Confirmation of a Measurement Model for Green Supply Chain

Management Practices Implementation1

Qinghua Zhu （Corresponding author）

School of Management
Dalian University of Technology
Dalian, Liaoning Province (116024)
P.R. of China
Tel: 86-411-8470-7331
Fax: 86-411-8470-8342
E-mail: zhuqh@dlut.edu.cn

Joseph Sarkis
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
Worcester, MA 01610-1477
Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
Email: jsarkis@clarku.edu

Kee-hung Lai
Department of Logistics
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Tel: 852-2766-7920
Fax: 852-2330-2704
E-mail: lgtmlai@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract: This study aims to empirically investigate the construct of and the scale for
evaluating green supply chain management (GSCM) practices implementation among
manufacturers. With data collected from 341 Chinese manufacturers, two measurement
models of GSCM practices implementation were tested and compared by confirmatory factor
analysis. Our empirical findings suggest that both the first-order and the second-order models
for GSCM implementation are reliable and valid. Our study contributes to the literature on
empirical examination of the construct of GSCM practices implementation and to the
practices of managers with a validated measurement scale to evaluate their strengths and
weaknesses in different facets of implementing GSCM practices in their organizations.

Key words: Green supply chain management; Construct; Practice measurement;

Confirmatory factor analysis; Manufacturers

1
Supported by the Ninth Huo-yingdong Young Faculty Foundation（91082）, the National Natural Science Foundation of
China Project (70202006), the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province (2051020), and a research grant by The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University (A630).

1
 Confirmation of a Measurement Model for Green Supply Chain

Management Practices Implementation

1. Introduction

Environmentally sustainable (green) supply chain management (GSCM) has emerged as an

important organizational philosophy to achieve corporate profit and market share objectives

by reducing environmental risks and impacts while improving ecological efficiency of these

organizations and their partners (van Hock and Erasmus, 2000). As a synergistic joining of

environmental and supply chain management, the competitive and global dimensions of these

two topics cannot go unnoticed by organizations. For example, multinational enterprises

have established global networks of suppliers to take advantage of country-industry specific

characteristics to build competitive advantage (Dunning, 1993). Simultaneously, due to

stricter regulations and increased community and consumer pressures, manufacturers need to

effectively integrate environmental concerns into their regular practices and onto their

strategic planning agenda. As a result, integrating environmental concerns into supply chain

management has become increasingly important for manufacturers to gain and maintain

competitive advantage. Thus, the study of this topic is timely and necessary to better aid

organizations in the management of GSCM principles.

To advance investigation and practice in GSCM, appropriate measurement scales are

needed. In general, identification of appropriate measurement scales for emerging concepts

and theories is necessary to complete robust research and to advance the body of knowledge

in a field. Devellis (2003) states measurement is a fundamental activity of science and that

2
measurements and broader scientific questions interacting with each other within their

boundaries are almost imperceptible. The field of GSCM is arguably in its early development

phases, both academically and practically. Academically, to effectively and empirically

advance theory within this field, some useful and testable multi-item measurement scales are

needed. Thus, greater attention will need to be focused on employing multi-item latent

constructs, assessing them for content validity, and purifying them through field-based testing

(Malhotra and Grover, 1998). Using literature in supply chain (operations) and

environmental management, we introduce a number of scales that may be used to help

evaluate practices in this area. Practically, organizations can also benefit from development

of reliable and valid scales to measure GSCM practices implementation. Practitioners can

use these scales for benchmarking, continuous improvement and project management

activities when seeking to implement GSCM practices. One contribution of this study is to

help manufacturers understand the different facets of GSCM practices implementation and

identify the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of their GSCM practices.

Given the academic (theoretical) and practical importance of developing a GSCM practices

implementation measurement scale, we introduce a study based on an empirical survey of

Chinese manufacturing organizations. Chinese manufacturers provide a microcosm of

international markets. In some ways they are very advanced in practices and technology due

to their relationships with international partners and community. In other ways, many

Chinese organizations still lack the knowledge and economic resources of developed country

institutions and function within a developing and emerging economy context. Thus, in one

study we can include situations where the GSCM practice concepts are relatively novel to

3
some organizations but concurrently more mature and acceptable for more advanced

organizations (see Zhu et al., 2005, for examples of the diffusion of these concepts). Thus,

measurement scales that have general agreement in this diverse economic environment, and

across numerous industries, provide an extra degree of robustness.

