Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Green or lean? A supply chain approach to sustainable performance

*
Baofeng Huo a, Minhao Gu a, Zhiqiang Wang b
a
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on a natural resource-based view, this study investigates how lean and green processes in
Received 3 June 2018 manufacturer-customer (customer side) and manufacturer-supplier interfaces (supply side) in the supply
Received in revised form chain influence sustainability in environmental, social, and economic performance. Data from 171
9 January 2019
manufacturers are used to test the proposed relationships. The results show that green and lean pro-
Accepted 13 January 2019
Available online 16 January 2019
cesses play different roles in achieving sustainable performance. On the customer side, lean processes are
the main driver of higher sustainable performance. The results show that lean processes directly improve
social, environmental, and economic performance, while green processes improve only environmental
Keywords:
Sustainable performance
performance. On the supplier side, green processes play a prominent role in reaching higher sustainable
Green process performance as they directly improve social and economic performance, while lean processes improve
Lean process only economic performance. This study contributes to the supply chain management and sustainability
Supply chain management literature and has managerial implications for firms to more effectively improve sustainable
performance.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integration of environmental considerations into the supply chain

Both the government and the public have paid increasing
attention to the serious environmental pollution that negatively
influences economic growth, the global climate, and human health
(Huang et al., 2014). Firms are facing regulatory and social pressures
to reduce environmental harms. They are making increasing in-
vestments in pollution control and prevention, product steward-
ship, and sustainable development. However, these practices may
sacrifice efficiency and increase operational cost (Zhu et al., 2011).
The simultaneous adoption of both lean and green approaches
stimulates process innovation (Fercoq et al., 2016), which helps
companies achieve sustainable performance with minimum
resource inputs and maximum efficiency (Piercy and Rich, 2015;
Verrier et al., 2014). In the sustainability literature, the combination
of green supply chain management (GSCM) and lean supply chain
management (LSCM) are suggested as two approaches to achieve
economic return with lower environmental harm and greater social
welfare (e.g., Dües et al., 2013; Garza-Reyes, 2015b). Building on the
paradigm of supply chain management, GSCM focused on the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: baofeng@tju.edu.cn (B. Huo), minhaogu@zju.edu.cn (M. Gu),
bmzqwang@scut.edu.cn (Z. Wang).
process, while LSCM emphasized efficient resource utilization and
waste reduction along the supply chain.
The natural resource-based view (NRBV) argues that pollution
prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development are
three key strategic capabilities for environmental, economic, and
social performance (Hart, 1995). Pollution prevention seeks to
prevent waste and emissions by reducing inputs and liability costs
and simplifying the process (Hart and Dowell, 2011). Firms can
obtain lower cost and increased efficiency through pollution pre-
vention practices. Product stewardship integrates the “voice of the
environment” in the product lifecycle and the entire value chain,
from product design to purchasing and the distribution process
(Hart and Dowell, 2011). Sustainable development seeks to mini-
mize environmental damage and involves economic, environ-
mental, and social concerns for the future (Hart and Dowell, 2011).
Based on the NRBV, GSCM and LSCM facilitate product stewardship
and pollution prevention, respectively, through their different un-
derlying mechanisms (Hart and Dowell, 2011). GSCM builds the
product stewardship capability by integrating stakeholders in
supply chain management and embedding environmental con-
cerns throughout the product lifecycle, which directly improves
environmental performance and obtains legitimacy and increases
economic performance in the long run (Bowen et al., 2001). LSCM
builds the pollution prevention capability by removing waste and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.141
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
non-value-added activities, as well as continuous improvement
throughout the supply chain, which decreases operational cost and
minimizes environmental influence (King and Lenox, 2002).
The existing literature has widely discussed the roles of GSCM
and LSCM in achieving sustainable performance (Garza-Reyes,
2015b; Mollenkopf et al., 2010). However, there are still several
research gaps that need further investigation. First, most studies
separately explored how GSCM or LSCM alone improve economic,
environmental, and social performance (Lee et al., 2015; Vachon
and Klassen, 2008). GSCM integrates environmental protection
techniques in the product lifecycle, while LSCM enhances efficiency
over the whole material conversion process (e.g., King and Lenox,
2001; Sagnak and Kazancoglu, 2016). On the one hand, GSCM and
LSCM may complement each other on sustainable performance
(Dües et al., 2013; Garza-Reyes, 2015b). GSCM aims to reduce
emissions, while LSCM aims to remove waste (Martínez-Jurado and
Moyano-Fuentes, 2014; Yang et al., 2011). On the other hand, GSCM
and LSCM are contradictory (Mollenkopf et al., 2010). GSCM re-
quires specific investments in environmentally responsible prac-
tices, which are time-consuming and may hurt cost efficiencies
(Adebanjo et al., 2016). In contrast, LSCM may lead to higher
emissions and energy consumptions with small-batch production
and delivery (Memari et al., 2016). However, these studies failed to
compare the two approaches in one study. Therefore, it is difficult
to understand the similarities and differences between GSCM and
LSCM (Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014; Wiengarten
et al., 2013).
Second, some studies have suggested that GSCM and LSCM are
interconnected in pursuing sustainable performance. Appendix A
summarizes previous studies on how GSCM and LSCM influence
different dimensions of performance. The two approaches improve
operational, environmental, social, and economic performance
independently or jointly. However, these studies considered the
supply chain as a whole concept and failed to examine whether
green and lean in supply and customer sides have different impacts
on sustainable performance. It is obvious that these two sides play
different roles in achieving supply chain success (Huo, 2012). For
example, a close relationship between a manufacturer and a
customer improves demand information accuracy and customer
responsiveness and reduces the manufacturer's production plan-
ning time and inventory obsolescence. In contrast, a close part-
nership between a manufacturer and a supplier facilitates the
material delivery production process, which in turn helps manu-
facturers produce products on time (Flynn et al., 2010; Huo et al.,
2015). In addition, a supply chain is a multi-level system that
contains multiple products, multiple suppliers, manufacturers,
wholesalers and retailers (Shekarabia et al., 2018). These echelons
interact with one another to minimize the total cost and energy
consumption of the chain with resource constraints (Gharaei and
Pasandideh, 2016, 2017a). In the mathematical model proposed
by Gharaei et al. (2019), it is suggested that under penalty, green,
and quality control requirements, as well as a vendor-managed
inventory with consignment stock agreement system, it is impor-
tant to consider both supplier's and buyer's cost so that total cost in
an integrated supply chain can be reduced. Therefore, there is a
need to investigate how multi-level supply chains, especially
external activities associated with suppliers and customers, influ-
ence sustainability regarding environmental, social, and economic
performance.
Both lean and green approaches emphasize supplier and
customer involvement (Chen et al., 2017). Specifically, GSCM re-
quires environmental collaboration so that final products, as well as
raw materials, are eco-friendly, while LSCM requires the involve-
ment of partners to make continuous improvements throughout
the supply chain (e.g., Campos and Vazquez-Brust, 2016; Garza-
153
Reyes, 2015b). In pursuing sustainable performance, the customer
side interacts with the manufacturer-customer interface and sup-
plier side, which means that the manufacturer-supplier interface
may vary in motivations, actions, and outcomes. Therefore, we can
better understand this phenomenon by investigating green and
lean from the two interfaces, with the aim of determining how
these two approaches on the supplier and customer sides differ-
ently affect sustainable performance.
Therefore, this study addresses mainly the following two
research questions to fill these gaps. RQ1: How do GSCM and LSCM
influence sustainable performance regarding economic, environ-
mental, and social performance simultaneously? RQ2: How do the two
approaches to supply and customer sides play different roles?
This study applies NRBV to empirically investigate how GSCM
and LSCM influence sustainable performance in an integrated
framework, and it gains insights in the following areas. First, it
examines process innovation by simultaneously incorporating lean
and green approaches to address environmental and social re-
quirements in the most cost-efficient way. This combination can
assist firms in inventing new processes and methods that lead to
enhanced capabilities compared to extant competitors. Second, this
study contributes to the SCM literature and provides guidelines for
firms that are pursuing sustainable performance by investigating
the different roles of GSCM and LSCM in achieving economic,
environmental, and social performance. Third, this study makes
contributions to the literature and practice by comparing the dif-
ferences between the customer side and the supplier side when
implementing the two approaches simultaneously.
The remainder of the study is organized as follows. First, this
study presents the theoretical background and develops the
research hypotheses. Then, it introduces the research methodology
and the results of analyses. Finally, it discusses the findings, major
conclusions, limitations, and future research directions.
2. Theoretical foundations and research hypotheses
2.1. Sustainable performance
Sustainable performance represents the long-lasting competi-
tive advantage in economic returns that firms obtain by considering
the impact on natural environment and human society and by not
sacrificing stakeholder needs (Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Paulraj,
2011). The triple bottom line (TBL), which simultaneously in-
tegrates economic, environmental, and social performance, is
widely applied to operationalize sustainable performance
(Elkington, 1998; Margolis and Walsh, 2003). Economic perfor-
mance refers to productivity and financial returns on assets. When
firms invest resources more efficiently than their competitors, they
gain an above-average return. Financial indicators, such as growth
in return on assets (ROA), return on investments (ROI), market
share, and profit, are used to measure economic performance
(Flynn et al., 2010). The environmental dimension of the TBL eval-
uates the impact of business activities on natural systems. Previous
studies have increasingly treated environmental performance as a
strategic issue, which is measured in terms of the reduction in
energy consumption, hazardous materials usage, and waste
discharge (Glavas and Mish, 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Social
performance evaluates how firms contribute to the public and to
society beyond economic interests (Carroll, 1999; Dahlsrud, 2008).
It shows corporate social responsibility to multiple stakeholders,
such as employees and communities, in addition to the share-
holders (Turban and Greening, 1997). Following Chen and Delmas
(2011) and Paulraj (2011), social performance in this study com-
prises mainly the benefits to the community and to employees,
such as maximizing their welfare and improving their health and
154 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
safety.
2.2. GSCM and LSCM
Multi-level supply chain management, which consists of mul-
tiple components and stochastic constraints, is crucial for mini-
mizing cost and achieving sustainable performance (Pasandideh
et al., 2015). It is important to involve multiple echelons, espe-
cially suppliers and customers, so that different activities such as
lean and green processes can be implemented with less cost and
resource consumption (Gharaei and Pasandideh, 2017b; Gharaei
et al., 2017). In addition, stakeholders with conflicting objectives
in the multi-level supply chain can obtain the maximum benefits by
integrating different echelons, such as suppliers and customers, in
sustainable activities (Gharaei et al., 2018). Gharaei et al. (2019) also
suggested that in an integrated supply chain, it is important to
considering both buyer's and supplier's total cost under penalty,
green, and quality control policies and a vendor-managed in-
ventory with consignment stock agreement.
GSCM is defined as the integration of environmental concerns
into inter-organizational practices (Sarkis et al., 2011). According to
Lam et al. (2015), GSCM exposes “the applications of the most
important sustainable development issues. It demonstrates how
green technologies and practices can be implemented and, in line
with this, the motivation of saving money and increasing effi-
ciency”. GSCM is also a multidimensional construct that encom-
passes green purchasing and supply (Günther and Scheibe, 2006;
Green et al., 2012a), green product design (Srivastava, 2007),
reverse logistics (Sarkis et al., 2011), and green collaboration with
customers (Hervani et al., 2005). Zhu and Sarkis (2004) classified
these sub-dimensions into internal and external green manage-
ment. Internal green management focuses on internal environ-
mental commitment and support, while external green
management requires collaboration with suppliers and customers
so that the entire supply chain can be greened (De Giovanni, 2012;
Zhu et al., 2013). Zhu et al. (2012) highlighted the importance of
external green management when firms implement green prac-
tices. They found that the mediation of successful external green
management adoption can facilitate maximum sustainable
performance.
It is accepted that LSCM is a combination of synergetic practices,
including pull production systems, just-in-time (JIT), total quality
management (TQM), total preventive maintenance (TPM), and
human resource management (HRM) (Longoni and Cagliano,
2015a; Shah and Ward, 2003). It is process oriented and therefore
focuses on enhancing efficiency by eliminating more generalized
waste (e.g., waiting, overprocessing, overproduction, inventory,
correction, and defects) from purchasing to final delivery (e.g., King
and Lenox, 2001; Qi et al., 2009). Similarly, Christopher and Towill
(2000) and Naylor et al. (1999) defined LSCM as a value stream to
eliminate all waste, including time, and to enable a degree of
scheduling. Material suppliers, production facilities, distribution
services and customers should be linked together in the value
stream via a feed-forward flow of materials and feedback flow of
information. Additionally, Rothenberg et al. (2001) argued that
LSCM emphasizes the participation of supply chain partners in
continuous improvement practices so that efficiency can be
improved with less cost and time.
2.3. GSCM and LSCM approaches based on the NRBV
This study applies the NRBV as the theoretical foundation to
investigate how green and lean processes improve sustainable
performance. According to the RBV, valuable, rare, inimitable, and
non-substitutable resources lead to competitive advantage (Barney,
1991). The generalized concept of resources includes the organi-
zational process, knowledge, capabilities, and all other assets that
improve efficiency and effectiveness (e.g., Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt,
1984). Hart (1995) extended the RBV by including natural re-
sources. He developed the NRBV and suggested that approaches
such as pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable
development can lead to sustainable competitive advantages.
GSCM and LSCM can be interpreted as specific resources and
capabilities embedded within suppliers and customers
(Wiengarten et al., 2013). Specifically, GSCM represents product
stewardship capability. Firms that implement GSCM with their
supply chain partners address stakeholders’ requirements and
consider environmental protection issues in daily operations
