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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Examining the link among green Green human

resource
human resource management management
practices
practices, green supply chain
management practices
and performance Received 4 May 2020
Revised 7 July 2020
11 August 2020
Innocent Senyo Kwasi Acquah Accepted 14 August 2020
University of Cape Coast School of Business, Cape Coast, Ghana
Yaw Agyabeng-Mensah
Transportation and Engineering College, Dalian Maritime University,
Dalian, China, and
Ebenezer Afum
Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China

Abstract
Purpose – The increasing concern for the protection of the environment through pollution prevention,
conservation of resources and less usage of energy has attracted several firms to align green practices with
their supply chain and human resource policies and practices. This study explores the influence of green
human resource management and green supply chain management practices on operational, market, financial,
social and environmental performances.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses partial least square–structural equation modeling
approach to analyze the data gathered through structured questionnaires from supply chain and human
resource managers in manufacturing and hospitality firms in Ghana.
Findings – It is established that green supply chain management practices play complementary partial
mediating role between green human resource management and operational, market, social and environmental
performances, while it plays competitive partial mediating role between green human resource management
and financial performance. Subsequently, the analysis reveals that the synergy between green human resource
management and green supply chain management creates the highest value in operational performance,
followed by market performance, environmental performance, financial performance and social performance.
Originality/value – The study proposes and tests a conceptual model that examines the synergistic influence
of green human resource management and green supply chain management on operational, market, financial,
social and environmental performances.
Keywords Green supply chain management practices, Green human resource management practices,
Operational performance, Financial performance, Market performance, Sustainability performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The growing environmental degradation and resource depletion have become puzzling
issues around the globe in recent times (Hsu et al., 2013; S
anchez-Medina and D
ıaz-Pichardo,
2017). Kleindorfer et al. (2005) and Porter and Kramer (2006) posit that firms are considered as
socially responsible when they adopt strategies to reduce the adverse effect of their
operations on the environment and the health and safety of the society. Environmental
practices are regarded as a threat to profitability of firms due to huge investment required for
technological investment (Walley and Whitehead, 1994), uncertainty and long-term maturity
associated with green investment (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; Zhu et al., 2012). Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Green supply chain management practice (GSCMPS), which involves the introduction of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
environmental practices into supply chain activities to ensure sustainable supply chain DOI 10.1108/BIJ-05-2020-0205
BIJ continue to have inconsistent and confusing impact on firm performance in different
industries, countries and continents (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; Ghosh et al.,
2020; Roscoe et al., 2019; Longoni et al., 2018; Zaid et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Anthony, 2019;
Afum et al., 2020a, b, c; Cousin et al., 2019). GSCMPs are a subsystem of sustainable supply
chain, which involves green purchasing, green cooperation with customers, cross-functional
cooperation for environmental improvements, total quality environmental management,
environmental compliance and auditing programs, ISO 14,001 certification, environmental
management systems and green supply chain information systems.
GSCMPS is a complex subject, which requires the involvement of people. Human resources are
found to play major role in the excellent management of supply chain (Yu et al., 2020), especially
GSCMPS (Kumar et al., 2019). Studies indicate that incorporating environmental ideologies into
human resources is fundamental to the adoption of advanced green practices (Sarkis et al., 2010;
Graves et al., 2013) and reduces the challenges of adopting GSCMPS (Jabbour and de Sousa
Jabbour, 2016) to ensure the achievement of sustainability goals.
The implementation of environmental practices in organizations in Ghana has been
influenced by regulations and policies from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA),
which serves as the main body overseeing the environmental quality and sustainability
(Famiyeh et al., 2018). The EPA closes down, fines and sues firms for noncompliance of their
policies and regulations. Firms have adopted some environmental management practices to
avoid legal battles, facility closure and cost associated with fines while others have taken
proactive decisions to incorporate green practices such as green human resources
management practice (GHRMPS) and GSCMPS to meet environmental requirements of the
international market (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e). GHRMPS and GSCMPS are
two organizational strategies that are likely to uplift the image of firms in Ghana and advance
their performance considering the current unfavorable environmental issues.
GHRMPS and GSCMPS have been influencing the agendas of practitioners and scholars
in human resource management and operations management (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour,
2016). Croson et al. (2013) and Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour (2016) opine that GHRMPS and
GSCMPS must be concurrently examined because operations management requires intensive
involvement of people. Recent studies have investigated the synergistic influence of
GHRMPS and GSCMPS on performance (social, environmental and economic) (Agyabeng-
Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; Afum et al., 2020a, b, c; Longoni et al., 2018; Zaid et al., 2018).
However, studies have failed to explore the synergy between GHRMPS and GSCMPS on
operational performance (OP), market performance (MP), environmental performance (EP),
social performance (SP) and financial performance (FP). Besides, studies such as Mardani
et al. (2020) and Amrutha and Geetha (2020) claim that Africa has a poor global representation
in GSCMPS and GHRMPS literature. Amrutha and Geetha (2020) posit that the poor
representation of Africa in green literature may be due to lack of green awareness and calls
for more studies. To respond to this call and fill the gaps, we are motivated to conduct this
study that explores the influence of GHRMPS and GSCMPS on OP, MP, EP, SP and FP in the
hospitality and manufacturing industries in Ghana, an emerging economy in sub-Saharan
Africa. Based on the research gaps, this study seeks to answer the following questions.
(1) Do GHRMPS and GSCMPS directly influence OP, MP, EP, SP and FP?
(2) How do GHRMPS and GSCMPS combine to influence OP, MP, SP, EP and FP?
The study proposes and tests a theoretical model that examines the relationship among
GHRMPS, GSCMPS, OP, MP, SP, EP and FP. Moreover, the study will contribute
substantially to GHRMPS and GSCMPS literature because it is conducted in Africa, which
has low representation in literature. More so, the findings of the study will serve as blueprint
for adopting GSCMPS and GHRMPS to achieve specific organizational performance goals.
The other sections of the study are organized as follows: section 2 contains the literature Green human
review; section 3 contains the methodology; section 4 contains the data analysis and results; resource
section 5 contains discussion; and section 6 contains the conclusion.
management
practices
2. Literature review
2.1 Research background
2.1.1 Green human resource management practices (GHRMPS). Human resource is
fundamental to the successful implementation of organizational strategies and policies.
Hence, the successful alignment of environmental thinking into the operations and vision of a
firm requires the orientation of employees in environmental practices and initiatives. GHRM
