Green Supply Chain Management Practices'

Article
Green Supply Chain Management Practices’ Impact

on Operational Performance with the Mediation
of Technological Innovation
Muhammad Talha Khan 1, Muhammad Dawood Idrees 1,*, Muhammad Rauf 2, Abdul Sami 2, Arsalan Ansari 2
and Atif Jamil 3
1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Dawood University of Engineering and Technology,
Karachi 74800, Pakistan; talha.khan82542@gmail.com
2 Department of Electronic Engineering, Dawood University of Engineering and Technology,
Karachi 74800, Pakistan; muhammad.rauf@duet.edu.pk (M.R.); dr.abdulsami@duet.edu.pk (A.S.);

dr.arsalanansari@duet.edu.pk (A.A.)
3 Department of Computer Systems Engineering, Dawood University of Engineering and Technology,
Karachi 74800, Pakistan; atif.jamil@duet.edu.pk

* Correspondence: muhammad.dawood@duet.edu.pk; Tel.: +92-333-254-5653
Abstract: Industries strive to prevent ecologically destructive actions in their supply chains. At the
same time, the optimization of their resources is a major concern for industries to minimize carbon
emissions, boost sustainable practices, and improve a country’s long-term economic development.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the impact of Green Supply Chain Management
(GSCM) methods on operational performance with the mediation of technological innovation, in the
context of Pakistani manufacturing firms. The partial least square-structural modeling (PLS-SEM)
Citation: Khan, M.T.; Idrees, M.D.; method is adopted in this paper. Data were gathered from 223 different manufacturing firms in Paki-
Rauf, M.; Sami, A.; Ansari, A. Green stan and then analyzed among these variables. The data show good validity and reliability, and struc-
Supply Chain Management Practices tural model explains 61% of the variance in operational performance and 45.4% of the variance in
Impact on Operational Performance
technical innovation, demonstrating its predictive validity. The R-square criteria classify R-square en-
with the Mediation of Technological
tities of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 as considerable, moderate, and weak, respectively. It is demonstrated that
Innovation. Sustainability 2022, 14,
all the f-square values are greater than 0.020 and 0.35, indicating a significant effect on the model’s
3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/
validity. The findings of this study reveal that GSCM practices have a significantly positive effect on
su14063362
both technological innovation and operational performance. Technological innovation has a direct in-
Academic Editor: Ripon Kumar fluence on operational performance and has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between
Chakrabortty
GSCM practices and operational performance. Therefore, this research offers managers insight into
Received: 26 January 2022 the importance of technological innovation and GSCM practice adoption to achieve competitive ad-
Accepted: 10 March 2022 vantages. It further provides the groundwork for managers, practitioners, and environmental man-
Published: 13 March 2022 agement researchers to emphasize the value of GSCM practice in improving operational performance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional
Keywords: Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM); technological innovation; operational per-
claims in published maps and institu- formance; sustainable; mediation; structural equation modeling (SEM)
tional affiliations.
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li- The “green concept” is acquiring footing in the manufacturing industry these days.
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Most manufacturing firms attempt to boost their resource effectiveness while limiting ad-
This article is an open access article verse consequences on human wellbeing, efficiency, and the environment. The essential
distributed under the terms and con- and focused activity of a manufacturing firm is supply chain management. Consequently,
ditions of the Creative Commons At- GSCM practices are being adopted by most manufacturing companies to reduce waste,
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea-
pollution, natural resource usage, and emissions [1]. As a result of increased global envi-
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
ronmental problems and global warming, GSCM approaches have become vital and the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063362 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3362 2 of 22
most successful sustainability practices for professionals, researchers, and industries [2,3].
GSCM procedures and ecological issues have become well-known subjects in the schol-
arly world. Because of financial and environmental problems brought about by unreliable
or exploitative business activities during the time spent on obtaining unrefined compo-
nents, manufacturing, coordinated operations, and item removal toward the end of the
items’ useful lives, sustainability has turned into a problematic issue in the competitive
world [4]. The components of GSCM’s environmental management system include prod-
uct creation, procurement, purchasing, manufacturing, distribution, and logistics [5]. It
can be seen that many manufacturers value customer expectations, and existing custom-
ers are well-informed and majorly concerned about the environment. They pressure man-
ufacturers to avoid environmentally damaging operations and protect the environment.
Clients are becoming very much aware of environmental issues and increasingly request
environmentally friendly products [6]. The manufacturing sector of Pakistan is vital for
its economy, as it contributes to a variety of social and economic goals and employs a vast
number of workers. In 2019, the manufacturing sector added up to 13.3% of Pakistan’s
total gross domestic product (GDP) [7]. Even though Pakistan’s manufacturing industry
plays a crucial role in economic development, it also significantly affects the environment.
Economic growth has environmental implications, including high temperatures, smog,
noise, and air pollution. In a developing country such as Pakistan, industries are supposed
to achieve sustainable and long-term economic growth without harming the environment
[8,9]. In this situation, it is difficult for manufacturing organizations to reduce carbon
emissions, enhance sustainable methods, and improve their long-term economic develop-
ment. However, cost-effective and efficient green innovation initiatives could transform
the manufacturing sector [10]. Due to a lack of research on GSCM and its influence on a
firm’s performance, only a few industries in Pakistan are adopting green practices [11].
Therefore, the primary aim of this work is to give a better understanding of the link be-
tween GSCM practices and operational performance in the context of Pakistan’s manufac-
turing industry, with the mediating influence of technological innovation. The successful
