010) findings that
green distribution has no significant influence on firm performance when put together
with the rest of the dimensions. This is supported by Banerjee (2003) findings which
doubted whether implementation of green distribution practices by firms might provide
any significant change on performance. In the contrast, these findings were rubbished by
Kirchoff, (2011) who criticized them for using industries with minimum distribution
activities such as retail and hotel respectively to generalize their findings. According to
Kirchoff, (2011) firms in the manufacturing and logistics industries experience improved
performance as a result of embedding ecological thinking in distribution processes.
Similarly, Corbett and Klassen (2006); and Rao and Holt (2005) asserted that green
distribution has a positive significant influence as the rest of GSCM dimensions.

4.10.6 The moderating effect of Supply Chain Ecocentricity in the relationship

between Green Supply Chain Management Practices and firm performance
The study sought to find out whether supply chain ecocentricity does influence the
relationship between GSCM practices and firm performance. The supposition in the
existing literature that the higher the level of supply chain ecocentricity the higher the
influence of green SCM practices on firm performance was therefore examined. Even
though this was expected to be true based on the existing literature, it was contradicted by
the study findings.

The results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that there is no
significant influence by the supply chain ecocentricity on the relationship between green
SCM practices and the performance of the manufacturing firms, p>0.05 (p=0.9057).
Therefore, the study null hypothesis that ―there is no effect on the relationship between
firm performances and supply chain dimensions by introducing SC ecocentricity in the
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 824
ISSN 2320-9186

model 5‖ was supported. The contradiction of the existing literature by the study findings
could be attributed to the differences in the context of the past studies.

The Study findings indicate that partnering with external stakeholders on environmental
research, participation in external stakeholders eco-oriented workshops, environment fit
through engagement with external stakeholders, environmental benchmarking with
external stakeholders, advance knowledge for environmental management practices and
use environmental management experts from external stakeholders were explicit across
the firms surveyed having scored an average of 86 percent out possible maximum score
of one hundred percent.

The previous studies heavily focused in the developed countries where the appreciation
of ecological issues in buying decision making by customers has matured (Pagell & Wu
2009) making it a sticking competitiveness issue in business. Consequently, business
managers in the developed countries are forced by the operation environment to be on the
lookout of any emerging ecological management idea that might give them an edge over
their competitors. Essentially, this allows them to freely interact with other stakeholders
with a view to learning new environmental management approaches that might help them
green their business processes in order to differentiate themselves from competitors. This
is in contrast with developing countries where firms view external ecological
stakeholders as forces out to punish them thereby eliminating learning opportunities.

These study findings contradict Banerjee (2003) assertion that firms with a high level of
supply chain ecocentricity will proactively engage environmental stakeholders in effort to
implement practices that are real, measureable environmental performance
improvements, which collectively enhance GSCM practices and impact on the firm
performance. Similarly, Tate et al. (2011) conclusion that engaging and learning from
environmental stakeholders should enhance the cost improvements resulting from GSCM
efforts was not supported by the study results. In the same line, Sarkis et al. (2010) and
Sarkis et al. (2011) arguments that gaining access to recent environmental technologies
and processes from external ecological stakeholders reduces conflicts and confusion
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 825
ISSN 2320-9186

among managers in implementing GSCM, which in turn, decrease costs because those
environmental supply chain practices that are selected and implemented are better aligned
with more relevant environmental issues were not supported by the study. The study
finding, therefore, is an indication that results from past studies, undertaken in the
developed world context were influenced by the geographical set up of businesses.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 826
ISSN 2320-9186

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This study was based on the manufacturing sector in Kenya. It examined the influence of
Green Supply Chain Management dimensions namely: green procurement, green
manufacturing, green distribution and environmentally oriented reverse logistics on
firm‘s performance. Similarly, the study investigated the moderating effect of supply
chain ecocentricity on the relationship between Green Supply Chain Management
dimensions and the performance of the manufacturing firms. This chapter, therefore,
presents the summary of the study findings, conclusions and the recommendations for
actions and directions for future studies.

5.2 Summary of Research Findings

To address the study objectives, quantitative research study was undertaken. The study
objectives were to establish the e effect of green supply chain management practices on
the performance of the manufacturing firms; and to establish the moderating effect of
supply chain ecocentricity on the relationship between green supply chain practices and
the performance of manufacturing firms.

Based on the specific objectives, research hypothesises were formulated for testing in
response to the study objectives. As a result of findings from hypothesises tests, five null
hypothesises were rejected and one was accepted as presented in chapter 4. The specific
findings relating to the study objectives are summarized in the following section.

5.2.1 Effect of Green Procurement on the performance of manufacturing firms

This objective was built on the hypothesized statement that ―green procurement does not
significantly influence the performance of the manufacturing firms.‖ The study findings
rejected the null hypothesis and established that firm performance was significantly
influenced by green procurement positively. Performance was measured as cost

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 827
ISSN 2320-9186

efficiency and environmental differentiation and their positive association with green
procurement as established by this study supported the resource based view as
propounded by Gold et al., (2010); Sarkis et al., (2010); Lai et al., (2010) which consider
green procurement practices such as preferences to recycled products, environmental
audit of supply base, consideration of ISO 14001 as criteria for selecting vendors,
preferences to products which consume fewer natural resources and collaboration with
vendors in solving environmental issues as unique firm resources with the ability to
promote cost efficiency and environmental differentiation of an enterprise. The finding
agrees with Gibbs (2000) findings under ecological modernization theory and supports
Lacroix and Stamatiou, (2007) assertion that green procurement, as management best
practice, positively influences firm performance.

5.2.2 Effect of Green Manufacturing on the performance of the manufacturing

firms

This objective is grounded on the hypothesized statement that ―green manufacturing does
not significantly influence the performance of manufacturing firms.‖ The study findings
rejected the null hypothesis and established a significant positive effect of green
manufacturing on firm performance. Ecological modernization theory as espoused by
Revell (2007) that through eco-modernization of machines and processes; firms are able
to reduce solid waste, lower hazardous material, conserve energy and increase customer
loyalty thus improving firm‘s performance is supported in this context by the study
findings. Similarly, this finding agrees with Zhu, Sarkis, & Lai, (2008) notion in
stakeholders‘ theory that green manufacturing practices contribute positively to firm
performance through increased sales and concur with Banerjee, (2003) findings that
Green Manufacturing programs improves environmental performance and increases
profitability of a firm by minimizing waste throughout transformation processes.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 828
ISSN 2320-9186

5.2.3 Influence of Green Distribution on the performance of the manufacturing

firms

This study objective is founded on the hypothesised statement that ―green distribution
does not significantly influence the performance of manufacturing firms.‖ The study
findings rejected the null hypothesis and established that the influence of green
distribution on firm performance was statistically significant. This findings corroborate
the contention of Lacroix & Stamatiou, (2007); Rao & Holt, (2005); Hoffman, (2000) in
the corporate environmental responsibility theory that green distribution related firm
practices such as; collection of used packages for proper disposal, eco labeling of
products, accept recycling and re-use of packages, use organic packages and education to
customers on proper disposal of used packages as a mechanism of reducing the impact of
their operations on the natural environment are generally viewed positively by the society
thus increasing market share and customer loyalty which in turn positively contribute to
firm performance. Correspondingly, the results in line with Wu and Dunn (2008)
contention that strategic green distribution practices such as standardized reusable
containers; minimize use of packages; good warehousing layouts; and easy eco-
information access influence performance of firms positively.

