Int. J.

Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

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

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey

Suhaiza Zailani a,n, K. Jeyaraman a, G. Vengadasan a, R. Premkumar b,1
a
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800, Penang Malaysia
b
Faculty of Business and Management, AIMST University, Kedah, Jalan Bedong – Semeling 08100, Bedong, Kedah, Malaysia

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

Article history: As a developing country, Malaysia has moved from an agriculture-based economy to an industrialized
Received 16 July 2010 economy in which manufacturing is considered to be the highest contributor towards environmental
Accepted 7 February 2012 concerns. These concerns push firms into seriously considering the environmental impact while doing
Available online 25 February 2012
their business. The implementation of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is a key enabler
Keywords: that could push organizations to focus on alleviating environmental issues, and providing economic and
Practices social benefits. This study investigates the extent of implementation of sustainable supply chain
Outcomes management practices (environmental purchasing and sustainable packaging). The study also exam-
Sustainable supply chain ines the outcomes of these practices on sustainable supply chain performance. A survey via mail was
Developing country
carried out among 400 manufacturing firms in Malaysia. Factor analysis of the survey data resulted in
Malaysia
four categories of outcomes (environmental, economic, social and operational). The study found that
environmental purchasing has a positive effect on three categories of outcomes (economic, social and
operational), whereas sustainable packaging has a positive effect on environmental, economic and
social outcomes. The results have empirically proven that SSCM practices have a positive effect on
sustainable supply chain performance, particularly from the economic and social perspective. Thus,
firms need to collaborate in advocating sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices as a
route for firm’s commercial success rather than as a moral obligation.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Additionally, organizations are facing increasing global community

There is a rapidly increasing awareness in industry that today’s
supply chains are flawed. To date, many manufacturing companies
create waste and pollution and are threatening the existence of life
on earth. Consequently, these challenges and pressures push firms
to seriously consider the environmental impact while doing their
business. As the population of the world increases and resource
availability decreases, companies are starting to realize that supply
chains must be re-designed (Carter and Jennings, 2002). From the
companies perspective, they must portray the environmentally
friendly image of products, processes, systems and technologies,
and the way business is conducted (Vachon and Klassen, 2006a).
Recent developments in the world economic climate create
uncertainty in the business environment, which creates the
necessity for organizations to look at reconstructing and restruc-
turing to enhance their strategy to sustain the business and
profitability while remaining competitive in the marketplace.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ04 6533888x2786.
E-mail addresses: shmz@usm.my (S. Zailani),
dr_kjraman@usm.my (K. Jeyaraman), venga@yahoo.com (G. Vengadasan),
prem@aimst.edu.my (R. Premkumar).
1
Tel.: þ604 4298000/8038; fax: þ604 4298007/8008/8009.
inquiries through media and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) pertaining to the sustainability aspect of their development
(Sarkis, 2001). According to Porter and Kramer (2006), companies
are increasingly expected to extend their sustainability efforts
beyond their own operations to include those of their suppliers
and to meet their customer’s sustainability expectations. Forward
thinking companies are already taking steps to develop sustain-
ability within their supply chains.
According to Carter and Jennings (2002), the supply chains
need to be closed-looped, environmentally friendly and conserve
and use as few resources as possible. Thus, many researchers
claimed that the future of supply chain management is sustain-
ability (Carter and Jennings, 2002, 2004; Murphy and Poist, 2002;
Penfield, 2009). McKone-Sweet (2004) claimed that companies
are under pressure to improve the social and environmental
standards wherever they can exert their influence, for instance,
at their suppliers and further along the supply chain. Most
of these pressures focus on the outsourcing activities from
large Western firms that source input from low cost manufac-
turers and service providers in developing countries by ignoring
the social and environmental deteriorating issues with respect
to supporting the short-term profitability of the organizations
(Leenders et al., 2006).

