Implementation of Collaborative Activities for Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation: An Analysis of the Firm Size Effect
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Sustainable Supply Chain Management
2.2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
2.2.1. Collaborative and Implementation Activities
2.2.2. Implementation Activities and Environmental Performance
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Variables
4. Results and Discussion
Moderating Effects of Firm Size between Groups
5. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lee, D. The Effect of safety management and sustainable activities on sustainable performance: Focusing on suppliers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, M. Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic capabilities, and enterprise performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3508–3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management: An exploratory literature review. RD Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tebaldi, L.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E. Sustainable supply chain and innovation: A review of the recent literature. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Goh, M. Moderating the role of firm size in sustainable performance improvement through sustainable supply chain management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosimato, S.; Troisi, O. Green supply chain management: Practices and tools for logistics competitiveness and sustainability-The DHL case study. TQM J. 2015, 27, 256–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.; Padhi, S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koster, M.; Vos, B.; Schroeder, R. Management innovation driving sustainable supply management-process studies in exemplar MNEs. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2017, 20, 240–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, S. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, M.; Chien, K.; Yang, T. Green component procurement collaboration for improving supply chain management in the high technology industries: A case study from the systems perspective. Sustainability 2016, 8, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnham, M. Wal-Mart Requires Suppliers to Reveal Environmental Impacts. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/walmart-environmental-impacts-labels/ (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- Meehan, J.; Muir, L. SCM in Merseyside SMEs: Benefits and barriers. TQM J. 2008, 20, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Lee, D.; Schniederjans, M. Supply chain innovation and organizational performance in the health care industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 31, 1193–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artsiomchyk, Y.; Zhivitskaya, H. Designing sustainable supply chain under innovation influence. IFAC Papers OnLine 2015, 48, 1695–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Martino, M.; Morvillo, A. Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: Key factors in port competitiveness. Marit. Policy Manag. 2008, 35, 571–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.; Schniederjans, M. How corporate social responsibility commitment influences sustainable supply chain management performance within the social capital framework: A propositional framework. Int. J. Corp. Strateg. Soc. Responsib. 2017, 1, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, M.; Carroll, A. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Bus. Ethics Q. 2003, 13, 503–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, C.; Rogers, D. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2009, 45, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seuring, S.; Muller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrivastava, P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 936–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Góncz, E.; Skirke, U.; Kleizen, H.; Barber, M. Increasing the rate of sustainable change: A call for a redefinition of the concept and the model for its implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roscoe, S.; Cousins, P.; Lamming, R. Developing eco-innovations: A three-stage typology of supply networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1948–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilman, E.; Ellison, J.; Coleman, R. Assessment of mangrove response to projected relative sea-level rise and recent historical reconstruction of shoreline position. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 124, 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S. Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1997, 75, 66–77. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Lim, S. Living innovation: From Value Creation to the Greater Good; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, P.; Holt, D. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2005, 25, 898–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Closs, D.; Speier, C.; Meacham, N. Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role of supply chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montiel, I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, M.; Newman, W.; Johnson, P. Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2000, 20, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, P.; Zandbergen, P. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 1015–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maignan, I.; Hillebrand, B.; McAlister, D. Managing socially-responsible buying: How to integrate noneconomic criteria into the purchasing process. Eur. Manag. J. 2002, 20, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, M.; Lichtenstein, S. Strategic supply management: The relationship between supply management practices, strategic orientation and their impact on organizational performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2006, 12, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, D.; Knemeyer, A. We’re in this together. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2005, 82, 114–117. [Google Scholar]
- Narasimhan, R.; Das, A. The impact of purchasing integration practices on manufacturing performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2001, 19, 593–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vachon, S.; Klassen, R. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hervani, A.; Helms, M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2005, 12, 330–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matopoulos, A.; Vlachopoulou, M.; Manthou, V.; Manos, B. A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: Empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villena, V.; Revilla, E.; Choi, T. The dark side of buyer-supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ring, P.; Van de Ven, A. Structuring cooperative relationship between organizations. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creel, T. How corporate social responsibility influences brand equity. Manag. Account. Q. 2012, 13, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Saeed, M.; Arshad, F. Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage: The mediating role of social capital and reputational capital. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 19, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, P.; Boekholt, P.; Todtling, F. The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness; Pinter: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins, H. A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. J. Gen. Manag. 2004, 29, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watcharasriroj, B.; Tang, J. The effects of size and information technology on hospital efficiency. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2004, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanpoucke, E.; Vereecke, A.; Wetzels, M. Developing supplier integration capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage: A dynamic capabilities approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 446–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkness, J. Guidelines for Best Practice in Cross—Cultural Surveys; Institute for Social Research: Michigan, MI, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- The Global Manufacturing Research Group (GMRG). Available online: https://gmrg.org/ (accessed on 30 June 2018).