through the product life cycle. They can obtain social legitimacy and
develop inimitable and complex resources and capabilities, which
lead to an improvement in scales of sustainable performance
(Sarkis et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2012). On the other hand, LSCM rep-
resents pollution prevention capability. Firms that implement
LSCM with their supply chain partners can minimize emissions and
waste and remove non-value added activities by continuous pro-
cess improvement. They can improve sustainable performance
with shorter lead times, lower costs, and fewer environmental in-
fluences (Prajogo et al., 2016; Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013).
2.4. Sustainable performance through green SC processes
This study focuses on the particular set of GSCM processes,
which are termed “external green processes”. It innovatively
modifies existing processes with supply chain partners by consid-
ering environmental protection issues (Gavronski et al., 2011). An
external green process requires both supplier and customer
participation with their environmental compliance during all
stages of the product lifecycle, from product design, material
acquisition, manufacturing, delivery, to waste handling. It can help
the supply chain reduce energy consumption and pollutants and
improve resource efficiency (Chiou et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2016).
From the perspective of the NRBV, an external green process rep-
resents product stewardship capability. Firms absorb environ-
mental protection knowledge and experience from supply chain
partners by adopting a green process with them. They develop
unique resources and capabilities that improve not only environ-
mental performance but also economic and social performance
(Hart, 1995; Vachon and Klassen, 2008).
Supplier and customer-side green processes may be quite
different in terms of their motivations, actions, and outcomes.
Specifically, a green supplier process aims to eliminate environ-
mental problems from the start by monitoring purchasing process
and involving suppliers in the product design and manufacturing
process (Laari et al., 2016; Tachizawa et al., 2015). During the
monitoring process, suppliers must follow environmental re-
quirements, such as emission reduction and eco-friendly material
usage. Frequent monitoring also reduces suppliers' opportunistic
behavior regarding environmental violations. As a result, firms
mitigate the environmental risks of raw materials and improve
environmental performance (Green et al., 2012a). By working
together with suppliers, firms obtain suppliers’ environmental ca-
pabilities and their advice for environmental improvements
(Esfahbodi et al., 2016). Therefore, they can develop eco-friendly
products and implement green production processes more suc-
cessfully (De Giovanni, 2012; Tachizawa et al., 2015). Previous
findings also provide evidence that a supplier green process im-
proves environmental performance (Vachon and Klassen, 2008;
Zhu et al., 2005).
Following a similar logic, a customer green process improves
environmental performance by involving customers in product
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
development, production, and delivery. Its main objective is to
make the downstream supply chain greener (Green et al., 2012b;
Vachon and Klassen, 2008). When customers are involved in green
management, firms improve environmental performance by more
easily receiving customer feedback to satisfy their environmental
requirements (Gimenez et al., 2012). Additionally, by working
together with customers, firms obtain critical knowledge and
experience, which can be applied to the eco-friendly product
design and manufacturing process (Canie€ls et al., 2013). Therefore,
this study proposes the following:
H1a. Supplier green process is positively related to environmental
performance.
H1b. Customer green process is positively related to environ-
mental performance.
The implementation of a green process with suppliers and
customers leads to the improvement of employees' working con-
ditions and communities’ quality of life, which contributes to social
performance (Gimenez et al., 2012). Specifically, in addition to the
greenness of the final products, the public also pays close attention
to whether the raw materials are eco-friendly. A Supplier green
process shows mutual efforts and responsibilities for these social
concerns. Environmental stewardship in the purchasing process
reduces the amount of toxic raw material usage and avoids haz-
ardous purchasing (e.g., poisonous materials leakage during
transportation). Thus, a supplier green process reduces the possi-
bilities of environmental accidents that may affect society and
improves social performance (Koplin et al., 2007). Furthermore, a
supplier green process reduces the number of toxic materials
flowing into the production line. As a result, the working envi-
ronment becomes much safer, and employee health is protected
(Lee et al., 2012).
By directly involving customers in green practices, firms' entire
operations are revealed transparently to the market. In other
words, a customer green process shows firms' attitudes and de-
terminations of environmental protection; therefore, it improves
their social reputation and legitimacy in front of communities (De
Giovanni, 2012). A customer green process also emphasizes cus-
tomers’ concerns and suggestions regarding environmental issues.
Firms must reduce toxic material usage and ensure that the
workplace is safe. Additionally, some specific downstream envi-
ronmental stewardship techniques, such as defective product recall
and end-of-life product recycling, not only protect customer health
and safety but also reduce environmental risks and improve public
welfare. Therefore, this study proposes the following:
H2a. Supplier green process is positively related to social
performance.
H2b. Customer green process is positively related to social
performance.
There are mixed findings on the relationship between external
green processes and economic performance (e.g., Molina-Azorín
et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2001). External green processes reduce
waste generation and energy consumption and enhance firms’ so-
cial reputation. However, the cost of implementing and maintain-
ing an external green process may offset the benefits. This study
proposes that green processes for suppliers and customers both
improve economic performance. From the perspective of the NRBV,
external green processes improve resource efficiency by consid-
ering environmental issues in SCM. Firms produce the same
amount of products with fewer resource inputs (Hollos et al., 2012).
External green processes also create specific green management
routines and socially complex capabilities that are difficult to
155
imitate and substitute, which leads to economic performance (Shi
et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2012).
Specifically, a supplier green process reduces toxic material
usage at the source, which leads to a reduction in waste disposal
costs and environmental regulation violation costs (Rao and Holt,
2005). Furthermore, suppliers' involvement in green practices
also assists firms in identifying complementary resources and
developing relationally specific capabilities so that they can
improve economic performance by better addressing environ-
mental problems upstream (Gualandris and Kalchschmidt, 2016).
By contrast, firms can better address environmental requirements
and suggestions downstream by implementing green processes
with customers. This implementation directly improves customers’
satisfaction and reputation in the market, which in turn leads to
economic performance (Tang et al., 2012; Wolf, 2011). Therefore,
this study proposes the following:
H3a. Supplier green process is positively related to economic
performance.
H3b. Customer green process is positively related to economic
performance.
2.5. Sustainable performance through lean SC processes
LSCM is another tool for sustainable performance (Cherrafi et al.,
2016; Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). From the
perspective of the NRBV, LSCM represents pollution prevention
capability. Shah and Ward (2007) classified these practices into
supplier-related, customer-related, and internally related di-
mensions to better understand LSCM. This study investigates the
impact of external lean processes with suppliers and customers on
sustainable performance. This study defines a supplier lean process
as a set of practices to ensure on-time delivery from suppliers and
to reduce waste in the purchasing process. These practices include
JIT delivery, pull system linkage with suppliers, and supplier
involvement for continuous improvement (Azadegan et al., 2013).
In contrast, a customer lean process is defined as a set of practices
to ensure on-time delivery to customers and to reduce waste in the
sales process.
The empirical results on whether lean processes improve envi-
ronmental performance are inconsistent (Campos and Vazquez-
Brust, 2016; Dües et al., 2013). Some lean practices, such as small-
batch production and JIT delivery, require frequent replenishment
and transportation, which lead to higher emissions and energy
consumption (Govindan et al., 2014; Memari et al., 2016). Other
practices, such as inventory reduction and quality improvement,
decrease material waste and lead to higher environmental perfor-
mance (Fahimnia et al., 2015; Longoni and Cagliano, 2015b). This
study proposes that lean processes for both the supplier and
customer improve environmental performance due to the philos-
ophy of continuous improvement and waste reduction.
A supplier lean process requires adequate information sharing
between firms and their suppliers so that the suppliers produce and
deliver the exact amount of raw materials (Piercy and Rich, 2015).
There is no need to hold extra inventories or to invest unnecessary
resources and energy on the storage of raw materials, thus gener-
ating less negative environmental impact (Kainuma and Tawara,
2006). Furthermore, supplier participation in continuous
improvement programs is also conducive to fewer defects in raw
materials, which reduces investments in the recycling and waste
disposal process (Yang et al., 2011).
Similarly, with the implementation of a customer lean process,
the production activities are pulled by accurate demand informa-
tion (Rothenberg et al., 2001). This process leads to a reduction of
156 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
overproduction, which requires extra raw materials and may ulti-
mately become obsolete, causing pollution (Chiarini, 2014). In
addition, customer feedback on defects and suggestions for
improvement enhance product development and manufacturing
capabilities, thus reducing over processing and rework, which
require extra resources (Longoni and Cagliano, 2015b; Rothenberg
et al., 2001). Therefore, this study proposes the following:
H4a. Supplier lean process is positively related to environmental
performance.
H4b. Customer lean process is positively related to environmental
performance.
There is a lack of empirical evidence on the relationship be-
tween external lean processes and social performance (e.g.,
Cherrafi et al., 2016; Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014).
A supplier lean process requests a geographically concentrated
supply base and direct delivery to the point of use. It can improve
purchasing efficiency through a shorter delivery distance. Firms are
more likely to choose local suppliers, which creates more jobs for
the community, improving the local economy and social develop-
ment of the region (Azevedo et al., 2012). Furthermore, supplier
involvement in lean practices ensures zero defects of raw materials
and minimizes risks of spills and mishandling in material delivery
(Cherrafi et al., 2016). Therefore, a supplier lean process reduces the
possibilities of harmful materials flowing to the product line and
ensures clean and organized working conditions, which are bene-
ficial to employees’ health and safety (Wang et al., 2015).
A customer lean process also improves social performance. On
the one hand, firms deliver safe and high-quality products to cus-
tomers on a JIT basis. Customers receive products at the exact time
and in the exact condition as they previously ordered, which im-
proves their satisfaction and welfare (Gimenez et al., 2012). On the
other hand, to realize a customer lean process and to quickly
respond to changing demands, multi-skilled employees with pos-
itive motivations are critical. Firms must improve working condi-
tions by providing sufficient training and more varied work and
increasing employee autonomy (Piercy and Rich, 2015; Rothenberg
et al., 2001). This process leads to an enhancement of employee
satisfaction and well-being (Longoni and Cagliano, 2016). There-
fore, this study proposes the following:
H5a. Supplier lean process is positively related to social
performance.
H5b. Customer lean process is positively related to social
performance.
An external lean process represents a set of synergetic practices
and requires supply chain partner involvement in continuous
improvement programs. From the perspective of the NRBV, the
implementation of an external lean process is complex and difficult
to imitate. Thus, it is a positive source of economic performance
(Lewis, 2000; Shah and Ward, 2007). Specifically, raw materials are
delivered in small batches and at a high frequency with the
implementation of a supplier lean process, which reduces stock
costs and waiting costs. Furthermore, continuous improvement
programs with suppliers reduce the scrap rate of raw materials and
manufacturing variations. Therefore, firms improve operational
efficiency and obtain higher economic returns with less quality
problems (Azevedo et al., 2012).
A customer lean process makes demand information flow effi-
ciently from downstream to upstream, which reduces the bullwhip
effect and inventory levels, thus enhancing asset turnover and
profitability (Chavez et al., 2015). The implementation of a
customer lean process also empowers firms with the ability to
respond quickly to demand and reduce lead time. It enhances
customer satisfaction and increases the market share (Yang et al.,
2011). In addition, customer preference is better satisfied by
continuous improvement if these programs are conducted directly
with them, which also improves service performance and eco-
nomic return. Therefore, this study proposes the following:
H6a. Supplier lean process is positively related to economic
performance.
H6b. Customer lean process is positively related to economic
performance.
Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed relationships among supplier lean
and green processes, customer lean and green processes, and sus-
tainable performance.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Measures
The measures were developed based on previous literature and
interviews with managers. First, this study's researchers developed
an English version of the measures based on a thorough review of
relevant literature. Second, they translated initial measures into
Chinese, and then two independent translators conducted back-
translation to ensure the conceptual equivalence. Finally, they
refined the measures based on in-depth interviews with managers
in 18 firms during the pilot test stage. The wording of some items was
modified to ensure that all items were understandable and relevant
to practices in China. The constructs were all measured on a seven-
point Likert scale, and the details of measurement items with related
references and the sample questionnaire are listed in Appendix B.
The measures for supplier and customer green processes were
adapted from Zhu and Sarkis (2004); Zhu et al. (2008, 2012). The
measures for supplier and customer lean processes were adapted
from Cua et al. (2001); Li et al. (2005); Narasimhan et al. (2006);
Shah and Ward (2007). The measures for lean and green processes
evaluated the extent of related practices that the firm and its major
supplier and customer implemented, with “1” indicating the
practices were not implemented at all and “7” indicating those that
were extensively implemented. The major supplier is the supplier
that supplies the highest dollar value of products to the respondent
firm. Likewise, the major customer is the customer that buys the
highest dollar value of products from the respondent firm (Zhao
et al., 2011). Most of the samples investigated are non-listed
manufacturers that disclose little information and data on envi-
ronmental, social, and economic issues. Therefore, this study ap-
plies perceptual performance measures instead of collecting
objective data. The respondents rated performance measures
compared with their major competitors, with “1” meaning “much
worse” and “7” meaning “much better”. The measures for economic
Fig. 1. The conceptual model.
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166 157