The objective of this study is to investigate the GSCM practice implementation construct

and its defining measurement items emphasizing Chinese manufacturers with broader

implications for application of these scales to other environments (e.g. research in other

countries and further development of environmental and supply chain research). In this paper

we initially introduce literature reviews of measurement items for GSCM implementation in

Section 2. The methodology used to develop and validate the GSCM implementation scale

will be presented in Section 3. Section 4 will present results of this study followed by

discussions and implications of these results in Section 5. Section 6 concludes our discussion

by summarizing our findings, implications, limitations, and potential for future research.

2 Literature review of GSCM practices implementation

GSCM has emerged as an effective management tool and philosophy for proactive and

leading manufacturing organizations. The scope of GSCM practices implementation ranges

from green purchasing to integrated life cycle management supply chains flowing from

supplier, through to manufacturer, customer and closing the loop with reverse logistics. A

number of definitions of GSCM exist (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Similar to the concept of

supply chain management, the boundary of GSCM is dependent on researcher goals and the

problems at hand, e.g., should it be just the procurement stage or the full logistics channel

that is to be investigated (Lai et al., 2004)?

Prescriptive models for measures of GSCM practices implementation with a focus on

4
green purchasing and GSCM have been developed. Handfield et al. (2002) developed a

decision model to measure environmental practice of suppliers using a multiattribute utility

theory approach. Kainuma and Tawara (2006) proposed the multiple attribute utility theory

method for assessing a supply chain including re-use and recycling throughout the life cycle

of products and services. Using the tool of life-cycle assessment, Faruk et al. (2002) put

forward aspects to measure GSCM practices implementation, that is, material acquisition,

preproduction, production, use, distribution and disposal. Sarkis (2003) developed a strategic

decision framework for GSCM practices implementation to evaluate alternatives adopted by

companies that will affect their external relationships with suppliers and customers. Sheu et

al. (2005) developed a linear multi-objective programming model which optimized the

operations of both forward and reverse logistics in a given green supply chain. These models

and frameworks included and defined a variety of characteristics, attributes, and scales for

GSCM practices implementation, yet none attempted to rigorously validate these scales.

Empirically, Carter et al. (1998) developed and validated a scale to measure environmental

purchasing, and compared the activities between US and German purchasing managers.

They put forward six key factors related to green purchasing, including top management

support, middle management support, firm’s mission, department goals, training for

personnel to buy environmentally friendly input, and evaluation of purchasing management

on green purchasing. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they empirically demonstrated that

middle management support and department goals are related to green purchasing, while the

relationship between training for personnel and green purchasing was only supported in US

firms. Their measurement scale was thus limited to green purchasing and activities

surrounding its management.

Using case studies of five companies in the furniture industry, Walton et al. (1998)

identified several dimensions of change to increase the impact of purchasing on

environmental results. Included among these dimensions are materials used in product

5
design for the environment, product design process, supplier process improvement, supplier

evaluation and inbound logistics processes. They also identified the top ten environmental

suppliers’ evaluation criteria, including supplier’s ISO 14001 certification and second-tier

supplier (supplier’s supplier) environmental friendly practice evaluation. However, their

research was descriptive in nature with little empirical evidence for support to help confirm

their identified factors and measurement scales. By investigating purchasing managers in

Germany, the UK and the USA, Zsidisin and Hendrick (1998) identified four GSCM factors,

namely hazardous materials, investment recovery, product design and supply chain

relationships, and determined the existence of these four factors with an exploratory factor

analysis (EFA).

Even with the above research, broadly integrative and confirmed measures of GSCM

practices implementation have yet to be fully investigated. This research is predicated upon

and a direct outcome of our previous works related to GSCM practices implementation and

performance in China. Previously, using a convenience sample of 186 respondents, Zhu and

Sarkis (2004) investigated relationships between GSCM practices implementation and

performance with a focus on the moderating effects of quality and just-in-time (lean)

practices. Zhu et al. (2005), using a broader study with a random sample of Chinese

organizations with 314 responses, derived groupings of GSCM pressures, practice and

performance. Building on our previous studies and earlier exploratory research (Zhu and

Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2005), this study aims to examine the measurement model of GSCM

practices implementation focusing on its five underlying dimensions (factors) and a

measurement scale for it. These dimensions and the scale are represented in the form of

questionnaire items, for measuring the different facets of GSCM practices implementation,

enabling organizations to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in the course of

implementing these practices. The five underlying GSCM practices implementation factors

to be confirmed in our study include internal environmental management (IEM), green

6
purchasing (GP), cooperation with customers including environmental requirements (CC),

eco-design practices (ECO), and investment recovery (IR).