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.008
 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340
There are numerous definitions of the terms ‘Sustainable Supply
Chain’ and ‘Supply Chain’. For example, Leenders et al., 2006 stated
that the supply chain considers the interactions between a business
and its customers and suppliers. They urged that a sustainable
supply chain – the management of raw materials and services from
suppliers to manufacturer/service provider to customer and back
with improvement of the social and environmental impact – be
explicitly considered. Although in the past supply chain management
only focused on the efficient and responsive system of production
and delivery from the raw material stage to the final consumer,
currently, environmental issues in the supply chain are significantly
growing, which is partly due to the wider debate on how industry
meets the challenges of sustainability (Seitz and Wells, 2006).
Pressure from various stakeholders present a great challenge for
supply chain managers in integrating sustainable practices in
managing their supply chains. A sustainable supply chain demands
that practices like environmental friendly packaging, return of end-
of-life and used products to the producer as well as the eco friendly
handling of returns, recycling, remanufacturing and adequate waste
disposal are enabled and are deemed to be important elements (Zhu
et al., 2005). However, some of the key challenges in adopting the
sustainable practices that are related to issues, such as price
competition and responsiveness, are of prime importance making
the adoption of sustainable practices a daunting task.
Carter and Mol (2006) stated that Asia is heavily emphasizing
sustainability despite the difference in views concerning corporate
social responsibility and sustainability between Europe and Asia. In
the context of Malaysia, Zailani et al. (2009) studied the key drivers
of sustainable supply chain management. However, Eltayeb and
Zailani (2009) researched the level of the adoption of a green supply
chain among ISO 14001 certified manufacturing firms within
Malaysia, whereas this paper is interested in determining the extent
of the involvement of Malaysian companies in the sustainable
supply chain. This paper will focus on the practices of a sustainable
supply chain within an organization and their relationship with the
performance of a sustainable supply chain.
The body of this paper comprises five sections. This paper starts
with this introductory section, which provides a general idea
about the research topic and gaps of the study. Section 2 reviews
the literature related to a sustainable supply chain, practices and
Fig. 1. House of SSCM.
Source: Teuteberg and Wittstruck, 2010.
331
performance for sustainable supply chain. Section 3 addresses the
methodology and Section 4 discusses the findings from the data
analysis. Finally, Section 5 relates the conclusions, implications and
poses questions for future research, thereby fulfilling the purpose of
the paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
According to Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), SSCM is comprehended
as the integration of sustainable development and supply chain
management whereby sustainable development is often described
as containing three dimensions – integrating environmental, social
and economic issues for human development – which also affects the
corporate strategy and action. Although the field of SSCM is con-
sidered quite new, interest in SSCM has been growing rapidly over
the years. Seuring and Martin (2008) identified and reviewed 191
papers and found that the economic and environmental aspects of the
supply chain are by far the dimensions that are the most studied
among the papers reviewed (73.3%), and that papers integrating
sustainable dimensions only started to appear from 2002 onwards.
Sikdar (2003), who takes a ‘‘macro-viewpoint’’, which includes
the social, environmental, and economic aspects, defined sustain-
ability as ‘‘a wise balance among economic development, environ-
mental stewardship, and social equity’’. Reviews of different
elements related to supply chain sustainability suggests that SSCM
can be linked to green design, inventory management, production
planning and control for remanufacturing, product recovery, reverse
logistics, waste management, energy use and emissions reduction
(Ramudhin et al., 2009). Carter and Rogers (2008) defined SSCM as
the strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an orga-
nization’s social, environmental, and economic goals through the
systemic coordination of key inter-organizational business processes
for improving the long-term economic performance of the indivi-
dual company and its supply chain.
Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) proposed the ‘‘House of
Sustainable Supply Chain’’ (Fig. 1), built on the three dimensions
of the Triple Bottom Line, which are viewed as the key pillars
332 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340
necessary to keep the building in balance whereas risk and
compliance management form the building’s foundation. SSCM
also requires the establishment of values and ethics throughout
the organization, an efficient and flexible ‘‘green’’ IT environment
as well as the alignment of corporate strategy focusing on sus-
tainable development. By taking these measures, it will effectively
protect the network against environmental and social threats
and risks.
2.2. Sustainable supply chain management practices
Carter and Jennings (2002), from their research on logistics
social responsibility (LSR), examined the processes related to
purchasing, transportation, packaging, warehousing and reverse
logistics and defined six topics to classify LSR – environment,
ethics, diversity, working conditions and human rights, safety,
philanthropy and community involvement. Subsequently, other
research within the context of sustainable supply chain prac-
tices, such as Environmental Purchasing, linked traditional
purchasing activity with the environmental management ele-
ment (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). While Deakin (2001) focused
on Sustainable Transportation, defining it as transportation that
meets mobility needs while preserving and enhancing human
and ecosystem health, economic progress, and social justice for
now and the future.
In addition to the above, Carter and Jennings (2002) also
discussed sustainable warehousing, which includes activities,
such as terminal and warehouse location, proper storing and
disposing of hazardous materials, donation of excess or obsolete
inventory to local communities, and training to safely operate
forklifts. Sustainable Packaging was defined by James et al.
(2005a) as packaging that adds real value to society by effectively
containing and protecting products during movement across the
supply chain; is designed to use materials and energy efficiently;
is made up of materials that are recycled continuously and does
not pose any risks to human health or ecosystems. Another
sustainable supply chain practice is Reverse Logistics; De Brito
(2003) considered Reverse Logistics as a process that guarantees
the use and re-use (efficiently and effectively) of the value put
into products.
Purchasing is at the beginning of the value chain, thus, a firm’s
environmental efforts will not be successful without integrating
the company’s environmental goals with purchasing activities.
Purchasing can contribute to a firms overall environmental goals
and undertakings in a number of ways (Carter et al., 2000). In
addition, purchasing can identify packaging that can be more
easily recycled or reused leading to a significant environmental
impact, as packaging materials account for the largest portion of
the municipal waste stream (Min and Galle, 1997). However,
Ciliberti et al. (2007) carried out an empirical research on the
extent of adoption of sustainable supply chain management
practices within Italian companies and found that 56% of the
companies practice Environmental Purchasing, 20% of the com-
panies practice sustainable transportation, 17% practice reverse
logistics, 6% for sustainable packaging and only 1% practice
sustainable warehousing.
Sarkis (1999) defined the supply chain as a system
that includes purchasing and inbound logistics, production and
distribution (outbound logistics and marketing) and reverse
logistics. Based on the above definition, purchasing plays a key
role at the beginning of the value chain and inbound activities in
determining the environmental impact and the high level of
adoption on Environmental Purchasing among companies. In this
study, Environmental Purchasing is selected as one of the sustain-
able supply chain management practices. Sustainable packaging
is selected as the next sustainable supply chain management
practice in this study due to the fact that packaging influences
and has a presence across the supply chain pipeline – purchasing,
inbound, outbound and even reverse logistics – whereby it plays a
significant function in the context of both consumer packaging
and industrial packaging. The following subsections discuss the
two practices in more detail.
2.2.1. Environmental purchasing
According to Jimenez and Lorente (2001), environmental
purchasing considers the issue of sustainability in their purchas-
ing of inputs on top of the traditional purchasing criteria, which
only focuses on cost, quality, and delivery. According to Eltayeb
(2009) and Hamner (2006), the following are based on a summary
of the literature on green purchasing activities between the buyer
and supplier:
1. Product content requirements: buyers specify that purchased
products must have desirable green attributes, such as
recycled or reusable items.
2. Product content restrictions: buyers specify that purchased
products must not contain environmentally undesirable attri-
butes, such as lead, CFCs, plastic foam in packaging materials.
3. Product content labeling or disclosure: disclosure of the envir-
onmental or safety attributes of purchased product content.
4. Supplier questionnaires: asking suppliers to provide information
about their environmental aspects, activities and/or management
systems.
5. Supplier environmental management systems: requesting sup-
pliers to develop and maintain an environmental management
system (EMS) though buyer does not require supplier to certify
the system.
6. Supplier certification: buyers require suppliers to have an EMS
that is certified as fully compliant with one of the recognized
international standards, such as ISO 14001 from the Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the Eur-
opean Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).
7. Supplier compliance auditing: buyers audit suppliers to determine
their level of compliance with environmental requirements.
Based on the above, supply managers must consider the
ultimate disposition of the materials and components that enter
the firm. Carter et al. (2000) suggested that these life-cycle issues
need to be considered as part of the purchasing and procurement
process, and ask upstream members of the supply chain to commit
to waste reduction goals and to design and provide the purchasing
firm with the materials and components identified through the
design for disassembly and life-cycle analysis. Bjorklund (2010)
advocated that increasing strategic importance of the purchasing
function has increased the discussion on the contribution of
purchasing to decrease the impact on the natural environment
and concluded that purchasing could actually be a more powerful
change agent than any other corporate function. Carter et al. (2000)
claim that environmental purchasing has a positive effect on firm
performance in relation to net income and the cost of goods sold.
Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) provided a more holistic definition of
Environmental Purchasing, which is also applied in this research:
‘‘Environmental purchasing for an individual firm is the set of
purchasing policies held, actions taken, and relationships formed in
response to concerns associated with the natural environment. These
concerns relate to the acquisition of raw materials, including
supplier selection, evaluation and development, suppliers operations,
in-bound distribution, packaging, recycling, reuse, resource reduc-
tion and final disposal of the firm’s products’’. Based on the above
review of the literature, environmental purchasing practices by
manufacturing companies can achieve multiple benefits including
 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340
enhanced supplier engagement, reduced cost and minimized envir-
onmental impact, which could subsequently lead to a sustainable
supply chain performance.
2.2.2. Sustainable packaging
James et al. (2005a) described that packaging directly con-
tributes to the success of the product in the supply chain whereby
it enables efficient distribution of products, and reduced environ-
mental impact of product spoilage and waste. However, packa-
ging has an environmental impact that is not sustainable in the
long-term, such as consumption of non-renewable resources,
generation of air emissions in production, transport and use,
and production of solid waste requiring disposal in landfill.
According to Kooijmann (1996), the benefits of sustainable
