Effect of Training and Reward On Social Sustainability in Ghana S Cocoa Supply Chain The Role of Green Buyer Supplier Relationship

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20
Effect of Training and Reward on Social

Sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply Chain: The
Role of Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship.
Dennis Kwatia Amoako, Mohamad Norhayati Zakuan, Eugene Okyere-

Kwakye & Francis Kamewor Tetteh
To cite this article: Dennis Kwatia Amoako, Mohamad Norhayati Zakuan, Eugene Okyere-
Kwakye & Francis Kamewor Tetteh (2021): Effect of Training and Reward on Social Sustainability
in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply Chain: The Role of Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship. , Journal of
International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2021.1981511
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.1981511
Published online: 17 Oct 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 246
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wifa20
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.1981511
Effect of Training and Reward on Social Sustainability

in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply Chain: The Role of Green
Buyer-Supplier Relationship.
Dennis Kwatia Amoakoa,b, Mohamad Norhayati Zakuanc,
Eugene Okyere-Kwakyed, and Francis Kamewor Tettehe
a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia; bProcurement and
Supply Science, Koforidua Technical University, Koforidua, Ghana; cUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai, Malaysia; dKoforidua Technical University, Koforidua, Ghana; eBureau of Market and Social
Research, Accra, Ghana
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study was conducted to examine Ghana’s cocoa supply Ghana cocoa; green
chain sustainability, with a focus on the effect of training and buyersupplier relationship;
reward on social sustainability in Ghana’s cocoa, and also the social sustainability; supply
chain; training; reward
unique role of green buyer-supplier relationship (governance
and trust). Questionnaires were administered to three hundred
and twenty-eight (328) cocoa farmers from the Western region
of Ghana which generated the primary data for the research
and the Partial Least Square (PLS-SEM) was used to aid the
analysis of the data gathered. The result showed that both
Training and Reward have directly affected social sustainability
significantly and the same have indirectly affected social sus-
tainability through the green buyer-supplier relationships
(governance and trust). In addition, it was observed that the
green buyer-supplier relationship positively related to social
sustainability. The outcome of this study provides contempor-
ary knowledge on how a combination of training and reward
together with green buyer-supplier relationship (governance
and trust) could enhance social sustainability in the cocoa
industry. This study is among the very few scholarly works
that have attempted to explore the drivers of social sustain-
ability in the agri-food supply chain setting, especially, the
context of developing economies. This study adds to the
extant literature by providing a contemporary view of top
management support and social sustainability in the context
of the agri-food supply chain.
Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) has been one of the most productive
study fields for a while now (Laengle et al., 2017) thus, one interesting field
of research in the global world has been Supply Chain Sustainability in
CONTACT Dennis Kwatia Amoako dennisamoako123@gmail.com Faculty of Management, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, Main Campus Skudai, Skudai 81310, Malaysia.
ß 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 D. K. AMOAKO ET AL.
agriculture (Borodin, Bourtembourg, Hnaien, & Labadie, 2016). However,

little work has been done in the cocoa industry of the agriculture sector.
Cocoa production provides resources, particularly, income for the poor
who do not possess the qualifications that warrant white collar jobs and it
remains the absolute raw material with no substitute for chocolate industry
around the globe (Adenle, Azadi, & Manning, 2018; Cei, Stefani,
Defrancesco, & Virginia, 2018; Ingrao, Faccilongo, Di, & Messineo, 2018;
Vroegindewey & Hodbod, 2018). Therefore ensuring sustainability in the
cocoa supply chain is critical to the cocoa industry and its players (Laven,
2010; Nelson & Phillips, 2018). With this, there is a strong interest by
researchers to focus on the buyer-supplier relationship that ensures
improvement in the social sustainability (Awan, Kraslawski, & Huiskonen,
2018). Though some studies have been done in the manufacturing sector,
(Awan, 2019; Awan et al., 2018; Jain, Kumar, Kumar, & Chandra, 2016)
researchers have been silent on the cocoa industry in promoting and main-
taining social sustainability since no research is conducted to this effect. As
a result of the silence, a buying organization such as Ghana Cocoa Board
(COCOBOD) must incorporates governance and trust in its relationship
with the primary suppliers of cocoa beans to ensure commitment to social
sustainability because of its concern for farmers in the cocoa industry
(Karim & Wulandari, 2020; Lalwani, Nunes, Chicksand, & Boojihawon,
2018). Social sustainability, with respect to this study, has been defined as a
life-improving condition for farmers in farming communities and a devel-
opment in farming communities (McKenzie, 2004) that motivate the farm-
ers to commit and stay focused on their farming business. Morais and
Silvestre (2018), were of the view that, social sustainability has significantly
changed over the last few years. This observation is attributed to the widen-
ing base of social sustainability to cover things like compensation, retire-
ment benefits and packages, and scholarships (Mani, Agrawal, & Sharma,
2015). Hence, to sustain the production of cocoa, the cocoa farmers are
expected to receive social dimensions such as retirement benefits, scholar-
ships, and compensation from the buyer in the cocoa industry. Essentially,
these packages may improve the farmers’ wellbeing which will transcend to
ensure the sustainability in the cocoa supply chain.
This then necessitates the agreement of supply chain players on a collect-
ive governance structure that will direct their relationship and decrease
threats of opportunism (Deng, Xie, Cheng, Deng, & Long, 2021), for a sus-
tainable or green relationship. As a result, this study adopts governance
and trust as components embedded in the green buyer-supplier relationship
to act as a liaison in ensuring the attainment of social sustainability in the
cocoa industry. Monks, Ghosh and Jane (2008) defined governance as the
structure that makes sure decisions are put in place to facilitate long-term
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING 3
sustainable value for an entity. A study conducted by Awan (2019) found

that governance plays a vital role in ensuring that there is an undamaged
buyer-supplier relationship as a way of supporting suppliers thus leading to
improvement in the social sustainability. The study further argues that gov-
ernance is essential for a sustainable buyer-supplier relationship; a situation
where buyer and supplier work together to achieve their intended objec-
tives (Cao & Lumineau, 2015) without any mishaps that may damage their
relationship thus affecting the social sustainability in the cocoa industry.
The study also adopted trust as a factor of GBSR that strengthens relation-
ships. Trust plays the role of promoting the sustainable buyer-supplier rela-
tionship because of the confidence it inspires in the relationship (Awan
et al., 2018). With the exhibition of trust, parties involved in the relation-
ship are confident that no one party will take advantage of another who is
vulnerable in the relationship (Ghosh & Jane, 2008). Literature reveals that,
trust and relational norm are also a type of governance (Griffith, Harvey, &
Lusch, 2006). Trust is the belief in a partner’s credibility, integrity, and
goodwill in an exchange relationship (Das & Teng, 1998). When there is a
high level of trust in a relationship, parties are secure that no one will do
anything to jeopardize the relationship and its continuity (Zaheer et al.,
2019). Concurrently, the parties tend to consider the interest of their part-
ners rather than their own (Liu, Luo, & Liu, 2009). Therefore, both govern-
ance and trust can strengthen and sustain the buyer-supplier relationship
(Burkert, Sven, & Shan, 2012; Meryem, 2011) opine that, for social sustain-
ability to be attained, both governance and trust should be considered as
key components in the green buyer-supplier relationship (GBSR). It is crit-
ical to integrate green into the buyer-supplier relationship, to enable the
achievement of the green buyer-supplier relationship (Bag & Gupta, 2017;
Bag, Gupta, & Telukdarie, 2018; Bag, Wood, Mangla, & Luthra, 2020;
Wieteska, 2016). Today’s Sustainability calls for the buyer-supplier relation-
ship which represents governance and trust, to enhance improvement by
reducing or eliminating waste (Wieteska, 2016) in the supply chain, and
the green buyer-supplier relationship is the way to achieve that in the cocoa
industry. Hence, the critical nature of the green buyer-supplier relationship
(GBSR) is becoming a suitable area in the supply chain which industries
use to obtain social sustainability and improved performance (Chowdhury
& Quaddus, 2021).
Training is considered to be very essential among management activities,
meanwhile how training supports (Cabral & Jabbour, 2020) social sustain-
ability has been understudied. Training provision has a positive significant
relationship with sustainability. That is, providing training to people you
work with evokes positive change and improves sustainability because it
equips workers on how to perform their works better (Freitas,
Caldeira-Oliveira, Teixeira, Stefanelli, & Teixeira, 2020). According to

Freitas et al. (2020), training should involve everybody including suppliers,
such as cocoa farmers in the cocoa industry, this will reduce waste and
eliminate risk in the relationship and subsequently lead to social sustain-
ability. Thus, training should include practices that are needed to ensure
environmental management and to avoid waste.
The relationship between reward and social sustainability is hardly found
in literature, and this reveals that many industries hardly engage in it
(Mishra, 2017) regardless of its (reward) important role in achieving sus-
tainability (Freitas et al., 2020) through the motivation such acts evokes in
recipients (Susan & Randall, 2014). Reward is found to be a critical con-
tributor to sustainability in supply chain (Najmulmunir, 2020). However, if
the rewards are not adequate, people may not be encouraged to make effort
toward sustainability issues. Literature has shown that studies which inves-
tigate the social sustainability of the supply chain are still uncommon
(Venkatesh Mani, Gunasekaran, & Delgado, 2018). Therefore, the main
aim of this study is to examine the effect of training and reward on social
sustainability in the Ghanaian Cocoa Industry. This study is one of the first
few attempts to combine the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory and Social
Exchange Theory (SET) to explore the relationship between training,
reward, green buyer-supplier relationship, and social sustainability in the
context of the cocoa supply chain in Sub-Saharan Africa, a developing
region. Even though scholars have researched and contributed to the food
supply chain, the growth in research in the agriculture supply still remains
slow, hence, there is the need for more studies in the area (Borodin et al.,
2016). The organization of the remaining parts of the paper is as follows;
the next section presents the literature review and the theoretical back-
ground, this is followed by the data and methodology section; the results of
the study, discussions, conclusion, empirical contributions, and suggestions
for future studies respectively.
Literature review
Supply chain sustainability in the Cocoa Industry
As emphasized above, cocoa plays a very important role in Ghana’s
economy and infrastructural development. It has been established that
the contribution of Ghana’s cocoa to the national and global economies
and the health benefits it provides its consumers have greatly increased
its consumption. The aforementioned benefits make research into the
sustainability of cocoa production very critical, recognizing that about
seventy percent (70%) of cocoa production to the world market comes
from West Africa (Beg, Ahmad, Jan, & Bashir, 2017) with Ghana being
the second highest producer of cocoa after Ivory Coast. According to