3 Methodology

Following Churchill’s (1979) paradigm for construct development and measurement, we

first conceptualize the construct of GSCM practices implementation and then operationalize

the construct by developing a multi-item five-point Likert measurement scale to evaluate the

different facets of GSCM practices implemented among Chinese manufacturers. To help

support scale generalization it is important to collect data from a broad variety of

organizational and contextual characteristics. Even though we focus on one country, the

diversity of organizations (ownership, size, industry, and level of development) within China

provides a robust contextual environment. China is a typical developing country with

increasing manufacturing, but evidence does exist that Chinese manufacturers have initiated

various GSCM practices implementation (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2005).

The measurement scale instrument in the form of a survey questionnaire (developed from

the various literature sources summarized in Section 2) was initially pilot-tested with

respondents from the Environmental Protection Bureau in two industrial zones, then refined

with feedback from the pilot test to improve the wording and seminal meanings of some

individual measurement items. Subsequently, the refined scale was administered to capture

GSCM practices implementation in a cross-sectional survey among Chinese manufacturers.

To evaluate the construct of GSCM practices implementation, confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) tests were performed in our study to examine the measurement properties of GSCM

practices implementation, followed by a comparison of the test results of two alternative

7
measurement models evaluating the GSCM practices implementation construct. The

methodology employed to guide the research process for this study is summarized in Figure

1. This methodology is further embellished in the following sections.

3.1 GSCM practices implementation and the Chinese manufacturing context

GSCM has become an increasingly important management approach for Chinese

manufacturers to help achieve cost and service advantages. Based on results of previous

exploratory research (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) we conceptualize GSCM practices

implementation as encompassing five different dimensions of practices including IEM, GP,

CC, ECO and IR.

IEM has been the most widely adopted set of GSCM practices by Chinese manufacturers

(Zhu et al., 2005). GP is one main aspect of GSCM practices implementation. In some cases

GP has been considered as the complete scope of GSCM practices implementation (Walton et

al. 1998) while in other studies GP is just an element of GSCM practices implementation

(Nagel, 2000). Compared to GP, CC has gained less attention. Researchers have identified

opportunities for suppliers to cooperate with their customers and even affect the design and

development of their environmental practices (BSR, 2001; Lai et al., 2005). External (to the

organization) GSCM practices implementation such as GP and CC have been only at the

consideration stage rather than on actual implementation by many Chinese manufacturers

(Zhu et al., 2005). Yet, the adoption of these external GSCM practices implementation is

growing in the Chinese manufacturing context. ECO is a critical factor governing the

environmental impacts of a manufactured product since materials and processes are selected

8
at the design stage (Lewis and Gretsakis, 2001). ECO has become an emerging

environmental practice in China but has significant internal and external influence on GSCM

practices implementation (Zhu and Geng, 2001). Both US and European enterprises have

considered IR as a critical aspect for GSCM practices implementation (Zsidisin and

Hendrick, 1998). In China, IR has received much less attention than in developed countries

such as the U.S. and Germany due to the inadequacy of Chinese waste management policies

and lack of recycling systems (TEDA, 2003). This complex environmental situation with

variations in the practices and their level of adoption sets the context for this study to

examine the measurement of GSCM practices implementation and a scale for evaluating the

different facets of the implementation of its practices.

3.2 Measurement development

To develop a measurement scale for the implementation of GSCM practices, we developed

a list of 21 measurement items on GSCM practices implementation that are generally deemed

important for implementation by manufacturers (see details in Appendix A). The

measurement items were developed on the basis of inputs by industrial experts and the

literature (Zsidisin and Hendrick, 1998; Walton et al., 1998; Carter et al., 2000), as discussed

earlier. In our previous work (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004), we refined these 21 measurement items

with comments from academics and practitioners in environmental studies and supply chain

management. This procedure ensured content and face validity of the measurement items.

All the measurement items are organized into a survey questionnaire administered to

manufacturers in the Chinese mainland. The target respondents of our survey were requested

9
to indicate, using a five-point Likert scale (1=not considering it, 2=planning to consider it,

3=considering it currently, 4=initiating implementation, 5= implementing successfully), the

extent to which they perceived their companies implementing each of the dimensions of

GSCM practices, underpinned by the 21 individual questionnaire items for measurement.

3.3 Data collection

To control the contextual differences among our target survey respondents, we focused on

two types of manufacturers, that is, traditional heavy polluters and manufacturers exporting

products or suppliers of foreign manufacturers in China. Due to the difficulties in obtaining

data as well as the likelihood of our survey respondents to misunderstand the survey items,

we used convenience sampling as the first step. Through training workshops in the School of

Management at Dalian University of Technology, we interviewed all of our target

respondents, explaining the purpose of our study. We collected their completed questionnaire

several days later. In this step, we received 213 valid and usable questionnaires for data

analysis.

