Factors Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain in Companies in Indonesia: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) has gained increasing attention as businesses seek to balance economic, social, and environmental sustainability. However, its adoption remains uneven across countries, particularly in developing economies such as Indonesia. This study aims to identify the key factors influencing the implementation of GSCM in Indonesian logistics companies using a qualitative approach. Data were collected via structured interviews with 14 senior management professionals from various logistics and supply chain companies. The findings reveal that, while awareness of GSCM exists, its implementation is hindered by high costs, regulatory limitations, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of shared understanding or strategic prioritization among stakeholders, which points to a deeper organizational and policy disconnect regarding sustainability goals. Conversely, cost efficiency, brand image enhancement, and compliance with emerging regulations are identified as primary drivers of GSCM adoption. The study highlights the need for stronger government policies, financial incentives, and industry-wide collaboration to accelerate the adoption of sustainable supply chain practices. These insights contribute to both theoretical discussions on sustainable supply chain management and practical strategies for improving GSCM implementation in developing economies.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is a key component of business innovation for continued growth in the present day [1]. Previous research shows that fundamentally, sustainability refers to the ability to meet current needs while being responsible for balancing social, economic, and environmental impacts without compromising the needs of future generations [1]. There are two principles of sustainability: the first principle is the principle of balance, which emphasizes that social, economic, and environmental aspects must be balanced in decision making. The second principle is the principle of stewardship, which asserts that the utilization of current opportunities should not compromise opportunities for future generations [1].

One area that receives significant attention in sustainability is the environmental aspect, which has even become a trend in the business world due to the growing awareness in society regarding the importance of preserving and protecting the environment for the sustainability of the planet [2]. Environmental issues that threaten the safety of the Earth and life on it include air pollution, carbon emissions, and many others. According to one report [3], global carbon emissions are increasing each year beyond the capacity that the Earth can sustain.

Environmental degradation is a pressing issue driven by multiple factors, with industrial and business operations playing a significant role. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supply chain activities, including transportation, warehousing, and logistics, are among the primary contributors to environmental damage from companies [4]. The emissions from vehicles used for transportation, excessive energy consumption in warehouses, and waste generation from inefficient logistics processes exacerbate pollution and resource depletion. These challenges pose a dilemma for companies as they strive to balance economic growth with sustainability efforts. Businesses are increasingly urged to adopt greener practices, such as optimizing transportation routes, using energy-efficient warehouses, and implementing circular economy principles to mitigate their environmental footprint. By taking these measures, companies aim to reduce carbon emissions and factory waste while still generating profit [5].

To address these challenges, companies have begun transforming their supply chain strategies into green supply chain management (GSCM), with the primary objective of reducing carbon emissions and industrial waste while maintaining profitability [5]. However, GSCM has not been uniformly adopted across different countries. According to the 2021 State of Supply Chain Sustainability report, published by the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics in collaboration with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), a survey of over 2400 respondents in the United States revealed that 59% of companies had invested in green supply chain practices by 2020 [5]. In contrast, another study [6] highlights that developing countries such as India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam face significant challenges in effectively implementing GSCM. Furthermore, other researchers [7] note that the adoption of Green Supply Chain practices is predominantly led by large corporations. Despite growing global interest in sustainable supply chain practices, there is still a lack of comprehensive data explaining the factors influencing GSCM adoption in Indonesia.

The primary objective of this qualitative study is to explore the perceptions and practices of supply chain professionals in Indonesia regarding GSCM. This study adopts a qualitative approach due to the exploratory nature of GSCM adoption in the Indonesian logistics sector. Given the scarcity of context-specific empirical studies in developing economies, qualitative insights are critical in uncovering nuanced, practice-based knowledge and informing future quantitative model development. The research questions guiding this study are refined to promote deeper insight and thematic focus:

• How do senior logistics managers conceptualize and apply GSCM within Indonesian supply chain operations?
• What are the most critical internal and external barriers hindering GSCM implementation at the operational level?
• What organizational motivations and contextual factors most significantly drive or constrain GSCM initiatives in the logistics sector?

Additionally, this study proposes the following working hypotheses to guide the exploration of findings: large companies and companies that are exposed to international collaboration are more likely to engage with GSCM compared to those that are smaller and have a domestic focus.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainability

One study [8] states that sustainability is the way companies conduct their business while considering environmental and social issues. Another book [1] describes the concept of sustainability as the ability to meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the needs of future generations, a view which further supported by [9].

One study [10] introduced the concept of the triple bottom line, which encompasses profit, people, and planet. This means that companies need to consider both profitability and consumer expectations without harming the environment. The triple bottom line reflects the goals of sustainability, which aim to balance economic, environmental, and social aspects [11]. These three aspects are often addressed separately within companies, resulting in diverse strategies and approaches. According to [12], economic sustainability is linked to traditional business strategies focused on economic performance, while social sustainability is typically viewed through the lens of corporate social responsibility (CSR). On the other hand, environmental sustainability is often assessed in terms of clean production, environmental management systems (EMS), and eco-friendly products.

