Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/327939722
CITATIONS READS
121 12,314
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sibel Yıldız Çankaya on 11 January 2019.
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:528032 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
JMTM
30,1 Effects of green supply chain
management practices on
sustainability performance
98 Sibel Yildiz Çankaya
Department of Business Administration,
Received 30 March 2018
Revised 28 June 2018 Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey, and
10 September 2018
Bulent Sezen
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of eight dimensions of green supply chain
management (GSCM) on economic, environmental and social performance, which are the three dimensions of
corporate sustainability. The eight dimensions covered in this study are: green purchasing, green
manufacturing, green distribution, green packaging, green marketing, environmental education, internal
environmental management and investment recovery.
Design/methodology/approach – The relationships between dimensions of GSCM and sustainability
performance are tested by using a plant-level survey. A proposed research model and hypotheses are tested
by using cross-sectional face-to-face and e-mail survey data collected from manufacturing firms in Turkey.
Structural equation modeling is used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings – Except for green purchasing, all GSCM dimensions are found to be related with at least one of the
performance dimensions.
Practical implications – The results are important in highlighting the importance of GSCM in improving
sustainability performance.
Originality/value – This paper enhances the understanding of the relationship between different
dimensions of GSCM and the three sustainability performance factors. While there are very few studies
examining the relationship between GSCM and corporate sustainability, this study is important in terms of
exploring the effects of dimensions of GSCM applications on economic, environmental and social performance
one by one, by examining these applications in the form of eight dimensions.
Keywords Green manufacturing, Sustainable production, Supply chain management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Environmental problems such as rapid depletion of resources, environmental pollution,
global warming and decrease in biological diversity cause deterioration in the ecological
balance. The fact that these ecological problems are increasing continuously leads
governments, communities, companies and individuals to take precautions in
environmental matters (Walker et al., 2008). Companies that are seen as the source of
environmental problems have had to review their production processes and supply chains
as a result of pressure from the community and governments. Along with the acceptance of
company responsibility resulting from activities throughout supply chain, green supply
chain management (GSCM) has started to become prominent (Adriana, 2009).
The concept of green supply chain is a multidisciplinary issue that emerges essentially
from building environment-friendly management practices in the context of supply chains
(Eltayeb et al., 2011). Srivastava (2007) reported that GSCM was created with the idea of
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management inclusion of environmental thinking in supply chain management. It includes stages from
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2019
pp. 98-121
product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, product delivery
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
and end-of-life management of the product. As it may be understood from the definition, it
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0099 may be stated that GSCM has a very wide application area. However, in most studies
conducted in early years, GSCM was studied under a single functional dimension, such as Green supply
green purchasing or reverse logistics (Sarkis, 1999). The further studies conducted in chain
subsequent years started to investigate the different phases of supply chains with an management
environmentalist perspective (e.g. Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Rao and Holt, 2005; Shang et al.,
2010; Kung et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2013; Luthra et al., 2016; Younis et al., 2016; Vanalle et al.,
2017; Schmidt et al., 2017). Despite the increase in the number of studies that have studied
GSCM in different dimensions in recent years, the fact that this concept has a very wide area 99
of application makes it difficult to establish a comprehensive framework for the dimensions
that make up GSCM. Some authors studying this field also mentioned the lack of a holistic
framework for GSCM dimensions (Murphy and Poist, 2003; Laosirihongthong et al., 2013;
Sharma et al., 2015).
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Sustainable development began to draw attention with the publication of the Brundtland
report in 1987. In this report, sustainability was described as meeting today’s needs without
sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). The literature speaks of three dimensions of
sustainability. These are environmental, economic and social performances. For
sustainability, it is necessary for every business to achieve a balance in economic, social
and environmental processes and be successful in its attempts concerning all these three
dimensions. However, due to the complexity of these dimensions and their relationship to each
other, it is not easy to achieve this balance and reach success. Diabat and Govindan (2011)
pointed out that GSCM may be a good way to balance environmental, economic and social
advantages. Many authors have addressed the importance of a green supply chain in
achieving sustainable development (Green et al., 2012; Rao and Holt, 2005; Sarkis et al., 2011).