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, D.; Thompson, R.; Higgins, C. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, M.; Calantone, R.; Page, T., Jr.; Taylor, C. An application of multiple-group causal models in assessing cross-cultural measurement equivalence. J. Int. Mark. 2000, 8, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Measurement Items | References |
---|---|---|
Autonomous collaborative activities | ACA1: systematically control the environmental impact ACA 2: implement a systematic approach for setting environmental targets ACA 3: implement a systematic approach for achieving environmental targets ACA 4: implement a systematic approach for demonstrating environmental targets | GMRG 5.0 survey questionnaire [50]; Lee [1] |
Adoption activities | AAE1: a systematic approach to reduce cost AAE 2: a systematic approach to demonstrate delivery speed AAE 3: a systematic approach to set regulatory compliance | |
Green certification programs | GCP1: use green vendor certification programs to certify GCP 2: implement green vendor certification programs with suppliers GCP 3: adopt similar green vendor certification programs | |
Green activities | GCA1: with partners for reducing pollution activities GCA 2: with partners for perceived favorable activities by their customers GCA 3: with partners for products’ and processes’ green activities | |
Environmental performance | ENP1: reduced energy use in our facilities ENP2: reduced water use in our facilities ENP3: reduced waste at our facilities ENP4: reduced emissions at our facilities |
Characteristics of Firms | Frequency | Percent | |
---|---|---|---|
Years since establishment | Less than 10 years | 75 | 33.0 |
More than 10 years–less than 20 years | 80 | 35.2 | |
More than 20 years–less than 30 years | 49 | 21.6 | |
More than 30 years | 23 | 10.1 | |
Number of employees | Less than 300 | 145 | 63.9 |
More than 300 | 82 | 36.1 | |
Number of partners | Less than 50 | 143 | 63.0 |
More than 50–less than 100 | 20 | 8.8 | |
More than 100 | 60 | 26.4 | |
Missing | 4 | 1.8 | |
Business unit | Electronic and other electrical equipment | 14 | 6.2 |
Manufacture of motor vehicles | 17 | 7.5 | |
Petroleum refining and related industries | 28 | 12.3 | |
Metal industry | 29 | 12.8 | |
Manufacture of parts of machines and machinery | 139 | 61.2 | |
Characteristics of Respondents | Frequency | Percent | |
Gender | Male | 223 | 98.2 |
Female | 4 | 1.8 | |
Position | Team Leader | 97 | 42.7 |
Manager | 50 | 22.0 | |
Director/Supervisor | 18 | 7.9 | |
Executive | 62 | 27.3 | |
Working years | Less than 10 | 124 | 54.6 |
More than 10–less than 20 | 78 | 34.4 | |
More than 20 | 25 | 11.0 | |
Total | 227 | 100.0 |
Constructs | Variables | PCA | CFA | Cronbach’s Alphas | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eigen Value | Percent of Variance Explained | Factor Loading | Standardized Loading | t-Value | p-Value | |||
Autonomous collaborative activities | ACA1 ACA2 ACA3 ACA4 | 4.807 | 28.276 | 0.881 0.890 0.880 0.846 | 0.845 0.908 0.891 0.839 | 15.747 17.683 17.172 - | 0.000 0.000 0.000 - | 0.926 |
Adoption activities | AAE1 AAE2 AAE3 | 1.048 | 6.162 | 0.752 0.896 0.877 | 0.751 0.887 0.886 | 13.269 16.292 - | 0.000 0.000 - | 0.876 |
Green certification programs | GCP1 GCP2 GCP3 | 1.276 | 7.505 | 0.832 0.851 0.808 | 0.839 0.905 0.791 | 13.651 14.521 - | 0.000 0.000 - | 0.879 |
Green activities | GCA1 GCA2 GCA3 | 2.217 | 13.044 | 0.847 0.898 0.859 | 0.797 0.882 0.776 | 11.989 12.542 - | 0.000 0.000 - | 0.855 |
Environmental performance | ENP1 ENP2 ENP3 ENP4 | 4.226 | 24.857 | 0.853 0.841 0.862 0.827 | 0.834 0.789 0.862 0.810 | 13.993 13.029 14.560 - | 0.000 0.000 0.000 - | 0.894 |