Sustainability is important for companies as it affects their reputation in the eyes of stakeholders such as investors, consumers, and the community [13]. This raises expectations for companies to contribute positively to environmental and social sustainability. In addition to reputation, sustainability also enhances a company’s performance and competitive advantage [14]. The implementation of sustainability in operations encourages employees to enhance their skills, which positively impacts productivity and profitability [15].

2.2. Green Supply Chain

The green supply chain is one of the applications of sustainability that companies implement in their supply chain activities. Some researchers argue that the green supply chain is a supply chain management model that adopts the principles of environmental protection, energy conservation, and resource recycling [16]. The green supply chain is a strategy for producing products and services that are evaluated with consideration for environmental factors [17]. It also represents an effort to prevent environmental pollution and enhance efficiency by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and conserving energy in the supply chain management process [18].

The implementation of a green supply chain offers several advantages for companies, including enhancing competitive attitudes [19,20], increasing profits [21,22,23,24,25], creating better working conditions [19], improving employee morale [19], enhancing training and skills [19,23], maintaining better relationships with partners [21,23,24], boosting digital transformation [24,26,27], improving company performance [22,26,28], enhancing sustainability in social aspects [20,21,24,25], and creating a better environment [19,20,21,22,24,27].

Based on previous research, the most frequently mentioned benefits are increased profits and the creation of a better environment, followed by enhanced sustainability in social aspects. However, the implementation of the green supply chain also faces several obstacles, including: communication gaps among shareholders [29], high application costs [19,20,30,31,32,33], a lack of commitment from the top management of suppliers [32,33], insufficient coordination and trust [19,33], a lack of skills and training for workers [29], government regulation [19,20,30,32,33], and the need for guidance and certification [31].

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Design

The method used in this research is a qualitative method, which involves the collection of data from extensive answers to questions in interviews, questionnaires, and observations, or using information that is already available from various sources [34]. This method was chosen because the research aims to conduct an exploration, making it more effective. By revealing obstacles and motivations for green practices, this study enables targeted improvements in supply chain sustainability and efficiency. The research findings inform strategies that optimize resource use, reduce environmental impact, and enhance overall supply chain performance. The data collection technique used is a cross-sectional study, whereby data are collected once over a certain period to generate answers to the current questions [34]. This method is suitable because the research aims to conduct an exploration, and this is an effective technique for doing so. It provides a snapshot of the current state of GSCM implementation in Indonesian logistics companies. This is useful for understanding the challenges and opportunities at a specific point in time. Cross-sectional studies are generally less time-consuming and resource-intensive than longitudinal studies, making them a practical choice for this research. The data collected through interviews can effectively answer the research questions related to perceptions, practices, barriers, and drivers of GSCM in the Indonesian context. We selected formal organizations, such as companies, as the subjects of the research. Thus, the unit of analysis used is the organization (i.e., the research unit).

3.2. Procedure

Data collection was conducted through interviews with several companies in Indonesia. The interviews were divided into three parts: (1) an explanation of the academic research, assurance of the confidentiality of the respondents’ data, and the respondents’ consent to participate in the interview; (2) information about the respondents, including names, the type of company, positions, and work experience; and (3) questions related to the green supply chains that have been implemented in the companies where the respondents work. This research used a convenience sampling method to select respondents. The use of structured interviews enabled the capture of strategic-level insights from senior decision makers, uncovering interpretive challenges and systemic constraints that a quantitative instrument might overlook or oversimplify.

3.3. Population and Sample

The population studied consists of companies in Indonesia. There is no exact number of companies in Indonesia, as this number continues to change over time. In qualitative research, the sample is more commonly referred to as “respondents”. Respondents in qualitative research describe the factual conditions or phenomena they have experienced themselves. There are no strict rules regarding the determination of the sample size in qualitative research [35]. Therefore, we selected 14 respondents from companies in Indonesia who work in the supply chain division with a minimum position of manager. Using a convenience sampling method, respondents were chosen from university partners.

3.4. Source of Data

The primary data used in this research consist of the results of interviews conducted both in person and via ZOOM Video Meeting, which were recorded with the respondents’ consent. The collected data were processed and analyzed to obtain solutions to the phenomena being studied. The interviews for this research were conducted in a structured manner, whereby a list of predetermined questions was presented to the respondents [34].

3.5. Data Analysis

To ensure a richer interpretation of the qualitative data, thematic coding was conducted using NVivo (https://nvivo.de/en/) to identify recurring patterns and divergent views across participants. Specifically, the interview transcripts were imported into NVivo, and each transcript was treated as a separate case. The initial coding of the transcript was conducted by B.L. using open coding to identify key themes and concepts emerging from the data. These initial codes were then refined and organized into a hierarchical codebook. Coding reliability was enhanced through the peer review of emergent themes, where D.T. independently coded a subset of the transcripts and compared their coding for consistency. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved to ensure inter-coder reliability. The finalized codebook was then applied to all transcripts, and illustrative quotes were selected to deepen the understanding of nuanced perspectives related to GSCM adoption and resistance. Data processing in this research uses a descriptive type and NVivo software.