For example, the natural resource-based view (NRBV) sees environmental practices as a
source of substantial gains to enterprises (Hart, 1995). These environmental practices can
positively impact corporate sustainability performance by reducing energy consumption and
material usage, improving stakeholder engagement, reducing costs and increasing product
quality. However, in the literature, the number of studies examining the effects of GSCM
practices on the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) is
limited. There are studies that examined the effects of GSCM on economic performance
(Schmidt et al., 2017; Younis et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2005, 2007b, 2013; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004;
Eltayeb et al., 2011), environmental performance (Younis et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Laari et al.,
2016; Choi and Hwang, 2015; Zhu et al., 2005, 2007b, 2013; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Eltayeb et al.,
2011; Chien and Shih, 2007) and social performance (Younis et al., 2016). In these studies, the
impact of GSCM on economic performance and environmental performance was examined,
but social performance, the third dimension of sustainability, was not mentioned much. There
is also a gap in developing countries, as studies on the relationship between GSCM and
performance are mostly carried out in developed countries (Geng et al., 2017).
In the light of the aforementioned shortcomings, in this paper, we identified eight GSCM
dimensions (green purchasing, green manufacturing, green distribution, green packaging,
green marketing, environmental education, internal environmental management and
investment recovery) and aimed to investigate the effects of these dimensions on economic,
environmental and social performance. In order to achieve this goal, a survey was conducted
on 281 manufacturing firms operating in Turkey.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, the research model and related
hypotheses are proposed based on the literature review. The next section describes the
research methodology, including the construction of the instrument and measures, survey
procedure, sample, and reliability and validity tests. Then, the results of the structural
model are presented. The implications of the results for researchers and practitioners are
discussed and the validity of the findings is reevaluated in the last section. The paper
concludes with further research implications.
JMTM 2. Literature review and hypotheses
30,1 2.1 Green supply chain practices
Srivastava (2007) reported that GSCM includes green design, green purchasing, green
production, green distribution, logistics, marketing and reverse logistics. According to
Walker et al. (2008), the green supply chain concept covers all phases of a product’s life
cycle, from the extraction of raw materials through the design, production and distribution
100 phases, to the use of the product by consumers and its disposal at the end of the product’s
life cycle. Clearly, GSCM practices are extremely extensive. In similarity to the concept of
SCM, the boundary of GSCM depends on the goal of the researcher (Srivastava, 2007).
When empirical studies on GSCM are examined, it is seen that there are more than ten
GSCM dimensions discussed by different authors (Table I). In the light of these studies and
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
based on expert opinions, eight dimensions were determined to be included in our survey.
These practices are briefly described in the following sections.
2.1.1 Green purchasing. The first dimension of GSCM that we included in our study is
purchasing. The purchasing function is the first step in the value chain. Its success will
depend on the integration of environmental efforts, purchasing activities and environmental
objectives of the firm (Carter et al., 2000). For this reason, the green purchasing function is
also an important component of GSCM.
Green purchasing may be defined as integrating environmental problems and concerns
into the procurement process (Rao and Holt, 2005). Choosing the right supplier has a
significant effect in realizing a company’s environmental goals. However, selecting the
suitable supplier is not enough by itself to improve environmental performance. Once a
Internal environmental management Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Zhu et al.
(IEM)/Green management (2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Zhu and Sarkis (2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012), Luthra et al. (2016)
Eco-design (ECO)/Green design/ Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Younis
Green R&D et al. (2016), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Choi and Hwang (2015), Zhu et al.
(2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Kung et al. (2012), Eltayeb et al. (2011), Zhu and
Sarkis (2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al. (2017), Shang et al. (2010), Lee
et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Green purchasing/Green sourcing Vanalle et al. (2017), Schmidt et al. (2017), Zhu et al. (2007a, b, 2013,
2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Younis et al. (2016), Kirchoff et al. (2016),
Teixeira et al. (2016), Hsu et al. (2016), Kung et al. (2012), Eltayeb et al.
(2011), Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Carter et al. (2000), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Shang et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Customer cooperation with Vanalle et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Teixeira et al. (2016),
environmental concerns Zhu et al. (2007a, b, 2013), Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Vijayvargy et al.