is an emerging field of study, which has received massive attention after the studies (Jabbour
et al., 2010; Renwick et al., 2013) elaborated the relevance of human resource practices for
effective environmental management and achieving improved EP of firms. Jain and D’lima
(2018) and Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) claim that some firms are using GHRMPS
as a human resources strategy to support pro-green corporate management. Green human
resource management involves the introduction of environmental thinking into human
resource policies and practices to promote eco-friendliness of employees to achieve
sustainability goals of the firm. Prasad (2013) defines GHRMPS as the human resource
policies and practices that provide support for implementing environmental policies of firms
to reduce waste, prevent environmental pollution and achieve sustainable use of natural
resources and energy to advance corporate reputation and performance. Amrutha and
Geetha (2020) claims that GHRMPS plays a role in the achievement of environmental balance,
economic stability and sustainability requirements of health, wellness, social equity and well-
being of firms and their employees. Scholars suggest that the approval of employees in a firm
is essential for the adoption of every environmental management initiative (de Sousa Jabbour
et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2011). Hence, Daily and Huang (2001) posit that environmental
management practices are supposed to be compatible with human resource practices and
factors to achieve adequate performance impact. Extant literature identifies support from
senior management for green activities, green training, employee empowerment applied to
green issues, green teams, performance evaluation and rewards based on green criteria,
employee involvement in environmental management, green organizational culture and
green organizational learning as drivers of key areas of GHRMPS (Amrutha and Geetha
2020; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2015; Renwick et al., 2013). de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2015) claim
that the identified factors may be regarded as human critical success factors for green
initiatives. Manufacturing firms in Ghana have been adopting several of the human critical
success factors such as green compensation, green employee acquisition, green training and
education, green performance evaluation and rewards, green teams, green employee
involvement and green discipline management to enhance the green thinking of employees to
help achieve their sustainability goals.
2.1.2 Green supply chain management practices (GSCMPS). Supply chain process and
activities play significant role in the quest of firms to reduce the adverse impact of their
activities on the environment and society on the backdrop of improving operational, market
and financial performances. Firms are integrating ecological initiatives into supply chain
processes and activities to curb their negative environmental and social impact in the face of
achieving economic gains. Jaehn (2016) suggests that environmental effects and social factors
influence supply chain systems, which cause firms to have socioenvironmental impacts.
GSCMPS comprises the incorporation of eco-friendly practices into supply chain processes
and activities (Chin et al., 2015) to minimize or eliminate solid waste, reduce pollution, reduce
energy consumption and improve resource conservation from the stage of product design
processes to the product’s end of life (Eltayeb and Zailani, 2009). Sarkis et al. (2011) define
BIJ GSCMPS as integrating ecologically friendly practices into interorganizational practices of
sustainable supply chain management, comprising reverse logistics. Green supply chain
management (GSCM) has emerged as a way to combine elements of environmental
management and supply chain management (Zhu et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2013). The broad
nature of GSCMPS has resulted in diverse definitions.
Literature review indicates that there is definitive use of numerous ubiquitous terms
(Sarkis et al., 2011) in GSCMPS, which includes “green purchasing and procurement” (Min
and Galle, 1997), “green logistics and environmental logistics” (Agyabeng-Mensah et al.,
2020a, b, c, d, e; Akbari et al., 2020; Murphy and Poist, 2000), “supply chain environmental
management” (Sharfman et al., 2009) and “sustainable supply network management” (Young
and Kielkiewicz-Young, 2001). GSCMPS integrates environmental thinking into supply chain
management, ranging from product design to end-of-life management (Srivastava, 2007).
Firms in Ghana willingly incorporate green practices into their supply chain to reduce the
adverse impact of their activities and products on the environment (Agyabeng-Mensah et al.,
2020a, b, c, d, e). Tseng et al. (2019) indicate that scholars and practitioners consider GSCMPS
as a probable potent means for solving environmental problems. Some of these firms
voluntarily adopt green auditing programs and reporting, internal green evaluations, green
product labeling and ISO 14001 certification (Yu et al., 2014, 2019; Green et al., 2012;
Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; Zhu et al., 2005) to create competitive advantage,
enhance corporate reputations, improve customer satisfaction, improve management
systems (Oliveira et al., 2016) and obtain access to international market (Agyabeng-
Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e). Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e) claim that GSCMPS
comprises the effort of a focal firm and both customers and suppliers to undertake green
sound projects across the supply chain to remove adverse effect of supply chain activities on
the environment and to help access market, gain competitive advantage and improve
performance. This study uses green purchasing, green cooperation with customers, cross-
functional cooperation for environmental improvements, total quality environmental
management, environmental compliance and auditing programs, ISO 14001 certification,
environmental management systems and green supply chain information systems
measuring GSCMPS.
2.1.3 Firm performance. Measurement of performance is essential to all firms since it
offers them the opportunity to objectively examine the effectiveness of financial and
nonfinancial resources for the accomplishment of their goals (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a,
b, c, d, e). Measurement of firm performance helps to determine the achievement of set
objectives (Zeng et al., 2010) and put forward strategies to enhance profitability to sustain the
going concern feature of a company. Studies suggest that performance measurement is a
challenging task faced by practitioners and scholars (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2019a, 2020a,
b, c, d, e, 2019b, 2019c). Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e) claim that firm performance
was usually measured from the financial perspective since profit-making firms consider
increasing shareholder wealth as their fundamental aim. Nonetheless, the introduction of
balance scorecard has included nonfinancial performances such as social, market and
environmental performances. Hofer (1980) claims that firm performance is a way of testing
the effectiveness of management processes. For firms to examine and ascertain the true
translation of organizational resources into achieving organizational goals, there is the need
to examine their impact on each of the dimensions of performances. This may help firms
identify the potency of their available resources in achieving distinctive goals rather than the
holistic goal where inefficiency of resources for achieving certain goals may be hidden.
This study uses OP, MP, SP, EP and FP to measure firm performance to ascertain the
impact of GSCMPS and GHRMPS on the Earth, people and firms’ operations. MP is the
measure of positive impact of GSCMPS and GHRMPS on marketing activities toward
achieving marketing goals of a firm. According to Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e EP
is the measure of the impact of green practices on firm operations toward the achievement of Green human
environmental sustainability goals. Besides, SP is the measure of the positive effect of resource
incorporating eco-friendly practices into the processes of firms on the society. Finally, FP is
defined in this study as the measure of the potency of ecofriendly practices to promote the
management
profitability and shareholder wealth of the firm. practices