Model | χ2 | d.f | χ2/d.f | GFI | CFI | RMR | SRMR | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measurement model | 163.052 | 109 | 1.496 | 0.924 | 0.978 | 0.034 | 0.045 | 0.047 |
Recommended values | ≤3.0 | ≥0.9 | ≥0.9 | ≤0.08 | ≤0.08 | ≤0.08 |
Constructs | Autonomous Collaborative Activities | Adoption Activities | Green Certification Programs | Green Activities | Environmental Performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Autonomous collaborative activities | 0.920 | ||||
Adoption activities | 0.096 | 0.930 | |||
Green certification programs | 0.604 | 0.035 | 0.899 | ||
Green activities | 0.160 | 0.022 | 0.383 | 0.866 | |
Environmental performance | 0.042 | 0.576 | 0.055 | 0.011 | 0.905 |
CR | 0.957 | 0.950 | 0.927 | 0.900 | 0.947 |
AVE | 0.847 | 0.865 | 0.809 | 0.750 | 0.819 |
Path | Path Coefficient | S.E. | t-Value | p-Value | Hypothesis Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Autonomous collaborative activities | → | Green certification programs | 0.304 | 0.079 | 2.957 | 0.003 ** | Supported H1 |
Autonomous collaborative activities | → | Green activities | 0.222 | 0.076 | 2.122 | 0.034 * | Supported H2 |
Adoption activities | → | Green certification programs | 0.241 | 0.071 | 2.380 | 0.017 * | Supported H3 |
Adoption activities | → | Green activities | 0.237 | 0.069 | 2.276 | 0.023 * | Supported H4 |
Green certification programs | → | Environmental performance | 0.212 | 0.099 | 2.686 | 0.007 ** | Supported H5 |
Green activities | → | Environmental performance | 0.950 | 0.125 | 9.136 | 0.000 *** | Supported H6 |
Model | χ2 | d.f | p-Value | CFI | RMR | RMSEA | ∆χ2/d.f | ∆² Sig. Diff. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unconstrained (model 1) | 329.808 | 206 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.046 | 0.047 | ||
λ Constrained (model 2) | 346.059 | 212 | 0 | 0.855 | 0.05 | 0.047 | 16.251/6 | Yes |
Φ, λ Constrained (model 3) | 353.19 | 231 | 0 | 0.852 | 0.064 | 0.045 | 23.382/25 | No |
Φ, λ, θ Constrained (model 4) | 367.834 | 218 | 0 | 0.852 | 0.066 | 0.043 | 38.026/12 | Yes |
Path | SMEs | Large | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path Coefficient | p-Value | Path Coefficient | p-Value | |||
Autonomous collaborative activities | → | Green certification programs | 0.342 | 0.026 * | 0.321 | 0.017 * |
Autonomous collaborative activities | → | Green activities | 0.250 | 0.121 | 0.181 | 0.175 |
Adoption activities | → | Green certification programs | 0.299 | 0.048 * | 0.229 | 0.082 |
Adoption activities | → | Green activities | 0.346 | 0.036 * | 0.172 | 0.192 |
Green certification programs | → | Environmental performance | 0.109 | 0.205 | 0.132 | 0.019 * |
Green activities | → | Environmental performance | 0.855 | 0.000 ** | 0.991 | 0.000 ** |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, D. Implementation of Collaborative Activities for Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation: An Analysis of the Firm Size Effect. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113026
Lee D. Implementation of Collaborative Activities for Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation: An Analysis of the Firm Size Effect. Sustainability. 2019; 11(11):3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113026
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, DonHee. 2019. "Implementation of Collaborative Activities for Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation: An Analysis of the Firm Size Effect" Sustainability 11, no. 11: 3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113026