According to [34], descriptive research aims to obtain data that describe the topic being studied. In this research, the descriptions provided include the demographics of the respondents. Data analysis was conducted using content analysis, which is an observational research method used to evaluate the symbolic content of various forms of recorded communication, such as newspapers, advertisements, and interview recordings. This method facilitates researchers in analyzing large amounts of information and identifying its characteristics, such as the presence of words, concepts, themes, and specific sentences [34].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Respondent Demographics

The respondents in this study (

Table 1. Demographic Profile.

Years of Experiences in Supply Chain Fields	Frequency	%
<3 years	1	7%
3–5 years	1	7%
5–10 years	0	0%
>10 years	12	86%
Total	14	100%
Job Positions
CEO/Owner	6	43%
Directors	4	29%
Senior Managers/GM	1	7%
Managers	2	14%
Others (Board commissioner)	1	7%
Total	14	100%
Gender
Female	3	21%
Male	11	79%
Total	14	100%
Industry
Logistic & Distribution	10	71%
FMCG	3	21%
Logistic Association	1	7%
Total	14	100%
Size of Employee Body
<100	2	14%
100–500	1	7%
>500	11	79%
Total	14	100%

) predominantly possess extensive experience in the supply chain field, with 86% (12 out of 14) having over 10 years of experience. Only a small portion of participants reported shorter tenures, with 7% (one respondent) having three to five years and another 7% (one respondent) having less than three years of experience. This indicates a highly experienced respondent pool, which adds depth and credibility to the findings. In terms of job positions, a majority occupy senior-level roles: 43% are CEOs or owners, 29% are directors, and 7% are senior managers or general managers. Additionally, 14% serve as managers, and 7% hold other strategic roles, such as board commissioners. This leadership-heavy profile suggests that the insights gathered reflect strategic-level perspectives. The gender distribution is skewed, with 79% male and only 21% female respondents, highlighting a gender imbalance that may mirror industry norms. Industry-wise, the majority (71%) of respondents are from the logistics and distribution sector, followed by 21% from FMCG companies and 7% from logistics associations. Lastly, company size is notably large, with 79% of respondents working in organizations with more than 500 employees, suggesting the data primarily represent large-scale operations.

4.2. Analysis of Findings

4.2.1. How Is Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) Implemented in Companies in Indonesia?

A more granular thematic analysis was conducted to move beyond frequency-based summaries and uncover deeper insights into how Indonesian logistics companies approach GSCM. Three key themes emerged: (1) interpretive confusion between GSCM and SSC, (2) compliance-driven implementation versus value-driven strategy, and (3) resource constraints and infrastructure readiness. These themes are elaborated below with representative quotes. Regarding implementation, the first question asked about respondent understandings of GSCM. Individual answers are shown in

Table 2. Green supply chain definition.

Respondents	Green Supply Chain Definition
Respondent 1	GSCM refers to the implementation of environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. It is derived from two words: “green”, which means environmentally friendly, and “sustainable”, which means sustainable at every stage of the supply chain process. The goal is to minimize negative impacts on the environment. GSCM is viewed from three aspects: environmental, social, and economic, which must be balanced in a sustainable supply chain.
Respondent 2	It relates to recycling and its impact on the environment. However, the difference between a green supply chain and a sustainable supply chain is not well understood, as these terms are not commonly used in Indonesia today.
Respondent 6	GSCM is a process where we use environmentally friendly inputs and transform these inputs into outputs that can be further modified and reused at the end of their life cycle, thus creating a sustainable supply chain.
Respondent 7	GSCM focuses on the short term, while SSC (sustainable supply chain) addresses the long term. GSCM involves environmentally friendly activities and is one of the initiatives of sustainability activities. Sustainability encompasses various factors, including environmental, economic, social, political, and other factors.
Respondent 8	GSCM is essentially an evolution of supply chain management, which theoretically represents the theories or methods used from upstream to downstream. “Green” in the supply chain means incorporating environmental elements into the supply chain process itself, such as being environmentally friendly. In terms of transportation, GSCM can be interpreted as using materials that can be recycled, such as the use of B35 fuel in ships.
Respondent 9	GSCM is an operational supply chain that works to minimize environmental damage from operations occurring within the supply chain process itself. On the other hand, it not only aims to minimize damage to the environment but also strives to enhance customer value and profit, particularly in terms of the company’s bonus margin.
Respondent 10	In warehouses, GSCM typically involves changing fuel from diesel to electricity to reduce pollution.
Respondent 11	GSCM relates to energy efficiency and the use of environmentally friendly equipment.
Respondent 13	GSCM is the supply chain that you create where you are minimizing negative damage for the environment and try to procure ethically. GSCM is more like a continuous improvement process and journey to work.
Respondent 14	GSCM initially arose from concerns regarding climate change and global warming, which ultimately lead to environmental damage. From this issue, the government and companies developed a solution, namely GSCM, which pays more attention to environmental considerations.