Okoffo, Fosu-Mensah, and Gordon (2016), there has been an annual
decline of cocoa in Ghana over the last decade. Each year, Ghana
loses about 50,000 to 75,000 tons of cocoa (Yamoah, Kaba, Amankwah-
Amoah, & Acquaye, 2020), and this will can be attributed to the
inadequate concern given to sustainable cocoa production. This fact
undisputedly makes sustainable cocoa production, an area worth
researching. Prior studies such as Laven (2010) and Nelson and Phillips
(2018) have raised issues of consistency and the critical nature of the
sustainable supply of cocoa in the global market. The world is depend-
ing on West Africa for the bulk of its cocoa supply (Wessel & Quist-
Wessel, 2015). However, the West African belt is faced with a 2% yearly
decline in cocoa production (Kongor et al., 2019) for which Ghana’s
annual production decline has been a contributory factor. While the
supply of cocoa continues to decline, global demand for cocoa is
expected to rise to 30% by the year 2020 and to 50% by 2025 (Beg
et al., 2017; Blommer, 2011). It has therefore become imperative for
Ghana to boost cocoa production to commensurate the increasing global
market demand to avert dire consequences (Utomo, Prawoto, Bonnet,
Bangviwat, & Gheewala, 2016). Some researchers have looked at the
issues confronting sustainability of cocoa production. These, ranging
from soil fertility and cocoa bean disease control (Kongor et al., 2019),
land tenure, rural transformation (Nelson & Phillips, 2018) through to
the weaknesses of regulatory institutions (Amankwah-Amoah, Debrah, &
Nuertey, 2018). Yet the problem of sustainability, especially social sus-
tainability which is a motivation for cocoa farmers to focus, to commit
and to improve sustainable production has hugely been swept under the
carpet by most researchers in the cocoa sector. This has impeded the
anticipated growth of sustainable production thus making it a challenge
in the cocoa supply chain (Nelson & Phillips, 2018; Wessel & Quist-
Wessel, 2015). This means that areas where studies have been conducted
in cocoa such as environmental and economic sustainability, are not the
only remedy to the challenges of the cocoa supply chain sustainability in
Ghana. A study conducted by Morais and Silvestre (2018) concluded
that social sustainability in the supply chain compels companies to adopt
supply chain collaboration, which may lead to a sustainable relationship.
Their findings respond to the call to address the issues confronting
social sustainability in the supply chain. This study however, seeks to
add to existing knowledge by exploring the role of training and reward
in the attainment of social sustainability in the cocoa supply chain
industry. The next section discusses the relationship between training,
reward and social sustainability.
Training
Training has been explained by (Wongthongchai & Saenchaiyathon,
2019) as obtaining the required knowledge on the job while continuing
education. Also, training has been mentioned as a strategic component
of production (Walumbwa et al., 2011), According to (Sarkis, Gonzalez-
Torre, & Adenso-Diaz, 2010), training, which is knowledge acquisition,
is the basis for utilization and development of resources in RBV theory.
Therefore knowledge is usually the product of training (Oelze,
Hoejmose, Habisch, & Millington, 2016), and in this situation, training
of farmers on farm maintenance practices and environmental policies is
a strategy in the right direction in achieving social sustainability. In the
world of competition, training is very important in achieving all sustain-
ability practices (Alshuwaikhat & Mohammed, 2017; Liu, Bai, Liu, &
Wei, 2017). Training, as frequently seen in literature, is related to a suc-
cessful business (Slavkovic & Slavkovic, 2019; Theus, 2019; Tiftik, 2020)
and can be seen as an important component of successful (social) sus-
tainability (Jer
onimo, Henriques, Lacerda, Pires, & Vieira, 2020; Yong
et al., 2020). In addition to the above, training serves as a driver for
sustainability management (Bandanaa et al., 2021; Bhardwaj, 2016;

Melane-Lavado & Alvarez-Herranz, 2020).
Reward
Reward is an important element that tells hugely people’s commitment
to work. Reward has become one of the very important tools in manag-
ing a production firm or industry (Taufek, Zulkifle, & Sharif, 2016),
more importantly when the focus of the firm is on sustainability and
production improvement just as the cocoa industry. This knowledge
should inform the cocoa industry regulators and buyers to know the
peculiar reward that will motivate and propel the farmers to commit to
cocoa production. The industry regulators must see the reward as part
of the industry’s productivity that ensures social sustainability. In the
cocoa industry, when the right reward is given to the farmer it will gen-
erate the right attitude, that is commitment to the work (Machoka,
2020; Tadele & Gella, 2012) and will immensely contribute to the indus-
try or cocoa business. Moreover, it serves as a pivot for sustainable
competitive advantage (Thneibat, 2021). A reward strategy includes
socially responsible investment (Mackey, Mackey, Christensen, & Lepore,
2020), this involves investing in the farmers by subsidizing cocoa inputs
for the cocoa farmers, giving financial support, and providing logistics
for the farmers to work, etc.
Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship (GBSR)

For some organizations, being green is a chance for getting an offer better
than the competitor (Kumar & Rahman, 2016). But green is sustainable
(Yen, 2018), and it is an initiative established to avoid wastes or damages
(Surajit Bag et al., 2018). Therefore, in this study, the green buyer-supplier
relationship (GBSR) can be described as a relationship that avoids or miti-
gates likely relationship damages between the buyer-supplier in the cocoa
supply chain. However, GBSR for this study, it represents governance and
trust, hence, meaning a relationship that avoids damages to governance
(Heide, 1994) and trust. With that notion, the green relationship among
supply chain partners is the strength of effective social sustainability man-
agement (Rota, Pugliese, Hashem, & Zanasi, 2018). According to Kumar
and Rahman (2016), it is logical to assume that a firm with higher influ-
ence in the supply chain would be in a better position to initiate the social
sustainability process in the supply chain by strengthening the buyer-sup-
plier relationship, through governance and trust among players in the
chain. A sustainable Buyer-Supplier Relationship (BSR) increases sustain-
ability benefits such as improved market share, and greater revenue and
trust (Kumar & Rahman, 2016; Ytterhus, Arnestad, & Lothe, 1999; Zhu,
Sarkis, & Lai, 2008). However, it is very difficult to achieve social sustain-
ability in a supply chain without the supplier’s support (Kannan, Beatriz,
Sousa, Jose, & Jabbour, 2014).
Social sustainability
Sustainability is the development that meets the needs of the present with-
out wasting or damaging the ability to serve future generations (V Mani
et al., 2015). The concept of sustainability comprises economic, environ-
mental, and social factors. The focus on sustainability in the supply chain
has been more on economic and environmental aspects with little attention
on social sustainability (Venkatesh Mani, Jabbour, & Mani, 2020).
According to Ashby et al. (2012), social sustainability in the supply chain is
the reaction given to social issues in the supply chain. Clarkson (1995) also
views social sustainability as the comparatively higher concern establish-
ments express on issues affecting participants than the society and how
important it is to dissociate participants’ issues from social issues. The fair
trade principle is also a non-economic aspect of sustainability, the concept
happens when a trading partner establishes an equal base of exchange or
ensures price fairness among buyers and suppliers in a relationship
(Strong, 1997).
Another view of social sustainability focuses on personal needs such as
education, skill, income, and employment (Spangenberg, Omann, &
Hinterberger, 2002). Similarly, Whooley (2004) described social
sustainability as the worker’s satisfaction in the supply chains, such as edu-

cation, health, and safety, compensation benefit, retirement fund, training,
and development (V Mani et al., 2015). Some organizations who failed to
deliver on social sustainability ended up being negatively affected. (Huq,
Stevenson, & Zorzini, 2014). Recent studies have shown that socially-ori-
ented establishments performed far better than others in both the short
and long run (Venkatesh Mani et al., 2020). Hence, an industry like
Ghana’s cocoa production should focus more on social sustainability to
perform better and continue to enjoy its premium on the market.
Brundtland Commission (1987) has argued that it is unlikely for govern-
ments and establishments to adequately deal with the problem of sustain-
ability until the fundamental needs of society are met. Thus, this study
argues that the buyers’ expectations are unlikely to be met until the funda-
mental needs of the farmers are achieved, meaning several farmers will
continue to find an alternative use for their lands just to meet their needs.
Such alternative can be illegal gold mining in order to meet their basic
needs than to focus on cocoa farming which inadequately meets their fun-
damental needs. In the cocoa industry, social sustainability in the supply
chain is given less emphasis than other dimensions (Brandenburg,
Govindan, Sarkis, & Seuring, 2014; V Mani et al., 2015). Therefore, this
study examines top management support (training and reward) and their
relationship with social sustainability in cocoa.
Theoretical Framework
The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) also known as the Resource-Based View
and the Social Exchange Theory (SET) were the theoretical underpinnings
for the study. According to the RBT, that which is rare, valuable, and diffi-
cult to imitate with respect to resources and capabilities can make available
important sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).
According to Grant (1996) and Barney (1991), resources can also be recog-
nized as an organization’s capabilities, assets, knowledge, information, com-
petencies, and processes which an organization control to enable it
implement strategies and enhance competitiveness. Training and reward
represent the mindset and approaches of top management (Pagell, 2004)
and these two involves irreplaceable, valued, and unique resources that dif-
fer across firms (Xu, Huo, & Sun, 2014). The knowledge of the use of
these, justifies the inclusion of training and reward in the proposed model.
The view of Yadlapalli, Rahman, and Gunasekaran (2018) is that sustain-
ability in the supply chain increases an organization’s competitiveness, and
it is an important resource to consider in the model. Emphasis on this
resource can lead to an improvement in social sustainability. Considering
the relationship of SET with governance, governance arrangements permit