performance were adopted from Huo (2012), and the measures for
social and environmental performance were adopted from Paulraj
(2011).
3.2. Sampling and data collection
The stratified sampling method was applied to randomly
selected sample firms from different regions and diverse industries
(Zhao et al., 2006). Phone contacts were made before mailing the
survey so that the key informant who was knowledgeable about
supply chain management could be identified and his/her agree-
ment to participate in the survey ensured. Questionnaires with
guidelines were mailed to the potential informants. They were
informed that obtained data would be used only for research and
that they would obtain a diagnostic report about how their com-
pany performs in related practices based on their feedback. Follow-
up phone calls and reminder emails were implemented to improve
the response rate (Flynn et al., 2010).
In total, 2710 firms were contacted, and questionnaires were
distributed to 696 firms that agreed to participate in the survey. The
researchers of this study further abandoned samples with many
missing values. They also called the informants who answered the
questionnaire. Samples were also abandoned if the corresponding
informants were not familiar with all the questions. A total of 171
usable samples were returned, reflecting a response rate of 24.6
percent. Table 1 shows the profile of the samples from different in-
dustries and with different firm characteristics. Table 2 shows infor-
mation on the respondents. Most respondents were middle or top
managers and had been in their positions for six years or longer, which
suggests that they were knowledgeable about the survey questions.
Potential nonresponse bias was checked by comparing
responding and non-responding firms regarding the number of
employees, fixed assets, regions, ownership, and firm age (Schilke,
2014). The results showed that all t-statistics were non-significant
at the 0.05 significance level, indicating that nonresponse bias is
not a problem in this study.
3.3. Common method bias test
Common method bias may be a concern in this study due to only
one informant answered all the questions. Two approaches are
used to identify the potential common method bias occurred. First,
using SPSS software, Harman's one-factor test was performed by
loading all indicators in a principal component factor analysis. The
results revealed seven distinctive factors with eigenvalues above
1.0, explaining 75.9 percent of total variance, and the first factor
explained 31.2 percent of the variance. The results of Harman's one-
factor test were acceptable, suggesting that common method bias
was not a serious problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003;
Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Second, confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) with Harman's one-factor test was applied using the LISREL
software (Sanchez and Brock, 1996). All indicators were loaded on
the same factor. The model fit indices were Chi-square
(c2) ¼ 3308.51 with a degree of freedom ¼ 495, non-normed fit
index (NNFI) ¼ 0.49, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.52, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.23, and standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) ¼ 0.17, which were unacceptable
and much poorer than those of the measurement model (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). These results indicated that a single factor was not
appropriate, providing further evidence that common method bias
is not an issue in this study.
4. Analyses and results
4.1. Reliability and validity
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to ensure
construct unidimensionality (Narasimhan and Jayaram, 1998).
Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation detected
seven dimensions. Table 3 shows that all items have higher load-
ings on the specific construct that they were intended to measure
and lower factor loadings on the constructs that they were not
intended to measure, demonstrating construct unidimensionality.
Table 4 shows the value of Cronbach's a, corrected item-total cor-
relation (CITC), and composite reliability (CR), which satisfies the
threshold proposed by Lance et al. (2006). The results indicate that
all constructs are reliable.
Then, the researchers of this study examined convergent and
discriminant validity. They conducted CFA to assess convergent
validity. Each item was linked to its corresponding construct with