(2017), Lee et al. (2012), Green et al. (2012)
Environmental cooperation Younis et al. (2016)
Investment recovery/Collection and Vanalle et al. (2017), Kirchoff et al. (2016), Choi and Hwang (2015),
post-use processing/Green stock/ Zhu et al. (2005, 2007a, b, 2013), Kung et al. (2012), Zhu and Sarkis
Reverse logistics (2004, 2006), Vijayvargy et al. (2017), Shang et al. (2010), Green et al.
(2012), Younis et al. (2016), Eltayeb et al. (2011)
Green logistics Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016)
Green manufacturing/green Schmidt et al. (2017), Luthra et al. (2016), Hsu et al. (2016), Kung et al.
production (2012), Shang et al. (2010)
Green innovation Zhu et al. (2017)
Table I. Green marketing Luthra et al. (2016), Kung et al. (2012), Shang et al. (2010)
Some green supply Green packaging Hsu et al. (2016)
chain dimensions Public relations and green education Kung et al. (2012)
discussed in External GSCM Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Zhu et al. (2005)
the literature Environmental participation Shang et al. (2010)
suitable supplier has been selected, the supply process must be managed by adopting a Green supply
strategic and collaborative understanding with the suppliers. In addition to the selection and chain
management of the supplier, it is also important to assess whether the supplier meets the management
environmental criteria of the firm (Paulraj, 2011).
2.1.2 Green manufacturing. Green manufacturing is one of the most important steps in
GSCM activities. Green production is the adoption and planning of activities that will
require less energy and resource use in the production system and cause the least possible 101
environmental pollution (Gao et al., 2009). Green manufacturing aims to continuously
improve industrial processes and products in order to prevent or reduce air, soil and water
pollution. In short, green manufacturing aims to produce environmentally friendly products
with minimal resources (materials, energy and water) and minimal waste (Routroy, 2009).
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
2.1.3 Green packaging. Green packaging is an important element not only because it is
closely related to the other components of the value chain but also because it has a direct
effect on the environment (Sarkis, 2003). Green packaging practices include simple
packaging, biodegradability, eliminating excessive packaging, use of paper wrappings,
reduced quantity of polystyrene, easy disassembly and use of simplified packaging
materials (Kung et al., 2012).
2.1.4 Green distribution. Green distribution is an important activity that affects the
performance of a green supply chain. Green distribution includes all activities to
reduce/eliminate environmental damages and wastes during shipment (Gao et al., 2009). The
fuel consumed by the vehicle transporting the product, frequency of transportation
operations, distance to the customers and packaging characteristics (weight, shape and
material) affect the performance of green distribution (Sarkis, 2003).
2.1.5 Green marketing. Green marketing involves fulfillment of human needs with
minimal negative impact on the natural environment (Singh and Pandey, 2012). Pride and
Ferrell (1993) referred to green marketing as efforts to design, promote, price and distribute
products that will not harm the environment. In this study, green marketing is considered as
more of a promotion.
2.1.6 Investment recovery. Investment recovery, which is just another dimension, comes
forward as one of the most frequently investigated dimensions in GSCM studies. Investment
recovery is a traditional business practice where excess inventories/materials or the
scrap/used materials are resold (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). The objective of investment recovery
is to recover the highest value from obsolete, end-of-life products and surplus items (Ayres
et al., 1997). In short, investment recovery is about trying to include these items in the
reverse logistics process. Thus, these items can be recovered or disposed of correctly.
2.1.7 Internal environmental management. Internal environmental management is a
company’s creation of its own environmental protection policies and environmental targets
to ensure protection of the environment (Chan et al., 2012). Activities such as upper-level and
mid-level managers’ support of environmental practices, inter-departmental cooperation for
environmental improvements, and setting up an environmental management system are
issues that are within the scope of internal environmental management (Zhu et al., 2005).
2.1.8 Environmental education. Environmental education is seen as one of the important
tools ensuring the development of human resources and paving the way for a more
sustainable society (Agenda 21, 1992, chapter 36). Recent empirical studies emphasized the
importance of education for green management in the firms to be successful (i.e. Sarkis et al.,
2010; Sammalisto and Brorson, 2008). It is stated that environmental education serves two
important purposes. The first is to teach the personnel the environmental policies of the
corporation, and the second is to change the individual behaviors of the personnel in order to
establish a more permanent and responsible relationship with the environment (Sammalisto
and Brorson, 2008).