2.2 Hypotheses development

2.2.1 The influence of GHRMPS on OP, MP, EP, SP and FP. The influence of GHRMPS on
firm performance has received extensive attention from scholars and practitioners in recent
times. Scholars suggest that GHRMPS enhances firm performance (Zaid et al., 2018).
According to Dangelico (2015), employee green teams significantly affect both green
reputation and EP. de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2015) indicate that GHRMPS promotes green
values and principles within a firm, which improves EP. Arulrajah et al. (2015) and Chiappetta
Jabbour et al. (2017) indicate that GHRMPS incentivizes employees, which creates the
foundation for generating competitive advantage and improving EP in a sustainable manner.
According to Haddock-Millar et al. (2016), improving FP and EP are the key reasons for the
adoption of GHRMPS by firms. Wagner (2013) claims that firms investing in socially
responsible practices such GHRMPS improve employee and customer satisfaction,
innovation and excellent staff recruitment, which may strengthen SP. Longoni et al. (2018)
posit that GHRMPS uses human resources in innovation process to achieve environmental
objective. Montabon et al. (2007) claim that GHRMPS ensures reduction in incident,
continuous improvement, advances recycling performance, improves stakeholder perception,
reduces waste and resource consumption and ensures cost savings. Simpson and Samson
(2010) and Roscoe et al. (2019) indicate that firms provide green training to their employees to
develop green capabilities to reduce activities that create irrelevant waste and pollution.
Environmentally conscious teamwork is said to substantially reduce waste and enhance EP
of a firm’s operation (Roscoe et al., 2019; Daily et al., 2012). Daily et al., 2012 have shown that
employee empowerment improves the environmental awareness of employees and can
positively influence EP. Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e) discovered that GHRMPS
has positive influence on FP. Hence, we hypothesize that,
H1a. GHRMPS has positive influence on OP.
H2a. GHRMPS has positive influence on MP.
H3a. GHRMPS has positive influence on FP.
H4a. GHRMPS has positive influence on SP.
H5a. GHRMPS has positive influence on EP.
2.2.2 The influence of GSCMPS on OP, MP, EP, SP and FP. GSCMPS creates green capability
and competitive advantage, reduces the impact of economic downturn and improves the
market positioning of a firm and ensures operational efficiency (Sutduean et al., 2019).
According to Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e), environmental practices improve OP
among firms in Ghana. Laari et al. (2016) and Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e)
indicate that green cooperation with suppliers and customers improves FP significantly.
Besides, Woo et al. (2016) indicate that GSCMPS is a major driver of FP. Extant literature
claims that investment recovery, green purchasing and eco-design employ strategies such as
remanufacturing, reuse, repairs, recycling and refurbishing to reduce the environmental
€
impact (Srivastava, 2008; Ozceylan et al., 2017). In China, Zhu et al. (2007) indicate that internal
environmental management practices positively and significantly influence EP while green
purchasing has a negative effect on the EP. Analysis of survey data from Brazil (Jabbour
BIJ et al., 2016), China (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Wong et al., 2012), Canada (Hajmohammad et al.,
2013), Korea (Lee et al., 2013) and USA (Green et al., 2012) found a significant positive
relationship between GSCMPS and EP. Studies claim that not only do eco-designs reduce the
amount of energy, water and other resources consumed during product production but also
emissions from production process, which may increase benefits and save costs (Marchi et al.,
2013). Jabbour et al. (2016) found that GSCMPS positively relates with OP in the
manufacturing and industrial firms in Brazil. GSCMPS positively and significantly
influences multiple forms of OP (operating flexibility, delivery, product quality and
production cost) in the automobile manufacturing firms in China (Yu et al., 2014). Inman and
Green (2018) discovered that lean manufacturing and GSCMPS improve OP in manufacturing
firms in the USA. Moreover, De Giovanni and Esposito Vinzi (2012) and Namagembe et al.
(2019) found that GSCMPS leads to the building of production processes that use less fuel,
energy and water resulting in cost savings. Alananzeh et al. (2017) indicate that firms that are
committed to implementing GSCMPS minimize waste, reduce cost, improve OP and FP. Laari
et al. (2016) claim that GSCMPS projects the green image of firms in the sight of customers,
and attracts more eco-friendly customers leading to growth in market share, and increases
sales revenue and profitability. Klassen and McLaughlin (1996) established that GSCMPS
positions a firm better than its competitors in the market. In the same vain, Zhu and Sarkis
(2007) found that green products increase sales revenue and market share of firms relative to
their competitors that do not prioritize green practices. Choi et al. (2018) found positive
relationship between marketing performance and GSCMPS. Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a,
b, c, d, e) discovered that green logistics has positive influence on marketing performance.
Extant literature has found inconsistent findings between GSCMPS and firm performance.
Hence, we hypothesize that,
H7. GSCMPS has positive influence on OP.
H8. GSCMPS has positive influence on MP.
H9. GSCMPS has positive influence on FP.
H10. GSCMPS has positive influence on SP.
H11. GSCMPS has positive influence on EP.
2.2.3 The relationship among GHRMPS, GSCMPS, OP, MP, EP, SP and FP. Studies suggest
that human resources constitute the lifeblood of a firm and inspire the success of its
incorporation with the environmental management (Jabbour et al., 2013). According to
Guziana and Dobers (2013) and Jabbour et al., 2013, firms can employ human resource
management to successfully deliver and implement green policies. Chen et al. (2018) suggest
that firms introduce GHRMPS to promote green awareness, green use of resources and
improve EP. Renwick et al. (2013) and Saeed et al. (2019) claim that GHRMPS ensures
continuous learning and development, development of green strategies and promotes setting
of organizational green goals (Saeed et al., 2019). Mittal and Dhar (2016) posit that green
expectations from green team members may provoke green creativity within firms and drive
environmental sustainability initiatives. Zaid et al. (2018) found that GSCMPS mediates the
relationship between GHRMPS and sustainability performance. Green training programs
(Sarkis et al., 2010; Lin and Ho, 2011) are essential for effective implementation of GSCMPS
(Zaid et al., 2018). The findings of Longoni et al. (2018) serve as empirical evidence to support
the incorporation of human resource and supply chain management to promote EP and FP.
The availability of green human capital advances the adoption of reverse logistics practices
among firms in South Africa (Bag and Gupta, 2019). GHRMPS promotes internal GSCMPS,
which ensures efficiency in the use of inputs and assets (Schmidheiny, 1992) leading to
savings of energy cost and product recycling (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2005),
improving product quality, creating new processes and products (Yang et al., 2010) and Green human
minimizing waste and rework (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000). Moreover, green training equips resource
employees with skills to reduce environmental accidents that may be detrimental to the
society. Environmental discipline procedures may deter workers from engaging in activities
management
that may be detrimental to their health, customers and the society. Hence, we practices
hypothesize that,
H6. GHRMPS has positive influence on GSCMPS.
H1b. GSCMPS mediates GHRMPS and OP.
H2b. GSCMPS mediates GHRMPS and MP.
H3b. GSCMPS mediates GHRMPS and FP.
H4b. GSCMPS mediates GHRMPS and SP.
H5b. GSCMPS mediates GHRMPS and EP.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and sample size
This study is conducted in the manufacturing and the hospitality industries in Ghana. This
study was conducted in these two industries because they are contributing significantly to
the achievement of the sustainability development goals of Ghana. We randomly sampled
two hundred and fifty-six (256) firms from the Membership Directory of Association of Ghana
Industries containing about four hundred and forty-seven (447) firms. The researchers made
phone calls to the firms to inquire of their GHRMPS and GSCMPS and their willingness in
participate in the study. Two hundred and thirty (238) firms agreed to our request to
participate in the study. Four hundred and seventy-six (476) structured questionnaires along
with letter of permission were distributed to the firms through mail. The respondents were
given six (6) weeks to complete the questionnaires. Regular three days’ messages were sent to
late respondents after first four (4) weeks to improve response rate. A response rate of four
hundred and forty-eight (448) questionnaires were obtained from the two hundred and
sixteen (216) firms. Sixteen (16) questionnaires were excluded due to missing and incomplete
date. There was an active response of Four hundred and thirty two (432) from two hundred
and sixteen (216) firms, which constituted (48.32%) of the population. The response rate is
adequate since it is above 20% minimum response rate recommended by scholars for supply
chain management study (Darnall et al., 2010; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e).
The data was gathered form human resource managers and supply chain managers who
have more than seven years of work experience. This suggests that the respondents have the
requisite skills and experience to take part in the study to provide in-depth data. All the firms
that took part in the study had one human resource manager and one supply chain manager.
Active response rates of 55 and 45% were received from supply human resource managers
and supply chain managers, respectively. Plastic manufacturers (17%), textile factories
(22%), pharmaceuticals (15%), agrochemical industry (15%), hotels (18) and restaurants
(13%). The details of the respondents are shown in Table 1.

3.2 Description of measurements

The study employed closed-ended questionnaires to gather the data for this study. The
questionnaires were developed by contacting human resource managers and supply chain
managers and academics to seek their opinions on the appropriate and relevant scales and
measurement items to use after we had reviewed relevant literature about GSCMPS and
BIJ Sociodemographic features Number Percentage (%) of respondents

Firms
Plastic manufacturers 37 17
Textile factories 48 22
Pharmaceuticals 32 15
Agrochemical 32 15
Restaurants 28 13
Hotels 39 18
Total 216 100
Employees of the firms
1–50 65 30.09
51–150 98 45.37
Above 150 55 25.46
Total 216 100
Gender
Male 150 69.61
Female 66 30.38
Total 216 100
Positions
Human resource managers 104 48.10
Supply chain manager 112 51.90
Total 216 100
Work experience (years)
5–10 53 25.41
Table 1. 10–15 65 30.11
Sociodemographic 16–20 50 22.92
characteristics of Above 20 54 24.50
respondents Total 216 100

GHRMPS. Draft questionnaires were emailed to eight supply chain and human resource
managers and academics to speak to the clarity, conciseness, reliability and validity of the
measurement scales and items. Their responses were received and the relevant ones were
factored into the draft. Consequently, the new draft was sent to another set of human resource
and supply chain practitioners and academics for the same reason. Their responses were also
factored considered to make the final draft of questionnaire. The final draft was piloted with
twenty-five (25) manufacturing and hospitality firms where we received positive responses
regarding clarity, conciseness, validity and reliability.
The questionnaire comprises seven constructs (GHRMPS, GSCMPS, OP, MP, SP, EP and
FP). GHRMPS is measured with six (6) items adapted from Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b,
c, d, e) and Longoni et al. (2018). GSCMPS is operationalized with ten items adapted from
Cousins et al. (2019), Inman and Green (2018) and de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2015). The managers
are asked to choose their preference of items to determine the degree of implementation of
GHRMPS and GSCMPS in their respective firms over the last three years. A five-point
Likert-type scale (from 1 5 low extent to 5 5 high extent) is used to measure both GHRMPS
and GSCMPS. OP is measured using six (6) items adopted from Green and Inman (2005) and
Hasan (2013). MP is measured using six (6) items adopted from Choi et al. (2018) and
Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e). SP is measured using six (6) items adopted from
Zaid et al. (2018), Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e). and Longoni et al. (2018). EP is also
measured using six (6) items adopted from Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e)., Zhu
et al. (2008) and Inman and Green (2018). FP is measured using six (6) profitability items Green human
adapted from Çankaya and Sezen (2019), Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e) and Baah resource
et al. (2020). In examining the positive influence of GHRMPS and GSCMPS on OP, MP, SP, EP
and FP of firms over the last three years, human resource and supply chain managers are
management
asked to choose items anchored on a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 5 not significant to practices
5 5 highly significant).