.

Based on the responses provided by the respondents, it can be concluded that the current perspective of companies regarding the green supply chain or sustainable supply chain focuses on the implementation of an environmentally friendly supply chain aimed at reducing negative impacts on the environment. The majority of respondents stated that the green supply chain is related to processes that facilitate recycling. This aligns with the theoretical definition of the green supply chain, which is a supply chain management model that adopts the principles of environmental protection, energy conservation, and resource recycling [16].

Yet, there was still some confusion regarding the concepts of the green supply chain and the sustainable supply chain. “Green supply chain is about short-term environmental practices, but I see sustainable supply chains as broader—more strategic, covering social and economic too.”—Respondent 7. According to this respondent, the green supply chain focuses on short-term aspects, such as environmentally friendly activities undertaken by companies, and it serves as an initiative within the broader framework of sustainable supply chain. In contrast, the sustainable supply chain encompasses long-term considerations influenced by multiple factors.

Most of the respondent stated that they implement GCMS. However, one respondent could not answer directly and needed further explanation. We also identified a lack of familiarity. “Actually, I wasn’t sure what green supply chain meant until you explained it. We do reduce emissions though, like route optimization.”—Respondent 14. This quotation reflects a common theme among several participants: while companies may engage in environmentally friendly practices, such as emissions reduction and route optimization, they often do so without explicitly recognizing or labeling these actions as part of green supply chain management (GSCM). This indicates a disconnect between practice and conceptual awareness. Such findings suggest that GSCM implementation in Indonesia is frequently implicit rather than strategic, driven more by operational efficiency than by a conscious sustainability agenda. It also highlights the need for capacity-building and awareness-raising efforts to ensure that managers can link everyday operational improvements to broader sustainability frameworks, thereby enabling more coherent and intentional GSCM integration.

Figure 1 illustrates the respondents’ assessments of the implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) in Indonesia. The distribution of ratings reveals a diverse range of perceptions among participants: five respondents (36%) assigned a rating of 6, indicating a moderately positive view, while four respondents (29%) rated the implementation at a 3, reflecting a more critical perspective. Additionally, two respondents (14%) rated it a 4, and another two (14%) assigned a rating of 2, suggesting significant reservations about GSCM practices. Only one respondent (7%) provided a higher rating of 7.

The overall ratings culminate in an average score of 4.36, with the highest rating recorded at 7 and the lowest at 2. This average score suggests that, overall, respondents perceive the implementation of GSCM in Indonesia to be suboptimal. A significant majority express the view that green supply chain practices have yet to become widely adopted within the country, highlighting a concerning level of awareness and engagement among companies regarding sustainability initiatives.

While some respondents acknowledged that the government has begun to demonstrate a growing concern for GSCM, they indicated that the current efforts are insufficient and that more stringent measures are necessary for effective implementation. Therefore, it is evident from the responses that the application of green supply chain principles in Indonesia remains relatively low, underscoring the need for enhanced focus and commitment from both businesses and regulatory entities to foster a more sustainable supply chain landscape.

Figure 2 presents the ratings of green supply chain implementation among the respondent companies. The distribution of responses reveals a varied perspective: three respondents (22%) assigned a rating of 7, indicating a positive view of the implementation, while another three respondents (22%) scored it a 5, reflecting a more neutral stance. Two respondents (14%) rated the implementation at 3, and two others (14%) provided a rating of 1, signaling significant concerns. Additionally, one respondent (7%) gave ratings of 9, 8, 6, and 4, respectively, demonstrating a range of opinions on the effectiveness of green supply chain practices.

The overall average implementation score is 5.02, with the highest reported rating being 9 and the lowest being 1. This average suggests that, while there is some recognition of green supply chain initiatives, the general sentiment remains cautious. Notably, respondents who rated the implementation between 6 and 9 perceive tangible opportunities arising from adopting green supply chain practices, such as the potential for establishing valuable partnerships and enhancing their brand image in an increasingly eco-conscious market.

Conversely, those respondents who rated the implementation between 1 and 5, primarily comprising early adopters, are from small companies or those whose operations focus on the domestic market. These participants expressed the view that green supply chain initiatives are not currently a priority for their organizations. They highlighted concerns regarding the need for substantial investments that do not align with their immediate business objectives.

While the average implementation score of 5.02 indicates that the adoption of green supply chain practices is slightly more pronounced among these companies compared to the broader context in Indonesia, it remains indicative of a low level of engagement overall. This underscores the need for increased focus and commitment from companies to fully realize the potential benefits of green supply chain management.

Based on the question on the sustainability report, the findings indicate that 57% of companies in Indonesia (equivalent to eight companies) have not yet produced sustainability reports, whereas 43% of companies (representing six companies) have taken the initiative to create such reports. This stark contrast suggests that a greater number of companies are currently not engaged in sustainability reporting practices.