parties in a sustainable relationship to remain informed of new opportuni-
ties for acquiring valuable resources and building their capabilities from the
exposure to one another while providing the opportunity to learn from one
another (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003). Also, cooperation with suppli-
ers plays a key role in growing a better understanding and enhancing the
social facet of the supply chain to ensure social sustainability (Awan, 2019).
The prior studies suggest that sustainable business relationships are essen-
tial resources to create opportunities (Wiegel & Bamford, 2014). Again, the
relationship may be considered as a valuable resource for a firm when the
relationship is being used to achieve its shared objectives or used as a
means of addressing the firm’s challenges (Gu, Hung, & Tse, 2008; Wiegel
& Bamford, 2014).
SET is made up of a collection of basic principles that present the frame-
work of social exchange. According to Homans and Turner (1961), SET
maintains that trust is very important for sustainable relationships. Trust is
the belief in a partner’s credibility, integrity, and goodwill in an exchange
relationship (Das & Teng, 1998). Just like trust, governance provides a
structure that guides organizations to act in an expected way (Liu et al.,
2009). Therefore, when there is a high level of trust in a relationship, the
parties involved share a strong belief that the other party will not take
undue advantage of the situation to damage the continuity of the relation-
ship (Zaheer et al., 2019), in the same vein, the parties tend to consider the
interest of their partner’s rather than their own (Liu et al., 2009). As a
result, both governance and trust can strengthen and sustain the buyer-sup-
plier relationship (Burkert et al., 2012; Meryem, 2011) for social sustainabil-
ity, and both can be regarded as components embedded in the green
buyer-supplier relationship (GBSR). Therefore, both RBV and SET support
trust and governance in the pursuit of social sustainability.
Research Framework
The proposed framework in this study hypothesizes that GBSR (comprising
of governance and trust) plays a significant role by liaising between the
relationship between training, reward, and social sustainability in the cocoa
industry. The entire model expresses three types of variables: the independ-
ent variables, which is training and reward, mediating variable i.e., green
buyer-supplier relationship (governance and trust), and dependent variable
such as social sustainability. The research model is shown in Figure 1.
The following session will discuss a detailed relationship amongst
the variables.
Training
Social
GBSR (Trust & Sustainability
Governance)
Reward
Figure 1. Research model.
Hypothesis development
Effect of training, GBSR on social sustainability
Training refers to the practice of obtaining a specific ability to do a job bet-
ter (Saleh et al., 2018), it helps people to be more proficient and effective
in what they do. People’s modified behavior resulting from training also
helps to contribute to their environment. Management’s focus on training
issues activates the organization’s capability to be proactive on training pro-
grams. (Rampa & Agogue, 2021). When the cocoa industry incorporates
training in its strategies and is proactive in training farmers, it will inevit-
ably lead to social sustainability (Drimie, Hamann, Manderson, &
Mlondobozi, 2018), thus training can become part of social sustainability
indicators. The cocoa industry needs to have good training programs for
cocoa farmers. The studies of Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa, Diego
Vazquez-Brust, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour (2017) argue that training
can help improve social sustainability implicitly and the neglect of training
can jeopardize social sustainability.
Most times, training programs of the organization influence the sustain-
able or green buyer-supplier relationship (GBSR) (Awan & Khan, 2021).
Many scholars have recently looked into the buyer-supplier relationship
and they are of the view that the buyer-supplier relationship ranks as one
of the best resources for improving sustainable competitive advantage
(Claycomb & Frankwick, 2010; Lambe, Spekman, & Hunt, 2002; Neutzling,
Land, Seuring, & Nascimento, 2018; Yang & Zhang, 2017). Thus to be suc-
cessful in implementing sustainable practices, a sustainable relationship
between buyer and supplier must be in place (Kumar & Rahman, 2016).
From time to time, companies use the sustainable relationship as an
approach to inspire their partners in the supply chain to accept social sus-
tainability practices (Nath & Agrawal, 2020; Toussaint, Cabanelas, &
Blanco-Gonzalez, 2021), which also helps in building commitment and
trust in perpetuity (Cheung & Rowlinson, 2011; Clemens & Douglas, 2006;
Ilyas, Abid, & Ashfaq, 2020). GBSR ensures that the available resources are
used effectively to improve social sustainability (Awan, 2019; Awan &
Khan, 2021). Neutzling et al. (2018), Agi and Nishant (2017), Klassen and
Vachon (2009) also confirmed that a sustainable buyer-supplier relationship
is required to implement sustainability practices throughout the supply
chain. Tham-Agyekum, Okorley, Kwarteng, Bakang, and Nimoh (2021) and

Pinet et al. (2020) affirm this by revealing that training of farmers as part
of the cocoa supply chain can improve economic and social sustainability
in the cocoa industry through GBSR. From the discussion so far, the fol-
lowing hypotheses (H) were developed:
H1a. Training has a positive significant influence on social sustainability.
H1b. Training has a positive indirect influence on social sustainability
through GBSR.
Reward, GBSR, and social sustainability

According to Taufek et al. (2016), reward has become one of the very
important tools in managing a production firm or industry. In cocoa pro-
duction, the reward must be seen as industry productivity that ensures
social sustainability. In an industry like cocoa, reward and GBSR manage-
ment, cannot be left out in ensuring sustainability practices (Awan et al.,
2018; Rana & Ha-Brookshire, 2020). Industry managers need to spend
resources: energy, time, and money to improve the buyer-supplier relation-
ship (Zu, Fredendall, & Douglas, 2008) knowing that management always
has information on the organization’s strategy of remaining competitive
and sustainable in the market. Carter and Rogers (2008) and Seuring and
Muller (2008), stressed that when one wants to implement social sustain-
ability practices, it is expedient to always build a sustainable or green rela-
tionship between the buyer and the supplier. However, Niramitsrichai,
Somjai, and Chantararatmanee (2021) and Boer, Limpens, Rifin, and
Kusnadi (2019) found that reward will influence greatly in ensuring social
sustainability, especially in the cocoa sector. Information from GBSR will
help industry managers to develop systems that ensure social sustainability
(Adesanya, Yang, Iqdara, & Yang, 2020; Glavee-Geo, Burki, & Buvik,
2020). When industry managers become aware of the benefit of reward in
the cocoa industry (such as improving industry performance and sustain-
ability), they will be committed to the entire sustainability practice. Extant
literature show a positive significant relationship between reward and social
sustainability in the cocoa industry (Glavee-Geo et al., 2020; Shalique,
Padhi, Jayaram, & Pati, 2021), and amongst reward and GBSR (Glavee-
Geo, Engelseth, & Buvik, 2021; Lee & Schniederjans, 2017). Glavee-Geo
et al. (2020) also observed that management rewarding the supplier of
cocoa beans is a critical factor in social sustainability, through sustaining or
greening the buyer-supplier relationship (Adesanya et al., 2020). According
to Boer et al. (2019), the existence of a reward system in the cocoa industry
shows the commitment of industry managers to sustainability issues which
results in the improvement of social sustainability. Therefore the absence of
management support such as reward will curtail the firm’s effort to achieve
sustainability, especially social sustainability in the supply chain (Dubey
et al., 2017) Hence the following hypotheses are stated:
H2a. The reward has a positive effect on social sustainability.
H2b. The reward has a positive indirect effect on social sustainability through GBSR.
Methodology
To test the hypotheses proposed by the authors, data was collected from
six (6) cocoa growing districts in the Western Region of Ghana. The
Western Region is located in south Ghana, which spans from the Ivory
Coast in the west to the Central region in the east, includes the capital; the
large twin city of Sekondi-Takoradi on the coast, coastal Axim, and a hilly
inland area including Elubo. The region produces the largest percentage of
Ghana’s cocoa. Farmers were conveniently sampled from the major cocoa
districts in the Region to participate in the study. This is because they pos-
sess the requisite knowledge to help answer the questionnaire. The
respondents completed a structured questionnaire. Before distributing the
questionnaire, the researcher explained and introduced the questionnaire to
the respondents. The respondents were informed that their participation in
the survey was purely voluntary and their submissions would be used for
only academic purposes. In other words, they had the right to decline from
participating in the survey. Those who agreed to participate in the survey
used approximately twenty (20) minutes to complete the questionnaire.
The researcher responded to all ambiguities identified during the introduc-
tion and explanation of the questionnaire. Eligibility of the respondents
was not difficult because they were all selected from the COCOBOD regis-
ter that was provided at the various districts. To ensure a high response
rate, respondents were promised that any information they provide would
not be shared with a person or organization and that only the researcher
would have access to the data. A total of 400 questionnaires were distrib-
uted but 333 questionnaires were received. This represents a response rate
of 83.3%. However, 328 questionnaires were found usable for analysis. The
instruments used to measure the constructs in the model were sourced
from the extant literature. The first part of the questionnaire asked the par-
ticipants to indicate whether they would like to participate in the survey or
not. This was to provide the opportunity for the respondents to freely
decide and consent to participate in the survey. The subsequent section of
the questionnaire captured the respondents’ demographic profile. The last
part of the questionnaire contained items that measured the latent varia-
bles. A 5-point Likert scale of 5 ¼ representing strongly agree to
1 ¼ representing strongly disagree was used in the questionnaire. The items