packaging might be obvious from an environmental perspective,
such as reduced waste and resource conservation, as well as the
economic and social benefits.
Verghese and Lewis (2007) argued that, typically, when goods
pass through the industrial supply chain the associated packaging
waste is often a forgotten or ignored by-product that is poorly
managed and eventually leads to litter, poor recycling and
unnecessary waste to landfill. These phenomena are further
aggravated by poor communication and lack of sense of respon-
sibility among supply chain partners, which limits the potential
for improved packaging solutions that can simultaneously meet
the functional needs of the supply chain’s operating environment
and reduce the environmental impact and supply chain costs.
According to Jahre and Hatteland (2004), packaging plays a
significant role in a large integrated system that involves many
actors throughout the supply chain, including materials handling,
inbound logistics operations, purchasing, manufacturing, ware-
housing, transportation, and retailing.
2.3. Outcomes of sustainability supply chain management
In this paper, outcomes are defined as the positive results or
consequences that are actually realized from the adoption of
sustainable supply chain management practices. Organizational
performance refers to how well an organization achieves its
market-oriented goals as well as its financial goals (Li et al.,
2006). Zhu et al. (2005) contended that inter-firm linkage, which
is facilitated by proximity, could lead to improvement in envir-
onmental performance whereas the relations with suppliers aid
the adoption and development of innovative environmental
technologies. These, coupled with the interaction of the customer
and suppliers’ staff, partnership agreements and joint research
and development can lead to improvements in environmental
performance.
In the context of supply chain performance (SCP), the short-
term objectives of SCP are primarily to increase productivity and
reduce inventory and cycle time, while the long-term objectives
are to increase market share and profits for all members of the
supply chain. Financial metrics serve as a tool for comparing
organizations and evaluating an organization’s behavior over
time. Supply chain performance has indeed become an important
source of sustainable advantage in many industries due to the
increase in global competition from the supply chain perspective
(Hoole, 2005). Organizations should focus on the overall supply
chain performance as this is a direct indication of the firm’s
performance (Olhager and Selldin, 2004), which means that
supply chain management has a dual role – to improve individual
firm performance and also the overall supply chain performance
(Mentzer et al., 2001; Li et al., 2006). In terms of measuring
Supply Chain Performance, although there are several established
metrics, such as Balanced Score Card (BSC), the supply chain
333
operations reference (SCOR) model (SCOR, 2005) was one of the
notable key SCP metrics, which was developed by the Supply
Chain Council. The SCOR model is based on five distinctive
process categories – plan, sources, make, deliver and return.
The SCOR performance metrics goes beyond the concerns of
only achieving supply chain effectiveness but also incorporates
meeting customer requirements and improving supply chain
efficiency by minimizing cost, reducing lead time and improving
quality. SCOR metrics encompass other measures, such as respon-
siveness, flexibility, reliability or quality, and asset management.
It is stated that relying on cost measures alone would not provide
a truthful picture of supply chain performance (Chen and Paulraj,
2004). In the context of Sustainable Supply Chain Performance,
the measurement is more towards how well the supply chain
activity or practices undertaken by the organization cut across the
three facets of sustainability, which are the economic, environ-
mental and social aspects. The social and environmental supply
chain activities that lie at the intersection with the economic
bottom line are defined as sustainable. Following are some of the
potential advantages from the sustainability perspective based on
the intersections of the supply chain practices between economic,
social and environmental performance.
 Cost savings due to reduced packaging waste (Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Mollenkopf et al., 2005; Rosenau et al., 1996).
 Ability to design for reuse and disassembly (Carter and Rogers,
2008; Christmann, 2000; Hart, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995c).
 Reduced health and safety costs, and lower recruitment and
labor turnover costs resulting from safer warehousing and
transportation and better working conditions (Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Brown, 1996; Carter and Stevens, 2007).
 Lower labor costs – better working conditions can increase
motivation and productivity, and reduce the absenteeism of
supply chain personnel (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Holmes
et al., 1996; McElroy et al., 1993).
 Proactively shaping future regulation – companies that proac-
tively address environmental and social concerns can influ-
ence government regulation when this regulation is modeled
after a company’s existing production and supply chain pro-
cesses, leading to a difficult-to-replicate competitive advan-
tage for companies and their suppliers (Carter and Rogers,
2008; Carter and Dresner, 2001).
 Reduced costs, shorter lead times, and better product quality
associated with the implementation of ISO 14000 standards,
which provide a framework for environmental management
systems (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Hanson et al., 2004;
Montabon et al., 2000; Tibor and Feldman, 1996).
 Enhanced reputation – engaging in sustainable behavior can
make an organization more attractive to suppliers and custo-
mers (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Ellen et al., 2006), to potential
employees (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Capaldi, 2005), and
to shareholders (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Klassen and
McLaughlin, 1996).
This paper will measure the possible contribution of the two
key Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) practices of
Environmental Purchasing and Sustainable Packaging and how
well they intersect with the Economic, Environmental and Social
aspects from a supply chain perspective and the extent of
contribution of these SSCM practices toward Sustainable Supply
Chain Performance.
2.4. Theoretical foundation
The degree of vertical integration between SSCM practices in
contributing toward sustainable supply chain performance can be
334 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340
associated with the Transaction Cost (TC) theory. According to
Mighell and Jones (1963), vertical coordination includes all ways
of harmonizing the successive vertical stages of production and
marketing. The market-price system, vertical integration, con-
tracting, cooperation singly or in combination are some of the
alternative means of coordination. Williamson (1975) stated that
transaction costs are important because they affect the organiza-
tion of economic activity or ‘‘vertical co-ordination’’ and firms
attempt to acquire resources at a low cost and in a stable manner.
In addition to the above, Arminas (2004) stated that when firms
become increasingly dependent on scarce and valued resources, it
will result in a tendency to increase coordination with other
members of the supply chain, such as acquiring access to strategic
supplier technologies and knowledge by forming supplier part-
nerships and strategic alliances. Thus, in the context of supply
chain management there is always some kind of vertical coordi-
nation for any activity to take place. Based on the literature
review in the previous sections, the study identifies various
variables and dimensions of the main constructs of the study,
which are sustainable supply chain management practices and
their outcomes. Fig. 2 shows the theoretical framework.
Bjorklund (2010) stated that the increased focus on the
purchasing function has increased the discussion on the contribu-
tion of purchasing in reducing the impact on the natural environ-
ment and concluded that purchasing could actually be a more
powerful change agent than any other corporate function. In
addition, the results from Carter et al. (2000) show that environ-
mental purchasing has a positive effect on firm performance in
relation to net income and cost of goods sold. This implies that
with environmental purchasing being at the very front of the
value chain means it possesses characteristics that can influence
the organization supply chain performance from a sustainable
perspective.
Twede (1995) commented that managing packaging waste is a
costly task, especially to collect, reuse or even recycle those
wastes, due to the variety of materials and small quantities that
make up the packaging waste. In addition, James et al. (2005a)
suggested that besides ensuring the successful movement of the
product across the supply chain, sustainable packaging must
ensure the reduced environmental impact of product spoilage
and waste. The reduction in waste and environmental impact
derived from sustainable packaging can have a direct influence on
the sustainable supply chain performance of the organization.
Based on the above, the following hypotheses are postulated:
H1. Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices positively
affect Sustainable Supply Chain Performance
H1a. Environmental Purchasing positively affects Sustainable
Supply Chain Performance
H1b. Sustainable Packaging positively affects Sustainable Supply
Chain Performance
Environmental H1a
Purchasing
Sustainable
Supply Chain
Performance
Sustainable
Packaging
H1b
Fig. 2. Theoretical framework.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
The population frame for the study consists of manufacturing
firms in Malaysia. Li et al. (2006), however, stated that supply
chain practices tend to be more prominent among large sized
companies. This implies that large sized companies tend to
emphasize supply chain related practices as opposed to smaller
sized companies. Thus, the majority of the respondents for this
study are large manufacturing companies or multi National
Corporations operating in Malaysia. These firms are expected to
have a high rate of adoption of environmental, safety and human
rights initiatives. The minimum requirement for a sample is one
variable to ten respondents (Hair et al., 2006), thus, a respondent
size of 106 is considered sufficient for this study. Stratified
random sampling is used in this study.
The unit of analysis of the study is the individual firm. Since, the
study combines issues related to sustainability focusing on the
environment, economic and human rights aspects with business
aspects of supply chain, the most appropriate respondent will be
the Supply Chain, Purchasing and Material Packaging representative
of the firm. Thus, the questionnaire will be addressed to the Supply
Chain, Purchasing and Material Packaging personnel who are usually
from logistics operations, purchasing or the material engineering
department of the firm.
3.2. Survey instrument
The primary data were gathered through a questionnaire
survey. Questionnaires are considered an efficient method to
collect data from the respondents, especially when the researcher
knows what is required and how to measure the variables of
interest. The questionnaire is divided into five sections with a total
of 76 items. A 5-pointLikert scale from Low Extent (1) to High
Extent (5) is used to measure the extent of the sustainable
development related practices within the organization. Specifically,
the items for Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices on
Environmental Purchasing were adopted from Carter et al. (2000).
Items for Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices on
Sustainable Packaging were adapted from Kooijmann (1996).
All of the items for Environmental Purchasing and Sustainable
Packaging were initially validated by three managers working in
multinational companies. It is believed that this process is deemed
necessary to suit the measurements with the context of Malaysia.
For the outcomes, the questions were designed using a 5-point
Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) to
measure the effect of the sustainable supply chain practices on
the organization supply chain performance. The questionnaire
model for Sustainable Supply Chain Performance was adapted
from Harmon and Cowan (2009).
4. Data analysis
4.1. Profile of the companies
A total of 400 questionnaires were mailed to the respondents.
Although, overall, 109 completed questionnaires were received,
only 105 responses were considered usable as four of the res-
ponses were incomplete. The findings show that about 44.8% (47)
of the firms employ more than 1500 employees, followed by
16.2% (17) with 501 to 1500 employees, 26.7% (28) firms with
50 to 500 employees and 12.4% (13) firms with less than 50
employees. Approximately 60% (63) of the firms are fully owned
by a foreign company, 21.9% (23) of firms are joint ventures
 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340 335