5.2.4 Effect of Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics on the performance of

the manufacturing firms

This objective is centered on the hypothesized statement that ―environmentally-oriented

reverse Logistics does not significantly affect the performance of manufacturing firms.‖
It was discovered in this study that environmentally-oriented reverse logistics positively
and significantly affect the performance of firms. As such, the null hypothesis was
rejected. The study discovery supports Hart and Dowel, (2010); Lambert & Burduroglu,
(2000); Stock et al., (2002); Cheng & Tang, (2010) argument in RBV that
environmentally-oriented reverse logistics practices are important intangible resources of
a firm capable of improving firm performance through image enhancement, improved
efficiency and effectiveness in management of returned materials, reduction of regulatory
compliance costs and getting new profits from sale or recycling of recovered products.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 829
ISSN 2320-9186

Equally, the findings agree with Zhu, Sarkis et al., (2010) argument under the ecological
modernization theory (EMT) that environmentally oriented reverse logistics is an eco-
innovative way with positive effect on the performance of firms. Lambert & Burduroglu,
(2000); Stock et al., (2002) support these findings with their studies establishing positive
relationship between environmentally oriented reverse logistics and firm performance.

5.2.5 Moderating effect of Supply Chain Ecocentricity on the relationship between

Green Supply Chain Management Dimensions and the performance of
manufacturing firms

This study objective is founded on the hypothesized statement that the ―relationship
between Green Supply Chain Management Practices and firm performance is not
influenced by supply chain ecocentricity.” The results revealed that Supply Chain
ecocentricity reduces the effect of GSCM dimensions on the performance of firms though
not the reduction is not statistically significant. Consequently, the study accepted the
study null hypothesis. This study finding disagrees with Banerjee, (2003) notion that
affinity with supply chain ecocentricity positively influences the relationship between
green SCM dimensions and firm performance. Similarly, Tate et al., (2011) advocacy
that learning environmental management best practices from the stakeholders enhances
firm‘s performance as a result of Green Supply Chain Management Dimensions efforts
was not supported.

5.2.6 Effect of GSCM practices on the performance of the manufacturing firms in

Kenya

This study global objective is grounded on the general null hypothesized statement that
―green supply chain management dimensions do not significantly influence the
performance of manufacturing firms.‖ It was established in this study that green
manufacturing was the factor which increases the firm performance positively by highest
unit index value, followed by EORL practices, green procurement and green distribution
respectively. The findings established that all the four dimensions of green supply chain
management statistically significantly influence firm performance. Thus the study null
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 830
ISSN 2320-9186

hypothesis statement was rejected. Cumulatively, green SCM dimensions were found to
be positively affecting the performance of the manufacturing firms. However, the study
noted that a major increase in the effectiveness of green manufacturing practices will
equally create a major impact on the performance as oppose to EORL, green procurement
and green distribution.

5.3 Conclusion
The study aimed to establish the effect of Green Supply Chain Management dimensions
on the performance of manufacturing firms. Additionally, the study sought to investigate
the moderating effect of supply chain ecocentricity on the relationship between GSCM
dimensions and firm performance. The study established that all the four green supply
chain management dimensions significantly influenced firm performance. The study
conclusion are thus discussed under the study specific objectives as follows:

5.3.1 Green Procurement and Firm Performance

The study provided evidence that green procurement significantly positively influence the
performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya. This implies that an increase in
performance of manufacturing firm is likely through embracing green procurement
practices within the upstream of supply chain. As a result, the study concludes that green
procurement initiatives positively influence firm performance.

5.3.2 Green Manufacturing and Firm Performance

The study established a significant positive relationship between green manufacturing

and firm performance. A positive increase of greening initiatives within the
manufacturing processes increases the performance of firms. It is therefore concluded in
the study that green manufacturing practices within the operations of the firms impact
positively on their performance significantly.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 831
ISSN 2320-9186

5.3.3 Green distribution and Firm performance

The study proven that green distribution positively impact on the performance of
manufacturing firms. An increase on green activities within the distribution process
results on a positive significant increase in firm performance. The study can thus
conclude that green distribution has a positive influence on the performance of
manufacturing firms.

5.3.4 Environmentally oriented reverse logistics and Firm performance

Environmentally oriented reverse logistics was found to have positive significant

influence on the performance of manufacturing firms. As a result, the study concludes
that there is a positive relationship between environmentally oriented reverse logistics
and firms should adopt green practices in managing their logistics in order to improve in
performance.

5.3.5 Supply Chain Ecocentricity, Green Supply Chain Management Dimensions

and Firm Performance

On the other hand, the study confirmed that Supply Chain Ecocentricity does not
moderate the relationship between green SCM practices and firm performance. This
finding provides basis to conclude that SEC does not moderate the relationship between
GSCM dimensions and firm performance. This is, however, in contradiction to some of
the existing literature.

5.3.6 Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Firm Performance

In overall, Green Supply Chain management Practices were found to be collectively

significantly influencing the performance of the manufacturing firms. Subsequently, the
study has a basis to conclude that, aggregately, Green Supply Chain Management
Practices affect the performance of the manufacturing firms in Kenya.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 832
ISSN 2320-9186

5.4 Recommendations
Based on the study findings, the following recommendations are given under the study
specific objectives:

5.4.1 Green Procurement and firm performance

In line with Jänicke (2008) views as pronounced under the resource based view and
ecological modernization theory (EMT) that procurement management practices laced
with ecological thinking is a potential source for unique resources with capability of
improving the overall performance with a positive significant effect on environment, the
study established that green procurement positively predicts the performance of
manufacturing firms; p < 0.05 (P=0.000) with an explanatory power of 33.86 percent.
Therefore, the study recommends that managers in manufacturing firms in Kenya should
incorporate ecological initiatives in their procurement processes such as environmental
requirements as a specification for purchases, preference to products that consumed fewer
natural resources, working with suppliers to address environmental problems and
environmental audits of supply base in order to increase overall cost efficiency, enhanced
reputation through product differentiation, market share, and reduced environmental risks
and liabilities thereby impacting positively on their performance.