for Training and Reward were adapted from (Babakus et al., 2003; Gold,
Hahn, & Seuring, 2013) . Social Sustainability items were adapted from
Kumar and Rahman (2016), Chow and Chen (2012) and Mariadoss, Chi,
Tansuhaj, and Pomirleanu (2016), and the items of Green Buyer-Supplier
Relationship were adapted (Dadzie, 2015; Abbey et al., 2016) .
The study used both descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the
data. To begin it, the mean response was computed for each item and the
hypothesized dimension. The data collected was coded, cleaned, and pre-
pared for analysis. Partial Least Square-Structured Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM) was employed to analyze the data that was collected. Alavifar
et al. (2012) defined Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) as the statistical
technique used to test and to analyze the causal relationship by using statis-
tical data. SEM has been well thought out as a better statistical method in
predicting the relationship between variables as compared to multiple
regression. SEM can evaluate the relationship of model constructs simultan-
eously whereby in the first-generation method, the analyses of the variables
are done separately (Alavifar et al., 2012). SEM gives methodological sup-
port from two disciplines i.e., the factor analysis models from psychometric
theory and usually linking it with econometrics (Awang, 2012). SEM’s
stoutness makes it an appropriate tool capable of testing the entire model
simultaneously and assessing measurement errors. Smart PLS 3 has been
rated as one of the statistical data analysis technique adopted by researchers
due to its suitability for any sample size i.e., it can be used with smaller
and unlimited sample sizes as well as an unlimited number of formative
indicators (Hair et al., 2013). PLS-SEM algorithm’s iterative procedure was
used based on a selected value of 500 for the maximum number based on
iterations to obtain results. Discriminate validity measures the extent to
which a variable is truly distinct from other variables. It shows that a vari-
able is unique. Cross loading and Fornell and Larcker criteria were used to
evaluate discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014) and Hetero Trait-Mono
trait (HTMT), which was also developed to arrest the insensitivity of the
Fornell and Larcker and cross-loading criterion of ratio (Henseler, Ringer,
& Sarstedt, 2015) . The structural model which is also known as the inner
model enables researchers to determine the model’s capability and to
anticipate one or more target construct. Based on the confidence of the
measurement model, the study further tests the hypotheses using the boot-
strapping 5000 with the replacement and the standard error (Hair, Sarstedt,
Hopkins & Kuppelwieser, 2014) Under the structural model, this study
considered measures such as collinearity, f-value, p-value, path coefficient
and coefficients of determination (R2). Collinearity arises when two indica-
tors are highly correlated. The study used a variance-inflated factor to
assess collinearity among latent variance. The threshold value included VIF
5 to depict potential collinearity problems (Hair et al., 2011) . The path
coefficients were assessed using þ1 to show the positive strong relationship
in the structural model. In a situation where the path coefficient signifi-
cantly depends on its standard error through bootstrapping, the study used
p-value and t-value for the structural path coefficient. The t-value was esti-
mated at 1.96 at the 0.05% level of significance.
Results and discussions

According to Armstrong and Overton (1977) , non-response bias can be
explored by testing the variation between the early and late responses on a
range of variables, thus using late response as a proxy for non-respondents.
The researchers grouped the data into two based on the dates of receiving
the data and the Mann-Whitney U-tests employed, however, the results did
not show any statistically significant variations between the two groups
(p > .05) across a range of indicators for the constructs and the demo-
graphic variables, indicating the nonexistence response bias in the dataset.
Common Method Variance was also explored as per Harman (1967) rec-
ommendation; hence an Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted and
results revealed that ten (10) factors had Eigenvalues above 1.0, which
accounted for 60.9% of the variance, with the highest factor accounting for
24.6% of the explained variance. Since no factor solely explained the major-
ity (50%) of the covariance, the study concludes that the data has no issues
of common method bias. Single one-sided respondents were used in this
research since single-rater data is more appropriate for multiple stakeholder
research in the supply chain (Kull, Kotlar, & Spring, 2018). Again, the EFA
also provided information on the number of items that can represent a
construct (Edkins and Pollock, 1996). This study adopted the Norusis
(1993) threshold of ±0.50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to
identify if there existed some common factors in the variables which yield
and help in the use of factor analysis (Field, 2005). The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) test value ranges from 0 to 1, with a 1-value signifying that
the sum of the partial correlations is relatively larger in comparison to the
sum of correlations, hence factor analysis is not a good tool to use (Child,
1990). Alternatively, a value closer to 1 also signifies that variables are cor-
relatively compact, and that factor analysis would yield real-value results.
For Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity to be significant, it must be less than the
significance value of 0.05, and for the KMO test to be significant, it must
be more than 0.50 (Field, 2005; Coakes, 2007) . These tests are spontan-
eously checking whether the variables in the correlation matrix are correlat-
ing significantly different from 0 or an identity matrix. The KMO sampling
adequacy of this dimension of the study was 0. 888. Hence, showing a high
significance of these variables under this dimension in correlating with
each other differently from 0 or an identity matrix. It means that the sam-
ples used for the factor analysis are adequate thus the need for fac-
tor extraction.
Structural equation modeling

The study employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using SmartPLS
as a statistical method to examine the relationship between the dependent
and independent variables (Hair et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2019) . The result
comprised the measurement model and the structural model. While the
measurement model explores the relationship between the latent variables
and observed variables and provides reliability and validity of the variables
used in this study, the structural model examines the direction and strength
of the path.
Measurement model assessment

The study employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ascertain the
level of reliability and validity of the measurement model before the struc-
tural model or hypotheses testing (Voorhees, Brady, Calantone & Ramirez,
2016: Ab Hamid, Sami& Sidek, 2017) . The measurement model test
included reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity which are
shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Construct reliability
Construct Reliability was explored using Composite Reliability (CR). The
CR coefficient of 0.70 or higher is considered to have good scale reliability
(Hair et al., 2010). The results as shown in Table 4 shows the computed
Composite Reliability (CR) of all the latent variables ranges between 0.792
and 0.875, and all were above the 0.70 thresholds. Therefore, produces evi-
dence that all the latent variables have good reliability. Additionally,
Cronbach’s alpha was also measured to determine the reliability of the
item. Although Wang and Tai (2003) were of the view that composite reli-
ability is very similar to Cronbach alpha, Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)
hold the view that there is the need to measure the two. The Cronbach
alpha values ranged between 0. 610 and 0.832. All the latent variables were
above the 0.60 thresholds as recommended by (Huang et al. 2017; Nuanally
and Bernstein, 1994) . For convergent validity, it is required that AVE val-
ues be greater than 0.5 to confirm convergent validity, the results in Table
1 showed that AVE and Factor Loadings were greater than 0.5 hence the
Table 1. Construct reliability.

Composite
Construct Items Loadings Cronbach’s alpha reliability Ave
GBSR GBSR1 0.745 0.832 0.875 0.501
GBSR2 0.730
GBSR3 0.770
GBSR4 0.685
GBSR5 0.777
GBSR6 0.614
GBSR7 0.616
Reward R1 0.686 0.823 0.870 0.529
R2 0.782
R3 0.790
R4 0.722
R6 0.754
R7 0.616
Social Sustainability SS1 0.674 0.610 0.792 0.561
SS3 0.769
SS4 0.799
Training TN1 0.665 0.813 0.870 0.574
TN2 0.778
TN3 0.798
TN4 0.792
TN5 0.749
Table 2. Discriminant validity.

Social
Construct GBSR Reward sustainability Training
GBSR 0.708
Reward 0.378 0.727
Social Sustainability 0.595 0.344 0.749
Training 0.494 0.248 0.445 0.758
result confirms the construct’s ability to explain over half of the variations
of its indicators.
Discriminant validity
The study also explored the extent to which individual constructs are diver-
gent from other constructs (Hair et al., 2010; Henseler et al., 2016b). To
confirm the discriminant validity, it is required that the diagonal values
(square root of AVE) of each latent variable have higher values than its
highest correlation of the construct. Thus, the result in Table 2 supports
discriminant validity. The result again confirms the absence of multicolli-
nearity (Byrne, 2013) .
To add to this, Henseler et al. (2015) are of the view that to further con-
firm the presence of discriminant, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of corre-
lations (HTMT), which is a multitrait-multimethod matrix, ought to be
explored to validate the result of the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion.
Therefore, the HTMT technique was used to test the discriminant validity.
According to Kline (2011), to confirm discriminant validity, the HTMT
Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

Construct GBSR Reward Social sustainability Training
GBSR
Reward 0.434
Social Sustainability 0.824 0.480
Training 0.590 0.288 0.614
Table 4. Path coefficient and hypotheses.

Hypotheses Coefficients Standard deviation T statistics p values
Reward ! Social Sustainability 0.127 0.049 2.554 .011
Training ! Social Sustainability 0.187 0.052 3.618 .000
Reward ! GBSR 0.277 0.046 5.931 .000
Training ! GBSR 0.429 0.046 9.260 .000
GBSR ! Social Sustainability 0.457 0.055 8.224 .000
value should not be better than 0.85. Gold et al. (2001) on the other hand
believe that the HTMT value should not be more than 0.90 to confirm dis-
criminant validity. The result as presented in Table 3 indicates that all the
values passed the HTMT 0.90 (Gold et al., 2001) and the HTMT 0.85
(Kline, 2011). Consequently, using both the Fornell and Larcker (1981) cri-
terion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), the
results indicate that discriminant validity was realized.
Hypotheses testing
The results of the analysis for the structural model path coefficients signifi-
cance levels as presented in Table 4 revealed that all the hypotheses were
confirmed. The result revealed a significant positive relationship between
Reward and Social Sustainability (b ¼ 0.127, p < .05). The training showed
a significant positive effect on Social Sustainability (b ¼ 0.187, p < .01),
Reward was also significantly related to Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship
(GBSR) (b ¼ 0.277, p < .01). The training was significantly related to Green
Buyer-Supplier Relationship (GBSR) (b ¼ 0.429, p < .01), and finally, Green
Buyer-Supplier Relationship (GBSR) showed a significant positive effect on
Social Sustainability (b ¼ 0.457, p < .01) (Figure 2).
Mediating analysis
The mediating effect as examined by Preacher and Hayes (2008) recom-
mended compliance by Hair et al. (2013) for mediating analysis and model
bootstrapping for exploring indirect effects of the mediating variables
(Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship). The results revealed that both trust
and governance significantly mediate the relationship between Top
Management Support on Social Sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply
Chain (Table 5) .
Figure 2. Measurement of Model Path Coefficients the relationship between training, reward,
and GBSR on social sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply Chain.
Table 5. Mediating effect of green buyer-supplier relationship.