To avoid potential bias from convenience sampling we also completed a random mailing to

manufacturers with follow-up telephone calls in the Dalian metropolitan area. The targeted

companies were identified from the list of Dalian Manufacturers with a focus on the two

major groupings of manufacturers mentioned above. Out of a total of 1,000 survey

questionnaires mailed, a total of 128 usable responses from manufacturing enterprises were

received.

There are advantages of using both convenience and random surveys in data collection.

First, the convenience samples are representative of heavy Chinese manufacturing polluters.

By collecting data from them, it can help to assure the validity of sample selection in this

study. Second, the respondents in our convenience samples are “key informants” on the

10
environmental management practices that are being planned or implemented in their

companies. These groups of respondents are knowledgeable on the topic of GSCM practices

implementation under investigation and help to ensure the quality of the data collected in this

study. Third, the random survey contributed to triangulate the quality of the responses in our

convenient samples and make it more generalizable in the wider Chinese manufacturing

context. As the study samples collected in the three inter-related stages are key

manufacturing polluters in China, they are operating under similar industrial environments

and face similar pressures for embracing such environmental practices as GSCM to improve

their operations. It is therefore reasonable to combine the samples collected from the three

stages for data analysis.

Further, we completed a Chi-square test to compare organizational characteristics of the

two groups of respondent manufacturers, i.e., the convenience samples including respondents

from workshops and the mail survey samples. The test results indicate that no difference, at a

5% level of significance, exists between the two groups on ownership and firm size.

In sum, a total of 341 valid and usable manufacturer responses were received for data

analysis. Our survey respondents are mainly from four industries, that is, automobile (109,

32.0%), power generating (70, 20.5%), chemical/petroleum (50, 14.7%), and electrical &

electronic (39, 11.4%). The remaining 73 respondents (21.4%) are from textile, steel, food

processing, pharmaceutical, etc. Organizational sizes range from under 500 to over 8,000

employees with the majority of manufacturers falling into the relatively large company

classification of between 500 and 8,000 employees. The distribution can be described as 29

manufacturers (8.5%) with over 8,000 employees, 65 manufacturers (19.1%) with employees

from 3,000 to 8,000, 104 manufacturers (30.5%) with employees from 1,000 to 3,000, 82

manufacturers (24.0%) with employees from 500 to 1,000, and 61 manufacturers (17.9%)

with employees below 500.

11
2 Results

4.1 Validity and reliability testing

We first tested the measurement properties of the GSCM practices implementation

construct using reliability and item-to-total correlation analyses, followed by confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) (c.f. Lai et al., 2002). CFA was used to assess how well the observed

variables, i.e., measurement items, reflect unobserved or latent variables in the hypothesized

structure. A strong a priori basis from our previous research warrants the use of CFA instead

of EFA.

The reliability test and item-to-total correlation analysis results provided in Table 1 suggest

a reasonable fit of the latent factors to the data collected. Cronbach alpha values for all the

five factors of GSCM practices implementation are greater than 0.83 and the item loadings on

the factors are all acceptable, i.e., >0.48.

A series of pairwise CFAs were conducted to assess the discriminant validity of the factors

using χ2 difference tests (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This step of the analysis was

conducted by forcing measurement items of each pair of factors into a single underlying

factor. If there is a significant deterioration of model fit relative to a two-factor model, then

this result implies the presence of discriminant validity between the pair of factors (Bagozzi

and Phillips, 1982). This test was performed on all possible pairs of the factors. Table 2

reports the results of the 10 pairwise tests of the factors. Discriminant validity is achieved for

all cases. The significant results of the χ2 difference tests attest to the presence of

discriminant validity between any two factors (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

Before examining the measurement models of the GSCM practices implementation

12
construct, we tested the criterion validity of the five factors of GSCM with three outcome

variables, i.e., environmental performance (EP), economic performance (ECP), and

operational performance (OP). The items measuring these three perceived performance

variables are listed in Appendix B. We evaluated the criterion validity of the GSCM practices

implementation construct by computing the correlations of its five underlying factors, i.e.,

IEM, GP, CC, ECO, and IR with these three performance measures, i.e., EP, ECP, and OP.

The correlations of the five GSCM factors with the three performance measures are all

significant at p < 0.05 level, with the largest coefficient between IEM and EP (r = 0.624) and

the lowest coefficient between CC and OP (r = 0.293). The test results provide evidence for

the criterion validity of the GSCM practices implementation construct.