between local and foreign, and 18.1% (19) are fully Malaysian
owned firms. In addition, 66.7% (70) of the firms are part of a
larger organization in line with the foreign and joint venture
ownership of the firms as shared above, while 33.3% (35) of the
firms are not part of a larger organization.
In the context of manufacturing sectors, as expected, 68.6%
(72) firms belong to the electrical and electronics (E&E) industry,
which is the largest manufacturing sector in Malaysia; 9.5% (10)
of the firms belong to the paper products and printing sector; 5.7%
(6) belong to the machinery and equipment sectors; 4.8% (5) of
firms fall under the chemical sector and 3.8% (4) of firms belong
to the pharmaceutical sector. Food and Beverage, Textiles and
wearing apparel sectors consist of 1.0% (1) firms each for both
sectors. Based on the firm age, 42.9% (26) of the firms have existed
in Malaysia for more than 26 years; followed by 10.5% (11) of
firms between 21 and 25 years; 19% (20) of firms with an age of
16 to 20 years; 10.5% (11) firms between 11 and 15 years; 16.2%
(17) firms between 5 and 10 years; and only 1.0% (1) of firms have
been in existence for less than five years.
4.2. Goodness of measures
In this study, factor analysis was used to validate whether the
items in each section loaded into the expected categories. In
addition, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal con-
sistency or homogeneity among the items.
4.2.1. Factor analysis for sustainable supply chain management
practices
Factor analysis with Varimax rotation was done to validate the
dimensionality and appropriateness of the measurement scale.
With eigenvalues greater than 1.00 the total variance explained
was 70.63%. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.896
indicating sufficient intercorrelation while the Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity was significant (Chi square¼ 1.2603, p o0.001). There
were 14 questions on sustainable supply chain management
practices and two factors were extracted (Table 1).
4.2.2. Factor analysis for sustainable supply chain performance
Table 2 shows factor analysis for the sustainable supply
chain performance or outcomes. The initial theoretical framework
defined that sustainable supply chain management practices
will lead to only one outcome of sustainable supply chain
performance. However, the results from factor analysis show
four different factors for the outcomes. A review of the literature
on green supply chain initiatives by Zhu and Sarkis (2004)
stated that the possible outcomes of green supply chain manage-
ment can be categorized as the economic and environmental
outcome.
However, Kassinis and Soteriou (2003) derived intangible out-
come as another type of outcome of green supply chain initiatives.
These categories of outcome were compared with the sustainable
supply chain management outcome proposed by Carter and Rogers
(2008) who categorized outcomes of sustainable supply chain as
environmental, economic and social outcome. Referring to the
question items derived from the SCOR model and by citing the
supply chain performance metrics by Gunasekaran et al. (2004)
who termed the key metrics as operational outcomes, this study
uses four factors of outcome – economic, environmental, social and
operational outcomes – which are directly aligned with sustainable
supply chain performance.
Varimax rotation was used to validate that there are four
constructs that are distinct in sustainable supply chain perfor-
mance. The results showed four solutions with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 and the total variance explained was 79.95%.
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.832 indicating
sufficient intercorrelation, while the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
was significant (Chi square¼1.1243, p o0.001). This result con-
firms that the construct is unidimensional and factorially distinct
and that all the items used to measure a particular construct are
loaded on four factors.
4.3. Modified research framework and hypotheses
Based on the result of factor analysis for sustainable supply
chain performance, four variables were added to the study on
Outcome, categorized as Operations, Environmental, Social and
Economic. The theoretical framework of the study has been
modified to reflect the changes in the variables. The modified
framework includes four outcomes instead of one outcome as
conceptualized in the original framework. Fig. 3 presents the
modified theoretical framework.