JMTM 2.2 GSCM and corporate sustainability: an NRBV perspective and stakeholder theory
30,1 The resource-based view (RBV ) is widely utilized to explain the impact of GSCM on firm
performance. RBV indicates that rare, indispensable, valuable and non-substitutable
internal resources and capabilities will lead to sustainable competitive advantage (Barney,
1991). Resources include both tangible assets and intangible assets such as leadership,
market agility, positive social reputation and human resources (Mahoney and Pandian,
102 1992). Tangible resources provide a temporary competitive advantage to the firm as they
can easily be imitated by competitors. Intangible resources are more difficult to imitate
because they are gained by experience (Hart, 1995).
Hart (1995) noted that the constraints created by the natural environment such as
depletion of resources and degradation of the ecosystem, threaten firms’ existing resources
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
and capabilities. The author then tried to expand the scope of the resource-based approach,
including the opportunities and limitations inherent in the natural environment. Hart’s
typology, which is called NRBV, states that firms can gain competitive advantage by
implementing strategies such as pollution prevention, product stewardship and sustainable
development. According to NRBV, environmental applications, such as GSCM, can be
considered as a strategic resource that enhances firm performance (Choi and Hwang, 2015).
This is because GSCM practices are a difficult source of imitation by competitors as they are
based on knowledge and experience. For example, the positive reputation that can be
achieved with GSCM is not a resource that can easily be imitated by competitors.
Green practice-oriented enterprises will also be able to differentiate themselves from their
competitors at the same time with increased sales gains due to enhanced market legitimacy
and greater social approval (Molina-Azorin et al., 2009). As a result, green practices can
positively impact corporate sustainability performance through cost advantages, increased
competitiveness through increased capabilities, increased production and environmental
performance, creation of new capabilities, waste reduction, product and process quality
improvements (Wijethilake, 2017).
Another theory that may be utilized to explain the effects of GSCM is the stakeholder
theory. Since the industrial revolution and up to a certain period, businesses had heavily
focused only on profit-related activities. However, increased competition, damaged
environment and increased importance paid to quality of life led social responsibility to gain
importance. As social responsibility gained importance, the concept of the stakeholder has
directly come to the forefront.
The concept of the stakeholder is defined as any group or person who affects a business’
achievement of its goals or is affected by these goals (Freeman, 1994). Freeman (1994)
divided groups of stakeholders into two. These are internal stakeholders (employees,
managers, owners) and external stakeholders (suppliers, customers, society, government,
competitors, etc.). According to Freeman, the stronger the relations with these societal
parties are, the easier will it be to reach mutual goals. In general, the stakeholder theory
argues that businesses should meet and manage the expectations and needs of their
stakeholders in the best way.
Stakeholder groups, who have increasingly higher levels of awareness regarding the
environment, wish to see the business’ attitude toward both social and environmental
issues, in addition to its economic success. For example, what the business does against
environmental pollution is important for stakeholders. Hence, businesses try to implement
more proactive environmental strategies such as GSCM in order to develop better relations
with their stakeholders and meet their expectations in the best way (Rivera-Camino, 2007).
Considering the increased attention of stakeholders on how a firm is managed, GSCM is a
significant tool that may answer the needs of stakeholders (Longoni and Cagliano, 2018).
Activities of the business toward protecting the environment may allow it to develop better
relations with customers, partners, employees and the society. Consequently, thanks to
successful stakeholder management, the business may obtain competitive advantage in Green supply
various aspects (e.g. efficiency, good reputation, long-term relations with the customers and chain
the suppliers) (Endrikat et al., 2014). management
2.2.1 GSCM and environmental performance. This dimension concerns the
environmental impact of organizational activities. In order to better understand basic
environmental problems and produce effective solutions, it is necessary for the firm to identify
the sources of environmental problems in its scope (such as production, transportation, 103
procurement and the product). While producing goods and services to meet needs, businesses
consume limited resources and cause environmental pollution by interfering with hazardous
wastes, air, water and soil that they release into the environment (Azapagic, 2003).