4.2 Testing first-order and second-order models

In the previous discussion, IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR are specified as a priori factors of

GSCM practices implementation. In the first-order model, IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR are

correlated measurement factors for GSCM practices implementation. Alternatively, GSCM

practices implementation may be operationalized as a second-order model, where the five

factors are governed by a higher order factor, i.e., GSCM practices implementation. The

results of the model estimation are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

The first-order model for testing the GSCM construct (see Figure 2) implies that IEM, GP,

CC, ECO and IR are correlated but not governed by a common latent factor. Although the χ2

statistic is significant (χ2 =616.928; df = 179; p<0.001), other fit indices suggest an

acceptable fit for the first-order model. The GFI is 0.83. The CFI is above 0.90, while the

13
NFI is close to 0.90. Furthermore, the RMR is 0.07, which also suggests an acceptable fit of

the model to the data. In sum, the test results acceptably support that the first-order model for

the GSCM practices implementation construct.

The test of the second-order model, illustrated in Figure 3, implies that a higher order

latent factor, i.e., the overall trait of GSCM practices implementation, governs the

correlations among IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR. The second-order model produces a χ2

statistic of 49.029 at 5 degrees of freedom with CFI and NFI over the 0.90 benchmark and the

RMR value at 0.05. The second-order loadings on GSCM practices implementation are

0.716 for IEM, 0.779 for GP, 0.649 for CC, 0.761 for ECO, and 0.470 for IR.

We measured the efficacy of the two models by comparing the χ2 statistics of the first order

model and the second-order model (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). The various goodness-of-fit

indices indicate second-order model fit better than the first-order model with higher GFI, CFI

and NFI over the benchmark of 0.90, and with lower RMR equal to the benchmark of 0.05.

An examination of the second-order model of the GSCM construct reveals that all the lambda

coefficient estimates of IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR, which describe the relationships or paths

of the five factors on the higher order construct of GSCM practices implementation, are

significant. The paths between GSCM practices implementation and its underlying

dimensions are 0.716 for IEM, 0.799 for GP, 0.649 for CC, 0.761 for ECO, and 0.470 for IR.

Therefore, GSCM practices implementation can be acceptably conceptualized as a second

order multidimensional construct consisting of IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR.

4 Discussion

14
 In this study, a construct for GSCM practices implementation, utilizing a survey instrument

administered to Chinese manufacturers, is examined and a measurement scale for evaluating

the different facets of GSCM practices implementation is tested for its validity and reliability.

Utilizing exploratory results from our previous study (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) the

measurement items in the scale for evaluating GSCM practices implementation are classified

into five a priori dimensions: IEM, GP, CC, ECO and IR. The construct of GSCM practices

implementation appears to adequately fit the data collected. The validity and reliability of the

scale for evaluating GSCM practices implementation are established with the systematic and

scientific procedures used in this study.

In model testing, both the first- and second-order proposed models provide acceptable fit

while the second-order model statistically fits better. In the first-order model, IEM, GP, CC,

ECO and IR are positively highly correlated measurement factors for GSCM practices

implementation. The second-order model’s estimated parameters are all significant, and the

GFI indicates that the model fits the data adequately. The implication of these results is that

manufacturers believe that GSCM practices implementation should be multifaceted, and not

limited to specific practices such as GP. The existence of the second-order model suggests

that GSCM practices implementation should be well rounded, to at least include IEM, GP,

CC, ECO and IR factors. For research investigations, these multiple factors and their

measurement items should be utilized to arrive at a more complete picture of organizational

GSCM practices implementation. Practically, manufacturers should strive to improve on

multiple dimensions of GSCM practices implementation, to arrive at the full realization of

benefits which may include improved environmental image and thus and possibly economic

15
benefits. Thus, performance measurement systems, continuous improvement, and

benchmarking organizational practices should seek to incorporate as many of these measures

as possible to provide the organization with a good overview of how they and their supply

chain is ecologically progressing.

The multidimensional conceptualizations provide insights into the construct of GSCM

practices implementation and its relationships with the underlying factors. First, the items

and the factors of the construct provide direct and actionable information on GSCM practices

implementation. Second, conceptualization of the construct at higher levels, e.g., first- and

second-order levels, provide managers with an opportunity to observe GSCM practices

implementation at a higher level of abstraction beyond the individual items and factor tiers.