Table 1
Factor analysis for sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices.

Items Items no. Factor

EP SP

Environmental purchasing
Purchases recycled packaging. EP1 .907 .263
Purchases packaging that is of lighter weight. EP2 .920 .204
Participates in the design of products for disassembly. EP4 .891 .211
Participates in the design of products for recycling or reuse. EP6 .861 .241
Uses a life-cycle analysis to evaluate the environmental friendliness of products and packaging. EP3 .897 .174
Asks suppliers to commit to waste reduction goals. EP5 .882 .136
Sustainable packaging
Effectively recovered and utilized in biological and industrial cradle-to-cradle cycles. SP8 .221 .771
Beneficial, safe and healthy for individuals and communities throughout its life cycle. SP1 .227 .763
Physically designed to optimize materials and energy. SP7 .182 .808
Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials. SP4 .171 .767
Sourced, manufactured, transported and recycled using renewable energy. SP3 .268 .661
Meets market criteria for performance and cost. SP2 .237 .670
Manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices. SP5 .126 .755
Made from materials healthy in all probable end-of-life scenarios. SP6 .010 .811
KMO .896
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 1.2603
Eigenvalue 5.096 4.793
Percentage variance (70.63%) 36.401 34.237
336 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340

Table 2
Factor analysis for sustainable supply chain performance.

Items Item no. Component

OPE ECON SOC EN

Operations (OPE)
Ability to reduce manufacturing operating cost. Ope4 .887 .090 .234 .087
Number of days for a supply chain to respond to plan, source, make and deliver unexpected demand variations. Ope3 .878 .069 .149 .081
Ability to quickly respond to changes to competitors product offerings. Ope2 .873 .154 .119 .039
Inventory days of supply/inventory turnover rate (number of days cash is tied up in inventory). Ope5 .855 .127 .138 .138
Ability to fulfill perfect order(complete, without any delays and damage free). Ope1 .846 .197 .160 .196
Economic (ECO)
Significant improvement in terms of sales and market share. Econ3 .170 .903 .220 .155
Significant reduction in terms of waste and its disposal costs. Econ1 .146 .881 .123 .254
Significant improvement in terms of resources management efficiency. Econ2 .171 .875 .274 .164
Social (SOC)
Significant improvement in its image in the eyes of its customers. Soc2 .221 .122 .826 .261
Significant improvement in relations with community stakeholders, e.g., Nongovernmental organizations (NGO)
Soc3 .163 .263 .778 .147
and community activists.
Significant improvement in product image. Soc1 .263 .237 .772 .220
Environment (EN)
Significant improvement in its compliance to environmental standards. En1 .057 .149 .124 .859
Significant reduction in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials. En2 .204 .203 .166 .765
Significant reduction in energy consumption. En3 .107 .162 .282 .737
KMO .832
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 1.1243
Eigenvalue 4.045 2.677 2.280 2.192
Percentage variance (79.95%) 28.891 19.121 16.288 15.654

H1.2a. Sustainable Packaging positively affects environmental

Operation
Environmental outcomes
Purchasing
Economic H1.2b. Sustainable Packaging positively affects economic outcomes.

Environmental H1.2c. Sustainable Packaging positively affects social outcomes

Sustainable
Packaging
H1.2d. Sustainable Packaging positively affects operational
Social
outcomes.
Fig. 3. Modified theoretical framework.
4.4. Reliability

The inter-item consistency measure of Cronbach’s alpha was

In view of the changes in the theoretical framework, the original
hypotheses related to the relationships between sustainable supply
chain management practices and outcomes were restated. The
restated hypotheses reflect the addition of operation, economic,
environment and social as the new list of variables for outcomes.
Accordingly, new hypotheses were added to reflect the hypothe-
sized relationships between sustainable supply chain manage-
ment practices and operation, economic, environment and social
outcomes.
H1: Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices positively
affect outcomes
H1.1. Environmental Purchasing positively affects outcomes
H1.1a. Environmental Purchasing positively affects environmen-
tal outcomes
H1.1b. Environmental Purchasing positively affects economic
outcomes.
H1.1c. Environmental Purchasing positively affects social outcomes
H1.1d. Environmental Purchasing positively affects operational
outcomes.
H1.2. Sustainable Packaging positively affects outcomes
used to assess the reliability of all major variables. All the
reliability values are above 0.80, thus all major variables are
reliable measures (Nunnally, 1978). The Highest Cronbach’s alpha
was observed for environmental purchasing at 0.962 and the
lowest for Environment (0.787). The high value of Cronbach’s
alpha for all the variables under study indicates that the question
items are reliable and consistent. This can be attributed to the fact
that all the questionnaire items were either adopted or adapted
from published journals or articles that have been empirically
tested or conceptualized.
4.5. Regression analysis
Table 3 shows the findings from multiple regression. Multiple
regression analyses are used to determine the influence of a set of
independent variables on a dependent variable, i.e., how much of
the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the set of
predictors or independent variables (Hair et al., 1998). Table 4
presents the results of the regression analysis for sustainable
supply chain management and performance. The first model is
between sustainable supply chain practices and environmental
performance and it was significant (F¼24.847; p o0.001) with
R2 ¼.328 and adjusted R2 ¼ .314. Environmental purchasing was
not found to have any relationship with environmental perfor-
mance (b ¼ .062, p4.05). However, sustainable packaging was
 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340 337

Table 3  Sustainable Packaging only has a positive effect on environ-

Reliability. mental, economic, social and operational outcomes.
No. of items Cronbach’s alpha