Upon further investigation into the factors influencing the creation of sustainability reports, it became evident that government regulations play a significant role in shaping these decisions. For instance, companies that have gone public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) are mandated by regulatory bodies to produce sustainability reports, thereby ensuring accountability and transparency regarding their environmental and social impacts. In contrast, companies that remain privately owned and have not gone public often do not feel compelled to create sustainability reports, as they are not subject to the same regulatory obligations.

Moreover, several respondents indicated that the absence of sustainability reporting within their companies is due to a lack of focus on sustainability or the perception that it remains a foreign concept in their operational framework. This reflects a broader trend where organizations may prioritize immediate business concerns over long-term sustainability goals.

In addition to regulatory considerations, personal beliefs and values also emerge as influencing factors in the decision to create sustainability reports. Some respondents express a strong commitment to sustainability, believing that reporting is a crucial way to contribute to ecological preservation and social responsibility. Others, however, may not prioritize sustainability reporting due to differing personal or organizational values, which can lead to varying levels of engagement with sustainability initiatives.

The results highlight that, while a portion of companies in Indonesia recognize the importance of sustainability reporting, a significant number remain outside this practice, influenced by regulatory and conceptual factors and personal beliefs.

4.2.2. Current Challenges and Barriers to the Implementation of GSCM in Companies

In Figure 3, the word frequency result shows that the words “regulation”, “standard” and “policy”; “resources”, “investment” and “cost”; “impact”, “compensation” and “benefits”; and “understanding” appear as the most frequently mentioned terms. Other important terms such as “infrastructure” and “technology” are also mentioned by respondents.

“Electric forklifts and solar panels are expensive. We want to adopt these but there’s no return unless it’s mandated.”—Respondent 3. “The government says it wants greener logistics, but the policy is vague. No real enforcement yet.”—Respondent 5. These two responses reveal an intertwined set of barriers that reflect both internal financial limitations and external systemic ambiguity. Respondent 3 highlights the reluctance to invest in green infrastructure due to high upfront costs and the absence of direct financial returns, which is a common challenge among companies in emerging economies. The statement that such investments would only occur if “mandated” underscores a passive approach to sustainability—one that depends heavily on top-down enforcement rather than intrinsic motivation.

This sentiment is further reinforced by Respondent 5, who points to the lack of clarity and enforcement in existing government policies. While there is rhetorical support for greener logistics at the policy level, the absence of concrete regulations or incentives creates uncertainty and weakens the business case for sustainable investment. When policies are vague or non-binding, companies face a higher perceived risk in allocating resources toward long-term sustainability efforts. The synthesis of these views suggests that effective GSCM adoption requires not just internal readiness, but also a robust external regulatory ecosystem that provides both a clear direction and tangible incentives to guide and support corporate action.

4.2.3. The Key Factors Influencing the Implementation of GSCM, and How It Has Been Applied in Companies Thus Far

Figure 4 shows the word frequency results, indicating the words used when answering the question about factors influencing the implementation of GSCM. Words related to efficiency such as “cost”, “profit”, “efficiency”, “minimize”, and “financial” are the key drivers of the implementation of GSCM, followed by “obligation”, “compliance”, and “requirement”. Being competitive, trusted, valued, and securing a good reputation are also mentioned as the key drivers of GSCM.

“Going green boosts our reputation. Some clients even choose us because of our eco certifications.”—Respondent 13. “Our sustainability report is only because we’re listed. Otherwise, I doubt we’d spend the time.”—Respondent 6. These two perspectives reveal a spectrum of motivations behind GSCM adoption, ranging from strategic brand positioning to minimal compliance. Respondent 13 emphasizes the market-driven incentives of sustainability, where going green enhances corporate reputations and strengthens relationships with environmentally conscious clients. This reflects an opportunity-oriented view of GSCM, where sustainability becomes a competitive advantage tied to differentiation and stakeholder trust. In contrast, Respondent 6 represents a more compliance-driven approach, where sustainability practices—such as reporting—are executed only to meet regulatory obligations (e.g., IPO requirements). This view suggests that, in the absence of legal pressure, sustainability may be deprioritized, especially if it is seen as resource intensive or misaligned with core business goals.

The juxtaposition of these quotes illustrates that external regulatory mandates and market-based pressures are both influential—but their effectiveness varies depending on how companies perceive the cost–benefit equation. While some firms embrace GSCM as a long-term strategy, others approach it as a checkbox activity. This disparity highlights the need for more robust engagement strategies, such as customer-driven expectations, industry benchmarking, and government incentives, to shift sustainability from an obligation to a value proposition.

Table 3. GSCM implementation in companies.