5.4.2 Green Manufacturing and Firm Performance

According to Phungrassami, (2008), green manufacturing is a continuous strategy with

the potential of improving firms‘ performance both financially and in non-financial
fronts. This study established a significant positive relationship between green
manufacturing practices and firm performance; p < 0.05 (P=0.000) with an explanatory
power of 40.27 percent. The study therefore recommends the inclusion of ecological
practices in the strategic plans of the manufacturing firms in Kenya. Green practices as
evidenced in this study, are capable of potentially reducing costs of litigations, minimizes
usages of energy and water, reduces wastage of materials, improves innovation and

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 833
ISSN 2320-9186

minimizes solid, gaseous and liquid discharge to the environment thus impacting
positively on both financial and none financial performance of the firms.

5.4.3 Green Distribution and Firm Performance

In line with Rao and Holt (2005) hypothesis under the RBV that management of wastes
in the distribution processes is a vital firm resource with capability of impacting
positively on firm performance, this study established that green distribution statistically
significantly influences the performance of firms; p < 0.05 (P=0.047) with an
explanatory power of 30.42 percent. It is therefore recommended in this study that
managers of the manufacturing firms in Kenya should adopt green practices such as eco
labeling of products, environment-friendly packaging and transportation, providing
information to customers on environment friendly products, re-using and recycling of
packages and collection of used packages for proper disposal in their distribution
processes as a way of managing their cost of production and creation of customer loyalty.

5.4.4 Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics and Firm Performance

In Support of Zhu, Sarkis et al., (2010) postulation under the ecological modernization
theory (EMT) that environmentally oriented reverse logistics is an eco-innovative way
with positive effect on the performance of firms, the study established that
environmentally oriented reverse logistics significantly positively predict the
performance of manufacturing firms with values of p<0.000 and an explanatory value of
38.93 percent. As a result, the study recommends that managers in the manufacturing
firms in Kenya should include ecological practices such as waste collection for proper
disposal and recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal as part of their performance
strategies. The two environmentally oriented reverse logistics practices are vital
component of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Firms with visible CSR policies
have a tendency of creating customer loyalty and also conform to government
environmental regulations thereby minimizing statutory fines for none environmental
management compliance. Additionally, the study recommends adoption of recycling, re-
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 834
ISSN 2320-9186

use, recovery of useful parts of the products and arrangements with customers to return
used packages as further strategies for managing cost of inputs and parts in their
production process thereby increasing the profitability of the firms.

5.4.5 Moderating effect of Supply Chain Ecocentricity on the relationship between

Green Supply Management Practices and Firm Performance

The study found that supply chain ecocentricity negatively moderate the relationship
between green SCM dimensions and firm performance in Kenya though not significantly.
Consequently, the study recommends that managers in the manufacturing industry in
Kenya should not direct their firms‘ limited resources to supply chain ecocentricity
related activities which presently may not amount to significant influence on their firms‘
performance. They, however, should direct their energies to GSCM practices which were
found to have direct bearings on their bottom-line.

5.4.6 Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Firm Performance

In line with Vachon & Klassen (2006b); Jänicke (2008) views as pronounced under the
resource based view and ecological modernization theory (EMT) that business
management practices laced with ecological thinking is a potential source for unique
resources with capability of improving the overall performance with a positive significant
effect on environment, the study established that Green SCM management dimensions;
green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution and environmentally oriented
reverse logistics significantly positively predict the performance of manufacturing firms
with values of p<0.032, p<0.000, p<0.044 and p<0.019 respectively. Therefore, the study
recommends that managers in manufacturing firms in Kenya should incorporate
ecological initiatives such as green manufacturing, environmentally oriented reverse
logistics, green procurement and green distribution within the performance strategies of
their firms. This will significantly improve their firms‘ performance as established in this
study.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 835
ISSN 2320-9186

The study further recommends that the government and her environmental agencies
should shift from the current environment management policy strategy which focuses
purely on statutory regulation as a direct motivator on firms to adopt green initiatives to a
more robust mixed policy strategy which combine both statutory regulations with firms‘
internal directives such as improvement of performance. A government policy strategy
targeting internal directives of firms such as tax rebate on eco-machines, eco-products,
carbon compensation and others in the same line with a direct effect on the performance
of firms, will facilitate voluntary participation of firms in environment management
since firms will view the adoption of green practices as a performance improvement
strategy thus help the government achieve sustainable development as envisaged in
Vision 2030. This agrees with Gunther & Scheibe, (2005) assertions that internal
directives as direct motivator of green practices by firms are more effective in conserving
the natural environment than the external drivers such as statutory regulations and
stakeholder demands

Additionally, the study established that most of the manufacturing firms in Kenya are
medium enterprises employing between 51-100 paid employees. Based on this finding,
the study recommends that the government should take deliberate measures that can
create conducive environment for expansion of manufacturing firms beyond the current
medium sizes that currently employ between 51-100 paid employees to large firms that
can employ 100 plus paid employees. This will help the government bridge the un-
employment gap and achieve Vision 2030 (RoK, 2007).

5.5 Areas for Further Research

Beyond addressing the limitations listed in the previous section, future research
possibilities based on the findings from this study are interesting and exciting. Possible
future research paths concentrate on theoretical issues, investigation of new conceptual
questions, and the execution of new empirical studies to improve upon the conclusions of
the findings. These future research paths are discussed in details in the next section.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 836
ISSN 2320-9186

5.5.1 Additional Variables

Additional variables in the model could be explained through the inclusion of other
moderators to the hypothesized relationships. Uncertainty has been hypothesized to
positively moderate the relationship between green practices in the firm and firm
performance (Aragon-Correa and Sharma 2003). Risk factors also impact managerial
decisions about the allocation of resources toward green SCM and the impact they have
on sustainability and firm performance (Carter and Rogers 2008). Risk and uncertainty
could both be used to moderate antecedent and outcome relationships between green
SCM and firm performance. Furthermore, the interaction of risk and uncertainty could be
investigated, which would lead to a greater understanding of how different combinations
of risk and uncertainty impact on the effect of green SCM practices and firm
performance.

Other studies could be conducted that look at firm size, industry type, and global
presence to assess if there are differences among groups that make up these
demographics. For example, how does the theoretical model change when the sample is
split into large firms and small/medium sized and in what ways do these two groups
compare? Do older or newer industries show a greater propensity toward the existence of
green SCM practices? Does the impact of green SCM practices on firm performance
increase or decrease in firms with a greater global presence (greater percentage of
purchasing made globally) as opposed to firms with a smaller global presence?

5.5.2 External Validity

External validity cannot be ensured in a single study (Mentzer and Flint 1997).
Additional empirical research is needed to test the primary components of external
validity, namely statistical generalizability, conceptual replicability, and situational
replicability (Ferber 1977; Lynch 1982). One way to do this is by expanding the sample
to include firms within East African community block. A related study could investigate
the differences between industrialized, newly industrialized, and developing countries.
Another way to assess the external validity of research is to triangulate methods to see if
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 837
ISSN 2320-9186

the findings of different research methodologies are consistent with one another
(McGrath 1982). Qualitative research would be one such methodology.