Environmental purchasing 6 .962 5. Discussion

Sustainable packaging 8 .903
Environment 3 .787 The initial theoretical framework defined that sustainable
Social 3 .844
supply chain management practices will lead to only one out-
Economic 3 .939
Operations 5 .940 come of sustainable supply chain performance; however, the
results from the factor analysis show four different factors for
the outcomes. The review of literature on green supply chain
initiatives by Zhu and Sarkis (2004) stated that the possible
outcomes of green supply chain management can be categorized
Table 4
as economic and environmental outcome.
Regression of sustainable supply chain management on performance. However, Kassinis and Soteriou (2003) derived intangible
outcome as another type of outcome of green supply chain
Sustainable Environment Social Economic Economic initiatives. These categories of outcome were compared with the
supply chain performance performance performance performance
sustainable supply chain management outcome proposed by
practices b b b b
Carter and Rogers (2008) who categorized outcomes of sustain-
Environmental .062 .297nnn .255nn .848nnn able supply chain as environmental, economic and social out-
purchasing come. Referring to the question items derived from the SCOR
Sustainable .542nnn .478nnn .409nnn .031
model and by citing the supply chain performance metrics by
packaging
R2 .328 .442 .325 .742
Gunasekaran et al. (2004) who termed the key metrics as
Adjusted R2 .314 .431 .312 .737 operational outcomes, in this study, the four factors of outcome
F 24.847 40.443nnn 24.543nnn 141.106nnn will be defined as economic, environmental, social and opera-
tional outcomes, which are directly aligned with sustainable
Significance Level:
supply chain performance. The definitions of the four outcomes
nn
p o0.01.
are as follows:
nnn
p o0.001.

 Environmental outcomes: defined as positive consequences of

significantly related with environment performance (b ¼.542,
p o.001).
The next model is between sustainable supply chain practices
with social performance. This model can explain 44.2% (R2 ¼0.442)
of variance on social performance and was significant (F¼40.443,
po.001). The 55.8% due to error or explained by other factors are
not included in this study. Environmental Purchasing (b ¼.297;
p40.001) and Sustainable Packaging (b ¼.478; p40.001) were
found to be statistically related with social performance. The third
model is the results of the regression analysis undertaken to test
the sustainable supply chain management on economic perfor-
mance. The model is significant (F¼24.543; p valueo0.001). The
coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.325 indicating
that 32.5% of Economic performance is explained by the sustain-
able supply chain management. From the regression analysis it can
be observed that Environmental Purchasing (b ¼.255; p40.01) and
Sustainable Packaging (b ¼.409; p40.001) did have a significant
influence on Economic performance.
The last model is the results of the regression analysis
undertaken to test the effect of two dimensions of sustainable
supply chain management on operations performance. The model
is significant (F¼141.106; p value o0.001). Environmental
purchasing and sustainable packaging were entered into the regres-
sion, the coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.742
indicating that 74.2% of operations performance was explained by
sustainable supply chain management. The remaining 25.8% is
unexplained in this model. From the regression analysis, it can be
observed that environmental purchasing (b ¼.848; po0.001) did
have a significant influence on operation performance. Nevertheless,
sustainable packaging (b ¼.031; p40.05) was not found to have a
significant relationship with operation performance.
The results can be summarized as follows:
 Environmental purchasing only has a positive effect on economic,
social and operational outcomes.
green supply chain initiatives on the natural environment
inside and outside the firm (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
 Economic outcomes: defined as financial returns that can actu-
ally result from the adoption of green supply chain initiatives
(Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
 Social outcomes: defined as conceptual or difficult to quantify
outcomes that can actually result from the adoption of green
supply chain initiatives (Kassinis and Soteriou, 2003).
 Operational outcomes: defined as operational level measures,
which include the ability in day-to-day technical representa-
tion, adherence to developed schedule, ability to avoid com-
plaints and achievement of defect free deliveries (Gunasekaran
et al., 2004).
The results of the study showed that environmental purchas-
ing does not have a positive effect on environmental outcome,
which contradicts the findings of Bjorklund (2010) that the
increased focus on the purchasing function has literally increased
the discussion on the contribution of purchasing in reducing the
impact on the natural environment. One of the possible reasons
for the above result could be that the responding firms believe
that the benefits of these initiatives may reflect on external
parties rather than on the firm itself. For example, although
environmental purchasing focuses on improving the environmen-
tal performance of its suppliers, by purchasing environmentally
friendly materials the direct benefit goes to the suppliers rather
than the firm indirectly. Another contributing factor to the above
finding could be the lack of availability of systematic monitoring
and sharing of key performance indicators derived from the
environmental purchasing activities from the environmental
aspect of the organization. Thus, the lack of visibility on the key
indicators could lead to the above findings of environmental
purchasing not contributing to the environmental performance
of an organization.
However, environmental purchasing showed a positive effect
on economic, social and operational outcomes. For economic
338 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340