Respondent	GSCM Implementation in Companies
Respondent 1	Transportation management system Tracking interest Consolidation shipment Filtering clients who conduct emission tests
Respondent 2	Electric forklift (for use in warehouses)
Respondent 3	Creating zero-sugar products Developing a water atmosphere system Installing solar panels in southeast Asia Using engines that meet auto emission standards (Euro 2000) Utilizing robots in the warehouse
Respondent 4	Vehicle age restrictions
Respondent 5	No burning allowed in batch stock Waste management Vehicle age restrictions Transportation route management
Respondent 6	Modern milling rice plant Switching from diesel to rice husks
Respondent 7	Using electric cranes Checking air, noise, and water pollution every six months
Respondent 8	Using B35 ships (35% palm oil fuel) Transportation route management
Respondent 9	Reducing packaging weight Transportation route management
Respondent 10	Switching from diesel to electricity and rice husks (alternative fuel resource)
Respondent 11	Using hybrid vehicles Optimizing energy use by conserving water and electricity
Respondent 12	Optimizing energy use by conserving water and electricity GPS tracking
Respondent 13	Filtering clients who use natural materials Choosing local resources that are easily available and avoiding imported materials Choosing suppliers with close geographical proximity
Respondent 14	Products that do not pass QC but are still suitable are distributed to the community to reduce waste

presents a diverse range of initiatives that reflect how Indonesian companies are integrating green supply chain management (GSCM) practices into their operations. While the actions vary by industry and company scale, several recurring themes emerge—highlighting both the strategic and operational dimensions of sustainability.

• Energy Transition and Alternative Fuels

A prominent theme across multiple respondents is the shift from conventional energy sources to more sustainable alternatives. For example, Respondents 2, 6, and 10 mention switching from diesel to electricity or using biomass such as rice husks. Respondent 8 highlights the adoption of B35 biofuel (a 35% palm oil mix) in maritime logistics. These efforts demonstrate a growing interest in reducing the carbon footprint of logistics activities, particularly in transportation and warehousing—two high-emission areas in the supply chain.

2.

Emissions Reduction and Pollution Control

Several companies report efforts to actively reduce emissions. Respondents 7 and 10 mention monitoring air, noise, and water pollution, while others implement vehicle age restrictions and the transition to hybrid or electric transport fleets (Respondents 4 and 11). These efforts illustrate a tangible commitment to mitigating the environmental impact of logistics operations. Moreover, practices such as route optimization (Respondents 5, 8, and 9) are commonly applied to minimize fuel use, which supports both cost efficiency and environmental goals.

3.

Infrastructure and Technological Innovation

Some companies have gone further by integrating sustainability into their infrastructure and process design. For instance, Respondent 3 reports using solar panels, robotics in warehouses, and engines that comply with international emission standards. Respondent 6 refers to building a modern rice milling plant that runs on rice husk fuel. These examples show that innovation in infrastructure and process automation can serve dual purposes: environmental protection and operational enhancement.

4.

Waste Reduction and Resource Efficiency

Waste management emerges as another key area of implementation. Respondent 5 reports banning open burning and enforcing batch stock waste controls, while Respondent 14 describes redistributing rejected but usable products to communities—an example of both waste reduction and social responsibility. Similarly, Respondents 9 and 13 discuss reducing packaging weight and choosing local suppliers to minimize material and transportation waste, aligning with the principles of the circular economy.

5.

Ethical Sourcing and Supplier Evaluation

Ethical procurement also plays a role in GSCM adoption. Respondent 13 indicates that their company filters suppliers based on material origin and environmental compliance, emphasizing the importance of supplier proximity and ecological values. This reflects a broader supply chain perspective, where GSCM extends beyond internal operations to include upstream sourcing behavior.

6.

Technology-Driven Monitoring and Reporting

Several respondents highlight the use of tracking systems and digital tools to monitor sustainability metrics. For example, Respondents 1 and 12 use GPS and transport management systems to monitor emissions and optimize logistics flows. These practices show how technology can support real-time decision making in sustainability initiatives.

The practices described in Table 2 range from basic compliance efforts to strategic sustainability transformations. While some companies adopt GSCM out of regulatory or reputational necessity, others pursue innovation and efficiency gains as part of a broader corporate vision. Importantly, the data suggest that, while the intent to “go green” exists, the depth and integration of GSCM efforts vary widely depending on organizational capacity, market pressures, and regulatory expectations. This diversity underscores the importance of context-specific strategies and policy support in accelerating the adoption of the green supply chain in Indonesia.

4.2.4. How Significant Is the Implementation of GSCM in Companies?

We found that 50% of respondents believe that the implementation of the green supply chain is very important for their companies. They emphasize that the green supply chain is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the company and for enhancing competitiveness in the global market. Meanwhile, 29% of respondents consider the implementation of the green supply chain important at present but still find it quite difficult to fully implement. This is due to high costs and a lack of education regarding the green supply chain, leading to its gradual implementation. On the other hand,14% of respondents feel that the implementation of the green supply chain is not yet important for their companies because there is no obligation from the government and the costs are significant. They argue that this implementation could reduce profits, especially since not all companies adopt the green supply chain without regulations. One respondent also highlighted that infrastructure, such as charging stations for trucks, is still lacking and needs to be increased, as is the case for environmentally friendly transportation technology such as electric trucks, which is still not available. Finally, 7% of respondents (one individual) expressed a neutral opinion, stating that the importance of implementing the green supply chain is influenced by financial factors and regulations. If the implementation provides benefits and becomes mandatory, it will certainly become a priority.