5.5.3 Qualitative Research Design

Qualitative research could help improve the operationalization for the GSCM constructs
through the development of a more valid and reliable scale. GSCM has been
operationalized by several authors, including Zhu et al. (2008a), Rao (2002), and Zsidisin
and Hendrick (1989). The scales for green SCM in this dissertation were taken from Zhu
et al., (2008a) because of its replication in more than one study. The findings in Zhu et
al., (2008a) were based on a sample of Chinese firms. An exhaustive exploratory study of
interviews with managers from Kenya and other East African based firms would add to
the literature by refining and better defining what it means to have green SCM practices
in firms in the context this region.

Another phenomenon that could be pursued using qualitative research methodology is

exploring managerial attitudes toward green SCM practices. Sustainability is an emerging
issue in SCM and has been at the forefront of considerable research in recent years
(Carter and Rogers 2008). However, emerging issues can become mainstream or exist
only as trends, with the former becoming relevant in the literature and assimilated into
practitioner‘s strategies and operations, and the latter eventually becoming obsolete
(Pagell and Wu 2009). Understanding managers‘ attitudes toward the longevity of
environmental and sustainability issue in SCM would give greater insight into the number
and types of resources dedicated to these areas in the firm.

5.5.4 Extending the Research

Using longitudinal survey data to see how green SCM practices are evolving in firms
would be another interesting and worthwhile research project. This project could be
linked with qualitative studies to see how closely manager‘s attitudes about
environmental and sustainability issues in SCM follow patterns of firm investment in
green SCM practices. Longitudinal data could also be collected using secondary sources

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 838
ISSN 2320-9186

such as annual reports, press releases, corporate sustainability reports, and other public
information.

REFERENCES

Aerts, W., Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry Imitation in Corporate

Environmental Reporting: An International Perspective. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy, 25(3), 299-331.
Alavi, M. & Carlson, P. (2001). A review of MIS research and disciplinary development,
Journal of Management Information Systems (8:4), 45-62.
Arimura, T.H., Darnalln N. & Katayama, H., (2011) Is ISO 14001 a Gateway To More
Advanced Voluntary Action? The Case of Green Supply Chain Management.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61, 170–182.
Bahl, R. & Wallace, S., (2007). Tax Reform and Economic Development: The Jamaican
Case. Kingston: Planning Institute of Jamaica.
Ball, A. & Craig, R. (2010). Using Neo-Institutionalism to Advance Social and
Environmental Accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(4), 283-293.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Corporate Environmentalism the Construct and Its Measurement.
Journal of Business Research, 55 (3), 177-191.
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management,
and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment. Academy of
Management Journal, 47 (1), 93-103
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 839
ISSN 2320-9186

Baruch, Y. (2007). Response rates in academic studies: a comparative analysis. Human

Relations, 52: 421–434
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Berger, G., Flynn, A., Hines, F., & Johns, R. (2001). Ecological modernization as a basis
for environmental policy: Current environmental discourse and policy and the
implications on environmental supply chain management. Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Science Research, 14(1), 55 - 72.
Bidco. (2012). Environmental Policy of Bidco Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.bidco-
oil.com/content/webcontent.aspx?PN=envpolicy&TY=page on 5/3/2014.
Billé, R. (2010) ―Action without change? On the use and usefulness of pilot experiments
in environmental management.‖ S.A.P.I.EN.S. 3 (1)
Björklund, M. (2010). Influence from the business environment on environmental
purchasing--Drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, In Press, Uncorrected Proof.
Black, T. R. (2004). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated
approach to research design, measurement, and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Blaikie, N. (2003). Analysing Quantitative Data. London: Sage Publications.
Bland M. (2000). An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford
Medical Publications.
Boiral, O. (2007). "Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?."
Organization Science 18: 127. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0224.
Breusch, T. S.; Pagan, A. R. (1979). A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random
Coefficient Variation. Econometrica 47 (5): 1287–1294.
British American Tobacco (2012). Sustainable Business Policy of Bidco Ltd. Retrieved
From:http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO5
2AD6H?opendocument&SKN=1
BSI Press release (July, 2007). Health and safety management systems specification
OHSAS 18001 is now a British Standard BS OHSAS 18001:2007
Byrne, (2001). ―Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 840
ISSN 2320-9186

conventional criteria versus new alternatives,‖ Structural Equation Modeling, 6,

1-55.
Cagno, E., Guido, M.J., Perotti, S., & Zorzini, M. (2011). The impact of green supply
chain practices on company performance: the case of 3PLs, Lancaster University
Management School Working Paper, 1-31.
Chen, Y. (2008). The Driver of Green Innovation and Green Image – Green Core
Competence, Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 531–543.
Chien, M. K. & Shih, L. H., (2007). An empirical study of the implementation of green
supply chain management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and
their relation to organizational performances, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 4 (3)
383-394.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of "Best Practices" of Environmental Management on
Cost Advantage: The Role of Complimentary Assets, Academy of Management
Journal, 43(4), 663-680.
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain, International
Journal of Logistics Management, 15 (2), 1-13.
Connelly, B., Ketchen, D., & Slater, S. (2010). Toward a ―theoretical toolbox‖ for
Sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business Research Methods. McGraw Hill
Companies.
Corbett, C., & Klassen, R. (2006). Extending the Horizons: Environmental Excellence as
Key to Improving Operations. Manufacturing and Service Operations
Management, 8 (1), 5-22.
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. (2009). Definition of supply chain
man-Agement. Retrieved from http://www.cscmp.org on 15/7/2013.
Davis (2009). "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage."
Journal of Management17 (1): 99-120.
Delgado-Rodriquez M, Llorca J (2004). ―Bias,‖ Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health; 58: 635–641

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 841
ISSN 2320-9186

Diabat, A., & Govindan, K. (2011). An Analysis of the Drivers Affecting the
Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling. 55.
Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, (2000), ―Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives,‖ Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Dillman, D. (2000). Elements of the Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.
East Africa Breweries Ltd. (2012). Sustainability approach of East Africa Breweries Ltd
.EABL, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.eabl.com/sustainability on
15/7/2013.
Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2003). Management Research: An
Introduction. Sage Publications, London.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business. Oxford: Capstone.
Elkington, J., & Fennell, S. (1998). Partners for Sustainability. Greener Management
International, (24), 48-60.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll)
(3rd ed. ed.). Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.]: SAGE Publications. 143.
ISBN 978-1-84787-906-6.
Fiske, Donald W. (1982). Convergent-Discriminant Validation in Measurements and
Research Strategies. New York: Wiley
Fugate, B. S., Mentzer, J. T., & Stank, T. P. (2010). Logistics Performance: Efficiency,
Effectiveness, and Differentiation, Journal of Business Logistics, 31 (1), 43-62.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2006). Social Statistics for a Diverse
Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Frazer, G. (2005). Which Firms Die? A Look at Manufacturing Firm Exit in Ghana.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(3), 585-617.
Frederick, J. (2006). Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics (2nd ed.). Singapore:
World Scientific. pp. 324. ISBN 981-270-527-9.
Freeman, R.E., (2005). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield:
Pittman.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 842
ISSN 2320-9186