outcome, the finding is supported by the proposition from Carter particularly from the economic and social perspective. This aligns
et al. (2000) that environmental purchasing has a positive effect with the notation that expected business benefits have a sig-
on a firm’s performance in relation to net income and cost of nificant effect on sustainable supply chain management practices.
goods sold. On social outcome, the finding corresponds with the Thus, the firms need to work together to share the benefits and
finding by Preuss (2000), which states that a company adopting ‘success stories’ of sustainable supply chain management prac-
social and/or environmental standards can leverage on their tices with other firms so as to spread and create interest in SSCM
purchasing function to transfer those standards to suppliers, thus concepts across a large number of firms. Importantly, SSCM needs
generating a chain effect leading to quick and deep changes in the to be conveyed as a route for firm’s commercial success rather
overall social and environmental elements. The positive relation- than as a moral obligation.
ship between environmental purchasing and operational outcome
can be linked with the findings of Zhu et al. (2005) that green
supply chain practices were perceived to have a large influence 5.2. Directions for future research
on promoting product quality. This can be related to the strategic
stage of the supply chain performance metric proposed by Future research could utilize the concepts and results to
Gunasekaran et al. (2004), which focuses on the level of customer develop a detailed conceptualization of sustainable supply chain
perceived value of a product. management practices and their impact on sustainable supply
The results of the study showed that sustainable packaging has chain performance, especially in the context of Malaysia. Future
a significant positive effect on the three types of outcome – studies can replicate this study by looking at other forms of SSCM
environmental, economic and social. The findings of James et al. practices, such as Sustainable Warehousing and Sustainable
(2005a) that sustainable packaging must ensure the reduced Transportation, and in different contexts, such as different sectors
environmental impact of product spoilage and waste supports or States. Future studies may use longitudinal analysis in studying
the result of the positive relationship between sustainable packa- sustainable supply chain management practices as a means of
ging and the environmental, economic and social outcomes. This providing a clear picture concerning the effect of SSCM. A good
is because a reduction in the resources and waste directly implies example will be to perform a comparison on the outcomes of
the key environmental element, which can be related to overall SSCM before and after the adoption of SSCM practices.
cost reduction from an economic point of view. While sustainable
packaging through environmentally friendly packaging and waste
5.3. Conclusion
reduction can be said to fulfill external societal drivers due to
increasing public awareness, consumer demand for environmen-
Today, sustainability is receiving an increasing level of atten-
tally friendly performance, and the influence of NGOs concerned
tion at both the local and global levels, which eventually leads to
with corporate green wash.
questions on how to integrate sustainability with business opera-
However, the result shows that sustainable packaging does not
tions and strategy. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
have a positive effect on operational outcome, which contradicts
could be a good means to extend the responsibility of business
the study by Twede (1995) who stated that through a reduction in
organizations from being reactive in reducing pollution and waste
the cost of packing and by mechanizing operations; organizations
and other sustainable related efforts, to proactively assuming full
are able to improve the speed of packing and eliminate assembly
responsibility for their products from acquisition of raw materials
line downtime. The contradictory finding between sustainable
to the final disposal of the products from a sustainability per-
packaging and operational outcome could be due to the inability
spective. This paper examines sustainable supply chain manage-
to associate the benefits of sustainable packaging with actual
ment practices within manufacturing firms in Malaysia.
outcome from an operational key metrics perspective. This can be
The main contribution of the paper is its proof concerning the
partly due to the lack of a monitoring system or indicators that
effects of the SSCM practices on the sustainable supply chain
can directly link sustainable packaging with improvements on
performance of the firm. Environmental purchasing and sustain-
operational outcomes, such as improvement in overall supply
able packaging were found to have a direct impact on the firm’s
chain delivery cycle time.
performance outcome, especially on economic and social out-
In summary, both environmental purchasing and sustainable
comes. This signals that SSCM practices can bring value to both
packaging showed a positive effect on economic and social out-
the organizations and the external environment. SSCM practices
comes. This indicates that, in general, Malaysian firms place
will lead to a reduction in resources, material and waste, thereby
high consideration on the business benefits of sustainable supply
enabling better resource utilization, and play a significant role in
chain management practices as key determining criteria to adopt
achieving the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ of social, environmental, and
sustainable supply chain management practices. Thus, although a
economic performance, and, thus, contributing to sustainable
positive result on social outcome might not reflect the reason for
development of the country.
firms to adopt sustainable supply chain management practices, it
In summary, the overall findings indicate that sustainable supply
could be towards the expectation that sustainable supply chain
chain management practices represent an interesting area of
management practices leads to an improvement in the financial
research and practice, which requires further research to understand
and market position of the firms.
why firms adopt sustainable supply chain management practices
in the first place. This study attempts to set a solid theoretical
and empirical basis for this area of research. Thus, future studies
5.1. Implications of the study
are encouraged to make use of this study for further investigation of
this interesting and important topic, namely, sustainable supply
From the transaction cost (TC) perspective, there is empirical
chains.
evidence of strong vertical integration between sustainable sup-
ply chain management (SSCM) practices and the four types of
outcome (environment, economic, social and operational) con-
cerning sustainable supply chain performance. In respect of Appendix
managerial implications, the results indicate that SSCM practice
has a positive effect on sustainable supply chain performance, See Table A1 for more details.
 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340 339

Table A1
Items for the variables.

Environmental purchasing: currently our company y. Low extent Low Moderate High High extent

EP1 Purchases recycled packaging.

EP2 Purchases packaging that is of lighter weight.
EP3 Uses a life-cycle analysis to evaluate the environmental friendliness of products and packaging.
EP4 Participates in the design of products for disassembly.
EP5 Asks suppliers to commit to waste reduction goals.
EP6 Participates in the design of products for recycling or reuse.

Sustainable packaging: currently our packaging y. Low extent Low Moderate High High extent

SP1 Beneficial, safe and healthy for individuals and communities throughout its life cycle.
SP2 Meets market criteria for performance and cost.
SP3 Sourced, manufactured, transported and recycled using renewable energy.
SP4 Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials.
SP5 Manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices.
SP6 Made from materials healthy in all probable end-of-life scenarios.
SP7 Physically designed to optimize materials and energy.
SP8 Effectively recovered and utilized in biological and industrial cradle-to-cradle cycles.

For the last three years, my firm has achieved y. Strongly Disagree Moderate Agree Strongly
disagree agree

O1 Significant improvement in its compliance to environmental standards.

O2 Significant reduction in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials.
O3 Significant reduction in energy consumption.
O4 Significant improvement in product image.
O5 Significant improvement in its image in the eyes of its customers.
O6 Significant improvement in relations with community stakeholders, e.g., Nongovernmental organizations
(NGO) and community activists.
O7 Significant reduction in terms of wastes and its disposal costs.
O8 Significant improvement in terms of resources management efficiency.
O9 Significant improvement in terms of sales and market share.
O10 Ability to fulfill perfect order(complete, without any delays and damage free).
O11 Ability to quickly respond to changes to competitors product offerings.
O12 Number of days for a supply chain to respond to plan, source, make and deliver unexpected demand
variations.
O13 Ability to reduce manufacturing operating cost.
O14 Inventory days of supply/inventory turnover rate (number of days cash is tied up in inventory).