execution of GSCM practices will lead to reduced waste, cost reductions, green marketing
awareness, staff morale, and public response, all of which will enhance the company’s
performance, including environmental, economic, and manufacturing operations [12]. En-
vironmental protection, innovation, and collaboration are used to help communities tran-
sition to a green lifestyle [13]. The concepts of GSCM strategies will support the use of
greener and digitalized supply chains, enabling more efficient and successful plan devel-
opment and execution [14].
The economy of Pakistan is mainly dependent on the manufacturing sector, and
within this, the textile sector is said to be the backbone of the country’s economy. Small-
and medium-sized industries also contribute to Pakistan’s economy, and most of them
provide vendor services to large enterprises. GSCM is a reasonably new idea in Pakistan,
and its adoption is still in its initial phases. Pollution is a big problem in Pakistan, and
societal pressure and environmental constraints drive businesses to use GSCM ap-
proaches. Due to a lack of research on GSCM and its influence on a firm’s progress, only
a tiny fraction of Pakistan’s industry has adopted green practices [11].
The aim of this work is to highlight the relationship between GSCM practices and
operational performance in the context of Pakistan’s manufacturing industry, with the
mediating influence of technological innovation. Therefore, this study highlights the role
of sustainable practices along with technological innovation to increase operational per-
formance, resulting in greater productivity and profit. This study further ensures that sus-
tainable practice saves the environment and helps boost the productivity of the firms and
makes important theoretical and practical contributions. Firstly, current GSCM research
is summarized while a new antecedent of GSCM rules is found. Secondly, the direct in-
fluence of GSCM adoption on technological innovation and operational performance, as
well as technological innovation’s link with operational performance, is explored in this
study. Thirdly, this study also fills the gap in the literature regarding the mediating effect
of technological advancements on the link among GSCM practices and operational per-
formance.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Green Supply Chain Management Practices
Academics and practitioners are introducing the method of GSCM as a feasible solu-
tion to improve the environment. GSCM was initially proposed in the early 1990s, but its
popularity surged around 2000, as indicated by increased scientific publications [15–17].
Nowadays, GSCM has gained more popularity, as it has become a need for every organi-
zation to reduce environmentally harmful activities and improve the interaction between
the customers and the suppliers of green products [3]. Hervani, Helms [18] defined GSCM
as all-green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution, and reverse logistics
activities. When making decisions, GSCM considers all stages of material and logistical
management and post-consumer waste disposal [19]. Srivastava [20] described GSCM as
the collection of environmental thinking and supply-chain management, including the
design of the product, sourcing, fetching materials, manufacturing processes, and the dis-
tribution of the final product to the end-user.
Concerns about the natural issues of the environment and society in the design, ac-
quisition, manufacture, distribution, use, reuse, and disposal of the firm’s goods and ser-
vices led to the adoption of a set of supply chain management rules, actions, and connec-
tions [21]. These GSCM rules, actions, and relations are feasible solutions for reducing the
environmental effect of operations while boosting operational performance. The use of
GSCM was first motivated by ecological degradation, limited raw material resources, and
rising pollution levels [22], and organizations are now able to increase their performance
by implementing it [23]. With the rising popularity of GSCM and the adoption of green
supply chain practices by large corporations, it is now vital to assess the effect of imple-
mentation on small businesses. Smaller businesses must be evaluated and cooperatively
involved in environmental preservation to be motivated and contribute to a more sustain-
able process [17]. The state-of-the-art studies on GSCM are systematically summarized in
Table 1. Previous research has found several dimensions of GSCM practices, such as eco-
design, internal environmental management, green purchasing, investment recovery, cus-
tomer cooperation, reverse logistics, green manufacturing, green information systems,
supplier collaboration, and waste management. However, to measure GSCM practices,
following a comprehensive literature review, we have selected green manufacturing, eco-
design, investment recovery, green information systems, and green purchasing.
2.2. Technological Innovation (TI)

Industries are increasingly relying on environmentally friendly technology and sustain-
able energy sources that will improve environmental sustainability and technological growth.
These environmentally friendly technologies have considerably enhanced and repaired the
environment in modern economies due to the 4.0 industrial revolution. Research on the factors
that influence green growth has drawn much attention from academics and politicians from
all over the world [24]. In a volatile and changing business climate, technological innovation
is critical to a company’s agility. Firms, regardless of size, are constantly competing to produce
innovative items at a cheaper cost [25,26]. Innovation has grown into a platform for enhancing
productivity, the volume of sales, and competitiveness for businesses. These situations also
motivate organizations to be inventive to improve the design, quality, and consistency of their
products and services. As a result, to preserve their competitive edge, organizations must in-
crease their innovation skills to produce and market new technologies successfully and sup-
port technical improvements across the board [27–29]. Adopting new technology into
products, services, or processes is defined as technological innovation [30,31]. Product and
process innovation are the two common types of innovation that have historically been
measured [32,33]. Gunday, Ulusoy [34] and Kim, Kumar [35] created a new dimension
termed management innovation to quantify innovation performance comprehensively. In

other words, they proposed that product innovation, process innovation, and manage-
ment innovation be used to assess innovation performance [33]. As a result, both product
and process innovation have been employed as elements in this research to technological
innovation as a whole [26,36,37].
Table 1. Summary of published studies on Green Supply Chain Management.
Focus of the Study Method Findings of the Study Year Reference