Galliers, R. J. (2002). Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Approaches:

A Revised Taxonomy. Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
& Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Gibbs, D. (2000). Ecological Modernization, Regional Economic Development And
Regional Development Agencies. Geoforum, 31(1), 9-19.
González, P., Sarkis, J. & Diaz, B.A. (2008). Environmental management system
certification and its influence on corporate practices: Evidence from the
automotive industry. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 28(11), 1021-1041.
González-Torre, P., Álvarez, M., Sarkis, J. & Adenso-Díaz, B. (2009). Barriers to the
implementation of environmentally oriented reverse logistics: Evidence from the
automotive industry sector. British Journal of Management, 9999 (9999).
Gouldson, A., Murphy, J. (1998). Regulatory Realities: The Implementation and Impact
of Industrial Environmental Regulation. London: Earthscan.
Grice, J. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430-
450.
Gujarati, Damodar N.; Porter, Dawn C. (2009). Basic Econometrics (Fifth ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. pp. 385–86. ISBN 978-0-07-337577-9.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (2001). Guest editors‘ introduction: corporate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.
Hair, J.F., Andrson, R, E., Tatham R.L., & Black, W.C. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis, 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. USA
Hall, J. (2001). Environmental supply-chain innovations. Greener Management
International 35, 105-119.
Handfield, R.,Sroufe, R. & Walton, S. (2005). Integrating Environmental Management
and Supply Chain Strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14 (1), 1-
19.
Hair, Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th Ed.), Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Harris, S.M. (2007). Does sustainability sell? Market responses to sustainability
certification. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,
18(1) 50-60.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 843
ISSN 2320-9186

Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2010). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Fifteen
Years After, Journal of Management, Forthcoming
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001), Normal distribution, Encyclopedia of Mathematics,
Springer, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Heij, C.; P. de Boer (2004). Econometric Methods with Applications in Business and
Economics. Oxford University Press. 334–353.
Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Hirschheim, R. (2003). Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective in
Research Methods in Information Systems, Mumford.
Hoffman, A. J. (2000). Competitive Environmental Strategy: A Guide to the Changing
Business Landscape. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Holmes-Smith et al., (2004) A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms for use with
missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128-141
Holt, D., & Ghobadian, A. (2009). An Empirical Study of Green Supply Chain
Management Practices amongst UK Manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology, 20 (7), 933-56.
Hsu, C.W., & Hu, A. H. (2008). Green Supply Chain Management in the Electronic
Industry. International Journal Environment Science Technology, 5 (2), 205-216.
Huber, J., 2000. Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of
ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(4), 269
- 285.
Huber, J. (2008a). Pioneer countries and the global diffusion of environmental
innovations: Theses from the viewpoint of ecological modernization theory.
Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 360-367.
Hult, G., D., Ketchen Jr, & Slater S. (2004). Information Processing, Knowledge
Development, and Strategic Supply Chain Performance, The Academy of
Management Journal, 47 (2), 241-253.
Hussey, J., & Hussey.R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for
Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. London, Macmillan. Williams, M.
and T.
Jänicke, M. (2008). Ecological modernisation: New perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(5), 557-565.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 844
ISSN 2320-9186

Jones, M. E. (2006). A Feasibility Study for Implementation of pro-Poor Payment for

environmental services in the Naivasha: Catchment, Kenya. London, Imperial
College of London, Faculty of Natural science, University of London: MSc.
Thesis (Unpublished).
Kalirajan, K.P.,Shand, R.T. & Bhide, K. (2010). Frontier Production Functions and
Technical Efficiency Measures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 13 (2), 149-172.
Kamande, M. W. (2011). ―The Impact of Clean Production on the Performance of Kenya
Manufacturing Firms.Ph.D (Economics). Dissertation .University of Dar es
Salaam: Tanzania.
Kamande,M.W. (2011). Clean production and Profitability. An Eco-Efficiency Analysis
of Kenyan Manufacturing Firms. Department of Economics, School of Finance
and Banking. Kigali: Rwanda.
Kassolis, M.G. (2007). The diffusion of environmental management in Greece through
rationalist approaches: Driver or product of globalisation? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15(18), 1886-1893.
Kasunic M. (2005). Designing an effective survey. Handbook, CMU/SEI- HB- 004.
Keeter, Scott, Kennedy C., Dimock M., Best J. and Craighill P. (2006). Gauging the
Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone
Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 70(5): 759–779.
KAM, (2013), Kenya Association of Manufacturers directory. Retrieved from:
http://www.kam.co.ke/index.php/about-us/membership
Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging Organization Theory and Supply Chain
Management. The Case of Best Value Supply Chains, Journal of Operations
Management, 25 (2), 573-580.
Klassen, R. D., & Johnson, P. F. (2004).The Green Supply Chain," in Understanding
Supply Chains: Concepts, Critiques, and Futures, S. New and R. Westbrook.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kline (2005). Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley &
Sons.
Kothari, S., Warner, J., (2008), Econometrics of Event Studies, in Espen Eckbo, Ed.,
Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance, Elsevier-North-Holland.
Krikke, H., Le Blanc, I. & Van de Velde, S. (2003). Creating value from returns. Center
Applied Research working paper, 2003-02.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 845
ISSN 2320-9186

Lacroix, R., (2008). Energy and Eco-Development in France, (for NTUA). Retrieved
from www.brainet.gr-54 on 15/7/2013.
Lacroix, R., & Stamatiou, E. (2007) Green Architecture and Sustainable Development:
Applications & Perspectives, 3rd IASME / WSEAS Int. Conf. On Energy,
Environment, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development (EEESD'07), Agios
Nikolaos, Crete Island, Greece.
Lai, K. H., Ngai, E. W. T., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2002). Measures for evaluating supply
chain performance in transport logistics. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 38(6), 439-456.
Lai, K.H., Cheng, T.C.E., & Tang, A.K.Y. (2010). Green retailing: Factors for success.
California Management Review, 52(2), 6-31.
Lambert D.M., & Burduroglu R. (2000). Measuring and selling the value of logistics. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 1-17.
Lambert, D. M., & M. C. Cooper. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management,
Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (1), 65-83.
Large, R.O., & Thomsen, C.G. (2011). Drivers of Green Supply Chain Management
Performance: Evidence from Germany, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 17, 176-184.
Last, J.M. (2001). A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press.
Lee, S. (2008). Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green
supply chain initiatives, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
13(3), 185–198.
Lee, H. L. (2002), Aligning Supply Chain Strategies with Product Uncertainties,
California Management Review, 44 (3), 105-119.
Levesque, R. (2007). SPSS Programming and Data Management: A Guide for SPSS and
SAS Users, Fourth Edition. SPSS Inc., Chicago. USA.
Li, Y. (2011) Research on the Performance Measurement of Green Supply Chain
Management in China. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3), 101-107.
Li, S., B. Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan T. & Rao S. S. (2006), The impact of Supply Chain
Management Practices on Competitive Advantage and Organizational
Performance, Omega, 34 (2), 107-124.
MacCallum, R.C. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-
99.
McGrath, J. E., & Brinberg D. (1983). External Validity and the Research Process: A
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 846
ISSN 2320-9186

Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue, The Journal of Consumer Research, 10

(1), 115-124.
Maignan, I., & McAlister, D.T. (2003). Socially responsible organizational buying: How
can stakeholders dictate purchasing policies? Journal of Macro marketing, 23(2),
78-89.
Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing research: An applied orientation (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2007). Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:
The case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.
Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1083-1102.
Melnyk, S., Sroufe R., & Calantone, R. (2003). .Assessing the Impact of Environmental
Management Systems on Corporate and Environmental Performance, Journal of
Operations Management, 21 (3), 329-351.
Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt W., Keebler J.S, Min S., N. W. Nix N., Smith C.D., & Zacharia
G. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22
(2), 1- 26.
Min, S.,Mentzer, J. T., & Ladd, R. T. (2007). A Market Orientation in Supply Chain
Management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 507-522.
Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J. & DeJong, C.R. (2002). Applied Social Research. Orlando,
FLA: Harcourt Press.
Mukiri, (2012). Green supply chain management practices in the food manufacturing
industry in Kenya, Global journal of commerce and management perspective, 1
(4):6-17
Murphy, J., & Gouldson, A. (2000). Environmental policy and industrial innovation:
integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation.
Geoforum, 31(1), 33-44.
Murphy, J. (2000). Editorial: Ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 31(1), 1-8.
Nawrocka, D., Brorson, T. & Lindhqvist, T. (2009). ―ISO 14001 in environmental supply
chain practices‖, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1435–1443.
Newbold, J. (2006). Chile‘s environmental momentum: ISO 14001 and the large-scale
mining industry E Case studies from the state and private sector, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 14 , 248-261.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 847
ISSN 2320-9186

Ninlawan, C., Seksan, P., Tossapol, K. & Pilada, W. (2011). The Implementation of
Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Electronics Industry, Proceedings
of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 3.
Nokia Corporation (2004). Environmental Report of Nokia Corporation 2004. Retrieved
from
www.nokia.com/NOKIA.../Environment_/.../nokia_ymparistoraportti_2004.pdf
on 15/7/2013.
Nunnaly, J. D. and Bernstein, I. H. (2004). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Ondiso, E.A (2012). Green supply chain management practices of the textile industry in
Kenya. Unpublished master‘s dissertation, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a More Complete Theory of Sustainable Supply
Chain Management Using Case Studies of 10 Exemplars, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 45 (2), 37-56.
Pedace, R. (2013). "Multicollinearity". Econometrics for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
175–190. ISBN 978-1-118-53384-0.
Phungrassami, H. (2008). ―Eco-Efficiency as a Decision Tool for Cleaner Production:
Application for SMEs in Thailand,‖ Environmental Research Journal, 2(5), pp.
217- 221
Preston, L. E., & Post J. E. (1975). Private Management and Public Policy: The
Principle of Public Responsibility. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Preuss, L. (2005). The green multiplier: A study of environmental protection and the
supply chain. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance? International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
25(9).
Raymond, P. C., Lopez, J., Marche, S, Perron, G.M. & Wright, R. (2008). Influences,
practices and opportunities for environmental supply chain management in Nova
Scotia SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1561–1570.
Razali, Nornadiah; Wah, Yap Bee (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of
Statistical Modeling and Analytics 2 (1): 21–33.
Reinhardt, F. L. (2003). Environmental Product Differentiation: Implications for
Corporate Strategy, California Management Review, 40 (4), 43-47

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 848
ISSN 2320-9186

Revell, A. (2007). The ecological modernisation of SMEs in the UK's construction

industry. Geoforum, 38(1), 114-126.
Rivera, J. (2004). Institutional pressures and voluntary environmental behavior in
developing countries: Evidence from the Costa Rican hotel industry. Society and
Natural Resources, 17, 779-797.
Ritter, N. (2010). Understanding a widely misunderstood statistic: Cronbach's alpha.
Paper presented at Southwestern Educational Research Association (SERA)
Conference 2010, New Orleans, LA (ED526237).
RoK. (2010).Kenya constitution 2010.Government of Kenya press, Nairobi, Kenya.
RoK. (2009). Kenya National Environment Action Plan (2009-2013). NEMA, Nairobi,
Kenya.
RoK. (2007). Kenya Vision 2030: A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya.
Government of Kenya (GoK) press, Nairobi, Kenya.
RoK. (1999).The Kenya Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) (Act
No. 8 of 1999.Government press, Nairobi, Kenya
Rowley, T., (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
Rugman, T. & Verbeke, S. (1998), "Complementary theories to supply chain
management." Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12(4): 284-
296.
Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples). Biometrika 52 (3–4): 591–611.
Sarkis, J. (2009). Convincing industry that there is value in environmentally supply
chains. Problems of Sustainable Development, 4(1), 61-64.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder Pressure and the
Adoption of Environmental Practices: The Mediating Effect of Training Journal
of Operations Management, 28(2), 163-176.
Sarkis, J., & Tamarkin, M. (2005). Real options analysis for ―green trading‖: the case of
greenhouse gases. Eng. Econ., 50, 273-294.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai K. (2010) An Organizational Theoretic Review of Green Supply
Chain management Literature. George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University,
USA, University press.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 849
ISSN 2320-9186

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business
Students, Essex, Pearson Education Ltd.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. New
York: John Willey and Sons.
Seman, N. S., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Shoki, M., & Arif, M. (2012). Green supply chain
management: A review and research direction. International Journal of
Managing Value and Supply Chains (IJMVSC) 3 (1).
Seuring, S. (2004). Integrated chain management and supply chain management
comparative analysis and illustrative cases. J. Clean. Prod., 12, 1059-1071.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Shang, K.C., Lu, C.S., & Li, S. (2010). A taxonomy of green supply chain management
capability among electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan. Journal of
Environmental Management, 91, 218–1226.
Shepherd, C., & Gunter H. (2006). Measuring supply chain performance: Current
Research and Future Directions. Int J Prod Perform Manage, 55(3/4):242–258
Shiferaw, A. (2007). Firm Heterogeneity and Market Selection in Sub- Saharan Africa:
Does it Spur Industrial Progress? Economic Development and Cultural Change,
52 (2), 393-423.
Simpson, D., Power, D. & Samson, D., (2007). Greening the automotive supply chain: a
relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 27 (1), 28-4.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A. & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in
Dynamic Environments to Create value. Looking inside the Black Box, Academy
of Management Review, 32 (1), 273-292.
Smallbone, T. & Quinton, S. (2004). Increasing Business Students ‗Confidence in
Questioning the Validity and Reliability of their Research. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 2 (2):153-162.
Søndergård, B., Hansen, O.E., & Holm, J. (2004). Ecological modernisation and
institutional transformations in the Danish textile industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 12 (4), 337- 352.
Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A.P.J. (1992). Sociology, environment, and modernity:
Ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Society & Natural
Resources: An International Journal, 5(4), 323 - 344.
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 850
ISSN 2320-9186

Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green Supply-Chain Management: A State-of-the-Art Literature

Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (1), 53-80.
Srivastava, S.K. & R.K. Srivastava, (2006). Managing product returns for reverse
logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 36
(7), 524-546.
Steiner, G. A. (1975), Business and Society. New York: Random House
Stephens, S., (2000). The supply chain council and the supply chain operations reference
(SCOR) model: integrating processes, performance measurements, technology
and best practice. Logistics Spectrum, July, 1 2000, 16-18
Stock, J.R., Speh, T.W. & Shear, H.W. (2002). Many happy (product) returns. Harvard
Business Review, 80 (7), 16-17.
Taylor, David & Walley, (2003) Effects of Green Purchasing Strategies on Supplier
Behaviour. Greening the supply chain. J. Sarkis. Germany, Springer-Verlag
London Limited: 25-39.
Tan, K. (2002). Supply Chain Management: Practices, Concerns, and Performance
Issues, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38 (1), 42-53.
Tate, W. L., Dooley, K. J. & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Transaction Cost and Institutional
Drivers of Supplier Adoption of Environmental Practice. Journal of Business
Logistics, 32(1), 6-16.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., & Kirchoff, J.F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports:
A thematic analysis related to supply chain management. The Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 46, 19-44.
Teijlingen, E. R. & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social research
UPDATE, (35).
Toke L. K., Gupta R. C. & Dandekar, M. (2010). Green supply chain management;
critical research and practices. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Dhaka, Bangladesh,
January 9 – 10.
Truxillo, C. (2003). Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Research Applications
Course Notes. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute
Umeda, Y., Tsukaguchi, H., & Li, Y. (2003). Reverse logistics system for recycling:
Efficient collection of electrical appliances. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, 4, 1319-1334.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 851
ISSN 2320-9186

UNEP, (1996). “Sustainable Consumption and Production Policy Dialog.‖ Retrieved

from http://www.unep.org on 15/7/2013.
Uniliver Kenya (2011). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan Progress Report. Retrieved
from http://www.unilever-esa.com/Images/uslp on 15/7/2013.
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental Management and Manufacturing
Performance: The Role of Collaboration in the Supply Chain," International
Journal of Production Economics, 111 (2), 299-315.
Vachon, S., & Klassen. R. D. (2006b). Green Project Partnership in the Supply Chain.
The Case of the Package Printing Industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 ,
661-671.
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R.D., (2006). Extending green practices across the supply chain:
The impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 26(7), 795 - 821.
Vershuren, (2002), A comprehensive conceptual model for managing environmental
impacts, costs and risks in supply chains. Best Practice Procurement: Public and
Private Sector Perspective. A. Erridge, R. Fee and McIlroy. Aldershot, Gower:
42-29.
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Arts, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2011). Interaction Management by
Partnerships: The Case of Biodiversity and Climate Change. Global
Environmental Politics, 11 (4), 89-107.
WBCSD, (1997b). ‗Eco-Efficiency and Cleaner Production: Charting the Course to
Sustainability, Sustainable Consumption and Production.” World Business
Council for Sustainable Development and United Nations Development
Programme.
WBCSD, (1997a). Exploring Sustainable Development, Global Scenarios (2000-2050).
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva: Switzerland.
WBCSD, (2000a), Measuring Eco-Efficiency, A Guide to Reporting Company
Performance. Verfaille, H.A., Bidwell.
William, S. C. (1994). The Elements of Graphing Data. Hobart Press.
William & Litabingwa J., (1996). Small – Scale Manufacturing in Kenya:
Chareacteristics, Problems and Source of finance.Jacton:Jacton State University
Press.
Williamson, K., D. Spitzer Jr & Bloomberg, D. (2000). Modern Logistics Systems:
Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Logistics, 11 (2), 65-86.

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 852
ISSN 2320-9186

World Health Organization, (2004). Kenya Country Profile.

Wu, H.J. & Dunn, S.C. (2008). Environmentally responsible logistics systems,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(2),.
20-38.
Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., Van Den Bulte, C., & Franses, P.H. (2004). Vertical marketing
systems for complex products: A triadic perspective. Journal of Marketing
Research, 41(4), 479-487.
Yamane, T., (1967). Statistics, 2nd Ed .New York: Harper and Row.
Yamfwa, F., Szirmai, A. & Lwamba, C. (2002). ‗Zambian Manufacturing Performance
in Comparative Perspective‘ Working Paper GD 53. Groningen: Groningen
Growth and Development Centre.
Zhu, Q., & 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, 22 (3), 265-289.
Zhu, Q. & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain
management in China: Drivers and practices, J. Clean. Prod., 14, 472-486.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.H. (2008). Confirmation of a Measurement Model for Green
Supply Chain Management Practices Implementation, International Journal of
Production Economics, 111 (2), 261-273.
Zhu, Q., & Liu, Q. (2010). Eco-design planning in a Chinese telecommunication network
company: Benchmarking its parent company. Benchmarking. An International
Journal, 17(3), 363-377.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.H. (2011). Evaluating Green Supply Chain
Management among Chinese Manufacturers from the Ecological Modernization
Perspective. Ransportation Research Part E, 47, 808-821.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., & Hashimoto, S. (2010). Green Supply Chain Management
in Leading Manufacturers: Case Studies in Japanese Large Companies,
Management Research Review, 33 (4), 380-392.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.H. (2010c). Green supply chain management innovation
diffusion and its relationship to organizational improvement: An ecological
modernization perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
In Press.
Zisis, (2003), The Environmental as a Supply Chain Management Issue." British Journal

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 853
ISSN 2320-9186

of Management 7: 45-62.

Appendix 1: Study Questionnaire

This questionnaire has been designed to collect data and information from manufacturing
firms in Kenya, to be used in examining the effect of Green Supply Chain
Management Practices (GSCMP) on firm performance. To achieve the research
objectives, your participation in this study is considered crucial. The information
collected from you will be treated with strict confidence, and shall be used for only the
intended purposes.

1.0 General information

a. Please provide the name of your firm (optional)

_______________________________
b. What title/position do you hold in the firm? (Necessary)
________________________

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 854
ISSN 2320-9186

c. How many employees does the company have? Number:

________________________
d. Which one of the following sectors best describes your firm? (Necessary):
Sectors Tick
Building, Construction and Mining
Chemical and Allied
Energy, Electricals and Electronics
Food and Beverages
Leather and Footwear
Metal and Allied
Motor Vehicle and Accessories
Paper and Board
Pharmaceutical and Medical Equipment
Plastic and Rubber
Textile and Apparel
Timber, Wood and Furniture
Other (specify)

2. 0 Green Supply Chain Management Practices (GSCMP) Indicators

Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box, the extent to which the
following GSCMP indicators have been implemented in your firm? (Where not all, very
small extent, small extent, average and a large extent are represented by scores of 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 respectively).