References
Arminas, D., 2004. Steel yourself for price increases. Supply Management 9 (25), 14.
Bjorklund, M., 2010. Influence from the business environment on environmental
purchasing-drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
Brown, K.A., 1996. Workplace safety: a call for research. Journal of Operations
Management 14 (2), 157–161.
Capaldi, N., 2005. Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line. Interna-
tional Journal of Social Economics 32 (5), 408–423.
Carter, C.R., Dresner, M., 2001. Environmental purchasing and supply manage-
ment: cross-functional development of grounded theory. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 37 (3), 12–27.
Carter, N.T., Mol, A.P.J., 2006. China and the environment: domestic and transna-
tional dynamics of a future hegemon. Environmental Politics 15 (2), 331–345.
Carter, C.R., Stevens, C.K., 2007. Electronic reverse auction configuration and its
impact on buyer price and supplier perceptions of opportunism: a laboratory
experiment. Journal of Operations Management 25 (5), 1035–1057.
Carter, C.R., Jennings, M.M., 2002. Logistics social responsibility: an integrative
framework. Journal of Business Logistics 23 (1), 145–180.
Carter, C.R., Jennings, M.M., 2004. The role of purchasing in the socially responsible
management of the supply chain: a structural equation analysis. Journal of
Business Logistics 25 (1), 145–186.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion & Logistics Management 38 (5), 360–387.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R., Grimm, C.M., 2000. Environmental purchasing and firm
performance: an empirical investigation. Transportation Research Part E 36
(3), 219–228.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management the
constructs and measurement. Journal of Operations Management 22 (2), 119–150.
Christmann, P., 2000. Effects of ‘best practices’ of environmental management on
cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Academy of Management
Journal 43, 663–680.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2007. Investigating corporate social
responsibility in supply chains: an SME perspective. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16 (15), 1579–1588.
De Brito, M.P. (2003). Managing Reverse Logistics or Reversing Logistics Manage-
ment? Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. PhD Thesis.
Deakin, E., 2001. Sustainable development and sustainable transportation: Stra-
tegies for economic prosperity, environmental quality, and equity, Working
Paper, University of California at Berkeley. Institute of Urban and Regional
Development.
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustain-
ability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11 (2), 130–141.
Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A., 2006. Building corporate associations: consumer
attributions for corporate social responsibility programs. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2), 147–157.
Eltayeb, T. (2009). Adoption of Green Supply Chain Initiatives by ISO 14001 Certified
Manufacturing Firms. In Malaysia: Key Drivers, Outcomes, And Moderating Effect
Of Relationship Orientation, PhD Thesis University Science Malaysia.
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S., 2009. Going green through green supply chain initiatives
towards environmental sustainability. Operate Supply Chain Management
2, 93–110.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., McGaughey, R.E., 2004. A framework for supply chain
performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 87,
333–347.
Hair, J.F.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data
Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice-Hall International Inc., Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey, USA.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamner, B., 2006. Effects of green purchasing strategies on supplier behavior. In:
Sarkis, J. (Ed.), Greening the Supply Chain. Springer, London, pp. 25–37. Chapter 2.
Hanson, J.D., Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., 2004. Core values and environmental
management. Greener Management International 46, 29–40.
Harmon Robert, R., Cowan, Kelly, 2009. A multiple perspectives view of the market case
for green energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (1), 204–213.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 20 (4), 986–1014.
Holmes, S.M., Power, M.L., Walter, C.K., 1996. A motor carrier wellness program:
development and testing. Transportation Journal 35 (3), 33–48.
Hoole, R., 2005. Five ways to simplify your supply chain. Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal 10 (1), 3–6.
Jahre, M., Hatteland, C.J., 2004. Packages and physical distribution. Implications for
integration and standardization. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 34 (2), 123–139.
340 S. Zailani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 140 (2012) 330–340
James, K., Fitzpatrick, L., Lewis, H., Sonneveld, K., 2005a. Sustainable Packaging
System Development. In Handbook of Sustainability Research, Peter Lang
Scientific Publishing, Frankfurt.
Jimenez, J.B., Lorente, J.J.C., 2001. Environmental performance as an operations
objective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21
(12), 1553–1572.
Kassinis, G.I., Soteriou, A.C., 2003. Greening the service profit chain: the impact of
environmental management practices. Production and Operations Manage-
ment 12 (3), 386–403.
Klassen, R.D., McLaughlin, C.P., 1996. The impact of environmental management
on firm performance. Management Science 42 (8), 1199–1214.
Kooijmann, M., 1996. Towards Sustainable Packaging. Sustainable Packaging Alliance.
Leenders, M.R., Johnson, P.F., Flynn, A.E., Fearon, H.E., 2006. Purchasing and Supply
Management, 13th edn. Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Rao, S.S., 2006. The impact of supply
chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega 34, 107–124.
McElroy, J.C., Rodriguez, J.M., Griffin, G.C., Morrow, P.C., Wilson, M.G., 1993. Career
stage, time spent on the road, and truckload driver attitudes. Transportation
Journal 33 (1), 5–14.
McKone-Sweet, K.E., 2004. Lessons from a coffee supply chain. Supply Chain
Management Review 8 (7), 52–59.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., 2001.
Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22 (20), 2.
Mighell, R.L., & Jones, L.A. (1963). Vertical Coordination in Agriculture. USDA
ERS-19, Washington DC.
Min, H., Galle, W.P., 1997. Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications.
International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management 33 (3), 10–17.
Mollenkopf, D., Closs, D., Twede, D., Lee, S., Burgess, G., 2005. Assessing the
viability of reusable packaging: a relative cost approach. Journal of Business
Logistics 26 (1), 169–197.
Montabon, F., Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R., Calantone, R.J., 2000. ISO 14000: assessing
its perceived impact on corporate performance. Journal of Supply Chain
Management 36 (2), 4–16.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2002. Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study.
Transportation Journal 41 (4), 23–35.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olhager, J., Selldin, E., 2004. Supply chain management survey of Swedish manufactur-
ing firm. International Journal of Production Economics 89 (3), 353–361.
Penfield, P., (2009).Seven Steps to Implementing a Sustainable Supply Chain.
White Report, Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2006. Strategy and society: the link between compe-
titive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review
84 (12), 78–92.
Preuss, L., 2000. Should you buy your customer’s values? On the transfer of moral
values in industrial purchasing. International Journal of Value-based Manage-
ment 13 (2), 141–158.
Ramudhin, A., Chaabane, A., Paquet, M., 2009. On the Design of Sustainable. Green
Supply Chains, IEEE.
Rosenau, W.V., Twede, D., Mazzeo, M.A., Singh, S.P., 1996. ‘‘Returnable/reusable
logistical packaging: a capital budgeting investment decision framework’’.
Journal of Business Logistics 17 (2), 139–165.
Sarkis, J. (1999), How Green is the Supply Chain? Practice and Research, Clark
University, Worcester, MA.
Sarkis, J., 2001. Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (5/6),
666–686.
Seitz, M.A., Wells, P.E., 2006. Challenging the implementation of corporate
sustainability. Business Process Management Journal 12 (6), 822–836.
Seuring, S., Martin, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production
15 (16), 1699–1710.
Shrivastava, 1995c. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal 16, 183–200.
Sikdar, S.K., 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE
Journal 49 (8), 1928–1932.
Teuteberg, F., Wittstruck, D., 2010. A Systematic Review of Sustainable Supply
Chain Management Research. Accounting and Information Systems. University
of Osnabrück.
Tibor, T., Feldman, I., 1996. ISO 14000: A Guide to the New Environmental
Management Standards. Irwin Professional Publishing, Burr Ridge, IL.
Twede, D., 1995. Less Waste on the Loading Dock: Competitive Strategy and the
Reduction of Logistical Packaging Waste. Yale School of Forestry and Environ-
mental Studies: New Haven (CT).
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006a. Extending green practices across the supply chain:
the impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 26 (7), 795–821.
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., 2007. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a
supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18),
4381–4401.
Williamson, O.E., 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-Trust Implica-
tions: A Study in the Economics of Organization. Free Press, New York, NY.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Nasruddin, E., Zainal, Z., 2009. A conceptual paper on the
implementation of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) in Malay-
sia: Key Drivers and Consequences. 3rd International Conference on Opera-
tions and Supply Chain Management, Malaysia.
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. Journal of Operations Management 22 (3),
265–289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in China:
drivers, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 25, 4.
Zsidisin, G.A., Siferd, S.P., 2001. Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7 (1),
61–73.