Hypotheses Coefficients Standard deviation t statistics p values
Reward ! GBSR ! Social Sustainability 0.126 0.026 4.676 .000
Training ! GBSR ! Social Sustainability 0.196 0.033 5.875 .000
Coefficients of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 (R2adj)

The coefficient of determinant R2 signifies the accuracy of the prediction of
constructs in structural models. According to Falk and Miller (1992) , the
R2 should be greater than 0.10 for the acceptance of models’ predictive
relevance. The result showed R2 of 0.314 and 0.397 toward Green Buyer-
Supplier Relationship and Social Sustainability respectively, which are
empirically significant, and above the recommended threshold. The R2 is
therefore significant and provides evidence of the model fitness. The
R2adj.value reduces the R2 value to compensate for adding non-significant
exogenous latent variables to increase the explained variance R2. It was also
significantly larger than the recommended threshold (Table 6).
Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR)

According to Chen (2007), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals
(SRMR) is an index of the average of standardized residuals between the
observed and the hypothesized covariance matrices. Thus, it allows assess-
ing the average magnitude of the discrepancies between observed and
expected correlations as an absolute measure of (model) fit criterion. A
value less than 0.10 or 0.08 (in a more conservative version; see Hu and
Table 6. Coefficients of determination (R2) and R2 adjusted.

Construct R square R square adjusted
GBSR 0.314 0.310
Social Sustainability 0.397 0.392
Table 7. Model fit summary.

Saturated model
SRMR 0.076
d_ULS 1.344
d_G 0.326
Chi-Square 618.314
NFI 0.963
Bentler, 1999) is considered a good fit. Henseler et al. (2014) introduce the
SRMR as a goodness of fit measure for PLS-SEM that can be used to avoid
model misspecification. Table 7 shows that this study model’s SRMR was
0.076, which confirms that this study model had a good fit, whereas the
Chi-Square was equal to 618.314 and Normed Fit Index (NFI) equal to
0.963 was measured.
Discussion of results
The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of Training and
Reward on Social Sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply Chain and the
Mediating Role of governance and trust in the attainment of such sustain-
ability. The outcome of the study, therefore, sheds light on the relevance of
Training and Reward in ensuring Sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa Supply
Chain. The study provides useful information to policymakers,
COCOBOD, and the Government of Ghana. The study provides a Cocoa
Supply Chain Sustainability framework for optimal understanding of the
effect of Training and Reward on Social Sustainability in Ghana’s Cocoa
Supply Chain. The study concludes that both Training and Reward have a
positive relationship with SCS (social sustainability) in the cocoa supply
chain. This confirms earlier assertions that supply chain sustainability could
be realized or made possible by the resources committed by top manage-
ment (Huang, Wu, & Rahman, 2012; Huang et al., 2012). This is to say
that, to ensure sustainability, top management must wholly support it and
actively partake in it. (Bakker, Fisscher, & Brack, 2002; Rice, 2003) In add-
ition, Law and Gunasekaran (2012) posit that, sustainable development in
an organization must be supported by a strategic policy by strategic-level
personnel. In this regard, the absence of management support will mitigate
the firm’s effort to achieve sustainability in the supply chain (Dubey
et al., 2017).
The study also found that Training and Reward have a significant posi-
tive effect on GBSR (trust, governance). This provides evidence that, to be
successful in implementing social sustainability practices, it is important

that a sustainable relationship between buyer and supplier is established
(Kumar & Rahman, 2016) and parties involved are wholly committed to
the relationship (Bag, 2016). This result implies that organizations such as
(COCOBOD) use the relationship as a strategy to encourage their partners
in the supply chain to accept sustainability practices, which also helps in
perpetuating trust built (Cheung & Rowlinson, 2011; Clemens & Douglas,
2006). For buyer-supplier to implement green practices, it will take the sup-
port of top management to actualize it (Ageron, Gunasekaran, &
Spalanzani, 2012). Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) and (Daily and Huang
(2001) found that top management support to sustainability, positively
influences sustainable buyer-supplier relationships which was also con-
firmed in this study. The study concludes that GBSR (trust, governance) is
positively related to social sustainability. The result affirms previous studies
that have looked at the buyer-supplier relationship in recent years and have
argued that the buyer-supplier relationship is one of the best resources for
revealing social sustainability (Carrim, Agigi, Niemann, & Mocke, 2020;
Kumar & Rahman, 2016; Nassar, Kandil, Kara, & Ghadge, 2019). The
results further stipulate that one of the key sustainable elements in integrat-
ing the supply chain is the buyer and supplier relationship (Dubey &
Surajit Bag, 2014; Sezen & Turkkantos, 2013).
Finally, the result showed GBSR (trust, governance) significantly medi-
ates the relationship between Training, Reward, and supply chain sustain-
ability (social sustainability). This result implies that trust and governance
are very vital for the operations of COCOBOD and its supply chain part-
ners in the Ghana cocoa industry. The relationship built on trust has the
propensity to influence the supply chain sustainability in the Cocoa Supply
Chain of Ghana. This is consistent with the study by Cook et al. (2009)
which opines that trust depends on confidence inspired by partners, which
propels the supplier-buyer relationship and influences the overall social sus-
tainability of supply chains. Aside this, the result implies that effective
training especially with the use of environmentally-friendly farming practi-
ces should be conducted.
Conclusion
The findings of the study on the mediation role of green buyer-supplier
relationship (trust and governance) coupled with the positive correlation
between training; reward and social sustainability provide support to the
Resource Base View and Social Exchange theory. According to the Social
Exchange theory, firm performance improvement or sustainability of firms
can highly be achieved through increasing coordinated efforts between
exchange partners within the supply chain. This means that proper rela-
tionship amongst supply chain partners within the cocoa industry is very
important. In establishing the right linkage between the COCOBOD and its
partners, trust and governance cannot be downplayed. Practically, the find-
ings demonstrate the existence of GBSR among COCOBOD and its part-
ners such as the cocoa farmers. This indicates that the role of Top
Management Support such as training and reward in cocoa supply chain
operations is very important and cannot be ignored or overemphasized.
Despite this level of attention, it is vital to expound that training and
reward help in achieving social sustainability in the cocoa sector.
Contribution of the study

The outcome of this research sufficiently addresses all four hypotheses by
bringing out and examining the key factors that affect social sustainability
in Ghana’s cocoa industry. The findings have confirmed that past studies
over the period have seen the important relationship amongst the factors
including green buyer-supplier relationship (governance, trust), training
and reward, and social sustainability in the cocoa sector. While previous
studies have also shown that most of the studies done evaluated these fac-
tors as standalone or separately in their studies. This study is the first
attempt to examine the mediating role of GBSR between training, reward,
and social sustainability in the cocoa industry. To give a fresh insight into
the influence training and reward coupled with the green buyer-supplier
relationship have on each other; a conceptual or theoretical model was
developed and tested empirically. Such empirical justification gives a novel
knowledge on the influence of training and reward on the Green Buyer-
Supplier Relationship (GBSR) and its influence on social sustainability, in
the cocoa industry. This discovery offers another approach in which train-
ing, reward, and green buyer-supplier relationship can be viewed. This
research has revealed that training, reward, and green buyer-supplier rela-
tionship are key essential factors that predict social sustainability in the
cocoa industry. While previous studies found similar outcomes, this study
is the first to attempt an exploration of the relationship between training
and reward and sustainable buyer-supplier relationship. Since, most of
these studies were done in similar settings, this piece of work adds up to
existing knowledge by way of positively validating the effect of GBSR on
social sustainability in the cocoa industry in developing Africa.
Future research recommendations