To develop a comprehensive GSCM According to the findings, adoption of GSCM techniques
Structural
practice and performance model that by manufacturers improves environmental and economic Green,
Equation 2012
can be theorized and experimentally performance, which has a significant impact on Zelbst [38]
Modelling
evaluated. operational performance.
To develop three models for
evaluating the mediation linkages Factor Analysis
The empirical results correspond to the mediation effects,
between the external and internal and Hierarchical
implying that manufacturers must coordinate internal Zhu, Sarkis
practices of GSCM in terms of Multiple 2012
and external components of GSCM implementation to [39]
environmental, economic, and Regression
reap the performance gains.
operational performance using Analysis
coordination theory.
The study indicated a strong positive association
To examine the research framework
between three GSCM practices (internal environmental
and find a link between Green
management, eco-design, and investment recovery) and Lee, Ooi
Supply Cchain Management PLS-SEM 2014
technological innovation, but it did not find a significant [26]
practices and technical innovation in
positive relationship between green purchasing and
manufacturing companies.
customer cooperation with technological innovation.
Fuzzy ANP,
According to the study, the most important factors for
Performance evaluation of Green Fuzzy Uygun and
evaluating the firm’s green SCM activities are green 2016
Supply Chain Management DEMATEL, and Dede [40]
design, green logistics, and green transformation.
Fuzzy TOPSIS
To investigate the factors affecting Factor Analysis The study’s findings show that green procurement is the Tippayawo
green supply chain operational and Multiple most important component for implementing green SCM ng,
2016
performance of the Thai auto parts Linear Regressionprocesses, followed by green transportation and green Niyomyat
manufacturing firm. Analysis manufacturing. [41]
To determine the degree of This study found a positive significant association
correlation between the two between organizational learning mechanisms,
Suryanto,
indicators of management support organizational support, and GSCM practices using
Factor Analysis 2018 Haseeb
and their organization’s learning and controlled variables, such as organization size, the
[42]
the idea of Green Supply Chain perspective of the country, cost pressure by firms, and
Management. industry practices at various levels.
To see how GSCM techniques (such
Factor Analysis The findings show that using GSCM practices reduces
as internal practices, external
and Linear environmental pollution and operational costs, but it Mumtaz,
practices, investment recovery, and 2018
Regression does not improve organizational flexibility in Pakistani Ali [43]
eco-design) affect organizational
Analysis industries.
performance in Pakistan.
To determine whether external The findings reveal the partial mediating effect of
forces (regulatory and customer operational performance between GSCM, environmental, Hashmi
Linear Regression
pressures) have a moderating and financial performance, as well as the moderating 2021 and Akram
Analysis
influence on the link between GSCM effect of external pressures on the link between GSCM [44]
and operational performance. and operational success.
To find the influence of Industry 4.0
on economic and environmental
The findings show that GSCM methods mitigate the
performance in emerging economies Umar,
PLS-SEM impact of Industry 4.0 on both economic and 2021
such as Pakistan through the use of Khan [45]
environmental consequences.
Green Supply Chain Management
(GSCM) approaches.
2.3. Operational Performance (OP)

Manufacturing organizations must develop operational strategies that help imple-
ment their corporate competitive strategies because the operational function is so im-
portant in establishing and sustaining competitiveness. Manufacturing competitive prior-
ities are the strategies that a firm may use to choose how to compete in the marketplace
and which markets it wants to target [46]. To be competitive in the market, organizations
must mainly focus on their internal operations. Product quality, process quality, effective-
ness, productivity, and operational performance are often characterized as a set of varia-
bles that represent an organization’s internal operations. These internal operations,
productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency are employed to measure operational perfor-
mance [47]. Manufacturing operational performance, which is defined as cost, time, qual-
ity, and delivery dependability metrics associated with manufacturing operations, is used
to analyze the performance of manufacturing processes [48]. Prior work labeled the unit
cost of production, quality, speed of new product launch, inventory turnover, adaptabil-
ity, and delivery reliability as operational performance [49–51]. Production cost, flexibil-
ity, and quality have been used to measure operational performance in this study, and
they are the most commonly used operational performance measures in the literature
[31,52–54].
3. Research Framework and Hypothesis Development