3.3 Theoretical model

Figure 1 shows the theoretical model proposed and tested in this study. The model
incorporates seven variables and 16 hypotheses. GHRMPS is modeled as an exogenous
variable, while GSCMPS and the performance measurements (OP, MP, SP, EP and EP) are
modeled as mediators and endogenous variables, respectively. The model tests the positive
hypothesized relationships among the variables. The model facilitates the examination of the
individual and combined influence of GHRMPS and GSCMPS on OP, MP, EP, FP and SP.

3.4 Nonresponse and common method bias, endogeneity test

We conducted a test on common method bias using Harman’s one-factor test (Guide and
Ketokivi, 2015; Dubey et al., 2017a, b; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The EFA performed on the items
of GHRMPS, GSCMPS, OP, MP, EP, SP and FP gives a value of 0.2871 (28.71%) as the first
extracted factor explaining the variance, which is less than the 50% threshold. Therefore, our
study is not likely to be affected by common method bias.
Moreover, the findings of the study might be affected by nonresponse bias since this study
employed questionnaire to collect data through mail. We tested the nonresponse bias of the
early and late responses as suggested by Dubey et al. (2015) and Armstrong and Overton
(1977). The result suggests that the difference between early 119 wave and the late 97 wave
using t-test shows that nonresponse bias is insignificant in this study since the early wave
and late wave of responses did not significantly vary at the 5% significance level.
We conducted endogeneity test on OP, MP, EP, SP and FP according to recommendation
of Guide and Ketokivi (2015) and Dubey et al. (2015). The copula coefficients obtained are
insignificant, which indicates that the findings of our study are free from a possible
endogeneity (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015; Dubey et al., 2017a, b).

Operational
H1a (+), H1b (+) performance
(OP)
H7 (+) (+)
Green supply chain
Market
management H8 (+) performance
practices (GSCMPS)
H9 (+) (MP)
H6 (+) (+)
(+)
Financial
Green human H10 (+)
H2a (+), H2b (+) performance
resource management (FP)
practices (GHRMPS) H3a (+), H3b (+) (+)
(+) H11 (+)
H4a (+), H4b (+)
Social performance
(SP)
(+)

Environmental
performance
H5a (+), H5b (+) (EP)
(+)
H1a, H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, and Figure 1.
Theoretical model
H11 = Direct effects H1b, H2b, H3b, H4b, and H5b = Indirect effect
BIJ 3.5 Data analysis
The partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analytical tool (SmartPLS)
was used to analyze the data. PLS-SEM is suitable for predictive analysis and the
identification of the drivers of a construct (Matthews et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2011). Moreover,
PLS-SEM is appropriate for exploratory study like this paper. The data analysis involves a
two-part process. It involves the assessment of the measurement model and structural model.
The measurement model comprises determining the validity and reliability of the model
using Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability, indicator
(factor) loadings, Fornell–Larcker criterion and heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations
(HTMT) (see Hair et al., 2019). In PLS-SEM, the structural model assessment includes testing
hypotheses and examining the variance explained (R2), effect size (f2) and the predictive
relevance (Q2) of the independent constructs on the dependent constructs and the predictive
relevance of the model. The VIF is also evaluated to determine the endogeneity of this study.
The VIF values are less than 3.5 indicating that the study is free from multicollinearity.

3.6 Measurement model

The results obtained for Cronbach’s alpha (0.728–0.857) and composite reliability (0.798–
0.899) indicate that the model has achieved internal consistency reliability since the values are
more than 0.60. (Henseler, 2017). The AVE values (0.601–0.738) and the factor loadings
(0.723–0.872) also suggest that the model has achieved convergent validity and indicator
reliability, respectively (Wong, 2016). The values for the Cronbach alpha, AVE, composite
reliability and indicator (factor) loadings are shown in Table 2.
Moreover, the discriminant validity of the model was evaluated using the Fornell–Larcker
criterion. The Fornell–Larcker criterion indicates that a factor’s AVE should be larger than its
squared correlations with all other factors in the model (Henseler et al., 2016). The values of
the correlation between GHRMPS, GSCMPS, EP, FP, SP, MP and OP displayed in Table 3
indicate that the model meets the criterion.
Besides, the discriminant validity was further examined using the HTMT proposed by
Henseler et al. (2016). The HTMT ratios (0.444–0.844) of EP, FP, GHRMPS, GSCMPS, MP, OP
and SP shown in Table 4 indicate that the model has discriminant validity since the HTMT
values are <0.850 threshold suggested by Henseler et al. (2016).

3.7 Structural model

The variance explained (R2) shown in Figure 2, effect size (F2) and predictive relevance (Q2)
are used to evaluate the quality of the model. The R2 values suggest that GSCMPS (76.10%),
OP (46.10%), MP (65.50%), FP (63.10%), SP (72.60%) and EP (75.10%) adequately explain the
model. Besides, the f2 values for GSCMPS (0.127), OP (0. 322), MP (0.212), FP (0.210), SP (0.312)
and EP (0.342) suggest that GHRMPS has medium to large effect size on the endogenous
constructs. Besides, f2 values for OP (0. 222), MP (0.411), FP (0.180), SP (0.312) and EP (0.242)
indicate that GSCMPS has small to large effect size on the exogenous constructs. In addition,
the Q2 values for GSCMPS (0.354), OP (0.216), MP (0.355), FP (0.121), SP (0.108) and EP (0.378)
indicate that the model has good predictive relevance since the Q2 values are more than 0.000
(Hair et al., 2019).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Results
The study explores the influence of GHRMPS and GSCMPS on OP, MP, FP, EP and SP. After
running the bootstrapping, the results suggest that GHRMPS has positive influence on OP
(H1a, β 5 0.183, T 5 1.467, p 5 0.08), MP (H2a, β 5 0.172, T 5 1.931, p 5 0.072), SP (H4a,
Construct Measuring items Loadings Item Ca AVE CR
Green human
resource
Environmental performance (Zhu et al., 2008; Inman and Green, 2018) management
EP 1. Reduction of air emissions 0.770 EP1 0.728 0.642 0.843
2. Reduction of effluent waste 0.813 EP2 practices
3. Reduction of solid wastes 0.883 EP3
4. Decrease in consumption of hazardous/ 0.866 EP4
harmful/toxic materials
5. Decrease in frequency of environmental 0.783 EP5
accidents
6. Improvement in an enterprise’s 0.853 EP6
environmental situation
Financial performance (Çankaya and Sezen, 2019; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; and Baah et al., 2020)
FP 1. Improvement in earnings per share 0.712 FP1 0.732 0.679 0.798
2. Improvement in return on investment 0.833 FP2
3. Gross profit growth 0.780 FP3
4. Net profit growth 0.882 FP4
5. Return on equity 0.776 EP5
6. Return on assets 0.870 FP6
GHRMPS (Longoni et al., 2018; Zaid et al., 2018; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e)
GHRMPS 1. Green hiring 0.777 GHRMPS 0.785 0.601 0.785
1
2. Green training 0.872 GHRMPS
2
3. Green employee involvement 0.877 GHRMPS
3
4. Green performance management and 0.783 GHRMPS
compensation 4
5. Green discipline procedure 0.772 GHRMPS
5
6. Green reward 0.716 GHRMPS
6
GSCMPS (Cousins et al., 2019; Inman and Green, 2018; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2015)
GSCMPS 1. Green purchasing 0.750 GSCMPS 1 0.817 0.724 0.887
2. Green cooperation with customers 0.856 GSCMPS 2
3. Cross-functional cooperation for 0.781 GSCMPS 3
environmental improvements
4. Total quality environmental management 0.732 GSCMPS 4
5. Environmental compliance and auditing 0.755 GSCMPS 5
programs
6. ISO 14001 certification 0.819 GSCMPS 6
7. Environmental management systems 0.791 GSCMPS 7
8. Green supply chain information systems 0.755 GSCMPS 8
9. Reverse logistics 0.735 GSCMPS 9
10. Green distribution and packaging 0.819 GSCMPS
10
Market performance (Choi et al., 2018; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e)
MP 1. New market opportunity 0.768 MP1 0.821 0.723 0.886
2. Increase in sales 0.832 MP2
3. Increase in market shares 0.774 MP3
4. Customer loyalty 0.822 MP4
5. Improvement in customer satisfaction 0.760 MP5
6. Improved corporate brand image 0.877 MP6 Table 2.
Measurement property
(continued ) of reflective constructs
BIJ Construct Measuring items Loadings Item Ca AVE CR