Environmental performance measures the ability of a firm to reduce pollution, reduce waste,
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and the sample 105
The relationships between GSCM practices and corporate sustainability performance were
tested using a plant-level survey. The data for this study were obtained from a survey
directed at manufacturers in Turkey.
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Green Purchasing
Green Marketing
Green Distribution
Economic
Green Packaging Performance
Internal
Environmental
Management
122 questionnaires obtained via e-mail were divided into two groups. The first group
consisted of 81 questionnaires, and the second group consisted of 41 questionnaires. There
was no statistically significant difference in the comparison between the early and late
questionnaires. Additionally, a second test was conducted to determine whether there was a
difference between the results obtained from the two different surveys (face-to-face and
e-mail). The responses obtained face-to-face and via e-mail were compared across both the
numbers of employees and GSCM practices, and there was no statistically significant
difference between the data obtained by the two different methods.
To examine the potential threat of common method variance bias, the one-factor test that
was recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986) was performed. The relevant factor
analysis revealed that neither a single factor emerged, nor a general factor was identified in
the unrotated factor structure. These results ruled out the possibility of any serious common
method variance bias (Chan, 2005).
were developed based on a literature review (e.g. Azapagic, 2003; GRI, 2002). All items
were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree,
3 – neutral, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree).
Green purchasing
GP1. Providing design specification to suppliers that include environmental requirements for 0.66
purchased item
GP2. Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives 0.80
108 GP3. Choice of suppliers by environmental criteria 0.70
GP4. Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification 0.67
GP5. Environmental audit for suppliers’ internal managementa n/a
Green manufacturing
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Gma1. The manufacturing process will reduce the noise pollution to the minimumb n/a
Gman2. Substitution of polluting and hazardous materials/parts 0.70
Gman3. Filters and controls on emissions and dischargesb n/a
Gman4. Production planning and control focused on reducing waste and optimizing 0.80
materials exploitation
Gman5. Process design focused on reducing energy and natural resources consumption 0.65
in operations
Green distribution and packaging
GDP1. Reduction of packaging materialsa n/a
GDP2. Ecological materials for primary packaging 0.67
GDP3. Recyclable or reusable packaging/containers in logistics 0.55
GDP4. Selection of cleaner transportation methods 0.75
GDP5. Effective shipment consolidation and full vehicle loading 0.66
GDP6. Routing systems to minimize travel distancesa n/a
Internal environmental management
IEM1. Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements 0.87
IEM2. Established an environmental protection index of recycling, gaseous reduction and 0.96
energy conservation
IEM3. Environmental management system exists 0.93
IEM4. Support for environmental practices from senior managers and 0.87
mid-level managers
IEM5. The company’s efforts in relation to environmental matters have exceeded the n/a
requirements of the relevant regulationsa
Green marketing
Gmar1. Supply to customers and institutions of regular voluntary information about 0.66
environmental management
Gmar2. Sponsoring of environmental events/collaboration with ecological organizations 0.76
Gmar3. Use of natural environmental arguments in marketing 0.73
Gmar4. Periodic updating of the website on environmental issues 0.69
Gmar5. Material packages will be labeled for retrieval purposes 0.80
Gmar6. Considered that Eco Products boost the consumers’ purchasing willingness 0.66
Environmental education
EE1. Holding awareness seminars for suppliers/contractors 0.74
EE2. Natural environmental seminars for executives 0.71
EE3. Natural environment training programs for managers and employees 0.59
EE4. Participation in government-subsidized natural environmental programs 0.80
Investment recovery
IR1. Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials 0.83
IR2. Establishing a recycling system for used and defective products 0.73
Table II.
Confirmatory factor
analyses results (continued )
Factor loading
Green supply
Items from CFA chain
management
Economic performance
ECP1. Decrease in cost of materials purchased 0.68
ECP2. Decrease in cost of energy consumption 0.77
ECP3. Decrease in fee for waste discharge 0.70
ECP4. Improvement in earnings per share 0.80 109
ECP5. Improvement in return on investment 0.77
ECP6. Sales growth 0.80
ECP7. Profits growth 0.76
Social performance
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
4. Results
4.1 Test results of the structural model
Table IV depicts the SEM results of the relationship between GSCM practices and factors of
performance measures (Table V ).