4.3. Discussion

The findings of this study provide significant insights into the implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) in Indonesian companies. The results highlight various aspects of GSCM adoption, challenges, and key influencing factors, offering a comprehensive understanding of the current state of sustainable supply chain practices in Indonesia.

Respondents’ understanding of GSCM varies; most associate it with environmentally friendly processes and sustainability initiatives focusing on areas such as recycling, energy efficiency, and emission reductions. However, the distinction between green supply chains and sustainable supply chains remains unclear to some respondents. This ambiguity suggests a need for clearer definitions and heightened awareness across the sector. While companies recognize the importance of environmental responsibility, they often conflate GSCM with shorter-term initiatives, whereas sustainable supply chain management is viewed as a long-term approach that integrates economic, environmental, and social factors. This aligns with previous studies suggesting that organizations tend to prioritize immediate compliance concerns over strategic sustainability objectives [16].

A significant finding is that, although nearly all companies have implemented some form of GSCM, many of these implementations are largely reactive rather than strategic. Green practices are frequently adopted in response to external pressures, such as regulatory requirements and consumer expectations, rather than stemming from an integrated environmental philosophy. This compliance-driven approach limits the transformative potential of GSCM and highlights a gap in leadership commitment and systemic understanding. Notably, one respondent initially claimed ignorance of GSCM, yet further discussion revealed that their company had already integrated several green practices into its operations. This observation suggests that sustainability initiatives may be occurring organically within business operations, often without explicit acknowledgment as GSCM.

While the perceived level of GSCM adoption in Indonesia rates low, with an average score of 4.36 out of 10, there are variations based on company size and focus. Smaller companies or those with a domestic focus often lag behind larger firms in the adoption of GSCM practices. This trend can be attributed to limited resources, a lack of access to information, and the absence of regulatory pressures that larger, publicly listed companies face. Although some smaller companies may embrace certain green practices, they typically lack the comprehensive frameworks or strategic approaches seen in larger organizations, resulting in lower overall ratings of GSCM implementation.

The study also underscores the prevalence of sustainability reporting in Indonesia. Only 43% of companies produce sustainability reports, while the majority (57%) do not. This disparity is significantly influenced by regulatory requirements, as publicly listed companies are compelled to produce such reports, creating a distinct advantage in transparency and accountability. In contrast, privately owned firms are less likely to engage in sustainability reporting due to the absence of legal mandates. This inconsistency highlights the need for a more uniform regulatory framework to encourage a broader adoption of sustainability practices across all organizational sizes.

Key barriers to GSCM adoption include regulatory uncertainty and financial constraints. Respondents frequently cited challenges related to navigating the regulatory landscape and the associated costs of implementing sustainable practices. Financial limitations, such as investment costs and resource availability, further hinder smaller or domestically focused companies from adopting more robust GSCM strategies. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that financial considerations are a primary deterrent for companies pursuing sustainable supply chain practices.

Another major challenge identified is the lack of understanding and awareness regarding GSCM principles. Respondents pointed out that, while some companies engage in environmentally friendly practices, they do not necessarily label them as part of a green supply chain. This highlights the need for better education and training programs to enhance knowledge and facilitate clearer implementation strategies.

Infrastructure and technology limitations also present significant barriers to GSCM adoption, particularly for smaller firms. Respondents identified issues such as inadequate charging stations for electric vehicles and the limited availability of sustainable transportation options. These structural challenges need addressing in order to support a smoother transition to sustainable supply chains.

Cost efficiency emerged as the most influential factor driving GSCM adoption. Respondents frequently mentioned terms related to cost, profit, and financial efficiency, indicating that economic incentives play a critical role in decision-making processes. Additionally, compliance with regulations and the need to meet customer expectations were significant motivators. Companies that have adopted GSCM practices often report competitive advantages, including improved reputation, increased customer trust, and access to potential partnerships.

The study further highlights the importance of ethical procurement and supplier selection in GSCM. Some respondents emphasized prioritizing local suppliers and filtering clients based on their environmental compliance. This demonstrates a growing awareness of responsible sourcing and ethical business practices as part of sustainable supply chain initiatives.

The study provides several examples of how companies implement GSCM. Common practices include switching to environmentally friendly fuel sources (electricity, rice husks, and palm oil), optimizing transportation routes to reduce emissions, and investing in energy-efficient infrastructure. Companies in the logistics sector focus on fleet modernization, while those in manufacturing emphasize sustainable materials and waste management. These efforts illustrate the diverse approaches companies take in integrating sustainability into their supply chain operations.