At the individual item and factor levels, managers might consider the GSCM practices

implementation for each individual item and factor and may identify areas in need of specific

attention. For instance, if a manufacturer underperforms in the GP item “Second-tier supplier

environmentally friendly practice evaluation”, this would mean a need for improvement

actions for that particular item. Yet, we also see interrelationships do occur and adoption of

certain second level practices will relate to other practices. This systemic set of

interrelationships should not go unnoticed by either practitioners or theorists, who should be

mindful that environmental practices are not incremental nor are they compartmental.

Conversely, an analysis of the construct for GSCM practices implementation at a higher

level of abstraction offers several potentially critical advantages. It may reveal patterns not

readily revealed by studying individual items. The items and factors groupings validated in

this study provide managers with insights in identifying areas for improvement or for

16
formulating strategic initiatives. Higher level analyses of GSCM practices implementation

helps to reveal the necessity for overall improvement actions, where balancing initiatives may

be worthwhile from a global GSCM perspective. For example, one area (e.g. GP) may have

good practices, and the policy would be to maintain that level of implementation whereas in

another area (e.g. IEM), additional practices may wish to be implemented.

5 Conclusions and future research

This study presents practitioners with a 21-item measurement scale for evaluating the

different facets of their GSCM practices implementation. The empirical results suggest that

all 21 measurement items are critical attributes of the five underlying factors of GSCM

practices implementation. Manufacturers wishing to improve their GSCM practices need to

constantly monitor their implementation. The measurement scale validated in this paper can

be used as a self-diagnostic tool to identify areas where specific improvements are needed

and pinpoint aspects of the manufacturer’s GSCM practices that require additional

implementation.

This study has several limitations. First, due to the difficulties of random surveys in

China, our data were acquired from convenience sampling followed by random surveys. This

mixed model surveying methodology, even though it was tested for bias, still limits the purity

of the data. Second, we measure the implementation of GSCM practices rather than the

resulting performance outcomes. Further research examining the performance implications of

GSCM implementation and the relative importance of the five individual GSCM factors to

organizational success would also be valuable. Thirdly, a more comprehensive consideration

17
of other GSCM related practice scales could be incorporated. As we have stated the GSCM

practice factors in our study are a starting point and future works should at minimum include

these factors. Factors such as cooperation with members of reverse logistics channels

(Gonzalez-Torre, et al., 2004; Fleischmann et al., 2000; Stock, 1998), end-customers’

willingness of returning used product for recycling, may also be important; and should be

considered in future GSCM construct evaluations.

There exists a wide scope for future research on the instrumentation issues of GSCM

practices implementation. The validation of this scale is an ongoing process and validity is

established only over a series of studies that further refine and test the measurement items

across manufacturers and countries (Devellis, 1991). Development of valid and reliable

measurement items will only be accomplished through the use and refinement of the

measurement scale in subsequent studies. These measurements can evolve and progress into

many new areas supporting the construction and confirmation of theories.

Future research can also focus on measurement models for GSCM performance

improvement after GSCM practices implementation has further matured. Comparisons of

GSCM practices implementation among different countries can be another research direction,

to help determine if the construct is culturally robust (i.e. have a consistent fit for whatever

country this measurement scale is measuring).

References

Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing, 1988, Structural equation modeling practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin 103 (1), 411-423.
Bagozzi, R.P. and L.W. Phillips, 1982, Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic
construal, Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (September), 459-489.
BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), 2001, Supplier’s Perspectives on Greening the Supply Chain. A
report prepared by BSR Education Fund, San Francisco, CA 94105-3506.