3.1. Green Supply Chain Management Practices → Technological Advancement
GSCM is the interaction between customers and suppliers of green products. When
making decisions, GSCM considers all stages of material and logistical management and
post-consumer waste disposal after use [19,55]. Lee, Ooi [26] discovered that GSCM pro-
cedures had a considerable impact on technological innovation among manufacturing en-
terprises in Malaysia. Investment recovery, echo design, and inter-environmental man-
agement have a substantial and positive impact on technological innovation. Cooperation
with the customer and green purchasing have a mild and minor negative impact on TI
among manufacturing enterprises in Malaysia. Still, IEM is the key GSCM component
highly associated with technological innovation. Green elements should be incorporated
to increase environmental performance in manufacturing supply chain design and oper-
ational decision support [56] to reduce the overall carbon footprint [57] and recycle
used/waste products and by-products [20,58]. According to Silva and Gomes [59], product
and process innovation mediates the relationship between GSCM approaches and sus-
tainable attributes. Song and Gao [60] illustrate that Green Supply Chain Management
innovation produces results felt by consumers who are already sensitive to green prod-
ucts. It directly impacts product ecology and sales volume, which in turn affects manu-
facturer and store profitability. The key aim of green supply chain partners developing
green innovations, according to Vachon and Klassen [61], is to meet consumer demand
for green products. As per past work, there is no such study conducted in Pakistan that
highlights the direct effect of GSCM on TI.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Green Supply Chain Management practices (GSCMP) have a significant
impact on technological innovation (TI).
3.2. Technological Innovation → Operational Performance

Manufacturing enterprises achieve excellence in operational execution characteristics
such as quality, cost, flexibility, and delivery by focusing their resources and efforts on
improvements and innovations of products and processes, internally and externally [48].
Technology innovation and development can provide internal and external benefits [62].
According to Boer and During [63], technological innovation aims to increase flexibility,
decrease delivery time, and lower operational expenses. Because of the new components
and functionalities used, Gunday, Ulusoy [34] claim that technological advancements
affect production methods, resulting in higher speed and quality, lower prices, and in-
creased customer level of satisfaction. Ju, Park [64] observed that technological innovation
boosts operational efficiency and links supply chain dynamic capacity and operational
efficiency. Further, Kafetzopoulos and Psomas [65] discovered that inventiveness was linked
to increased production and performance. Process innovation increases an organization’s
manufacturing efficiency and productivity while improving quality and lowering unit costs
[66].
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Technological innovation has a positive impact on operational performance.
3.3. Green Supply Chain Management Practices → Operational Performance

GSCM practices have a significant effect on performance results. Manufacturing
companies that use GSCM principles generally enhance their economic, environmental,
and organizational performance, but organizational performance is improved through
operational performance [38,67]. GSCM methods enhance functional attributes, such as
feature, cost, and flexibility, without affecting lead time [68]. Customers’ participation in
environmental management techniques, according to [69], can help boost customer will-
ingness by lowering costs and improving product quality. The results of Feng, Yu [70]
demonstrate that GSCM has a strong relationship with both operational and environmen-
tal performance, which tends to enhance financial success. In the case of Pakistani manu-
facturing enterprises, researchers looked at the effect of GSCM practices on organizational
performance. Additionally, they recommended some independent variables that should
be used in future research. Some of them are investment recovery and inter-environmen-
tal management to find the impact on organization performance, and they are taken in
this study [71], and the constructs are provided in Table 2.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Green Supply Chain Management has a positive effect on operational perfor-
mance.
3.4. The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation

GSCM techniques are technical enhancements to products and processes that aim to
enhance resource effectiveness and lower the hazardous effects of products and processes
on the environment [26,72,73]. To achieve these aims and highlight their importance, nu-
merous studies have been done to find the association of GSCM practices with different
constructs. Khan and Qianli [71] and Mumtaz, Ali [43] investigated the effect of GSCM
practices on organizational performance in Pakistani manufacturing firms.
Jermsittiparsert, Sutduean [74] discovered the mediating role of innovation performance
on the relationship between GSCM skills and a firm’s environmental performance.
Mughal [75] explored the strong moderating effect of traceability on the connection be-
tween eco-design and organizational performance and the association between internal
environment management and organizational performance. Umar, Khan [45] further in-
vestigated the mediating role of GSCM practices on the relationship of Industry 4.0 to
environmental and economic performance.
Prior studies focused mainly on the direct effect of GSCM practices on technological
innovation [26] and operational performance [68,76]. However, this study provides the
direct and indirect influence of GSCM practices on operational performance through tech-
nological innovation, as shown in Figure 1. Although the mediating role of technological
innovation has been identified in different relationships [77], this research work explicitly
proposes the mediating effect of technological innovation on the relationship between
GSCM practices and operational performance. Therefore, the conceptualized hypothesis
of this research is as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Technological innovation facilitates the relationship between GSCM methods
and operational performance.
Table 2. Definitions of construct.
Constructs Definitions
Green production focuses on planning, regulating, and reducing
Green manufacturing resources such as water, energy, and materials and reducing haz-
ardous waste from the manufacturing process [71].
Manufacturers must design goods that decrease materials and en-
ergy consumption; promote the recycling, reuse, and recovery of sig-
Eco-design
nificant parts and materials; and reduce or prevent the use of poison-
ous and dangerous elements in manufacturing processes [78]
Investment recovery is a strategy that encourages the sale of sur-
Investment recovery plus materials, reduces energy consumption from equipment and
machinery, and recycles discarded goods [71].
The green information system (GIS) refers to the collaborative use
Green information sys-
of information technology to construct focused systems that assist
tem
organizations in achieving ecological sustainability [79].
Green purchasing is concerned with the production and pro-
Green purchasing cessing of ecologically friendly items and does not damage the en-
vironment and collaboration with suppliers [38].
The execution of a concept for a new product or a new service or the
Technical innovation introduction of new elements in an organization’s manufacturing or
service operation is what technical innovation refers to [80].
Operational perfor- The combination of efficient product creation, process improve-
mance ments, quality conformance, and short lead times [81].
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
4. Methodology
4.1. Data Collection
This paper investigates the impacts of GSCM methods and technological innovation
on operational attributes in Pakistani manufacturing firms. Because of the country’s pol-
lution and climate change, GSCM rules have become a critical component of the manu-
facturing sector of Pakistan. The list of contact details was collected from the Karachi
Chamber of Commerce (KCCI) to collect data from various manufacturing organizations.
The provided list was filtered to only manufacturing companies that were small-, me-
dium-, and large-scale. Small-scale companies appoint a maximum of 99 employees and
medium-scale companies appoint a maximum of 250 employees. If the company appoints
more than 250 employees, it is considered a large-scale company [82,83].
A survey-based questionnaire based upon extensive literature review and past stud-
ies was developed to obtain data from several leading manufacturing industries, such as
the textile, steel, pharmaceutical, paper, chemical, and automobile sectors. The survey in-
strument was divided into two sections. The first section consisted of demographics, such
as respondents’ qualification, work experience, designation, company size, and ISO certi-
fication. Therefore, the other section consisted of 43 questions (Appendix A) related to
GSCM practices, technological innovation and operational performance. For a survey
questionnaire for measuring green manufacturing, eight items were adopted from Rao
and Bogale [84], three items of eco-design were selected from Habib, Bao [85], and four
items of investment recovery were adopted from Zhu, Sarkis [78]. Seven indicators of
green purchasing were taken from Yu, Zhang [86], and six items of green information
systems were taken from Qu and Liu [87]. To measure the higher-order construct of
GSCM practices, for measuring technological innovation, nine items were adopted from
Shahid, Waseem [88], and six indicators of operational performance were taken from
Hong, Liao [33]. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the given statements,
using a five-point Likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 =
Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly agree.
Academic experts determined the face and content validity of the questionnaire. The pi-
lot test was performed on a sample size of 40 to ensure that all the matters were going cor-
rectly. Survey responses were collected by meeting respondents personally or through email
(recommended by some industries). Employees, including Assistant Managers, Senior Man-
agers, Executives, and Engineers from the Quality, Operation, Production, Warehouse, and
Inventory Control departments were among the respondents. The respondents’ work experi-
ence ranged from five to twenty years, as shown in Table 3. A variety of strategies were uti-
lized to increase the response rate, including making phone calls, sending follow-up letters,
and sending emails. A total of 246 responses (n) were received, of which 223 were valid for the
study, yielding a response rate of 40.5%. This sample size is sufficient for further analysis, and
a sample size of 100 samples and preferably 200 samples is enough for SEM [89].
Table 3. Demographic of participants.
n (%) n (%)
Types of Firms Designation
Automotive/Auto parts manufacturing 40 17.9 Assistant Manager 75 33.6
Chemicals and petrochemicals 7 3.1 Executive 63 28.3
Food, beverage, and tobacco products 7 3.1 First-line Manager 6 2.7
Other 35 15.6 Manager 34 15.2
Paper printing, packaging 7 3.1 Other 21 9.4
Pharmaceutical 9 4 Senior Managers 24 10.8
Textiles and garments 118 52.9
Firms Size Experience
Large-scale company 205 91.9 0 to 5 years 165 73.9
Medium-scale company 14 6.2 10 to 15 years 15 6.7
Small-scale company 4 1.8 5 to 10 years 39 17.4
More than 15 years 4 1.7
ISO Certification
No 22 9.8
Yes 201 90.1
4.2. Data Analysis