Table 1
Profiles of responding firms.

Industry % of samples Number of employees % of samples Region % of samples Ownership % of samples

Metal, Mechanical & Engineering 42.7% <50 0.0% Bohai Bay Economic Rim 32.2% State-owned 19.3%
Electronics & Electrical 18.7% 50e99 0.0% Yangzi River Delta 24.6% Privately owned 47.4%
Textiles & Apparel 11.7% 100e199 26.3% Pearl River Delta 21.6% Foreign-owned 22.8%
Chemicals & Petrochemicals 8.2% 200e499 30.4% Other areas in China 21.6% Joint venture 10.5%
Building Materials 4.7% 500e999 19.9%
Publishing and Printing 5.3% 1000e4999 18.7%
Rubber & Plastics 3.5% 5000 or more 4.7%
Food, Beverage, Alcohol & Cigarettes 3.5%
Pharmaceutical & Medicals 1.8%

Table 2
Respondent characteristics.

Tenure of current position in firm % of Position of respondent % of

(years) respondents respondents

1 4.1% Top manager (e.g., president, CEO, director, and deputies of these positions) 20.5%
2e5 22.8% Middle manager (e.g., manager of purchasing, marketing, production, and other operations-related 74.9%
positions)
6e10 39.8% Others (e.g., purchasers and salesmen) 4.7%
11e15 18.7%
16 14.6%
158 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166

Table 3
Factor analysis.

Factor Loadings

Supplier green Economic Customer green Social Supplier lean Environmental Customer lean
process performance process performance process performance process

CL1 .057 .208 .042 .077 .178 .046 .816

CL2 .067 .124 .120 .106 .295 .142 .759
CL3 -.107 .129 .156 .080 .161 .162 .801
CL4 .151 .019 -.026 .031 .208 .098 .740
SL1 .163 .150 .052 .023 .770 .070 -.025
SL2 -.021 .183 -.015 .066 .832 .067 .254
SL3 .025 .140 .072 .105 .799 .029 .302
SL4 .017 .094 .143 .041 .745 .050 .312
SL5 .072 .072 -.075 .160 .833 -.055 .132
CG1 .249 .076 .817 .111 .053 .124 .038
CG2 .205 .148 .841 .118 -.013 .170 .080
CG3 .272 .097 .856 .105 .038 .144 .049
CG4 .344 .045 .759 .090 .081 .025 .045
CG5 .337 .066 .731 .129 .015 .035 .109
SG1 .804 .183 .248 .169 .087 .104 .053
SG2 .843 .110 .250 .207 .108 .076 .020
SG3 .840 .202 .278 .048 -.001 .114 .000
SG4 .786 .055 .311 .071 .103 .058 .037
SG5 .757 .142 .337 .078 .009 .006 .098
ECP1 .094 .809 .142 .079 .085 .195 .062
ECP2 .185 .768 .145 .159 .120 .139 .121
ECP3 .100 .847 .081 .132 .179 -.038 .072
ECP4 .075 .866 .035 .117 .162 .014 .123
ECP5 .180 .849 .020 .188 .097 -.004 .136
EVP1 .061 .083 .087 .291 .064 .795 .082
EVP2 .119 -.012 .068 .160 .028 .902 .121
EVP3 .057 .065 .172 .278 -.005 .854 .125
EVP4 .069 .170 .146 .334 .070 .629 .149
SP1 .100 .278 .148 .741 .148 .114 .120
SP2 .155 .146 .020 .832 .029 .240 .041
SP3 .166 .078 .074 .831 .005 .308 .117
SP4 .035 .080 .188 .707 .223 .285 .057
SP5 .101 .151 .142 .840 .062 .153 .012
Eigenvalue 3.927 3.925 3.899 3.748 3.577 3.073 2.889
Total variance explained 75.87%

Table 4
Reliability analysis.

Construct No. of items Cronbach's alpha CITC range of the underlying items Composite reliability AVE

Supplier green process 5 0.926 0.758e0.852 0.926 0.717

Supplier lean process 5 0.892 0.625e0.815 0.894 0.631
Customer green process 5 0.919 0.734e0.866 0.922 0.704
Customer lean process 4 0.855 0.619e0.731 0.857 0.600
Economic performance 5 0.920 0.757e0.830 0.921 0.700
Environmental performance 4 0.890 0.627e0.839 0.894 0.683
Social performance 5 0.910 0.705e0.835 0.909 0.669

Table 5
Correlations, means, and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Supplier green process 0.85

2. Supplier lean process 0.19* 0.79
3. Customer green process 0.64** 0.15 0.84
4. Customer lean process 0.18* 0.49** 0.22** 0.77
5. Economic performance 0.36** 0.34** 0.28** 0.33** 0.84
6. Environmental performance 0.26** 0.16* 0.32** 0.31** 0.24** 0.83
7. Social performance 0.34** 0.25** 0.33** 0.26** 0.38** 0.57** 0.82
Mean 4.48 4.87 4.80 5.43 4.13 5.87 5.26
S.D. 1.393 1.133 1.315 1.051 0.951 0.736 0.885

Notes: Square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal of the matrix in bold; inter-construct correlations are shown off the diagonal.
*
P < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166 159

Fig. 2. Estimated structural equation model.

the covariance freely estimated. The model fit indices (c2

(474) ¼ 830.84, NNFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.061, and
SRMR ¼ 0.061) were above the minimum thresholds (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). All the factor loadings were greater than 0.50 with
t values greater than 2.0. These results indicated convergent val- Fig. 3. The martrix of SC approaches to sustainable performance.
idity (Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, as shown in Table 4, the
average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs was greater than
0.50, further indicating convergent validity (Koufteros et al., 2007). Table 7
Overview of the findings.
Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square root of
AVE with the correlation coefficient between the focal construct Performance SC approach
and all other constructs. The square roots of AVE (the bold diagonal Lean Green
of the matrix in Table 5) were higher than their correlations, indi-
Customer Supplier Customer Supplier
cating discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Environmental [ [
Social [ [
4.2. Hypotheses testing Economic [ [ [

Table 5 displays the descriptive statistics and Pearson correla-
tion coefficients for all of the constructs used in this study. Struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood
estimation was used to test the hypotheses. The goodness of fit
indices for the structural model were acceptable: c2 (477) ¼ 878.03,
NNFI ¼ 0.96, CFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.064, and SRMR ¼ 0.087. Fig. 2
and Table 6 show the results of the hypotheses tests.
The results are summarized in Fig. 3 and Table 7 to highlight the
findings. Both green and lean approaches improve environmental,
social, and economic performance. However, the customer and
supply sides of the two approaches play different roles. Green ap-
proaches on the supply side are more important than those on the
customer side. The results show that a supplier green process has a
positive influence on economic and social performance, while a
customer green process has a positive influence only on environ-
mental performance. In contrast, lean processes are more impor-
tant on the customer side than on the supplier side. A customer
lean process improves three dimensions of sustainable perfor-
mance, while a supplier lean process has a significant impact only
on economic performance.
Note: “[” means the practice increases the value of the performance measure.
When considering and comparing the two approaches together,
the customer side is more important than the supply side. A green
or lean approach on the customer side improves at least one
dimension of sustainable performance. However, neither of the two
approaches on the supply side improves environmental
performance.
The methodological approach of this study is shown in Fig. 4.
5. Discussion
5.1. The role of green processes in improving sustainable
performance
Previous studies dimensioned GSCM into different practices,
and there are no consistent conclusions on the relationship be-
tween these practices and sustainable performance (e.g., Laari et al.,
2016; Zhu et al., 2005). The findings contribute to the GSCM

Table 6
Results of hypotheses tests using SEM.