30,1
110
JMTM
Table III.
reliability for
research model
the variables in
AVE and composite
Bivariate correlations,
Composite Cronbach’s
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AVE reliability α
The findings of this study show that GSCM practices affected environmental performance
positively by leading to environmental improvements. However, it seems that GSCM was
not as effective as expected in affecting social performance, and especially economic
performance. In the study, only three of the seven GSCM dimensions were correlated with
economic performance. This may be due to the fact that the initial stages of GSCM usually
require investment (Simpson et al., 2007), which may negatively impact the costs of Turkish
businesses that are newly starting green practices. For this reason, it is not possible to say
that Turkish businesses are on a sufficient level of maturity in green supply chain practices.
reducing fuel consumption, optimizing the distribution route and ensuring that containers
are fully loaded (Kumar et al., 2015).
In the study, no relationship was found between green purchasing and environmental
performance. This may be due to the fact that green purchasing practices may focus on
improving the environmental performance of suppliers, largely due to the company’s own
environmental performance (Eltayeb et al., 2011).
training cost, procurement cost), other cost items may decrease. It is, therefore, important for
managers to conduct a cost-benefit analysis correctly. Our research results show that,
especially with green production and green distribution-packaging practices, businesses
can obtain some economic benefits.
Green purchasing practices seem to have been neglected in Turkey. Green purchasing is
an important element that will reduce the environmental impact of the product throughout
its life. Turkish businesses need to establish closer relationships with their suppliers in
environmental matters and support their suppliers in environmental practices.
Another concept that is not adequately addressed by Turkish businesses is
environmental education. Nevertheless, environmental education has a key role in the
realization of green practices (Stone, 2000). With this practice, more effective cooperation
can be realized with customers, suppliers and distribution channel partners on environment-
related issues (Teixeira et al., 2016). Therefore, Turkish businesses should invest more in
green education, and the gaps and needs in this area should be analyzed in an effective way.
Investment recovery is another issue that Turkish businesses should focus on. In
addition to the economic benefits it provides to businesses, it is a collection of activities that
help conserve natural resources, save energy and reduce the harm to the environment by
disposing off products that have completed their lives. Turkish businesses need to be
encouraged more about recycling practices (both financially and educationally). Such
assistance programs may allow Turkish producers to reduce the costs associated with
implementing investment recovery programs and obtain significant financial
improvements. Changes to processes, such as incentives, environmental policies and
regulations, are not enough to achieve the desired outcomes. At the same time, there is a
need for a set of regulations (e.g. forecasting, production, logistics) in the operational sense
(Linton et al., 2007).
Green marketing offers significant opportunities for businesses that want to relocate
themselves and connect with other segments of the society, especially target consumers. While
some businesses only try to achieve this by greening their advertisements, other businesses
that are genuinely sensitive to the environment and incur additional costs for it are unable to
achieve the desired results because they cannot adequately express themselves to consumers.
Businesses that are sensitive to the environment in their operations need to benefit more
effectively from persuasive communication, so that they can better express this situation.
GSCM dimensions and performance was not measured before, we only measured the main
effect between the two concepts. In future studies, moderator effects may be explored to
better understand the effect of GSCM on performance.
References
Adriana, B. (2009), “Environmental supply chain management in tourism: the case of large tour
operators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 16, pp. 1385-1392.
Agenda 21 (1992), “Promoting education, public awareness and training”, The United Nations, Rio de
Janeiro, Chapter 36, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/a21/a21-36-
education.html (accessed July 21, 2013).
Altuntaş, C. and Türker, D. (2012), “Sustainable supply chains: a content analysis of sustainability
reports”, Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 39-64.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Aslan, F. and Çınar, R. (2015), “A study intended for determining environmental products tendency of
Kafkas university students within green marketing activities”, Kafkas University Economics
and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 169-184.