Half of the respondents consider GSCM to be very important for their companies, recognizing its long-term benefits and potential for global competitiveness. However, 29% view it as important but challenging to implement due to financial and educational barriers. Notably, 14% of respondents do not see GSCM as a priority due to the absence of government mandates and concerns about profitability. The remaining 7% take a neutral stance, indicating that their commitment depends on external factors such as financial incentives and regulatory requirements.

While the study offers in-depth insights into the factors influencing GSCM implementation in Indonesian logistics companies, it is important to note its limitations. Given that this is a qualitative study based on structured interviews with 14 senior management professionals selected through purposive sampling, the findings are context-specific and may not be generalizable to all logistics companies across Indonesia. The perspectives captured in this study reflect a particular subset of industry actors, which may not encompass the full diversity of company sizes, regions, or operational models present in the Indonesian logistics sector. Future research employing larger-scale quantitative surveys or mixed-methods approaches is recommended to validate and extend these findings across a broader population.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores the growing significance of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) in Indonesia while drawing attention to persistent barriers that impede its adoption. The research was guided by the objective of exploring the current level of GSCM implementation among logistics companies, identifying the influencing factors and uncovering challenges specific to the Indonesian context.

Based on in-depth qualitative insights, we conclude the following:

• Respondents generally view green supply chain practices as environmentally focused efforts, such as recycling to reduce environmental impact, aligning with theoretical definitions, but some express conceptual confusion, seeing green supply chains as short-term initiatives within the broader, more strategic and long-term framework of sustainable supply chains. GSCM adoption remains limited, with an average perceived implementation score of 4.36 out of 10.
• Key barriers include financial constraints, a lack of regulatory enforcement, limited technical knowledge, and insufficient customer pressure.
• Company size and exposure to international collaboration significantly influence GSCM engagement. This supports our working hypothesis that larger and internationally exposed firms are more proactive in adopting sustainable practices. Smaller or domestically focused companies often lag due to restricted access to resources, strategic frameworks, or external incentives.

These findings reinforce the need for comprehensive policy interventions, including financial incentives and stronger regulatory frameworks, to promote broader GSCM adoption. Industry-level collaboration, knowledge sharing, and capacity building will also be vital.

Future research could adopt a quantitative approach to validate these insights across broader samples and investigate the role of sectoral differences in GSCM uptake. Encouragingly, the growing awareness of sustainability presents an opportunity to align Indonesian logistics with global green standards, if systemic barriers are effectively addressed.

5.1. Theoritical Implications

This study contributes to the existing literature on GSCM by reinforcing the relationship between regulatory frameworks, financial support, and corporate sustainability behavior. It extends institutional and stakeholder theories by demonstrating how government policies and industry collaboration shape corporate decision making in green supply chain practices. Additionally, the findings align with the resource-based view (RBV), suggesting that companies with sufficient financial and knowledge-based resources are more likely to integrate sustainability into their supply chain strategies. By highlighting the discrepancies in GSCM adoption across industries, the study provides empirical support for contingency theory, emphasizing that industry-specific factors influence the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.

5.2. Managerial Implication

For managers, this study highlights the importance of adopting a strategic approach to GSCM implementation. Companies should assess their financial and knowledge-based resources to determine the most feasible sustainability initiatives. Investing in employee training and sustainable technologies can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of green supply chain practices. Additionally, businesses should actively engage with policymakers and industry peers to stay informed about evolving regulations and best practices. Collaboration with suppliers and stakeholders can also help in identifying cost-effective solutions for overcoming sustainability challenges. Managers should prioritize long-term sustainability strategies rather than short-term environmental compliance to ensure competitiveness in an increasingly eco-conscious market.

5.3. Limitations and Further Research Direction

Despite providing valuable insights into GSCM adoption in Indonesia, this study has several limitations. First, the sample size may not be fully representative of all industries, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Second, the study primarily relies on self-reported data, which may introduce bias due to respondents’ perceptions and potential social desirability effects. Third, the research focuses on current challenges and adoption trends but does not extensively examine the long-term impacts of GSCM initiatives. Finally, the study does not account for external global factors, such as international trade policies and supply chain disruptions, which could significantly influence GSCM implementation in Indonesia.

Future research should investigate the effectiveness of policy interventions, industry collaborations, and stakeholder pressures in promoting sustainable supply chain practices in Indonesia. A mixed-method approach—incorporating sector-specific case studies, ethnographic inquiry, and longitudinal tracking—can provide deeper insights into how GSCM evolves over time within organizational and industry contexts. The findings from this study serve as a foundation for future quantitative research, such as large-scale surveys or modeling studies, which can test and validate the emergent themes across a broader population. By examining the interplay between regulatory frameworks, market forces (such as consumer demand), and internal decision-making processes, researchers can better understand how organizational culture and external ecosystems jointly shape sustainability strategies. Such an approach would not only illuminate barriers and enablers but also uncover replicable success models and context-specific solutions for advancing GSCM implementation in developing economies.