Hypotheses Standardized coefficient (t-value) Results

Supplier green process / Environmental performance (H1a) 0.10 (0.96) Rejected

Customer green process / Environmental performance (H1b) 0.21* (2.04) Supported
Supplier green process / Social performance (H2a) 0.26* (2.50) Supported
Customer green process / Social performance (H2b) 0.12 (1.18) Rejected
Supplier green process / Economic performance (H3a) 0.28** (2.78) Supported
Customer green process / Economic performance (H3b) 0.01 (0.13) Rejected
Supplier lean process / Environmental performance (H4a) 0.09 (0.85) Rejected
Customer lean process / Environmental performance (H4b) 0.33** (3.08) Supported
Supplier lean process / Social performance (H5a) 0.05 (0.55) Rejected
Customer lean process / Social performance (H5b) 0.20þ (1.94) Supported
Supplier lean process / Economic performance (H6a) 0.21* (2.11) Supported
Customer lean process / Economic performance (H6b) 0.19þ (1.85) Supported

Notes: þp < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **

p < 0.01.
160 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
Fig. 4. Overview of the metrological approach.
literature by revealing the complementary role by which supplier
green processes improve social and economic performance, while
customer green processes improve only environmental perfor-
mance. Customer concerns about environmental issues are a major
pressure to implement GSCM (Zhu et al., 2007). By considering
suggestions from customers, as well as inviting their participation
in the process, such as product design and recycling, firms can
better understand their green requirements and provide more eco-
friendly products to the markets (Wong et al., 2012). However, in
the SEM model, the relationship between supplier green processes
and environmental performance is not significant (Green et al.,
2012b; Laari et al., 2016). A possible reason for this may be that
in the manufacturing industry, where purchasing is a key process
for the focal firm, the guarantee that raw materials will be eco-
friendly, as well as the involvement of suppliers in green manage-
ment practices, are minimum requirements rather than advantages
to improve environmental performance. In addition, when
customer and supplier green processes are considered indepen-
dently, both are significantly and positively related to environ-
mental performance (Table 5). When the two constructs are
simultaneously considered in SEM, only the path between a
customer green process and environmental performance remains
significant. This result further suggests that compared with the
supplier green process, a customer green process is more important
for manufacturing firms to achieve environmental performance.
Compared with the customer green process, only supplier green
process positively influences social performance. People show
increasing concern about whether raw materials used in the final
product are eco-friendly. A supplier green process ensures the
greenness of the input and improves the occupational health and
safety of employees. It also establishes a basis for welfare
improvement to communities and the general public. The non-
significant effect of a customer green process on social perfor-
mance may be explained by the implementation of downstream
environmental management techniques, such as defective product
recall and end-of-life product recycling, which is a basic way to
satisfy people's concerns about environmental protection, which is
far from bringing welfare to employees and the public.
The finding that a green process for a supplier but not a
customer improves economic performance is consistent with
findings of previous studies (e.g., Golicic and Smith, 2013; Rao and
Holt, 2005). A supplier green process improves economic perfor-
mance by reducing the waste disposal cost of raw materials
(Esfahbodi et al., 2016). The non-significant effect of a customer
green process on economic performance can be explained by the
reality that pollution problems remain a major concern in China.
Firms must respond to customer expectations regarding environ-
mental issues and make extensive investments in downstream
environmental management techniques in order to survive under
strict regulations. Therefore, a customer green process cannot bring
excess financial earnings.
5.2. The role of lean processes in improving sustainable
performance
The findings reveal that external lean processes that aim to
reduce waste and make a continuous improvement with suppliers
and customers can also lead to sustainable performance. However,
customer lean processes improve economic, social, and environ-
mental performance simultaneously. They play a more prominent
role than supplier lean processes, which improve only the eco-
nomic aspect of sustainable performance. The implementation of a
customer lean process leads to a direct reduction in overproduction
and waste disposal (Chiarini, 2014; Longoni and Cagliano, 2015b).
In addition, the involvement of customers in continuous improve-
ment programs not only improves product quality but also im-
proves customer satisfaction and welfare (Gimenez et al., 2012;
Piercy and Rich, 2015). The findings also show that waste elimi-
nation, as well as continuous improvement with customers, lead to
a better financial return (Chavez et al., 2015).
In contrast, the finding that supplier lean processes cannot
improve environmental performance is consistent with that of
previous studies (e.g., Hajmohammad et al., 2013; Zhu and Sarkis,
2004). This finding means that energy and resources saved from
supply-side practices, such as quality improvement, as well as
waste and defect reduction in raw materials, cannot offset the
surplus energy and resource consumption in practices such as JIT
delivery and frequent replenishment by suppliers. Furthermore, the
non-significant effect of a supplier lean process on social perfor-
mance can be interpreted to indicate that local suppliers are
required to invest additional outlays and change their internal
operations to implement a pull production system and JIT delivery.
This process may increase their intensity and have no benefit for
their welfare. The positive relationship between a supplier lean
process and economic performance is in accordance with Azevedo
et al. (2012), who observed that a supplier lean process contributes
to economic performance by efficiency enhancement and waste
reduction in purchasing.
5.3. Combining green and lean approaches from the NRBV
The results contribute to the supply chain management litera-
ture and the NRBV from a combined perspective of product stew-
ardship and pollution prevention (Hart, 1995; Hart and Dowell,
2011). This study answers the call for more empirical research on
the relationship between dimensions of NRBV and sustainable
performance (Hart and Dowell, 2011).
The findings show that when both LSCM and GSCM approaches
are innovatively implemented simultaneously, they can bring more
benefits than when implemented separately, consistent with pre-
vious findings (e.g., Dües et al., 2013; Galeazzo et al., 2014). How-
ever, the customer and supply side of the two approaches play
different roles. Lean processes are more important on the customer
side than on the supplier side. Customer lean processes are the
main driver in achieving higher levels of sustainable performance.
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
They direct link to social, environmental, and economic perfor-
mance, while supplier lean processes have a significant impact only
on economic performance. These findings suggest that pollution
prevention on the customer side is more important than that on the
supplier side. Waste reduction downstream and involving cus-
tomers into continuous improvement in the product life-cycle
create key pollution prevention capabilities and promote sustain-
able performance.
In contrast, product stewardship is more important than
pollution prevention on the supplier side. A customer green process
has a positive influence only on environmental performance.
Although it cannot enhance social benefits and bring economic
returns, customer involvement is also needed to create product
stewardship capabilities so that environmental impacts can be
minimized. In addition to improving economic performance, sup-
plier green processes that act as product stewardship capabilities
can also improve social benefits.
Comparing the two approaches, the customer side is more
important than the supply side. Green or lean processes on the
customer side improve at least one dimension of sustainable per-
formance. However, neither supplier green nor lean processes can
improve environmental performance, suggesting that neither
product stewardship nor pollution prevention with suppliers can be
used as strategic capabilities to minimize environmental impacts.
5.4. Managerial implications
These findings also provide important managerial implications.
In particular, the findings enrich our understanding of how firms
may innovatively seek green and lean practices simultaneously
with their customers and suppliers to achieve sustainable
performance.
First, it is important to synergistically implement supplier and
customer green processes to achieve sustainable performance.
Firms should strongly consider environmental issues and engage
suppliers in operations during the product life-cycle. They should
also collaborate with their suppliers to obtain eco-friendly raw
materials. Firms should involve customers in downstream envi-
ronmental management practices to meet their expectations of
environmental protection. They should control pollution and
reduce environmental impacts downstream.
Second, firms should leverage customer and supplier lean pro-
cesses to achieve sustainable performance. Although a supplier
lean process improves only economic performance, it should also
be implemented actively. Raw material delivery requires a large
amount of energy consumption. Therefore, firms should balance
frequent replenishment by suppliers and the zero inventory goal.
Furthermore, firms should not exert a great deal of pressure on
their suppliers to implement pull production processes and JIT
delivery, which may harm supplier welfare and do not provide
good supplier development.
Third, to achieve sustainability in environmental, social, and
economic performance, managers should no longer view lean and
green processes in isolation. Instead, they should adopt an inte-
grated approach to implement green and lean processes in the
supply chain simultaneously. Managers should pay more attention
to lean processes downstream and green processes upstream. In
addition, managers should also involve customers in green pro-
cesses and suppliers in lean processes so that environmental per-
formance can be achieved at a lower economic cost.
6. Conclusions, limitations, and future research
This study seeks to answer the calls for greater research on how
lean and green operations achieve the full sustainable performance
161
benefits. This study builds an integrated framework that includes
both lean and green processes with suppliers and customers from
the perspective of the NRBV. Specifically, this study contributes to
the supply chain management literature and provides guidelines
for firms that are still struggling to obtain sustainable performance.
These findings show that GSCM and LSCM play different roles in
achieving sustainable performance. On the customer side, lean
processes are the main driver in achieving higher sustainable per-
formance. They directly link to social, environmental, and economic
performance, while green processes improve only environmental
performance. On the supplier side, green processes are the main
driver in that they improve social and economic performance,
while lean processes improve only economic performance.
Although this study makes significant contributions to the liter-
ature and practice, it has several limitations that can be addressed in
future research. First, this study did not compare the findings across
industries and regions due to the small sample size. China is a large
economy and different regions suffer from different levels of pollu-
tion, it would be interesting to investigate how GSCM and LSCM in-
fluence sustainable performance across industries and regions.
Second, this study did not include internal processes in the model; it
combined customer-side, internal, and supplier-side dimensions of
green and lean processes and investigated their relationships and
their impacts on sustainable performance. Third, this study used
limited items to measure green and lean processes. Both GSCM and
LSCM include a set of practices. Therefore, future research can extend
these items. Fourth, this study applied perceptual lean, green, and
performance measures. Future research can retest these relation-
ships to improve the reliability and validity of the findings by
investigating listed firms and obtaining objective data on these
concepts. Fifth, although this study examined the impact of LSCM and
GSCM on social performance (such as livelihood improvement,
poverty reduction, etc.), the arguments focused mainly on how these
two approaches could reduce environmental damage and in turn
benefit society. Future research can go a step further to uncover the
mechanisms by which LSCM and GSCM improve livelihoods and
reduce poverty. Finally, this study used cross-sectional data. Future
research can apply longitudinal data to investigate how GSCM and
LSCM improve sustainable performance over time.
Under regulatory and social pressures to reduce environmental
harms, firms are making increasing investments in pollution con-
trol and prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable devel-
opment along their supply chains. We suggest additional research
to investigate how to achieve sustainable performance from a
supply chain approach. First, future research can involve reward
systems in supply chain management so that sustainable perfor-
mance in the multi-level supply chain, including suppliers, manu-
facturers, and customers, can be better evaluated (Gharaei et al.,
2015). Second, to maintain the multi-level supply chain and
improve sustainable performance with finite breaks, future
research can explore the techniques that should be given to
maintenance activities with limited resources (Duan et al., 2018).
Third, sustainability strategy evaluation is vital to an organization's
decision makers to decide whether to adopt green and lean pro-
duction systems. Future research can propose high accuracy, val-
idity, efficiency and delicacy mathematical models to compare and
determine the performance rate of sustainability strategy by
considering multiple stakeholders, including government, owners,
creditors, customers, suppliers, staff, and society respectively
(Shekarabia et al., 2016a, b).
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China [#71525005, #71473087, #71520107001].
162 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166