Atrek, B. and Özdağoğlu, A. (2014), “Green supply chain applications: aluminum joinery sector Izmir
example”, Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 13-26.
Ayres, R., Ferrer, G. and Van Leynseele, T. (1997), “Eco-efficiency, asset recovery and
remanufacturing”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 557-574.
Azapagic, A. (2003), “Systems approach to corporate sustainability a general management
framework”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 303-316.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Machado, V.C. (2011), “The influence of green practices on supply
chain performance: a case study approach”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 850-871.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-56.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Designing the green supply chain”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001), “Horse for courses: explaining the
gap between the theory and practice of green supply”, Greener Management International, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 41-60.
Carr, A.S. and Kaynak, H. (2007), “Communication methods, information sharing, supplier development
and performance: an empirical study of their relationships”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-370.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R. and Grimm, C.M. (2000), “Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an
empirical investigation”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
JMTM Chan, R.Y.K. (2005), “Does the natural-resource-based view of the firm apply in an emerging economy?
30,1 A survey of foreign invested enterprises in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 625-672.
Chan, R.Y.K., He, H., Chan, H.K. and Wang, W.Y.C. (2012), “Environmental orientation and corporate
performance: the mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating
effect of competitive intensity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 621-630.
116 Chien, M.K. and Shih, L.H. (2007), “An empirical study of the implementation of green supply chain
management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and their relation to
organizational performances”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 383-394.
Choi, D. and Hwang, T. (2015), “The impact of green supply chain management practices on firm
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Gottlieb, R., Smith, M. and Roque, J. (1995), “Greening or green washing?: the evolution of industry
decision making”, in Gottlieb, R. (Ed.), Reducing Toxics, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 170-208.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 290-305.
GRI (2002), “Sustainability reporting guidelines”, Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, MA, available at:
www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002/gri_2002_guidelines (accessed June 24, 2012).
Hall, J. (2000), “Environmental supply chain dynamics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 206-225.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural resource based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Hart, S.L. and Ahuja, G. (1996), “Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between emission reduction and firm performance”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Hoffman, A.J. (2001), “Linking organizational and field-level analysis: the diffusion of corporate
environmental practice”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 133-156.
Hsu, C.C., Tan, K.C. and Zailani, S.H.M. (2016), “Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain
initiatives, and reverse logistics empirical evidence from an emerging market”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-110.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Arrfelt, M. (2007), “Strategic supply chain management: improving
performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 1035-1052.
Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2004), “Green marketing: an attitudinal and behavioral analysis of Indian
consumers”, Global Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Kirchoff, J.F., Tate, W.L. and Mollenkopf, D.A. (2016), “The impact of strategic organizational
orientations on green supply chain management and firm performance”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 269-292.
Kumar, N., Agrahari, R.P. and Roy, D. (2015), “Review of green supply chain processes”, IFAC-Papers
on Line, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 374-381.
Kung, F.H., Huang, C.L. and Cheng, C.L. (2012), “Assessing the green value chain to improve
environmental performance evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industry”, International
Journal of Development Issues, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-128.
Laari, S., Töyli, J., Solakivi, T. and Ojala, L. (2016), “Firm performance and customer-driven green
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, Part 3, pp. 1960-1970.
Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D. and Tan, H.C. (2013), “Green supply chain management practices
and performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 8, pp. 1088-1109.
Lee, K.-H. (2009), “Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations? The case
study of Korean SMEs in manufacturing industry”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1101-1121.
JMTM Lee, S., Kim, S.T. and Choi, D. (2012), “Green supply chain management and organizational
30,1 performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 8, pp. 1148-1180.
Li, S., Jayaraman, V., Paulraj, A. and Shang, K.C. (2016), “Proactive environmental strategies and
performance: role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese
high-tech industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 2136-2151.
Lieb, K.J. and Lieb, R.C. (2010), “Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL)
industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 7,
118 pp. 524-533.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082.
Longoni, A. and Cagliano, R. (2018), “Inclusive environmental disclosure practices and firm
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
performance: the role of green supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1815-1835, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-12-2016-0728
Luthra, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2016), “The impacts of critical success factors for implementing
green supply chain management towards sustainability: an empirical investigation of Indian
automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 121, pp. 142-158.