18
http://www.getf.org/file/toolmanager/O16F15429.pdf.
Carter, C.R., L.M. Ellram and L.M. Kathryn, 1998, Environmental purchasing: benchmarking our German
counterparts, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34(4), 28-38.
Carter, C.R., R. Kale and C.M. Grimn, 2000, Environmental purchasing and firm performance: An
empirical investigation, Transportation Research Part E 36, 219-288.
Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979, A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of
Marketing Research 16(1), 64-73.
Devellis, R.F., 2003, Scale Development, Theory and Applications, 2 nd Edition, (Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA).
DeVellis, D.E., 1991, Scale development: Theory and application. (Newbury Park, Sage Publications,
California).
Dunning, J.H., 1993, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Faruk A.C., R.C. Lamming, P.D. Cousins and F.E. Bowen, 2002, Analyzing, mapping, and managing
environmental impacts along the supply chain, Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(2), 13-36.
Fleischmann, H. R. M, Krikke, R. Dekker, S.D.P. Flapper, 2000, A characterization of logistics networks
for product recovery, Omega 28, 653-666.
Gonzalez-Torre, P.L., B. Adenso-Diaz and H. Artiba, 2004, Environmental and reverse logistics policies in
European bottling and packaging firms, International Journal of Production Economics 88(1), 95-104.
Handfield, R., S. Walton and R. Sroufe, 2002, Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A
study of the application of the analytical hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research 141,
70-87.
Kainumaa, Y. and N. Tawarab, 2006, A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply
chain management, International Journal of Production Economics 101(1), 99-108.
Lai, K. H., T. C. E. Cheng, and A. C. L. Yeung, 2005, Relationship stability and supplier commitment to
quality, International Journal of Production Economics 96 (3), 397-410.
Lai, K. H., E.W.T. Ngai and T.C.E. Cheng, 2002, Measures for evaluating supply chain performance,
Transportation Research Part E 38, 439-456.
Lai, K. H., E. W. T. Ngai and T. C. E. Cheng, 2004, An empirical study of supply chain performance in
transport logistics, International Journal of Production Economics 87 (3), 321-331.
Lewis, H. and J. Gretsakis, 2001, Design + Environment: a Global Guide to Designing Greener Goods
(Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK).
Malhotra, M. and V. Grover, 1998, An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory,
Journal of Operations Management 16(4), 407-425.
Marsh, H.W. and D. Hocevar, 1985, Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-
concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups, Psychological Bulletin
97(3), 562-582.
Nagel, M.H., 2000, Environmental supply-chain management versus green purchasing in the scope of a
business and leadership perspective, Proceeding of the 2000 IEEE International Symposium, 8-10 May
2000, 219-224.
Sarkis J., 2003, A strategic decision making framework for green supply chain management, Journal of
Cleaner Production 11(4), 397-409.
Sheu, J.-B., Y.H. Chou and J.J Hu, 2005, An integrated logistics operational model for green supply chain
management, Transportation Research Part E 41(4), 287-313.
Stock, J.R. (Ed.), 1998, Development and Implementation of Reverse Logistics Programs (Council of

19
Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL).
TEDA (Tianjing Economic and Technological Development Area), 2003, A Report on Integrated Solid
Waste Management in Tianjin Economic and Development Area, February 2003, (in Chinese).
van Hock, R.I. and Erasmus, 2000, From reversed logistics to green supply chains, Logistics Solutions
Issue 2, 28-33.
Walton, S.V., R.B. Handfield and S.T. Melnyk, 1998, The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into
environmental management process, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
Spring, 2-11.
Zhu, Q. and Y. Geng, 2001, Integrating environmental issues into supplier selection and management: A
study of Large and Medium-sized State-owned Enterprises in China, Greener Management International ,
Issue 35 Autumn, 27-40.
Zhu, Q. and J. Sarkis, 2004, Relationships between operational practices and performance among early
adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises, Journal of
Operations Management 22(3), 265-289.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis and Y. Geng, 2005, Green supply chain management in China: Drivers, practices and
performance, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 25(4), 449-468.
Zsidisin, G.A. and T.E. Hendrick, 1998, Purchasing’s involvement in environmental issues: A multi-
country perspective, Industrial Management & Data Systems 7, 313-320.

20
 Appendix A: List of Measurement Items for GSCM practices implementation

Factors Measurement items

Internal environmental 1.Commitment of GSCM from senior managers (IEM1)
management (IEM) 2.Support for GSCM from mid-level managers (IEM2)
3.Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements (IEM3)
4.Total quality environmental management (IEM4)
5.Environmental compliance and auditing programs (IEM5)
6.ISO 14001 certification (IEM6)
7.Environmental Management Systems exist (IEM7)
Green purchasing 8.Eco-labeling of Products (GP1)
9.Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives (GP2)
10.Environmental audit for suppliers’ internal management (GP3)
11.Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification (GP4)
12.Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice evaluation
(GP5)
Cooperation with customers 13.Cooperation with customers for eco-design (CC1)
14.Cooperation with customers for cleaner production (CC2)
15.Cooperation with customers for green packaging (CC3)
Eco-design 16.Design of products for reduced consumption of material/energy
(ECO1)
17.Design of products for reuse, recycle, recovery of material, component
parts (ECO2)
18.Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous products
and/or their manufacturing process (ECO3)
Investment recovery 19.Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials (IR1)
20.Sale of scrap and used materials (IR2)
21.Sale of excess capital equipment (IR3)
A five-point scale: 1=not considering it, 2=planning to consider it, 3=considering it currently, 4=initiating
implementation, 5= implementing successfully