Based on the findings of the study the following future research recommen-
dations are provided: since the study covers only six cocoa farming
districts, other researchers could consider expanding the sample size and
the area of data collection to cover more cocoa-growing districts across the
six cocoa regions in Ghana. Future research may also consider examining
farmers’ retirement package as an incentive to improve production per-
formance and social sustainability in the cocoa industry. Since the study
only considered Training and Reward on social sustainability, other studies
can also examine how Supplier Development mediates or moderates
Management Support and social sustainability. The future researcher can
also explore other measures of sustainability such as Economic and
Environmental Sustainability in the Cocoa Supply Chain.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Reference
Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use
of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 890(1), 012163. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
Abbey, P., Tomlinson, P. R., & Branston, J. R. (2016). Perceptions of governance and social
capital in Ghana’s cocoa industry. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2016.01.015
Adenle, A. A., Azadi, H., & Manning, L. (2018). The era of sustainable agricultural develop-
ment in Africa: Understanding the benefits and constraints. Food Reviews International,
34(5), 411–433. doi:10.1080/87559129.2017.1300913
Adesanya, A., Yang, B., Iqdara, F. W. B., & Yang, Y. (2020). Improving sustainability per-
formance through supplier relationship management in the tobacco industry. Supply
Chain Management, 25(4), 413–426. doi:10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0034
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An
empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182. doi:10.
1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.007
Agi, M. A. N., & Nishant, R. (2017). Understanding influential factors on implementing
green supply chain management practices: An interpretive structural modelling analysis.
Journal of Environmental Management, 188, 351–363. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.081
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Mohammed, I. (2017). Sustainability matters in national develop-
ment visions – Evidence from Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030. Sustainability, 9(3),
408–420. doi:10.3390/su9030408
Alavifar, A., Karimimalayer, M., & Anuar, M. K. (2012). The first and second generation of
multivariate techniques. Engineering Science and Technology, 2(2), 326–329.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Debrah, Y. A., & Nuertey, D. (2018). Institutional legitimacy, cross-
border trade and institutional voids: Insights from the Cocoa Industry in Ghana. Journal
of Rural Studies, 58(January), 136–145. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.002
Armstrong, J. S., Overton, T. S., Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-
response bias in mail surveys. American Marketing Association, 14(3), 396–402.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., Smith, M. H., Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012).
Making connections: A review of supply chain management and sustainability literature.
Supply Chain Management, 17(5), 497–516. doi:10.1108/13598541211258573
Awan, U. (2019). Effects of buyer-supplier relationship on social performance improvement
and innovation performance improvement. International Journal of Applied Management
Science, 11(1), 21. doi:10.1504/IJAMS.2019.096657
Awan, U., & Khan, S. A. R. (2021). Mediating role of sustainable leadership in buyer- sup-
plier relationships: An supply chain performance: An empirical study. Scientific Journal
of Logistics, 17(1), 97–112.
Awan, U., Kraslawski, A., & Huiskonen, J. (2018). Buyer-supplier relationship on social sus-
tainability: Moderation analysis of cultural intelligence. Cogent Business & Management,
5(1), 1429346. doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1429346
Awan, U., & Khan, S. A. R. (2021). Moderating role of sustainable leadership in buyer-sup-
plier relationships: A supply chain performance: An empirical study. Logforum, 17 (1),
97–112. doi:10.17270/J.LOG.2021.546
Awang, Z. (2012). Research methodology and data analysis second edition. Shah Alam,
Malaysia: UiTM Press.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Avci, T. (2003). The effect of management com-
mitment to service quality on employees' affective and performance outcomes. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 272–286. doi:10.1177/0092070303031003005
Bag, S. (2016). Green strategy, supplier relationship building and supply chain performance:
Total interpretive structural modelling approach. International Journal of Procurement
Management, 9(4), 398–426. doi:10.1504/IJPM.2016.077702
Bag, S., & Gupta, S. (2017). Antecedents of sustainable innovation in supplier networks: A
South African experience. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(3),
231–250. doi:10.1007/s40171-017-0158-4
Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Telukdarie, A. (2018). Exploring the relationship between unethical
practices, buyer – Supplier relationships and green design for sustainability. International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 11(2), 97–13. doi:10.1080/19397038.2017.1376723
Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Mangla, S. K., & Luthra, S. (2020). Procurement 4. 0 and its implica-
tions on business process performance in a circular economy. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, 152, 104502. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104502
Bakker, F. G. A. De, Fisscher, O. A. M., & Brack, A. J. P. (2002). Organizing product-ori-
ented environmental management from a firm’s perspective. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 10(5), 455–464. 10, doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00012-4
Bandanaa, J., Asante, I. K., Egyir, I. S., Schader, C., Annang, T. Y., Blockeel, J., …
Heidenreich, A. (2021). Environmental and sustainability indicators sustainability per-
formance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua
District of Ghana. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 11(May), 100121. doi:10.
1016/j.indic.2021.100121
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Beg, M. S., Ahmad, S., Jan, K., & Bashir, K. (2017). Status, supply chain and processing of
Cocoa – A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 66, 108–116. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.
2017.06.007
Bhardwaj, B. R. (2016). Role of green policy on sustainable supply chain management.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(2), 456–468. doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0077
Blommer, P. (2011). to Cocoa Sustainability.
Boer, D. De, Limpens, G., Rifin, A., & Kusnadi, N. (2019). Inclusive productive value
chains, an overview of Indonesia’s cocoa industry. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing
and Emerging Economies, 9(5), 439–456. doi:10.1108/JADEE-09-2018-0131
Borodin, V., Bourtembourg, J., Hnaien, F., & Labadie, N. (2016). Handling uncertainty in
agricultural supply chain management: A state of the art. European Journal of
Operational Research, 254(2), 348–359. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.03.057
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of
Operational Research, 233(2), 299–312. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and develop-
ment: Our common future, Brudtland Report, UN, pp. 45–65.
Burkert, M., Sven, B., & Shan, J. (2012). Governance mechanisms in domestic and inter-
national buyer – Supplier relationships: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing
Management, 41(3), 544–556. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.019
Cabral, C., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2020). Understanding the human side of green hospitality
management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102389. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.102389
Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational
governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations
Management, 33-34(1), 15–42. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009
Carrim, I., Agigi, A., Niemann, W., & Mocke, K. (2020). The role of buyer-supplier rela-
tionships in enhancing sustainable supply chain management in a logistics services con-
text. Journal of Contemporary Management, 17(1), 150–182. doi:10.35683/jcm19099.60
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387. doi:10.1108/09600030810882816
Cei, L., Stefani, G., Defrancesco, E., & Virginia, G. (2018). Land use policy geographical
indications: A first assessment of the impact on rural development in Italian NUTS3
regions. Land Use Policy, 75, 620–630. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.023
Cheung, Y. K. F., & Rowlinson, S. (2011). Supply chain sustainability: A relationship man-
agement approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(3), 480–497.
doi:10.1108/17538371111144184
Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis. London: Cassell Educational.
Chow, W. S., & Chen, Y. (2012). Corporate sustainable development : Testing a new scale
based on the Mainland Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 519–533. doi:
10.1007/s10551-011-0983-x
Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. A. (2021). Supply chain sustainability practices and
governance for mitigating sustainability risk and improving market performance: A
dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123521. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123521
Clarkson, M. A. X. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating cor-
porate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. doi:10.5465/
amr.1995.9503271994
Claycomb, C., & Frankwick, G. L. (2010). Industrial marketing management buyers’ per-
spectives of buyer – Seller relationship development. Industrial Marketing Management,
39(2), 252–263. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.08.004
Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. J. (2006). Does coercion drive firms to adopt F voluntary_green
initiatives? Relationships among coercion, superior firm resources, and voluntary green
initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 483–491. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.09.016
Cook, W. D., & Seiford, L. M. (2009). Data envelopment analysis (DEA) – Thirty years on.
European Journal of Operational Research, 192(1), 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.032
Dadzie, C. A. (2015). Channel member satisfaction and performance in African export
marketing channels : Some insights from Ghana. Journal of Marketing Channels, 22(2),
108–120. doi:10.1080/1046669X.2015.1018076
Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human
resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552. doi:10.1108/01443570110410892
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner
cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512. doi:10.5465/
amr.1998.926623
Deng, B., Xie, W., Cheng, F., Deng, J., & Long, L. (2021). Complexity relationship between
power and trust in hybrid megaproject governance: The structural equation modelling
approach. Hindawi Complexity, 2021, 8814630. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8814630.
Drimie, S., Hamann, R., Manderson, A. P., & Mlondobozi, N. (2018). Creating transforma-
tive spaces for dialogue and action: Reflecting on the experience of the Southern Africa
Food Lab. Ecology and Society, 23(3), 302. doi:10.5751/ES-10177-230302
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S. J., & Sahay, B.S. (2017).
Explaining the impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems on environmental per-
formance: The role of top management and organizational culture. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 141, 56–66. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.035
Dubey, R., & Surajit Bag, S. S. (2014). Green supply chain practices and its impact on
organisational performance: An insight from Indian rubber industry Rameshwar Dubey
Surajit Bag Sadia Samar Ali. International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management, 19(1), 20–42. doi:10.1504/IJLSM.2014.064029
Edkins, G. D., & Pollock, C. M. (1996). Pro-active safety management: Application and
evaluation within a rail context. Safety Science, 24(2), 83–93. doi:10.1016/S0925-
7535(96)00027-6
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of
Akron Press.
Field, A. P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population
correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10(4), 444–467. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.444
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing and Research, 18(3),
382–388.
Freitas, W. R. de, S., Caldeira-Oliveira, J. H., Teixeira, A. A., Stefanelli, N. O., & Teixeira,
T. B. (2020). Green human resource management and corporate social responsibility.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(4), 1551–1569. doi:10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0543
Ghosh, A., & Jane, F. (2008). The role of trust in supply chain governance. Business Process
Management Journal, 14(4), 453–470. doi:10.1108/14637150810888019
Glavee-Geo, R., Burki, U., & Buvik, A. (2020). Building trustworthy relationships with sup-
pliers: Insights from the Ghana Cocoa Industry. Journal of Macromarketing, 40(1),
110–127. doi:10.1177/0276146719900370
Glavee-Geo, R., Engelseth, P., & Buvik, A. (2021). Power imbalance and the dark side of
the captive Agri – food supplier – Buyer relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 2021,
0123456789. doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04791-7
Gold, S., Hahn, R., & Seuring, S. (2013). Sustainable supply chain management in “base of
the pyramid” food projects – A path to triple bottom line approaches for multinationals?
International Business Review, 22(5), 784–747. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.12.006
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organiza-
tional capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1),
185–214. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental improve-
ment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 364–372. doi:10.1108/
02635570410530775
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110
Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Social exchange in supply chain rela-
tionships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of
Operations Management, 24(2), 85–98. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2005.03.003
Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. K. (2008). When does Guanxi Matter? Issues of capitaliza-
tion and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 12–28. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.4.012
Hair, J. F., Celsi, M., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2010). Essentials of marketing research
(Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mir-
ror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation model-
ing methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616–632. doi:10.1007/
s11747-017-0517-x
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation
modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range
Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research.
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of
Marketing, 58(1), 71–85. doi:10.1177/002224299405800106
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W.,
… Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on
Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. doi:10.
1177/1094428114526928
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology
research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. doi:
10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discrimin-
ant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, G., Chen, D., Li, T., Wu, F., Van Der Maaten, L., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017).
Multi-scale dense convolutional networks for efficient prediction. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:
1703.09844, 2.
Homans, G. C., & Turner, R. H. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. American
Sociological Review, 26(4), 635–636. doi:10.2307/2090265
Huang, Y., Wu, Y. J., & Rahman, S. (2012). The task environment, resource commitment
and reverse logistics performance: Evidence from the Taiwanese high-tech sector.
Production Planning & Control, 23(10–11), 851–841. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.642189
Huq, F., Stevenson, M., & Zorzini, M. (2014). Social sustainability in Developing Country
suppliers: An exploratory study in the ready made garments industry of Bangladesh.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 34 (5), 610–638. doi:10.
1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0467
Ilyas, S., Abid, G., & Ashfaq, F. (2020). Ethical leadership in sustainable organizations: The
moderating role of general self-efficacy and the mediating role of organizational trust.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 22, 195–204. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.03.003
Ingrao, C., Faccilongo, N., Di, L., & Messineo, A. (2018). Food waste recovery into energy
in a circular economy perspective: A comprehensive review of aspects related to plant
operation and environmental assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 869–892.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.267
Jain, V., Kumar, S., Kumar, A., & Chandra, C. (2016). An integrated buyer initiated deci-
sion-making process for green supplier selection. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 41,
256–265. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.09.004
Kongor, J. E., Boeckx, P., Vermeir, P., Van de Walle, D., Baert, G., Afoakwa, E. O., &
Dewettinck, K. (2019). Assessment of soil fertility and quality for improved cocoa pro-
duction in six cocoa growing regions in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems, 93(4), 1455–1467.
doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0253-3
Jeronimo, H. M., Henriques, P. L., Lacerda, T. C. De, Pires, F., & Vieira, P. R. (2020).
Going green and sustainable: The influence of green HR practices on the organizational
rationale for sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 112, 413–421. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.11.036
Kannan, D., Beatriz, A., Sousa, L. De, Jose C., & Jabbour, C. (2014). Selecting green suppli-
ers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics
company. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 432–447. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.
2013.07.023
Karim, I. D., F., & Wulandari, E. (2020). The perception of local cocoa farmers to the
swisscontact program: Economics, environment and social dimension. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 486, 012002. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/486/1/
012002
Klassen, R. D., & Vachon, S. (2009). Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: The
impact on plant-level environmental investment. Production and Operations
Management, 12(3), 336–352. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00207.x
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling.
In M. Williams &. W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of innovation and research
methods (pp. 562–589). London, UK: SAGE.
Kull, T. J., Kotlar, J., & Spring, M. (2018). Small and medium enterprise research in supply
chain management: The case for single-respondent research designs. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 54(1), 23–34. doi:10.1111/jscm.12157
Kumar, D., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Buyer supplier relationship and supply chain sustainabil-
ity: Empirical study of Indian automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131,
836–848. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.007
nski, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., … Teunter,
Laengle, S., Merigo, J. M., Miranda, J., Słowi
R. (2017). Forty years of the European Journal of Operational Research: A bibliometric
overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(3), 803–816. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.
2017.04.027
Lalwani, S. K., Nunes, B., Chicksand, D., & Boojihawon, D. K. (Roshan). (2018).
Benchmarking self-declared social sustainability initiatives in cocoa sourcing.
Benchmarking An International Journal 25(3), 186. doi:10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0186
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and
alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158. doi:10.1177/03079459994399
Laven, A. C. (2010). The risks of inclusion: Shifts in governance processes and upgrading
opportunities for cocoa farmers in Ghana Laven, A.C. UvA-DARE (Digital Academic
Repository).
Law, K. M. Y., & Gunasekaran, A. (2012). Sustainability development in high-tech manu-
facturing firms in Hong Kong: Motivators and readiness. International Journal of
Production Economics, 137(1), 116–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.022
Lee, D., & Schniederjans, M. J. (2017). How corporate social responsibility commitment
influences sustainable supply chain management performance within the social capital
framework: A propositional framework. International Journal of Corporate Strategy and
Social Responsibility, 1(3), 208–233. doi:10.1504/IJCSSR.2017.087797
Liu, W., Bai, E., Liu, L., & Wei, W. (2017). A framework of sustainable service supply chain
management: A literature review and research Agenda. Sustainability, 9(3), 421. doi:10.
3390/su9030421
Liu, Y., Luo, Y., & Liu, T. (2009). Governing buyer – Supplier relationships through trans-
actional and relational mechanisms: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations
Management, 27(4), 294–309. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.004
Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Vazquez-Brust, D., Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, C., & Latan, H.
(2017). Green supply chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil : Survey,
case studies, and implications for B2B. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 13–28. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.05.003
Machoka, P. (2020). Strategic management impact of organizational culture on the
employee satisfaction: A case of Multinational Companies (MNCs) in Kenya. African
Journal of Emerging Issues, (5).
Machoka, P. (2020). Impact of organizational culture on the employee satisfaction: A case
of multinational companies (MNCs) in Kenya. African Journal of Emerging Issues, 2(6),
67–86.
Mackey, T. B., Mackey, A., Christensen, L. J., & Lepore, J. J. (2020). Inducing corporate
social responsibility: Should investors reward the responsible or punish the irresponsible?
Journal of Business Ethics, 2020, 0123456789. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04669-0
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015). Social sustainability in the supply chain:
Analysis of enablers. Management Research Review, 38(9), 1016–1042. doi:10.1108/MRR-
02-2014-0037
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., & Delgado, C. (2018). Enhancing supply chain performance
through supplier social sustainability: An emerging economy perspective. International
Journal of Production Economics, 195, 259–272. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.025
Mani, V., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Mani, K. T. N. (2020). Supply chain social sustainability in
small and medium manufacturing enterprises and firms’ performance: Empirical evi-
dence from an emerging Asian economy. International Journal of Production Economics,
227(January), 107656. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107656
Mariadoss, B. J., Chi, T., Tansuhaj, P., & Pomirleanu, N. (2016). Influences of firm orienta-
tions on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Business Research, 69(9),
3406–3414. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.003
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle.
Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814
McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions, Working Paper Series
No. 27. Magill, Australia: Hawke Research Institute.