The PLS-structural equation modeling method was used to test the hypotheses, as the
PLS-SEM method is used to test and evaluate complex statistical models [90,91]. CB-SEM is
another method that can also be used to examine the structural model quality [92]. It is based
on the assumption that data distributions are normal but is hardly satisfying in social science
research. On the other hand, PLS-SEM is non-parametric and works well with non-normal
distributions and has minimal limits on the usage of ordinal and binary scales when appro-
priately coded [93]. However, PLS-SEM can handle complex models and provide better out-
comes [94,95]. In recent years, the use of PLS-SEM has become more widespread in various
domains, with non-normal data, small sample sizes, and the use of formative constructs being
the most common reasons for its employment. PLS-analytical SEM’s toolkit has recently been
expanded to support more complicated model construction and tackle data deficiencies such
as heterogeneity [96]. PLS-SEM was found suitable for this study to evaluate the hypotheses.
As discussed above, it has various advantages in analyzing higher-order constructs. The
“Two-stage Approach” was used to examine the relationship between constructs as described
by Sarstedt, Hair Jr [97]. The lower-order measurement model was constructed, and all the
tests of reliability and validity were performed in the first stage. The indicators that were iden-
tified for the higher-order construct in the first stage were then put into a structural equation
model to test the hypotheses in the second stage.
5. Results
Table 3 illustrates the sample profile of this study, including the type and size of the
firm and the designation of the officials from the responding firms. The textile and apparel
industry is Pakistan’s largest industrial sector, and this sample included the most re-
sponses from this industry, 52.9%. Moreover, it represents a solid mix of small, medium,
and large enterprises, with a response rate of 91.9% from large corporations, 6.2% from
medium-sized enterprises, and the rest from small businesses. Among them, 90% of the
industries were determined to be ISO certified. Finally, in the designation area, assistant
managers gave the highest number of responses, 33.6%, and 73.9% of respondents had
experience from zero to five years.
5.1. Measurement Model

The construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the lower-
order constructs (LOC) measurement model were examined. Figure 2 demonstrates the
measurement model having LOC. Convergent validity was used to examine the correla-
tion between constructs and latent variables. Individual item dependability may be veri-
fied using the standardized factor loading value. The standardized factor loading value
explains the degree of association between each measurement item (indicator) and its con-
cept. If the loading factor value is more than 0.7, the indicator is legitimate for assessing
the construct. In empirical research, a loading factor value of > 0.5 is still appropriate [98].
As a result, Green Manufacturing “GM1” showed low factor loading, thus dropping from
the dataset. The composite reliability (CR) values of all the lower-order constructs were
between 0.812 and 0.940, and all the values of Cronbach’s alpha were between 0.702 and
0.923, above the minimum criterion of 0.7 [96,99], shown in Table 4. This means that our
construct’s measuring model is accurate and appropriate for the analysis. The average
variance extracted (AVE) tests the convergent validity of different indicators in SEM
model [100]. The AVE values were all in the range of 0.516 to 0.723, greater than the limit
of 0.50, indicating that this model’s convergent validity is widely acknowledged [101].
Table 4. Construct reliability and convergent validity.
Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

ED 0.796 0.880 0.710
GIS 0.923 0.940 0.723
GM 0.844 0.881 0.516
GP 0.891 0.917 0.648
IR 0.702 0.812 0.521
OP 0.878 0.907 0.621
TI 0.895 0.916 0.578
Figure 2. LOC measurement model.