Operational performance (Green and Inman (2005); Hasan, 2013)

OP 1. Reduction in penalty for environmental 0.793 OP1 0.857 0.692 0.899
mishaps OP2
2. Decrease in cost of materials purchased 0.728 OP3
3. Decrease in cost of energy consumption 0.888 0P4
4. Decrease in fee for waste discharge 0.786 OP5
5. Increase in product quality 0.849 0P6
6. Reduction in payment of compliance fees 0.721
Social performance (Zaid et al., 2018; Longoni et al., 2018)
SP 1. Lowering the adverse impact of products 0.732 SP1 0.728 0.738 0.821
and processes on the local community
2. Improvement in its image in the eyes of its 0.779 SP2
customers
3. Improvement in employee training and 0.761 SP3
education
4. Improvement in occupational health and 0.827 SP4
safety of employees
5. Improvement in overall stakeholder 0.772 SP5
welfare or betterment
6. Improvement in relations with customers 0.718 SP6
Table 2. and suppliers

β 5 0.410, T 5 6.884, p 5 0.003), EP (H5a, β 5 0.521, T 5 8.217, p 5 0.000) and GSCMPS (H6,
β 5 0.621, T 5 9.145, p 5 0.000). However, GHRMPS has positive influence on FP (H3a,
β 5 0.432, T 5 7.102, p 5 0.001), which rejects the fifth hypothesis. Besides, the analysis
reveals that GSCMPS has positive influence on OP (H7, β 5 0.324, T 5 5.842, p 5 0.002), MP
(H8, β 5 0.269, T 5 5.893, p 5 0.010), FP (H9, β 5 0.159, T 5 1.785, p 5 0.061), SP (H10,
β 5 0.215, T 5 3.453, p 5 0.000) and EP (H11, β 5 0.562, T 5 7.048, p 5 0.000). This suggests
that all the hypotheses H1a–H11 are supported except H3a as displayed in Table 5 and
Figure 2.
The study further explores the indirect influence of GHRMPS on OP, MP, FP, SP and EP
through GSCMPS. The findings indicate that GSCMPS plays a partial mediating role between
GHRMPS and OP (H1b, VAF 5 0.524, β 5 0.271, T 5 3.800, p 5 0.000), MP (H2b,
VAF 5 0.493, β 5 0.032, T 5 2.641, p 5 0.001), FP (H3b, VAF 5 0.365, β 5 0.201, T 5 9.610,
p 5 0.001), SP (H4b, VAF 5 0.246, β 5 0.211, T 5 3.310, p 5 0.003) and EP (H5b, VAF 5 0.401,
β 5 0.309, T 5 9.077, p 5 0.001). This indicates that all the hypotheses H1b–H5b are
supported as shown in Table 6.

Constructs EP FP GHRMPS GSCMPS MP OP SP

EP 0.801
FP 0.436 0.775
GHRMPS 0.709 0.582 0.851
GSCMPS 0.712 0.484 0.547 0.850
Table 3. MP 0.600 0.644 0.588 0.644 0.832
Fornell–Larcker OP 0.562 0.349 O.654 0.564 0.537 0.743
criterion SP 0.432 0.557 0.464 0.375 0.647 0.576 0.842
4.2 Discussions Green human
4.2.1 Direct effect. In order to answer the first question and achieve the objective of our study, resource
the direct relationship between GHRMPS, GSCMPS, OP, MP, FP, SP and FP is tested. The
results of the study suggest that GHRMPS has insignificant positive influence on OP. This
management
suggests that firms adopting GHRMPS are likely to improve operational efficiency and save practices
the cost of paying environmental fines. However, GHRMPS does not substantially improve
OP. This finding is aligned with the position of Ambec and Lanoie (2008) and Ren et al. (2018),
which indicates that green sustainable management practices (e.g. GHRMPS) serve as a
strategic opportunity for firms to avoid regulatory fines and respond to changing external
environment.
Surprisingly, GHRMPS has insignificant positive influence on MP. This means that the
adoption of GHRMPS has minor influence on sales, market size, customer satisfaction, new
opportunities and customer loyalty of a firm. Firms implementing GHRMPS improve
customer loyalty and satisfaction (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020a, b, c, d, e; Mousa and
Othman, 2020). However, MP improvement is not substantial. Moreover, the results reveal
that GHRMPS has significant influence on SP and EP. This is similar to the findings of Ren
et al. (2018), which indicate that effective GHRMPS creates opportunities for employees to
contribute to EP, equips employees with abilities required to work effectively and
motivates them to take advantage of these abilities and opportunities to achieve
environmental sustainability goals. Besides, studies indicate that GHRMPS improves
employees’ green awareness (Renwick et al., 2013), environmental creativity (Jia et al., 2018;
Singh et al., 2020) and EP (Chen and Chang, 2013). Moreover, Zaid et al. (2018) found that
GHRMPS has positive significant influence on SP. This suggest that firms that are
implementing GHRMPS improve their green image, enhance employee education and
training and improve societal and employee safety and health.

Constructs EP FP GHRMPS GSCMPS MP OP

FP 0.486
GHRMPS 0.509 0.782
GSCMPS 0.722 0.574 0.767
MP 0.610 0.674 0.555 0.786 Table 4.
OP 0.563 0.844 0.534 0.444 0.737 Heterotrait–
SP 0.732 0.737 0.724 0.775 0.657 0.566 monotrait ratio

Path Hypothesis Beta (β) T statistics P values Results

GHRMPS → OP H1a 0.183 1.467 0.086 Supported

GHRMPS → MP H2a 0.172 1.931 0.072 Supported
GHRMPS → FP H3a 0.432 7.102 0.001 Not supported
GHRMPS → SP H4a 0.410 6.884 0.003 Supported
GHRMPS → EP H5a 0.521 8.217 0.000 Supported
GHRMPS → GSCMPS H6 0.621 9.145 0.000 Supported
GSCMPS → OP H7 0.324 5.842 0.002 Supported
GSCMPS → MP H8 0.269 5.893 0.010 Supported
GSCMPS → FP H9 0.159 1.785 0.061 Supported
GSCMPS → SP H10 0.215 3.453 0.000 Supported Table 5.
GSCMPS → EP H11 0.562 7.048 0.000 Supported Direct effect
BIJ 0.183
Operational
performance
2
R = 0.461
2 (OP)
R = 0.761 (+)
0.324
Green supply chain
management Market
2
practices (GSCMPS)
0.269 performance R = 0.655
(+) 0.159 (MP)
0.621
(+)
Financial
Green human 0.215 performance 2
resource management 0.172 R = 0.631
(FP)
practices (GHRMPS) –0.432 (+)
(+) 0.562
0.410 Social performance
(SP) 2
R = 0.726
(+)

Environmental
Figure 2. performance 2
R = 0.751
Structural model 0.521 (EP)
(+)

Further, the findings indicate that GHRMPS has negative significant influence on FP. This
finding is dissimilar with the findings of Longoni et al. (2018), which found positive
relationship between GHRMPS and FP among manufacturing firms in Italy. This indicates
that GHRMPS such as employee training and education and green reward are financially
costly, which may adversely affect the profitability of firms in the short run. Consequently,
the results of the analysis reveal that GHRMPS has significant positive influence on GSCMPS
that is supported by the findings of Zaid et al. (2018) and Longoni et al. (2018). The result
indicates that GHRMPS is required for the effective implementation of GSCMPS (Chiappetta
Jabbour et al., 2017) to enhance performance of supply chain and create sustainable
competitive advantage (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016).
Subsequently, the study has established that GSCMPS has significant positive influence
on OP. This is congruent with the findings of Feng et al. (2018), which suggest that GSCMPS
improves OP among manufacturing firms in China but dissimilar to the findings of Inman
and Green (2018), which does not support the assertion that GSCMPS positively influences
OP among manufacturing firms in the USA. The result indicates that manufacturing and
hospitality firms in Ghana are adopting GSCMPS to improve product quality, save cost
associated with regulatory and compliance fines and reduce cost of energy consumption
and waste.
Besides, the study has revealed that GSCMPS improves MP. This finding is similar to the
findings of Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e), which was also conducted in the
logistics and manufacturing industries in Ghana. The study has further established that
GSCMPS has insignificant positive influence on FP. The finding indicates that the
implementation of GSCMPS does not substantially create financial benefits in the short run
(Baah et al., 2020; Afum et al., 2020a, b, c). Hence, GSCMPS is regarded as a strategic tool for