Mahoney, J.T. and Pandian, J.R. (1992), “The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 363-380.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-1238.
Molina-Azorin, J.F., Claver-Cortes, E., Lopez-Gamero, M.D. and Tari, J.J. (2009), “Green management
and financial performance: a literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1080-1100.
Murphy, P. and Poist, R. (2003), “Green perspectives and practices: a ‘comparative logistics’ study”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-131.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pagell, M., Yang, C., Krumwiede, D.K. and Sheu, C. (2004), “Does the competitive environment influence
the efficacy of investments in environmental management?”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 30-39.
Paulraj, A. (2011), “Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities,
sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A. and Chen, I.J. (2008), “Inter-organizational communication as a relational
competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Perotti, S., Zorzini, M., Cagno, E. and Micheli, G.J.L. (2012), “Green supply chain practices and company
performance: the case of 3PLs in Italy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 640-672.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-543.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W.C. (2004), “Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve
supplier performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1993), Marketing, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “Evolution of sustainability in supply chain
management: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 299-314.
Rao, P. (2002), “Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 632-655.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 898-916.
Rivera-Camino, J. (2007), “Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective”, Green supply
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1328-1358. chain
Routroy, S. (2009), “Antecedents and drivers for green supply chain management implementation in management
manufacturing environment”, ICFAI Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 20-35.
Sammalisto, K. and Brorson, T. (2008), “Training and communication in the implementation of
environmental management systems (ISO 14001): a case study at the University of Gävle, 119
Sweden”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 299-309.
Sarkis, J. (1999), How Green is the Supply Chain? Practice and Research, Clark University,
Worcester, MA.
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Sarkis, J. (2003), “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 397-409.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H. (2003), “Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures”, Methods of Psychological
Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 23-74.
Schmidt, C.G., Foerstl, K. and Schaltenbrand, B. (2017), “The supply chain position paradox: green
practices and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Sezen, B., Karakadilar, İ.S. and Buyukozkan, G. (2012), “Proposition of a model for measuring
adherence to lean practices: applied to Turkish automotive part suppliers”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3878-3894.
Shang, K., Lu, C. and Li, S. (2010), “Taxonomy of green supply chain management capability among
electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1209-1217.
Sharma, V.K., Chandana, P. and Bhardwaj, A. (2015), “Critical factors analysis and its ranking for
implementation of GSCM in Indian dairy industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 911-922.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. S1, pp. 183-200.
Simpson, D., Power, D. and Samson, D. (2007), “Greening the automotive supply chain: a relationship
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 28-48.
Singh, P.B. and Pandey, K.K. (2012), “Green marketing: policies and practices for sustainable
development”, Integral Review: A Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-30.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Stone, L. (2000), “When case studies are not enough: the influence of corporate culture and employee
attitudes on the success of cleaner production initiatives”, Journal Cleaner Production, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 353-359.
Tang, A.K.Y., Lai, K.H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2012), “Environmental governance of enterprises and their
economic upshot through corporate reputation and customer satisfaction”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 401-411.
Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Latan, H. and Oliveira, J.H.C. (2016), “Green training
and green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian firms”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 116, pp. 170-176.
JMTM Testa, F. and Iraldo, F. (2010), “Shadows and lights of GSCM (green supply chain management):
30,1 determinants and effects of these practices based on a multinational study”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18 Nos 10/11, pp. 953-962.
Tukker, A., Eder, P., Charter, M., Haag, E., Vercalsteren, A. and Wiedmann, T. (2001), “Eco-design: the
state of implementation in Europe – conclusions of a state of the art study for IPTS”, The Journal
of Sustainable Product Design, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 171-181.
Vanalle, R.M., Ganga, G.M.D., Godinho Filho, M. and Lucato, W.C. (2017), “Green supply chain
120 management: an investigation of pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian
automotive supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 151, pp. 250-259.
Vijayvargy, L., Thakkar, J. and Agarwal, G. (2017), “Green supply chain management practices and
performance the role of firm-size for emerging economies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
Further reading
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Is there source-based view a useful perspective for strategic management
Downloaded by ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY At 00:48 25 December 2018 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com