Appendix B: List of Measurement Items for performance outcomes

Factors Measurement items
Environmental performance 1. reduction of air emission (EP1)
(EP) 2. reduction of waste water (EP2)
3. reduction of solid wastes (EP3)
4. decrease of consumption for hazardous/ harmful/ toxic materials (EP4)
5. decrease of frequency for environmental accidents (EP5)
6. improvement of an enterprise’s environmental situation (EP6)
Economic performance (ECP) 1. decrease of cost for materials purchasing (ECP1)
2. decrease of cost for energy consumption (ECP2)
3. decrease of fee for waste treatment (ECP3)
4. decrease of fee for waste discharge (ECP4)
5. decrease of fine for environmental accidents (ECP5)
Operational performance (OP) 1. increase amount of goods delivered on time (OP1)
2. decrease inventory levels (OP2)
3. decrease scrap rate (OP3)
4. promote products’ quality (OP4)
5. increase product line (OP5)
6. improve capacity utilization (OP6)
A five point scale: 1=not at all, 2=a little bit, 3= to some degree, 4=relatively significant and
5=significant

Table 1 Summary of measurement results for GSCM practices implementation

21
Factors Number of Mean S.D. Alpha Range of item-to-total
items correlations
Internal environmental management 3.58 0.98 0.94 0.48-0.83
(IEM)
7
Green purchasing (GP) 5 2.98 1.05 0.87 0.49-0.71
Cooperation with customers including 3 3.54 1.02 0.88 0.69-0.73
environmental requirements (CC)
Eco-design (ECO) 3 2.89 1.11 0.86 0.65-0.70
Investment recovery (IR) 3 3.41 1.02 0.83 0.56-0.69

Table 2: Discriminant validity checks: χ2 differences

Factors 1 2 3 4
1. IEM
2 GP 400.5
3. CC 347.7 137.6
4. ECO 273.7 293.7 299.0
5. IR 109.8 199.6 243.3 228.7
2
Note: χ difference between the separate latent factors measurement model and a one latent factor
measurement model (all tests = 1df); χ2 > 11, p < 0.001.

22
Development of concepts on GSCM practices implementation
Review related literature
Understand GSCM practices implementation generally and obtain practical
input from Chinese practitioners
Develop two potential factor models

Development of measurement items for evaluating GSCM practices

implementation

Select measurement items for evaluating GSCM practices implementation

Design survey questionnaire for the measurement items
Interview academics and practitioners among Chinese manufacturers

Data collection
Pilot test
Convenience sampling
Random surveys

Model testing
Validity and reliability tests of factors
CFA tests for measurement models
Comparison of measurement models

Figure 1 Research Process

23
0.743 IEM1
0.869
0.755 IEM2
0.8311
0.691 IEM 3 0
0.786 IEM4
0.887 IEM
0.819
0.671 IEM5
0.697
0.485 IEM6
0.800
0.639 IEM7
0.636

0.729
0.531 GP1
0.789
0.623 GP 2 0.567
0.605 GP 3
0.7781 GP
0
0.687 0.429
0.472 GP 4
0.791
0.625 GP 5 0.663
0.409
0.787

0.798
0.636 CC1
0.767 CC
0.588 CC2 0.5732
0.882
0.777 CC3
0.561
0.822
0.676 ECO1
0.470
0.746 ECO2
0.864 ECO
0.8251
0.681 ECO3 0
0.478
0.816
0.665 IR1

0.685 IR2
0.828 IR
0.689
0.474 IR3

Chi Square (179)=616.928 (P<0.001)

GFI= 0.83 RMR=0.07
CFI=0.91 NFI=0.88

Figure 2 First-order factor measurement model for GSCM practices implementation

24
 0.862
0.743 IEM1
0.869
0.755 IEM2
0.831
0.691 IEM 10
3 0.887 IEM 0.716
0.786 IEM4
0.819
0.671 IEM5
0.697
0.485 IEM6
0.800
0.639 IEM7

0.729
0.531 GP1
0.789
0.623 GP 2
0.779
0.605 GP 3
0.778 GP
10
0.687
0.472 GP 4
0.791
0.625 GP 5
GSC
M
0.798
0.636 CC1
0.649
0.588 CC2
0.767 CC
0.882
0.777 CC3

0.822
0.676 ECO1

0.746 ECO2
0.864 ECO 0.761

0.825
0.681 ECO3 10

0.816
0.665 IR1
0.828 IR 0.470
0.685 IR2
0.689
0.474 IR3

Chi Square (5)=49.03 (P<0.001)

GFI=0.95 RMR=0.05
CFI=0.92 NFI=0.91

Figure 3 Second-order factor measurement model for GSCM practices implementation

25