Melane-Lavado, A., & Alvarez-Herranz, A. (2020). Cooperation networks as a driver of sus-
tainability-oriented innovation. Sustainability, 12(7), 2820. doi:10.3390/su12072820
Meryem, B. (2011). Governance mechanisms and buyer supplier relationship: Static and
dynamic panel data evidence from Tunisian Exporting SMEs. International Journal of
Economics and Financial Issues, 1(3), 88–98.
Mishra, P. (2017). Green human resource management A framework for sustainable organ-
izational development in an emerging economy. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 25(5), 762–788. doi:10.1108/IJOA-11-2016-1079
Morais, D. O. C., & Silvestre, B. S. (2018). Advancing social sustainability in supply chain
management: Lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy Asper
School of Business University of Manitoba. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 222–235.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.097
Najmulmunir, N. (2020). Does reward enforcement and organization boundaries lead to
sustainable supply chain performance in indonesian SMEs? A moderating role of work
discretion. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(1), 129–136.
Nassar, S., Kandil, T., Kara, M. E., & Ghadge, A. (2019). Automotive recall risk: Impact of
buyer – Supplier relationship on supply chain social sustainability. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(3), 467–487. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-01-
2019-0026
Nath, V., & Agrawal, R. (2020). Agility and lean practices as antecedents of supply chain
social sustainability. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
40(10), 1589–1611. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-09-2019-0642
Nelson, V., & Phillips, D. (2018). Sector, landscape or rural transformations? Exploring the
limits and potential of agricultural sustainability initiatives through a Cocoa case study.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(2), 252–262. doi:10.1002/bse.2014
Neutzling, D. M., Land, A., Seuring, S., & Nascimento, L. F. M. de. (2018). Linking sustain-
ability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 172, 3448–3458. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.091
Niramitsrichai, W., Somjai, S., & Chantararatmanee, D. (2021). Factors influencing the
Sustainability of the Palm Oil Community enterprises in the Southern Region of
Thailand Turkish. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(12),
385–395.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Oelze, N., Hoejmose, S. U., Habisch, A., & Millington, A. (2016). Sustainable development
in supply chain management: The role of organizational learning for policy implementa-
tion. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(4), 241–260. doi:10.1002/bse.1869
Okoffo, E. D., Fosu-Mensah, B. Y., & Gordon, C. (2016). Persistent organochlorine pesti-
cide residues in Cocoa beans from Ghana, a concern for public health. International
Journal of Food Contamination, 3(1), 4. doi:10.1186/s40550-016-0028-4
Okorleyb, E. L., Kwartengc, J., Bakangd, J. E. A., & Nimohe, F. (2021). Enhancing market
orientation of cocoa farmers through farmer business schools: The Ghana cocobod
experience. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 11(1), 129–138. doi:10.
18488/journal.ajard.2021.111.129.138
Pagell, M. (2004). Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of oper-
ations, purchasing and logistics. Journal of Operations Management, 22(5), 459–487. doi:
10.1016/j.jom.2004.05.008
Pinet, M., Unnikrishnan, V., Marc, L., Atta-Mensah, M., Bridonneau, S., Boateng, E. S., &
Boateng, N. A. (2020). Improving youth livelihoods in the Ghana cocoa belt an impact
evaluation of the MASO programme.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879–891.
Rampa, R., & Agogue, M. (2021). Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the
effects of training employees for creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 30(1), 211–227. doi:10.1111/caim.12423
Rana, M. R. I., & Ha-Brookshire, J. E. (2020). Sustainability in fashion proceedings.
Sustainability in Fashion Proceedings, (2008), 4–5.
Rana, M. R. I., & Ha-Brookshire, J. E. (2020). Social sustainability in workplace: An investi-
gation of the buyer-supplier relationship through power and psychologically defensive
workplace behavior. Sustainability in Fashion, 1(1). doi:10.31274/susfashion.11424
Rice, S. (2003). Commitment to excellence: Practical approaches to environmental leader-
ship. Environmental Quality Management, 12(4), 9–22. doi:10.1002/tqem.10082
Rota, C., Pugliese, P., Hashem, S., & Zanasi, C. (2018). Assessing the level of collaboration
in the Egyptian organic and fair trade cotton chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170,
1665–1676. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.011
Saleh, J. M., Man, N., Salih, M. H., Hassan, S., Nawi, N. M., & Mohammed, S. J. (2018).
Training needs of agriculture extension officers in Iraq. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 9(2), 34–40. DOI: 10.3923/ajaps.2016.34.40
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the
adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of
Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001
Seuring, S., & Muller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Sezen, B., & Turkkantos, S. (2013). The effects of relationship quality and lean applications
on buyer-seller relationships Bulent Sezen and Sema Turkkantos. International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(4), 378–400. doi:10.1504/IJBPSCM.
2013.058204
Shalique, M. S., Padhi, S. S., Jayaram, J., & Pati, R. K. (2021). Adoption of symbolic versus
substantive sustainability practices by lower-tier suppliers: A behavioural view Abstract.
International Journal of Production Research, 2021, 1–28. doi:10.1080/00207543.2021.
1939454
Slavkovic, A., & Slavkovic, V. (2019). The importance organizations of training in contem-
porary organizations. Menadzment u Hotelijerstvu i Turizmu, 7(2), 115–125. doi:10.5937/
menhottur1902115S
Spangenberg, J. H., Omann, I., & Hinterberger, F. (2002). Sustainable growth criteria
Minimum benchmarks and scenarios for employment and the en v ironment. Ecological
Economics, 42(3), 429–443. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00125-8
Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase
behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(1), 32–37. doi:10.1108/
02634509710155642
Susan, E., & Randall, S. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human resource
management The Academy of Management Annals An Aspirational Framework for
Strategic Human Resource Management. The Academy of Management Annals 8, 35. doi:
10.1080/19416520.2014.872335
Tadele, G., & Gella, A. A. (2012). A last resort and often not an option at all’: Farming and
young people in Ethiopia. Institute of Development Studies, 43(6).
Tadele, G., & Gella, A. A. (2012). ‘A last resort and often not an option at all’: Farming
and young people in Ethiopia. IDS Bulletin, 43(6), 33–43. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.
00377.x
Taufek, F. H. B. M., Zulkifle, Z. B., & Sharif, M. Z. B. M. (2016). Sustainability in employ-
ment: Reward system and work engagement. Procedia Economics and Finance , 35,
699–704. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00087-3
Tham-Agyekum, E. K., Okorley, E. L., Kwarteng, J., Bakang, J.-E. A., & Nimoh, F. (2021).
Enhancing market orientation of Cocoa farmers through farmer business schools: The
Ghana Cocobod experience enhancing market orientation of Cocoa farmers through
farmer. doi:10.18488/journal.ajard.2021.111.129.138
Theus, I. C. (2019). Strategies for succession planning and leadership training development
for Nonprofit Organizations. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations
Thneibat, M. (2021). The effect of perceived rewards on radical innovation: The mediating
role of knowledge management in Indian manufacturing firms. Heliyon, 7(5), e07155.
doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07155
Tiftik, D. C. (2020). Analysis of management approaches in terms of human resources
strategies to realize Healthy and Successful Organizations. IBAD Journal of Social
Sciences, (8), 457–470. doi:10.21733/ibad.748669
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P., & Blanco-Gonzalez, A. (2021). Social sustainability in the
food value chain: An integrative approach beyond corporate social responsibility.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 103–115. doi:10.
1002/csr.2035
Utomo, B., Prawoto, A. A., Bonnet, S., Bangviwat, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2016).
Environmental performance of cocoa production from monoculture and agroforestry
systems in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134(Part B), 583–591. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.08.102
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity
testing in marketing : an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
Vroegindewey, R., & Hodbod, J. (2018). Resilience of agricultural value chains in develop-
ing country contexts: A framework and assessment approach. Sustainability, 10(4), 916.
doi:10.3390/su10040916
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader –
Member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.
002
Wang, E. T., & Tai, J. C. (2003). Factors affecting information systems planning effective-
ness: Organizational contexts and planning systems dimensions. Information and
Management, 40(4), 287–303. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00011-3
Wessel, M., & Quist-Wessel, P. M. F. (2015). Cocoa production in West Africa, a review
and analysis of recent developments. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 74–75,
1–7. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.09.001
Whooley, N. (2004). Social responsibility in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/