Appendix A. Summary of the literature on the impact of

green and lean SCM on sustainable performance

SC approach Performance Methodology Theory Reference

JIT; Pollution prevention JIT/ environmental performance; Survey Klassen (2000)

Pollution prevention/ delivery performance
Lean; Green Lean/ green practices; Secondary King and Lenox
Lean/ environmental performance data (2001)
Lean (JIT, quality management); Green (Internal, Green/ environmental performance, economic performance (decrease waste Survey Zhu and Sarkis
external, investment recovery, eco-design) handling cost but increase operations cost); (2004)
Quality management positively moderates while JIT negatively moderates the
relationship between green and environmental performance
Supplier lean; Supplier green Supplier lean/ supplier green Case study TCE Simpson and
Power (2005)
Lean; Green Lean/ Cost efficiency; Review Mollenkopf et al.
Green/ Environmental performance; (2010)
Lean and green practices are not always compatible
Lean; Green Lean increases information frequency, integration level, and replenishment Descriptive Carvalho et al.
frequency, and reduces production lead time, transportation lead time, (2011)
capacity surplus, and inventory level;
Green increases integration level, and reduces replenishment frequency,
production lead time, transportation lead time, capacity surplus, and inventory
level.
Lean; Green Lean/ Green, market performance, financial performance; Survey Yang et al. (2011)
Green/ Environmental performance, and reduces market and financial
performance
Supplier lean; Lean, green/ Economic, environmental, and social performance Case study Azevedo et al.
Supplier green (2012)
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Operational, economic, and environmental; ANP model Cabral et al.
(2012)
Lean; Green Lean/ Green; Survey Chiappetta
Green/ Operational performance Jabbour et al.
(2013)
Lean; Green Lean and green approaches can be integrated and compatible to achieve Review Duarte and Cruz-
sustainable performance Machado (2013)
Lean; Green Lean and green can enhance each other Review Dües et al. (2013)
Lean and green/ Operational performance, environmental performance
Lean; Green Lean/ Green Survey NRBV Hajmohammad
Green/ Environmental performance et al. (2013)
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Operational performance; Survey RBV Wiengarten et al.
Green positively moderates the relationship between lean and operational (2013)
performance
Lean; Green Lean and green can be introduced either sequentially or simultaneously; Case study NRBV Galeazzo et al.
Simultaneous implementation of lean and green is associated with higher (2014)
operational performance.
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and Balanced Duarte and Cruz-
growth performance scorecard Machado (2015)
Lean; Green Lean and green research is situated compatibly and improves organizational Review Garza-Reyes
performance (2015b)
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Operational, environmental, and financial performance Review Garza-Reyes
(2015a)
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Reduction in production lead time and carbon footprint Value stream Ng et al. (2015)
map
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Sustainable performance (Financial, environmental, social) Case study Piercy and Rich
(2015)
Lean; Green Synergies between lean and green Case study Campos and
Vazquez-Brust
(2016)
Lean/Six sigma; Green Lean, green/ Financial, environmental, and social performance Literature Cherrafi et al.
review (2016)
Lean; Green Lean, green/ Business and environmental, and social performance AHP Thanki et al.
approach (2016)
Lean/Six sigma; Green Lean, green/ Reduce resources consumption and minimize the cost of energy Case study Cherrafi et al.
(2017)
Lean; Green Synergetic lean and green implementation is associated with innovation, Case study Kumar and
environmental, and economic performance Rodrigues (2018)

Note: “/” indicates improvement or movement toward specific outcomes.