Discriminant validity was examined using the Fornell-larger criterion, cross-loading,
and Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT). The square root of AVE as a diagonal element
is more than the off-diagonal correlation in the rows and columns, showing that the For-
nell–Larcker criteria were satisfied [100], as shown in Table 5. Consequently, the discrimi-
nant validity test findings revealed that the constructs were different. To qualify for the
cross-loading evaluation, the outer loading of the measurement items on the associated
construct must be more than the loadings of all other constructs. All measuring items had
a higher loading on their intended construct, according to the findings of this study’s
cross-loading matrix shown in Table 6. Finally, the correlation between lower-order con-
structs (sub-factors) was examined, and the values were found to be less than 0.9, suggesting
that the HTMT was adequate, as shown in Table 7. The indicators “GP1” and “TI6” showed a
high correlation, thus dropping from the dataset. As a consequence, the combined results of
the Fornell–Larcker model, cross-loading framework, and HTMT revealed that the dataset
had discriminant legitimacy. It was demonstrated that the variance inflation factors (VIFs) are
less than 5, suggesting that our estimate model is not collinear. In PLS-SEM, VIF collinearity
is sufficient to resolve the issue of common method variance (CMV). The comprehensive col-
linearity test of the constructs yielded a lower value than the suggested value of 3.3 in VIF
[102].
Table 5. Discriminant validity—Fornell–Larcker criterion.
ED GIS GM GP IR OP TI
ED 0.843
GIS 0.628 0.850
GM 0.684 0.672 0.718
GP 0.567 0.763 0.585 0.805
IR 0.581 0.596 0.592 0.549 0.722
OP 0.549 0.621 0.517 0.505 0.506 0.788
TI 0.565 0.639 0.526 0.545 0.465 0.751 0.760
Table 6. Cross loadings.
ED GIS GM GP IR OP TI
ED1 0.846 0.606 0.565 0.511 0.541 0.502 0.501
ED2 0.832 0.445 0.485 0.466 0.404 0.436 0.484
ED3 0.849 0.530 0.683 0.451 0.521 0.445 0.441
GIS1 0.539 0.852 0.579 0.641 0.482 0.533 0.522
GIS2 0.488 0.795 0.559 0.617 0.411 0.486 0.548
GIS3 0.568 0.865 0.611 0.650 0.511 0.601 0.588
GIS4 0.547 0.889 0.548 0.658 0.543 0.559 0.562
GIS5 0.518 0.859 0.564 0.656 0.566 0.474 0.516
GIS6 0.540 0.839 0.562 0.673 0.531 0.500 0.520
GM2 0.439 0.295 0.613 0.280 0.307 0.257 0.241
GM3 0.500 0.533 0.742 0.520 0.465 0.440 0.409
GM4 0.515 0.432 0.714 0.331 0.420 0.334 0.350
GM5 0.488 0.550 0.749 0.473 0.469 0.403 0.369
GM6 0.518 0.507 0.765 0.449 0.469 0.456 0.484
GM7 0.499 0.431 0.743 0.337 0.382 0.318 0.303
GM8 0.484 0.564 0.693 0.484 0.422 0.326 0.415
GP2 0.463 0.662 0.517 0.754 0.524 0.437 0.443
GP3 0.511 0.657 0.543 0.805 0.539 0.420 0.432
GP4 0.389 0.565 0.442 0.803 0.414 0.359 0.360
GP5 0.469 0.629 0.445 0.860 0.440 0.429 0.471
GP6 0.455 0.614 0.458 0.856 0.370 0.421 0.499
GP7 0.440 0.543 0.416 0.743 0.361 0.357 0.408
IR1 0.324 0.343 0.324 0.329 0.710 0.350 0.267
IR2 0.271 0.223 0.280 0.185 0.611 0.234 0.225
IR3 0.347 0.352 0.292 0.390 0.746 0.328 0.314
IR4 0.626 0.664 0.681 0.569 0.807 0.485 0.467
OP1 0.530 0.487 0.403 0.376 0.408 0.759 0.646
OP2 0.455 0.548 0.416 0.381 0.457 0.819 0.598
OP3 0.410 0.482 0.356 0.422 0.363 0.778 0.548
OP4 0.409 0.548 0.492 0.418 0.515 0.859 0.592
OP5 0.286 0.353 0.303 0.330 0.238 0.701 0.461
OP6 0.470 0.486 0.444 0.450 0.369 0.804 0.676
TI1 0.385 0.552 0.375 0.402 0.371 0.488 0.654
TI2 0.531 0.524 0.503 0.441 0.422 0.579 0.813
TI3 0.404 0.439 0.326 0.378 0.303 0.493 0.755
TI4 0.340 0.380 0.408 0.410 0.351 0.555 0.719
TI5 0.335 0.386 0.337 0.344 0.267 0.546 0.719
TI7 0.501 0.481 0.382 0.419 0.373 0.597 0.786
TI8 0.508 0.574 0.453 0.468 0.390 0.653 0.843
TI9 0.393 0.520 0.384 0.433 0.327 0.637 0.777
Table 7. HTMT (Heterotrait–Monotrait) ratio of correlations.
ED GIS GM GP IR OP
ED
GIS 0.7283
GM 0.8369 0.7451
GP 0.6694 0.8401 0.6579
IR 0.7207 0.6775 0.6947 0.6401
OP 0.6462 0.6799 0.5777 0.5663 0.6011
TI 0.6612 0.6973 0.583 0.6046 0.5495 0.8393
5.2. Validating Higher-order Construct (HOC)

The study’s higher-order construct (HOC) was built on five LOCs: green manufac-
turing, green purchasing, eco-design, investment recovery, and green information sys-
tems. It should be noted that this study has a reflective/formative HOC, showing a rela-
tionship among HOCs and LOCs (reflective/formative). The outside weights, outer load-
ings, and VIF were crucial in establishing the HOC validity, as shown in Table 8. Further-
more, outer loadings were found to be more than 0.50 for each LOC [98]. Lastly, VIF values
were determined to test the collinearity. All VIF values were found to be less than the sug-
gested value of 5 [102].
Table 8. Higher-order construct validity (HOC).
HOC LOC Outer Weight T Statistics p Value Outer Loadings VIF

GSCMP ED 0.325 2.634 0.008 0.835 2.205
GIS 0.584 4.465 0 0.943 3.11
GM 0.061 0.495 0.62 0.779 2.405
GP 0.054 0.452 0.651 0.786 2.522
IR 0.122 1.194 0.233 0.725 1.845
5.3. Structural Equation Model and Hypothesis Testing

The structured model (hypothetical model) is constructed as shown in Figure 3, to
establish the relationships between constructs to achieve the research goals. The hypoth-
eses were tested into two ways. First, there were 5000 bootstrapping samples to test the
route coefficient significance of direct path analysis with set variables. After that, the me-
diation effects of technological innovation between GSCM practice and operational per-
formance were investigated. The R-square value was utilized as the dependent variable
to assess the structural model’s explanatory ability. The structural model explained 61%
of the variance in operational performance and 45.4% of the variance in technical innova-
tion, demonstrating its predictive validity. The R-square criteria classify R-square values
of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 as considerable, moderate, and weak, respectively. R-square value
changes can be used to see if the external latent variable significantly influences the en-
dogenous latent variable. The f-square effect size may be used to quantify this and the
projected effect. Exogenous latent variables with minor, moderate, and strong structural
impacts have f-square sizes of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively [98,103,104]. It has been
demonstrated that all the f-square values are greater than 0.020 and 0.35, indicating a sig-
nificant effect on the model’s validity. Furthermore, when Q-square values are greater
than zero, the model has predictive significance [105]. Therefore, the R-square and Q-
square values meet the dependent variables allowed range, as shown in Table 9.
Figure 3. HOC measurement model.