Variance
accounted for Beta T P
Path Hypothesis (VAF) (β) stats values Results

GHRMPS → GSCMPS → OP H1b 0.524 0.271 3.800 0.000 Supported

GHRMPS → GSCMPS → MP H2b 0.493 0.232 2.641 0.000 Supported
Table 6. GHRMPS → GSCMPS → FP H3b 0.365 0.201 9.610 0.001 Supported
Indirect effect GHRMPS → GSCMPS → SP H4b 0.246 0.211 3.310 0.003 Supported
(mediation) GHRMPS → GSCMPS → EP H5b 0.401 0.309 9.077 0.001 Supported
achieving long-term financial benefits. However, this finding is dissimilar to the findings of Green human
Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020a, b, c, d, e), which established negative relationship between resource
internal GSCMPS and FP.
Again, GSCMPS has significant positive influence on SP. This indicate that GSCMPS
management
ensures improvement in societal and employee safety and health. Rani and Mishra (2014) practices
indicate that GSCMPS creates healthier lives and safer environment for employees and local
community members. Finally, the study has established that GSCMPS has positive influence
on EP. This is similar to the findings of Longoni et al. (2018) and Zaid et al. (2018), which are
conducted in the manufacturing firms in Italy and Palestine, respectively. This suggests that
the implementation of GSCMPS prevents environmental pollution, reduces waste and
excessive energy consumption and reduces environmental mishap regardless of the
geography.
4.2.2 The mediating role of GSCMPS. In order to answer the second question and achieve
the second objective of this study, the mediating roles of GSCMPS between GHRMPS, OP,
MP, FP, SP and EP are examined. The mediating role of GSCMPS is examined using the
variance accounted for (VAF) (Zhao et al., 2010). The findings indicate that GSCMPS plays
a complementary partial mediating role between GHRMPS and OP, MP, SP and EP as
shown in Table 6. However, GSCMPS plays a competitive partial mediating role between
GHRMPS and FP as shown in Table 6. The partial mediating role suggests that there are
other potential factors that may combine with GHRMPS to achieve improved performance.
Besides, the competitive partial mediating role played by GSCMPS between GHRMPS and
FP indicates that despite the adverse impact of adopting GHRMPS on FP, the concurrent
implementation of both GHRMPS and GSCMPS improves profitability (Longoni
et al., 2018).
Further, the findings indicate that GSCMPS best mediates GHRMPS and OP and least
mediates GHRMPS and SP. The link between GHRMPS and MP has the second highest
mediating role played by GSCMPS. Surprisingly, the mediating role played by GSCMPS
between GHRMPS and EP has the third highest influence while the mediating role played by
GSCMPS between GHRMPS and FP has the fourth highest impact. The results suggest that
in responding to the stakeholders’ needs and establishing good relationship with them, firms
adopt GHRMPS and GSCMPS to achieve operational, social, market, environmental and
financial goals to meet the varying needs of stakeholders. Studies indicate that GHRMPS and
GSCMPS strongly improve EP. However, it is surprising to establish that firms that are
simultaneously implementing GHRMPS and GSCMPS improve OP more than any other
performance, followed by MP, EP, FP and SP. The findings further suggest that GHRMPS-
GSCMPS link ensures significant improvement in customer satisfaction, customer loyalty,
operational efficiency, employee and societal safety, prevents pollution and waste, saves cost
associated with compliance and environmental fines and improves profitability. This indicate
that GHRMPS-GSCMPS link helps achieve sustainability goals.
The studies’ findings indicate that sustainable supply chain management requires a more
multidisciplinary approach such as integration of GHRMPS and GSCMPS (Pagell and
Shevchenko, 2014). Despite the challenges that come with the implementation of GSCMPS
(Chan, 2011), overcoming the challenges through green training, green hiring, employee
involvement, green discipline and green reward and compensation gives firms the assurance
of advancing their societal, environmental and economic course toward the achievement of
sustainability goals (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016).

5. Conclusion
5.1 Implication for theory
This study contributes to literature in several ways. The study confirms the antecedence of
GHRMPS of GSCMPS. Besides, the study develops and tests a research framework that
BIJ examines the influence of GHRMPS and GSCMPS on OP, MP, FP, SP and EP from the
developing economy and African perspectives. In addition, the study reveals that GHRMPS-
GSCMPS link improves OP and MP more than EP, which is a new theoretical insight. Besides,
this paper serves as a response to extant studies rooting for the exploration of the synergy
between GSCMPS and GHRMPS (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016). Exploring the direct
influence of GSCMPS and GHRMPS on SP, OP, MP, EP and FP from the Ghanaian and sub-
Saharan African perspective deepens the understanding of the role of GHRMPS-GSCMPS
link toward the achievement of sustainability goals in an organization. Besides, the study
provides empirical evidence to support the assertion that the incorporation of green practices
into human resource management and supply chain management has positive influence on
performance (OP, MP, FP, SP and EP). The establishment of the synergy between GHRMPS
and GSCMPS on each of the dimensions of performance and the comparison among
GHRMPS-GSCMPS synergy on each of the dimensions of performance (OP, MP, FP, SP, and
EP) are key contributions of this study since they are missing in literature.

5.2 Implications for practice

This study contributes to the work of managers and practitioners severally. The study
could serve as evidence for managers and practitioners to push for the implementation of
GHRMPS and GSCMPS in their firms. Moreover, firms may simultaneously implement
GHRMPS and GSCMPS to achieve sustainability objectives. Besides, the study suggests
that GHRMPS-GSCMPS link improves OP. This finding suggests that managers can align
their green practices with human resource policies and practices to achieve operational
efficiency, save cost associated with regulatory and compliance fines. In addition,
establishing GHRMPS as an antecedent of GSCMPS suggests that firms must first build the
green capabilities of their human resource to successfully implement GSCMPS. Besides, the
findings indicate that firms may adopt GHRMPS and GSCMPS simultaneously to advance
their financial performance since GSCMPS serves as competitive mediator between
GHRMPS and FP. Managers are urged to implement GHRMPS and GSCMPS to seek
simultaneous improvement in OP, MP, FP, SP and EP since GHRMPS and GSCMPS
combine to improve all the dimensions of performance used in this study. Moreover, there is
the need for firms to acknowledge that GHRMPS such as green training, green selection and
hiring (Zaid et al., 2018) and green reward eliminate the obstacles of adopting GSCMPS such
as lack of green knowledge and skills (Chan, 2011), lack of awareness (Kehbila et al., 2009),
employees’ resistance and lack of green attitude and culture (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour,
2016). This study urges managers to concurrently implement GSCMPS and GHRMPS to
achieve performance goals.