 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
Appendix B. Questionnaire and measurement items
SECTION A: COMPANY PROFILE
SECTION B: LEAN AND GREEN PROCESSES
Please indicate the extent of lean and green practices between
you and your major supplier, with “1” indicating that the practices
were not at all implemented and “7” indicating that they were
extensively implemented. The major supplier is the supplier that
supplies the highest dollar value of your procurement.
Supplier lean process
Cua et al. (2001); Li et al. (2005); Narasimhan et al. (2006); Shah
and Ward (2007)
SL1: We and our major supplier have continuous improvement
programs
SL2: Our major supplier delivers to us on a JIT basis
SL3: Our major supplier delivers to us on short notice
SL4: We can depend on on-time delivery from our major
supplier
SL5: Our major supplier is linked to us by a pull system
Supplier green process
Zhu and Sarkis (2004); Zhu et al. (2008, 2012)
SG1: We and our major supplier work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our product design process (e.g.,
reduce consumption of material/energy; increase the use of
environmentally friendly materials)
SG2: We and our major supplier work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our manufacturing process (e.g.,
reduce consumption of material/energy; increase use of envi-
ronmentally friendly materials)
163
SG3: We and our major supplier work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our delivery process (e.g., reduce
consumption of material/energy; use recyclable packages)
SG4: We and our major supplier work together to establish a
recycling process for used and defective products
SG5: We and our major supplier work together to better manage
the disposal of industrial wastes (wastewater, gas, and residue)
Please indicate the extent of lean and green practices between
you and your major customer, with “1” indicating that the prac-
tices were not at all implemented and “7” indicating that they were
extensively implemented. The major customer is the customer who
buys the highest dollar value of your products.
Customer lean process
Cua et al. (2001); Narasimhan et al. (2006); Shah and Ward
(2007)
CL1: We deliver to our major customer on a JIT basis
CL2: We deliver to our major customer on short notice
CL3: Our major customer can depend on on-time delivery from
us
CL4: Our major customer requires our production and delivery
with a pull system
Customer green process
Zhu and Sarkis (2004); Zhu et al. (2008, 2012)
CG1: We and our major customer work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our product design process (e.g.,
reduce consumption of material/energy; increase use of envi-
ronmentally friendly materials)
CG2: We and our major customer work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our manufacturing process (e.g.,
reduce consumption of material/energy; increase use of envi-
ronmentally friendly materials)
164 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
CG3: We and our major customer work together to incorporate
environmental issues into our delivery process (e.g., reduce
consumption of material/energy; use recyclable packages)
CG4: We and our major customer work together to establish a
recycling process for used and defective products
CG5: We and our major customer work together to better
manage the disposal of industrial wastes (wastewater, gas, and
residue)
SECTION C: SUSTAINBLE PERFORMANCE
Please evaluate your company's sustainable performance rela-
tive to your primary/major competitors, with “1” meaning “much
worse” and “7” meaning “much better”.
Economic performance Huo (2012)
ECP1: Growth in sales
ECP2: Growth in profit
ECP3: Growth in ROI
ECP4: Growth in return on sales
ECP5: Growth in market share
Environmental performance Paulraj (2011)
EVP1: We reduce waste (air, water and/or solid) discharged to
the environment
EVP2: We decrease the consumption of hazardous/harmful/
toxic materials
EVP3: We decrease the frequency of environmental accidents
EVP4: We decrease energy consumption due to conservation
and efficiency improvements
Social performance Paulraj (2011)
SP1: We improve overall stakeholder welfare or betterment
SP2: We improve community health and safety
SP3: We reduce environmental impacts and risks to the general
public
SP4: We improve occupational health and safety of employees
SP5: We improve awareness and protection of the claims and
rights of people in the community served
References
Adebanjo, D., Teh, P.-L., Ahmed, P.K., 2016. The impact of external pressure and
sustainable management practices on manufacturing performance and envi-
ronmental outcomes. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (9), 995e1013.
Azadegan, A., Patel, P.C., Zangoueinezhad, A., Linderman, K., 2013. The effect of
environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices.
J. Oper. Manag. 31 (4), 193e212.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. Influence of green
and lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustain-
ability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 59 (4), 753e765.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17
(1), 99e120.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2001. The role of supply
management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10 (2), 174e189.
Cabral, I., Grilo, A., Cruz-Machado, V., 2012. A decision-making model for Lean,
Agile, Resilient and Green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (17),
4830.
Campos, L.M.S., Vazquez-Brust, D.A., 2016. Lean and green synergies in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Manag. 21 (5), 627e641.
Canie€ls, M.C., Gehrsitz, M.H., Semeijn, J., 2013. Participation of suppliers in greening
supply chains: an empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 19 (3), 134e143.
Carroll, A.B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional
construct. Bus. Soc. 38 (3), 268e295.
Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., Machado, V.C., 2011. Lean, agile, resilient and green: di-
vergencies and synergies. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2 (2), 151e179.
Chavez, R., Yu, W., Jacobs, M., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., Lecuna, A., 2015. Internal
lean practices and performance: the role of technological turbulence. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 160, 157e171.
Chen, C.M., Delmas, M., 2011. Measuring corporate social performance: an efficiency
perspective. Prod. Oper. Manag. 20 (6), 789e804.
Chen, L.J., Zhao, X.D., Tang, O., Price, L.D., Zhang, S.S., Zhu, W.W., 2017. Supply chain
collaboration for sustainability: a literature review and future research agenda.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 194, 73e87.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., Benhida, K., 2016. The integration of
lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
828e846.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., Mokhlis, A.,
2017. A framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior
sustainability performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (15), 4481e4515.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., de
Souza Freitas, W.R., 2013. Environmental management and operational per-
formance in automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource
management and lean manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129e140.
Chiarini, A., 2014. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific
Lean Production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle
component manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 226e233.
Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F., Chung, S.H., 2011. The influence of greening the
suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive
advantage in Taiwan. Transport. Res. E-Log. 47 (6), 822e836.
Christopher, M., Towill, D.R., 2000. Supply chain migration from lean and functional
to agile and customised. Supply Chain Manag. 5 (4), 206e213.
Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Relationships between imple-
mentation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. J. Oper.
Manag. 19 (6), 675e694.
Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean
practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 93e100.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1e13.
De Giovanni, P., 2012. Do internal and external environmental management
contribute to the triple bottom line? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 32 (3e4),
265e290.
Duan, C., Deng, C., Gharaei, A., Wu, J., Wang, B., 2018. Selective maintenance
scheduling under stochastic maintenance quality with multiple maintenance
actions. Int. J. Prod. Res. Online.
Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Modelling lean and green: a review from
business models. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 4 (3), 228e250.
Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015. Investigating lean and green supply chain
linkages through a balanced scorecard framework. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng.
Manag. 10 (1), 20e29.
Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of
21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 8 (1), 37e51.
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., Watson, G., 2016. Sustainable supply chain management in
emerging economies: trade-offs between environmental and cost performance.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 350e366.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Eshragh, A., 2015. A tradeoff model for green supply chain
planning: a leanness-versus-greenness analysis. Omega 54, 173e190.
Fercoq, A., Lamouri, S., Carbone, V., 2016. Lean/Green integration focused on waste
reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 567e578.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on per-
formance: a contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 28 (1),
58e71.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39e50.
Günther, E., Scheibe, L., 2006. The hurdle analysis: a self-evaluation tool for mu-
nicipalities to identify, analyse and overcome hurdles to green procurement.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 13 (2), 61e77.
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. Lean and green in action: in-
terdependencies and performance of pollution prevention projects. J. Clean.
Prod. 85, 191e200.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015a. Green lean and the need for six sigma. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma
6 (3), 226e248.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015b. Lean and green: a systematic review of the state of the art
literature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18e29.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., do Nascimento, L.F.M., 2011. A resource-based
view of green supply management. Transport. Res. E-Log. 47 (6), 872e885.
Gharaei, A., Karimi, M., Shekarabia, S.A.H., 2019. An integrated multi-product, multi-
buyer supply chain under penalty, green, and quality control polices and a
vendor managed inventory with consignment stock agreement: the outer
approximation with equality relaxation and augmented penalty algorithm.
Appl. Math. Model. 69, 223e254.
Gharaei, A., Naderi, B., Mohammadi, M., 2015. Optimization of rewards in single
machine scheduling in the rewards-driven systems. Management Science Let-
ters 5629e5638.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., 2016. Modeling and optimization the four-Level
integrated supply chain: sequential quadratic programming. Int. J. Comput.
Sci. Inf. Secur. 14 (7), 650e669.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., 2017a. Four-echelon integrated supply chain model
with stochastic constraints under shortage condition: sequential quadratic
programming. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst. 16 (3), 319e329.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., 2017b. Modeling and optimization of four-level
 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
integrated supply chain with the aim of determining the optimum stockpile and
period length: sequential quadratic programming. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 34 (7),
529e541.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., Alireza, A.K., 2017. Inventory model in a four-
echelon integrated supply chain: modeling and optimization. J. Model.
Manag. 12 (4), 739e762.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., Niaki, S.T.A., 2018. An optimal integrated lot sizing
policy of inventory in a bi-objective multi-level supply chain with stochastic
constraints and imperfect products. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 35 (1), 6e20.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., Rodon, J., 2012. Sustainable operations: their impact on the
triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 149e159.
Glavas, A., Mish, J., 2015. Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms:
going over old or breaking new ground? J. Bus. Ethics 127 (3), 623e642.
Golicic, S.L., Smith, C.D., 2013. A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable
supply chain management practices and firm performance. J. Supply Chain
Manag. 49 (2), 78e95.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014. Impact of supply
chain management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 212e225.
Green Jr., K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Bhadauria, V.S., Meacham, J., 2012a. Do environmental
collaboration and monitoring enhance organizational performance? Ind.
Manag. Data Syst. 112 (2), 186e205.
Green Jr., K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J., Bhadauria, V.S., 2012b. Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance. Supply Chain Manag. 17 (3),
290e305.
Gualandris, J., Kalchschmidt, M., 2016. Developing environmental and social per-
formance: the role of suppliers' sustainability and buyer-supplier trust. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 54 (8), 2470e2486.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Lean management
and supply management: their role in green practices and performance.