extweb/newcolth.nsf/0/503508DDA107A61885256F35005C1E35S.
Wiegel, W., & Bamford, D. (2014). The Management of Operations The role of guanxi in
buyer – Supplier relationships in Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises – A
resource-based perspective. Production Planning & Control, 26(4), 1–327. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2014.899405
Wieteska, G. (2016). Building resilient relationships with suppliers in the B2B market.
Management, 20(2), 307–321. doi:10.1515/manment-2015-0067
Wongthongchai, J., & Saenchaiyathon, K. (2019). The influence of green training on green
supply chain management practices and Firm’s performance. International Journal of
Engineering & Technology, 2019, 13–18. doi:10.14419/ijet.v8i1.10.28313
Wong, C. H., Siah, K. W., & Lo, A. W. (2019). Estimation of clinical trial success rates and
related parameters. Biostatistics, 20(2), 273–286. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069
Xu, D., Huo, B., & Sun, L. (2014). Relationships between intra-organizational resources,
supply chain integration and business performance. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 114(8), 1186–1206. doi:10.1108/IMDS-05-2014-0156
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S., & Gunasekaran, A. (2018). Socially responsible governance
mechanisms for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains. International Journal of
Production Economics, 196, 135–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.11.016
Yamoah, F. A., Kaba, J. S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., & Acquaye, A. (2020). Stakeholder col-
laboration in climate-smart agricultural production innovations: Insights from the Cocoa
Industry in Ghana. Environmental Management, 66(4), 600–613. doi:10.1007/s00267-020-
01327-z
Yang, F., & Zhang, X. (2017). The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on
buyer-supplier performance An empirical study in China. Review of International
Business and Strategy, 27(1), 112–132. doi:10.1108/RIBS-08-2016-0043
Yen, Y. X. (2018). Buyer – Supplier collaboration in green practices: The driving effects
from stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1666–1613. doi:10.1002/
bse.2231
Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M.-Y., Ramayah, T., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Sehnem, S., & Mani, V.
(2020). Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evi-
dence on the role of green human resource management. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29(1), 212–228. doi:10.1002/bse.2359
Ytterhus, B. E., Arnestad, P., & Lothe, S. (1999). Environmental initiatives in the retailing
sector: An analysis of supply chain. Eco-Management and Auditing, 6(4), 181–188. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0925(199912)6:4<181::AID-EMA115>3.0.CO;2-1
Zaheer, A., Mcevily, B., Perrone, V., Science, S. O., Apr, N. M., Zaheer, A., … Barney,
J. B. (2019). Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and
Interpersonal Trust on Performance Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of
Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Informs, 9(2), 141–159.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement model for green sup-
ply chain management practices implementation $. International Journal of Production
Economics, 111(2), 261–273. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.029
Zu, X., Fredendall, L. D., & Douglas, T. J. (2008). The evolving theory of quality manage-
ment: The role of Six Sigma. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), 630–650. doi:10.
1016/j.jom.2008.02.001

Effect of Training and Reward On Social Sustainability in Ghana S Cocoa Supply Chain The Role of Green Buyer Supplier Relationship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Training and Reward On Social Sustainability in Ghana S Cocoa Supply Chain The Role of Green Buyer Supplier Relationship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20

Effect of Training and Reward on Social

Dennis Kwatia Amoako, Mohamad Norhayati Zakuan, Eugene Okyere-

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.1981511

Published online: 17 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 246

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Effect of Training and Reward on Social Sustainability

CONTACT Dennis Kwatia Amoako dennisamoako123@gmail.com Faculty of Management, Universiti

agriculture (Borodin, Bourtembourg, Hnaien, & Labadie, 2016). However,

sustainable value for an entity. A study conducted by Awan (2019) found

Caldeira-Oliveira, Teixeira, Stefanelli, & Teixeira, 2020). According to

the second highest producer of cocoa after Ivory Coast. According to

Green Buyer-Supplier Relationship (GBSR)

sustainability as the worker’s satisfaction in the supply chains, such as edu-

the relationship of SET with governance, governance arrangements permit

Figure 1. Research model.

chain. Tham-Agyekum, Okorley, Kwarteng, Bakang, and Nimoh (2021) and

Reward, GBSR, and social sustainability

1 ¼ representing strongly disagree was used in the questionnaire. The items

Results and discussions

Structural equation modeling

Measurement model assessment

Table 1. Construct reliability.

Table 2. Discriminant validity.

Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

Table 4. Path coefficient and hypotheses.

Table 5. Mediating effect of green buyer-supplier relationship.

Coefficients of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 (R2adj)

Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR)

Table 6. Coefficients of determination (R2) and R2 adjusted.

Table 7. Model fit summary.

successful in implementing social sustainability practices, it is important

Contribution of the study

Future research recommendations

Whooley, N. (2004). Social responsibility in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/

You might also like