Green procurement 1 2 3 4 5
Providing specification to suppliers that includes environmental
requirements
Environmental audits of supply base
ISO14001 certification of supply base as a criteria for selecting vendor
Prefer products that consumed fewer natural resources
Working with suppliers to address environmental problems

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 855
ISSN 2320-9186

Others (Please
specify)________________________________________
Green Manufacturing 1 2 3 4 5
Using machines or tools which consume less energy, water and fuel
Impact and life cycle assessment tools for manufacturing
Risk assessment for energy and resource use
Environmental friendly raw material
Efficient processes to reduce solid waste , air emissions and conserve
energy and water
Environmental Management System (EMS)
Others (Please
specify)__________________________________________
Green Distribution 1 2 3 4 5
Eco labeling of products
Environment-friendly packaging and transportation
Providing information to customers on environment friendly products
Re-using and recycling of packages
Collection of packages for proper disposal
Others (Please
specify)_________________________________________
Environmentally Oriented Reverse Logistics 1 2 3 4 5
Waste collection for proper disposal
Recycling, re-use and recovery of useful parts of the products
Recovery of hazardous parts for proper disposal
Arrangement with customers to return used packages
Easy availability of information about returning of products
Others (Please specify)_____________________________________

2.1 Green Procurement and Firm Performance

Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box, the extent to which the
following have been realized as a result of your firm embracing green procurement
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 856
ISSN 2320-9186

practices (Where not all, very small extent, small extent, average and a large extent are
represented by scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively).

Cost efficiency 1 2 3 4 5
i. Lowering waste management fee
ii. Lowering hazardous material management fee
iii. Savings from conserving water, fuel and energy
iv. Reduce product cycle time
v. Reduction of cost and time for reporting procurement issues
vi. Reduction of cost of transportation

2.2 Green Manufacturing and Firm Performance

2.2.6 Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box, the extent to
which the following have been realized as a result of your firm embracing green
manufacturing practices (Where not all, very small extent, small extent, average and a
large extent are represented by scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively).

Measures 1 2 3 4 5
i. Reduction of scrap and rework
ii. Reduction of hazardous waste
iii. Prevention of liability costs
iv. Reduction of quantity of raw material
v. Reduction of energy and water required
vi. environmental performance
vii. reduces environmental compliance costs
viii. general acceptability of your firm by the
society
ix. improvement of your firm image
x. improvement of customer loyalty

2.3 Green distribution and Firm Performance

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 857
ISSN 2320-9186

2.3.5 Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box, the extent to
which the following have been realized as a result of your firm embracing green
distribution practices (Where not all, very small extent, small extent, average and a
large extent are represented by scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively).

Measures 1 2 3 4 5
i. Reduced storage costs
ii. Reduced retrieval delay
iii. Improved customer relationship
iv. Minimized solid waste
v. Reduced investment in packages
vi. Improved customer service
vii. Improved market share
viii. Improved customer loyalty

2.4 Environmentally – oriented reverse logistics (EORL) and Firm Performance

2.4.6 Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box, the extent to
which the following have been realized as a result of your firm embracing
Environmentally-oriented reverse logistics practices (Where not all, very small extent,
small extent, average and a large extent are represented by scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
respectively).
Measures 1 2 3 4 5
i. Improved efficiency on waste management
ii. Improved effectiveness in management of returned
material
iii. Source of new profits from wastes
iv. Enhanced firm image to customers
v. Reduced use of new material
vi. Positive public opinion about the firm

vii. Enhancement of environmental statutory compliance

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 858
ISSN 2320-9186

viii. Compliance with environmental regulations

ix. Increased interaction with customers
x. Development of helpful customer policy

3.0 Supply Chain Ecocentricity

3.1 Have the following supply chain ecocentricity practices been practiced by your
firm? (Please tick).

Supply chain ecocentricity indicators Yes No

partner with external stakeholders for environmental research

Sponsorship for implementation of environmental management practices by

the external stakeholders

Participation in external stakeholders eco-oriented workshops

Environment fit through engagement with external stakeholders

Environmental benchmarking with external stake holders

Advance knowledge for environmental management practices

Co-investment with external stakeholders on environmental management

related issues
Use environmental management experts from external stakeholders

Allow environmental audit by external stakeholders

3.2 From your Yes answers above, please list practices you think have influence on your

firms‘ green supply chain management practices success

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 859
ISSN 2320-9186

3.3 Please give reasons why you think they influence the success of your firms‘ green

supply chain management practices

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4.0 Firm Performance

In this study, firm performance is measured in terms of cost efficiency and environmental
differentiation.

4.1 Cost Efficiency

From the following firm performance indicators, please choose the ones which best
measure your firm performance after embracing Green Supply Chain Management
Practices (Please tick).

Cost efficiency Performance Not Between Between Between Above

indicators at all 1% & 4% 5% & 13% & 20%
12% 20%
Waste management fee has been
reduced by;

Hazardous material management

fees has been lowered by;
Cost of energy and water has been
lowered by;
Statutory fines for non-
environmental compliant is reduced
by;
Input costs have reduced due to
recycle/re-use of material by;

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 860
ISSN 2320-9186

Environmental related liability costs

have reduced by;
Cost of storage has been reduced by;

Cost of transport has been reduced

by
Speed and delivery time has
improved by;
Product cycle time has reduced by?

4.2 Environmental Differentiation

From the following firm performance indicators, please choose the ones which best
measure your firm performance after embracing Green Supply Chain Management
Practices (Please tick).

Environmental Differentiation Not Betwee Between Between Above

Performance Indicators at all n 1% & 5% & 13% & 20%
4% 12% 20%
Eco-friendly reputation has
increased by;
Charge higher price (premium)
compared to competitors by;
Eco-products sales has increased by;

Eco-market share has expanded by ;

Eco- brand loyalty has increased by;

Echo-waste management has

improved by;
Echo-management of hazardous

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 861
ISSN 2320-9186

material has improved by;

Conservation of energy and water
has improved by;
Production of echo- unique products
has increased by?

5. Realization of the Green Supply Chain Management Benefits

5.1 Has the anticipated value of green supply management practices been realized in your
firm?

Yes No

Please justify your answer

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5.2 What do you think organizations should do to make green supply chain management
practices a success?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5.3 In your opinion, what do you perceive as benefits of embracing green supply chain
management practices?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5.4 What drove your firm to implement green supply chain management practices?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: VOLUME 6, ISSUE 8, August 2018 862
ISSN 2320-9186

6.0 How long has it taken since the establishment of GSCM by your firm? (Please tick).

Years More than 4 years 3years 2yaes 1year Not at all

Please tick the correct

duration

GSJ© 2018
www.globalscientificjournal.com