J. Clean. Prod. 39, 312e320.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
986e1014.
Hart, S.L., Dowell, G., 2011. Invited editorial: a natural-resource-based view of the
firm fifteen years after. J. Manag. 37 (5), 1464e1479.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green
supply chain management. Benchmarking. Int. J. 12 (4), 330e353. An Interna-
tional Journal.
Hollos, D., Blome, C., Foerstl, K., 2012. Does sustainable supplier co-operation affect
performance? Examining implications for the triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 50 (11), 2968e2986.
Hu, L.t., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),
1e55.
Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y., Daellenbach, K.R.,
Slowik, J.G., Platt, S.M., Canonaco, F., 2014. High secondary aerosol contribution
to particulate pollution during haze events in China. Nature 514 (7521),
218e222.
Huo, B., 2012. The impact of supply chain integration on company performance: an
organizational capability perspective. Supply Chain Manag. 17 (6), 596e610.
Huo, B., Zhang, C., Zhao, X., 2015. The effect of IT and relationship commitment on
supply chain coordination: a contingency and configuration approach. Inf.
Manag. 52 (6), 728e740.
Kainuma, Y., Tawara, N., 2006. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean
and green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 101 (1), 99e108.
King, A., Lenox, M., 2002. Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction.
Manag. Sci. 48 (2), 289e299.
King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the
relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Prod.
Oper. Manag. 10 (3), 244e256.
Klassen, R.D., 2000. Just-in-time manufacturing and pollution prevention generate
mutual benefits in the furniture industry. Interfaces 30 (3), 95e106.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations man-
agement. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (4), 482e492.
Koplin, J., Seuring, S., Mesterharm, M., 2007. Incorporating sustainability into supply
management in the automotive industr: the case of the Volkswagen AG.
J. Clean. Prod. 15 (11), 1053e1062.
Koufteros, X.A., Cheng, T.E., Lai, K.-H., 2007. Black-box" and "gray-box" supplier
integration in product development: antecedents, consequences and the
moderating role of firm size. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (4), 847e870.
Kumar, M., Rodrigues, V.S., 2018. Synergetic effect of lean and green on innovation:
a resource-based perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. (Available online).
Laari, S., Toyli, J., Solakivi, T., Ojala, L., 2016. Firm performance and customer-driven
green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1960e1970.
Lam, H.L., How, B.S., Hong, B.H., 2015. Green Supply Chain toward Sustainable In-
dustry Development. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and
Sustainability. Elsevier, pp. 409e449.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., Michels, L.C., 2006. The sources of four commonly reported
cutoff criteria what did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 9 (2), 202e220.
Lee, S.M., Kim, S.T., Choi, D., 2012. Green supply chain management and organiza-
tional performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 112 (8e9), 1148e1180.
Lee, V.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Chong, A.Y.-L., Lin, B., 2015. A structural analysis of greening
the supplier, environmental performance and competitive advantage. Prod.
Plann. Contr. 26 (2), 116e130.
Lewis, M.A., 2000. Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 20 (8), 959e978.
165
Li, S., Rao, S.S., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Ragu-Nathan, B., 2005. Development and vali-
dation of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management
practices. J. Oper. Manag. 23 (6), 618e641.
Longoni, A., Cagliano, R., 2015a. Cross-functional executive involvement and worker
involvement in lean manufacturing and sustainability alignment. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 35 (9), 1332e1358.
Longoni, A., Cagliano, R., 2015b. Environmental and social sustainability priorities:
their integration in operations strategies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (2),
216e245.
Longoni, A., Cagliano, R., 2016. Human resource and customer benefits through
sustainable operations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (12), 1719e1740.
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives
by business. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2), 268e305.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean management, supply chain
management and sustainability: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 134e150.
Memari, A., Rahim, A.R.A., Absi, N., Ahmad, R., Hassan, A., 2016. Carbon-capped
distribution planning: a JIT perspective. Comput. Ind. Eng. 97, 111e127.
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Claver-Corte s, E., Lo
pez-Gamero, M.D., Tari, J.J., 2009. Green
management and financial performance: a literature review. Manag. Decis. 47
(7), 1080e1100.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global
supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 40 (1/2), 14e41.
Narasimhan, R., Jayaram, J., 1998. Causal linkages in supply chain management: an
exploratory study of North American manufacturing firms. Decis. Sci. J. 29 (3),
579e605.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., Kim, S.W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and agility: an
empirical investigation. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (5), 440e457.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M., Berry, D., 1999. Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 62 (1e2),
107e118.
Ng, R., Low, J.S.C., Song, B., 2015. Integrating and implementing Lean and Green
practices based on proposition of Carbon-Value Efficiency metric. J. Clean. Prod.
95, 242e255.
Pasandideh, S.H.R., Niaki, S.T.A., Gharae, A., 2015. Optimization of a multiproduct
economic production quantity problem with stochastic constraints using
sequential quadratic programming. Knowl. Base Syst. 84, 98e107.
Paulraj, A., 2011. Understanding the relationships between internal resources and
capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 47 (1), 19e37.
Peteraf, M.A., 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based
view. Strat. Manag. J. 14 (3), 179e191.
Piercy, N., Rich, N., 2015. The relationship between lean operations and sustainable
operations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (2), 282e315.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879e903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: prob-
lems and prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531e544.
Prajogo, D., Oke, A., Olhager, J., 2016. Supply chain processes: linking supply logistics
integration, supply performance, lean processes and competitive performance.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (2), 220e238.
Qi, Y., Boyer, K.K., Zhao, X., 2009. Supply chain strategy, product characteristics, and
performance impact: evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Decis. Sci. J. 40 (4),
667e695.
Qrunfleh, S., Tarafdar, M., 2013. Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply
chain responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and post-
ponement. Supply Chain Manag. 18 (6), 571e582.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and eco-
nomic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (9/10), 898e916.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K., Maxwell, J., 2001. Lean, green, and the quest for superior
environmental performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10 (3), 228e243.
Sagnak, M., Kazancoglu, Y., 2016. Integration of green lean approach with six sigma:
an application for flue gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 112e118.
Sanchez, J.I., Brock, P., 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic
employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Acad. Manag. J. 39
(3), 704e719.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-h., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1e15.
Schilke, O., 2014. On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive
advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strat.
Manag. J. 35 (2), 179e203.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21 (2), 129e149.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production.
J. Oper. Manag. 25 (4), 785e805.
Shekarabia, S.A.H., Gharaeib, A., Karimi, M., 2018. Modelling and optimal lot-sizing
of integrated multi-level multi-wholesaler supply chains under the shortage
and limited warehouse space: generalised outer approximation. Int. J. Syst. Sci.
Oper. Logist. (Online).
Shekarabia, S.A.H., Gharaei, A., Pilbala, M., 2016a. Provide a new method to deter-
mine effectiveness or performance rate of organization strategies based on
Freeman model and using improved dimensional analysis method. In: 12th
International Conference on Industrial Engineering (ICIE).
Shekarabia, S.A.H., Gharaei, A., Pilbala, M., 2016b. Provide a practical approach for
measuring the performance rate of organizational strategies. In: 12th
166 B. Huo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 216 (2019) 152e166
International Conference on Industrial Engineering (ICIE).
Shi, V.G., Koh, S.C.L., Baldwin, J., Cucchiella, F., 2012. Natural resource based green
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. 17 (1), 54e67.
Simpson, D.E., Power, D.F., 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and
green suppliers. Supply Chain Manag. 10 (1), 60e68.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature
review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9 (1), 53e80.
Tachizawa, E.M., Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., 2015. Green supply chain management
approaches: drivers and performance implications. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35
(11), 1546e1566.
Tang, A.K., Lai, K.h., Cheng, T., 2012. Environmental governance of enterprises and
their economic upshot through corporate reputation and customer satisfaction.
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 21 (6), 401e411.
Thanki, S., Govindan, K., Thakkar, J., 2016. An investigation on lean-green imple-
mentation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 284e298.
Turban, D.B., Greening, D.W., 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (3), 658e672.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111
(2), 299e315.
Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H., 2014. Combining organizational per-
formance with sustainable development issues: the Lean and Green project
benchmarking repository. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 83e93.
Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Wehrmeyer, W., 2001. The relationship between the
environmental and economic performance of firms: what does theory propose
and what does empirical evidence tell us? Greener Manag. Int. 34, 95e109.
Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Abdulrahman, M.D., Liu, C., 2015.
Composite sustainable manufacturing practice and performance framework:
Chinese auto-parts suppliers' perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170, 219e233.
Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 5 (2),
171e180.
Wiengarten, F., Eynes, B., Onofrei, G., 2013. Exploring synergetic effects between
investments in environmental and quality/lean practices in supply chains.
Supply Chain Manag. 18 (2), 148e160.
Wolf, J., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management integration: a qualitative
analysis of the German manufacturing industry. J. Bus. Ethics 102 (2), 221e235.
Wong, C.W.Y., Lai, K.-h., Shang, K.-C., Lu, C.-S., Leung, T.K.P., 2012. Green operations
and the moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers
on manufacturing firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 283e294.
Xie, X., Huo, J., Qi, G., Zhu, K.X., 2016. Green process innovation and financial per-
formance in emerging economies: moderating effects of absorptive capacity
and green subsidies. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 63 (1), 101e112.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P., Modi, S.B., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environ-
mental management on business performance: an empirical study of
manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 129 (2), 251e261.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B., Roth, A.V., 2006. Decision sciences research in China: a critical
review and research agenda-foundations and overview. Decis. Sci. J. 37 (4),
451e496.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W., Yeung, J.H.Y., 2011. The impact of internal integration
and relationship commitment on external integration. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (1),
17e32.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2011. Evaluating green supply chain manage-
ment among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization
perspective. Transport. Res. E-Log. 47 (6), 808e821.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-
mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 265e289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in China: pres-
sures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (5e6), 449e468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures,
practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 15 (11), 1041e1052.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2008. Confirmation of a measurement model for green
supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111 (2),
261e273.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2012. Examining the effects of green supply chain
management practices and their mediations on performance improvements.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (5), 1377e1394.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2013. Institutional-based antecedents and performance
outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices.
J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (2), 106e117.