5.3 Limitation and future research directions

The findings of this research should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind.
These identified limitations may serve as future study directions. The study gathers data
from only firms in the hospitality and manufacturing industry in Ghana. This may affect the
generalizability of the study. Future studies may consider gathering data from several
industries to improve the reliability and validity of their findings. Moreover, despite the
sample size serving as adequate representation of the population, it may be a limitation of this
study. Hence, future studies may consider adopting strategies to increase participation of
respondents to verify the veracity of the findings of this study. Despite the generalizability of
this study, future study may be conducted to examine the influence of GHRMPS-GSCMPS
link on performance in both developed and developing countries. In addition, future studies
can adopt several approaches to reduce the impact of common method bias and nonresponse
bias on the findings of the study since it has the tendency to affect every survey studies.
Finally, future studies may adopt covariance-based structural equation modeling approach Green human
to verify the authenticity of this finding in other countries. resource
management
References practices
Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Sun, Z., Frimpong, B., Kusi, L.Y. and Acquah, I.S.K. (2020a),
“Exploring the link between green manufacturing, operational competitiveness, firm reputation
and sustainable performance dimensions: a mediated approach”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-02-2020-0036.
Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y. and Owusu, J.A. (2020b), “Translating environmental management
practices into improved environmental performance via green organizational culture: insight
from Ghanaian manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 31-49.
Afum, E., Osei-Ahenkan, V.Y., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Owusu, J.A., Kusi, L.Y. and Ankomah, J. (2020c),
“Green manufacturing practices and sustainable performance among Ghanaian manufacturing
SMEs: the explanatory link of green supply chain integration”, Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2020-0019.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E.N.K. and Agnikpe, M.C.G. (2019a), “The intermediary role of
supply chain capability between supply chain integration and firm performance”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E.N.K. and Korsah, G.N.A. (2019b), “The mediating roles of supply
chain quality integration and green logistics management between information technology and
organisational performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E.N.K. and Osei, E. (2019c), “Impact of logistics information
technology on organisational performance: mediating role of supply chain integration and
customer satisfaction”, Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E. and Ahenkorah, E. (2020a), “Exploring financial performance and
green logistics management practices: examining the mediating influences of market,
environmental and social performances”, Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 120613.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E., Afum, E., Nana Agyemang, A., Agnikpe, C. and Rogers, F.
(2020b), “Examining the influence of internal green supply chain practices, green human
resource management and supply chain environmental cooperation on firm performance”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 585-599, doi: 10.1108/SCM-11-2019-0405.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E., Afum, E. and Owusu, D. (2020c), “The influence of lean
management and environmental practices on relative competitive quality advantage and
performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-
2019-0443.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E., Agnikpe, C., Cai, J., Ahenkorah, E. and Dacosta, E. (2020d),
“Exploring the mediating influences of total quality management and just in time between
green supply chain practices and performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-03-2020-0086.
Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E., Afum, E., Dacosta, E. and Tian, Z. (2020e), “Green
warehousing, logistics optimization, social values and ethics and economic performance: the
role of supply chain sustainability”, The International Journal of Logistics Management. doi: 10.
1108/IJLM-10-2019-0275.
Akbari, M. and McClelland, R. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship in
sustainable supply chain: a structured literature review”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1799-1841.
Alananzeh, O., Algiatheen, N., Ryati, R., Albayyari, R. and Tarhini, A. (2017), “The impact of
employee’s perception of implementing green supply chain management on hotel’s economic
and operational performance”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology.
BIJ Ambec, S. and Lanoie, P. (2008), “Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview”, Academy of
Management Perspectives, pp. 45-62.
Amrutha, V.N. and Geetha, S.N. (2020), “A systematic review on green human resource management:
implications for social sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 247, p. 119131.
Anthony, B., Jr (2019), “Green information system integration for environmental performance in
organizations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1033-1062.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Arulrajah, A.A., Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. and Nawaratne, N.N.J. (2015), “Green human resource
management practices: a review”, Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1.
Baah, C., Jin, Z. and Tang, L. (2020), “Organizational and regulatory stakeholder pressures friends or
foes to green logistics practices and financial performance: investigating corporate reputation
as a missing link”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 247, p. 119125.
Bag, S. and Gupta, S. (2019), “Examining the effect of green human capital availability in adoption of
reverse logistics and remanufacturing operations performance”, International Journal of
Manpower.
Bombiak, E. and Marciniuk-Kluska, A. (2018), “Green human resource management as a tool for the
sustainable development of enterprises: polish young company experience”, Sustainability,
Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 1739.
Çankaya, S.Y. and Sezen, B. (2019), “Effects of green supply chain management practices on
sustainability performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
Chan, H.K. (2011), “Green process and product design in practice”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 25, pp. 398-402.
Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2013), “Utilize structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the influence
of corporate environmental ethics: the mediation effect of green human capital”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
Chen, S., Chen, H.H., Zhang, K.Q. and Xu, X.L. (2018), “A comprehensive theoretical framework for
examining learning effects in green and conventionally managed hotels”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 174, pp. 1392-1399.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Mauricio, A.L. and Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. (2017), “Critical success factors and
green supply chain management proactivity: shedding light on the human aspects of this
relationship based on cases from the Brazilian industry”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 28 Nos 6-8, pp. 671-683.
Chin, T.A., Tat, H.H. and Sulaiman, Z. (2015), “Green supply chain management, environmental
collaboration and sustainability performance”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 26, pp. 695-699.
Choi, S.B., Min, H. and Joo, H.Y. (2018), “Examining the inter-relationship among competitive market
environments, green supply chain practices, and firm performance”, International Journal of
Logistics Management.
Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J. and Fugate, B. (2019), “Investigating green supply chain
management practices and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management.
Croson, R., Schultz, K., Siemsen, E. and Yeo, M.L. (2013), “Behavioral operations: the state of the field”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 31 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-5.
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W. and Massoud, J.A. (2012), “The role of training and empowerment in
environmental performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
Daily, B.F. and Huang, S.C. (2001), “Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource
factors in environmental management”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management.
Dangelico, R.M. (2015), “Improving firm environmental performance and reputation: the role of Green human
employee green teams”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 735-749.
resource
Darnall, N., Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (2010), “Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the
influence of stakeholders and firm size”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6,
management
pp. 1072-1094. practices
De Giovanni, P. and Vinzi, V.E. (2012), “Covariance versus component based approaches for green
supply chain management and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 907-916.
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., de Oliveira Frascareli, F.C. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2015), “Green supply chain
management and firms’ performance: understanding potential relationships and the role of
green sourcing and some other green practices”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 104, pp. 366-374.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Ali, S.S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between leadership,
operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for
green supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 120-132.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017a), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., Giannakis, M. and Roubaud, D.
(2017b), “Examining the effect of external pressures and organizational culture on shaping
performance measurement systems (PMS) for sustainability benchmarking: some empirical
findings”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 193, pp. 63-76.
Eltayeb, T.K. and Zailani, S. (2009), “Going green through green supply chain initiatives towards
environmental sustainability”, Operations and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 93-110.
Famiyeh, S., Kwarteng, A., Asante-Darko, D. and Dadzie, S.A. (2018), “Green supply chain
management initiatives and operational competitive performance”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 607-631, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-10-2016-0165.
Feng, M., Yu, W., Wang, X., Wong, C.Y., Xu, M. and Xiao, Z. (2018), “Green supply chain management
and financial performance: the mediating roles of operational and environmental performance”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 811-824.
Ghosh, A., Sarmah, S.P. and Kanauzia, R.K. (2020), “The effect of investment in green technology in a
two echelon supply chain under strict carbon-cap policy”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1875-1891.
Graves, A., Mohamed, A.R. and Hinton, G. (2013), “Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural
networks”, in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
IEEE, pp. 6645-6649.
Green, K.W. and Inman*, R.A. (2005), “Using a just-in-time selling strategy to strengthen supply chain
linkages”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16, pp. 3437-3453.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal.
Guide, V.D.R., Jr and Ketokivi, M. (2015), “Notes from the Editors: redefining some methodological
criteria for the journal+”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. v-viii.
Guziana, B. and Dobers, P. (2013), “How sustainability leaders communicate corporate activities of
sustainable development”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 193-204.
uller-Camen, M. (2016), “Green human resource management: a
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C. and M€
comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 192-211.
BIJ Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), When to Use and How to Report the Results
of PLS-SEM, European Business Review.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. and Gavronski, I. (2013), “Reprint of Lean management
and supply management: their role in green practices and performance”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 56, pp. 86-93.
Hasan, M. (2013), Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Operational Performance.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research:
Updated Guidelines, Industrial Management & Data Systems.
Henseler, J. (2017), “ADANCO 2.0. 1”, 9th International Conference on PLS and Related Methods,
PLS 2017.
Hofer, C.W. (1980), “Turnaround strategies”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 19.
Hsu, C.C., Tan, K.C., Zailani, S.H.M. and Jayaraman, V. (2013), “Supply chain drivers that foster the
development of green initiatives in an emerging economy”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management.
Inman, R.A. and Green, K.W. (2018), “Lean and green combine to impact environmental and
operational performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 14,
pp. 4802-4818.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Fonseca, S.A. and Nagano, M.S. (2013), “Green teams: understanding
their roles in the environmental management of companies located in Brazil”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 46, pp. 58-66.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. (2016), “Green human resource management and green
supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 112, pp. 1824-1833.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A. and Nagano, M.S. (2010), “Contributions of HRM throughout the stages
of environmental management: methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1049-1089.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., De Freitas, T.P., Soubihia, D.F., Kannan, D.
and Latan, H. (2016), “Barriers to the adoption of green operational practices at Brazilian
companies: effects on green and operational performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 3042-3058.
Jackson, S.E., Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J. and Muller-Camen, M. (2011), “State-of-the-art and future
directions for green human resource management: introduction to the special issue”, German
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Jaehn, F. (2016), “Sustainable operations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253 No. 2,
pp. 243-264.
Jain, N. and D’lima, C. (2018), “Green HRM–a study on the perception of Generation Y as prospective
internal customers”, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 199-208.
Jia, F., Zuluaga-Cardona, L., Bailey, A. and Rueda, X. (2018), “Sustainable supply chain management in
developing countries: an analysis of the literature”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 189,
pp. 263-278.
Kehbila, A.G., Ertel, J. and Brent, A.C. (2009), “Strategic corporate environmental management within
the South African automotive industry: motivations, benefits, hurdles”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 310-323.
Khan, S.A.R., Chen, J., Zhang, Y. and Golp^ıra, H. (2019), “Effect of green purchasing, green logistics,
and ecological design on organizational performance: a path analysis using structural equation
modeling”, Information Technology and Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 183-190.
Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), “The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source Green human
reduction programs”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
resource
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1996), “The impact of environmental management on firm
performance”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1199-1214.
management
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operations
practices
management”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Kumar, A., Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S. and Ishizaka, A. (2019), “Evaluating the human resource related
soft dimensions in green supply chain management implementation”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 699-715.
Laari, S., T€oyli, J., Solakivi, T. and Ojala, L. (2016), “Firm performance and customer-driven green
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1960-1970.
Lee, C.H., Wahid, N.A. and Goh, Y.N. (2013), “Perceived drivers of green practices adoption: a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 351-360.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2011), “Determinants of green practice adoption for logistics companies in
China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Longoni, A., Luzzini, D. and Guerci, M. (2018), “Deploying environmental management across
functions: the relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain
management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 1081-1095.
Marchi, V.D., Maria, E.D. and Micelli, S. (2013), “Environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive
advantage in global value chains”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 62-72.
Mardani, A., Kannan, D., Hooker, R.E., Ozkul, S., Alrasheedi, M. and Tirkolaee, E.B. (2020),
“Evaluation of green and sustainable supply chain management using structural equation
modelling: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future
research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 249, p. 119383.
Matthews, L., Hair, J.O.E. and Matthews, R. (2018), “PLS-SEM: the holy grail for advanced analysis”,
Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (1997), “Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications”, International
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 10-17.
Mittal, S. and Dhar, R.L. (2016), “Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: a
study of tourist hotels”, Tourism Management, Vol. 57, pp. 118-127.
Montabon, F., Sroufe, R. and Narasimhan, R. (2007), “An examination of corporate reporting,
environmental management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 998-1014.
Mousa, S.K. and Othman, M. (2020), “The impact of green human resource management practices on
sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: a conceptual framework”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, p. 118595.
Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2000), “Green logistics strategies: an analysis of usage patterns”,
Transportation Journal, pp. 5-16.
Namagembe, S., Ryan, S. and Sridharan, R. (2019), “Green supply chain practice adoption and firm
performance: manufacturing SMEs in Uganda”, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal.
Oliveira, J.A., Oliveira, O.J., Ometto, A.R., Ferraudo, A.S. and Salgado, M.H. (2016), “Environmental
management system ISO 14001 factors for promoting the adoption of cleaner production
practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 133, pp. 1384-1394.
€
Ozceylan, E., Demirel, N., Çetinkaya, C. and Demirel, E. (2017), “A closed-loop supply chain network
design for automotive industry in Turkey”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 113,
pp. 727-745.
BIJ Pagell, M. and Shevchenko, A. (2014), “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Prasad, R.S. (2013), “Green HRM-partner in sustainable competitive growth”, Journal of Management
Sciences and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-18.
Rani, S. and Mishra, K. (2014), “Green HRM: practices and strategic implementation in the
organizations”, International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and
Communication, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 3633-3639.
Ren, S., Tang, G. and Jackson, S.E. (2018), “Green human resource management research in
emergence: a review and future directions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 769-803.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C.J. and Chong, T. (2019), “Green human resource management
and the enablers of green organisational culture: enhancing a firm’s environmental performance
for sustainable development”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 737-749.
S
anchez-Medina, P.S. and D
ıaz-Pichardo, R. (2017), “Environmental pressure and quality practices in
artisanal family businesses: the mediator role of environmental values”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 143, pp. 145-158.
Saeed, B.B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M. and Afridi, M.A. (2019), “Promoting employee’s
proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices”, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 424-438.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schmidheiny, S. (1992), “The business logic of sustainable development”, Columbia Journal of World
Business, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 18-24.
Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M. and Anex, R.P., Jr (2009), “The road to cooperative supply-chain
environmental management: trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Simpson, D. and Samson, D. (2010), “Environmental strategy and low waste operations: exploring
complementarities”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 104-118.
Singh, S.K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R. and Graziano, D. (2020), “Green innovation and environmental
performance: the role of green transformational leadership and green human resource
management”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 150, p. 119762.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Srivastava, S.K. (2008), “Network design for reverse logistics”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 535-548.
Sutduean, J., Joemsittiprasert, W. and Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019), “Supply chain management and
organizational performance: exploring green marketing as mediator”, International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and Change, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 266-283.
Tseng, M.L., Islam, M.S., Karia, N., Fauzi, F.A. and Afrin, S. (2019), “A literature review on green Green human
supply chain management: trends and future challenges”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 145-162. resource
Wagner, M. (2013), “‘Green’ human resource benefits: do they matter as determinants of
management
environmental management system implementation?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 114 practices
No. 3, pp. 443-456.
Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. (1994), “It’s not easy being green”, Reader in Business and the
Environment, Vol. 36 No. 81, p. 4.
Wong, C.W., Lai, K.H., Shang, K.C., Lu, C.S. and Leung, T.K.P. (2012), “Green operations and the
moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 283-294.
Wong, K.K.K. (2016), “Mediation analysis, categorical moderation analysis, and higher-order
constructs modeling in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a B2B
example using SmartPLS”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 26.
Woo, C., Kim, M.G., Chung, Y. and Rho, J.J. (2016), “Suppliers’ communication capability and external
green integration for green and financial performance in Korean construction industry”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 483-493.
Yang, C.L., Lin, S.P., Chan, Y.H. and Sheu, C. (2010), “Mediated effect of environmental management
on manufacturing competitiveness: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 210-220.
Yang, C.S., Lu, C.S., Haider, J.J. and Marlow, P.B. (2013), “The effect of green supply chain
management on green performance and firm competitiveness in the context of container
shipping in Taiwan”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 55, pp. 55-73.
Young, A. and Kielkiewicz-Young, A. (2001), “Sustainable supply network management”, Corporate
Environmental Strategy, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-268.
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M. and Wiengarten, F. (2014), “Integrated green supply chain management
and operational performance”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal.
Yu, Y., Zhang, M. and Huo, B. (2019), “The impact of supply chain quality integration on green supply
chain management and environmental performance”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 9-10, pp. 1110-1125.
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., Wong, C.Y. and Fynes, B. (2020), “Green human resource management
and environmental cooperation: an ability-motivation-opportunity and contingency
perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 219, pp. 224-235.
Zaid, A.A., Jaaron, A.A. and Bon, A.T. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management and
green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: an empirical study”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 204, pp. 965-979.
Zeng, S.X., Meng, X.H., Yin, H.T., Tam, C.M. and Sun, L. (2010), “Impact of cleaner production on
business performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 Nos 10-11, pp. 975-983.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green
supply chain practices and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45
Nos 18-19, pp. 4333-4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
BIJ Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2008), “Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 261-273.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2012), “Examining the effects of green supply chain management
practices and their mediations on performance improvements”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1377-1394.

Corresponding author
Yaw Agyabeng-Mensah can be contacted at: yawagyabeng830@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com