Table 9. R square and Q square.
R Square R Square Adjusted Q²

OP 0.610 0.607 0.369
TI 0.454 0.452 0.252
The first hypothesis was about the significant influence of GSCM practices on tech-
nological innovation. The link between independent and dependent variables was tested
by path coefficient and t-statistics. The positive and significant impact of GSCM practices
was observed on technological innovation (t = 16.282, β = 0.674, p < 0.001). The second
hypothesis was about the significant influence of technological innovation on operational
performance. It was observed that the technological innovation has a significantly positive
association with operational performance (t = 8.958, β = 0.564, p < 0.001). The third hypoth-
esis was about the significant influence of GSCM practices on operational performance.
This hypothesis was also supported, as there was also a significant and positive relation-
ship was found between GSCM practices and operational performance (t = 4.489, β = 0.281,
p < 0.001). The fourth hypothesis was about the mediating impact of technological inno-
vation within GSCM practices and operational performance. The findings show that
through the mediation of technical innovation (t = 8.144 β = 0.38, p < 0.001), GSCM prac-
tices have a considerable indirect effect on operational performance practices through
technological innovation. This result indicates that technological innovation partially me-
diates the relationship between GSCM practices and operational performance. It means
that technological innovation in the product and process of manufacturing firms will en-
hance the combined effect of GSCM practices (eco-design, green manufacturing, green
purchasing, green information systems, and investment recovery) on operational perfor-
mance (product quality, operational cost, and flexibility) in the organization. Hence, H1
(GSCMP → TI), H2 (TI → OP), H3 (GSCMP → OP), and H4 (GSCMP → TI → OP) are
all supported, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Bootstrapping results for structural model evaluation.
Coefficient Mean SD T Statistics p Values

Path coefficient
GSCMP → TI 0.674 0.68 0.041 16.282 0.000
TI → OP 0.564 0.556 0.063 8.958 0.000
GSCMP → OP 0.281 0.29 0.063 4.489 0.000
Total indirect effect
GSCMP → OP 0.38 0.378 0.047 8.144 0.000
Specific indirect effect
GSCMP → TI → OP 0.38 0.378 0.047 8.144 0.000
Total effect
GSCMP → TI 0.674 0.68 0.041 16.282 0.000
TI → OP 0.564 0.556 0.063 8.958 0.000
GSCMP → OP 0.661 0.668 0.048 13.683 0.000
6. Discussion and Implication

The results of structural equation modeling show that GSCM practices have a signif-
icantly positive influence on technological innovation. This result is consistent with many
studies [55,60,61,85,106]. Lee, Ooi [26] found that eco-design, internal environmental man-
agement, and investment recovery significantly correlate with technological innovation.
Practicing green SCM will improve the innovational abilities of the manufacturing firms.
Product and process innovation will be highly impacted due to effective GSCM practices
(eco-design, green manufacturing, green purchasing, green information systems, and in-
vestment recovery).
The study further reveals a significant association between technological innovation
and operational performance. It is observed that technological innovation has a signifi-
cantly positive impact on operational performance. Previous research by Abdallah, Phan
[31], Ju, Park [64], and Al-Sa’di, Abdallah [53] also found similar results that technological
innovation will bring beneficial changes in the operations of an organization. Innovation
in product and the process improves operational efficiency. To be competitive in the mar-
ket, the organizations should improve their innovational abilities to produce good quality
products at low prices, this will also help with long-term customer retention.
Moreover, the significant influence of GSCM practices on operational performance is
also revealed from the study. GSCM practices have a significant and positive association
with operational performance, according to the findings, which have been supported by
earlier research, such as [15,38,67,70,106]; all of them revealed that GSCM practice in an
organization improves productivity. Our research further revealed that practicing GSCM
(eco-design, green manufacturing, green purchasing, green information systems, and in-
vestment recovery) will improve product quality and flexibility and reduce operational
cost, which tends to improve the operational efficiency of the manufacturing firm.
The mediation result reveals the mediating impact of technological innovation within
GSCM practices and operational performance. This result indicates that technological in-
novation partially mediates the relationship between GSCM practices and operational
performance. It means that technological innovation in the product and process of manu-
facturing firms will enhance the combined effect of GSCM practices (eco-design, green
manufacturing, green purchasing, green information system, and investment recovery)
on operational performance (product quality, operational cost, and flexibility) in the or-
ganization. Previous studies, e.g., Shafique, Asghar [107], have found the mediating influ-
ence of green innovation on the association between GSCM and environmental perfor-
mance. Seman, Govindan [108] found the mediating influence of green innovation on the
connection between GSCM and environmental performance. However, no such study has
researched how technological innovation mediates the effect of GSCM practices on oper-
ational performance.
6.1. Theoretical Implication

The study contributed to the literature of GSCM practices and technological innova-
tion in several ways. Firstly, the research developed and analyzed the conceptual model
between GSCM practices implementation, technological innovation, and operational per-
formance. The mediating effect of technological innovation on the relationship between
GSCM practices and operational performance has not been identified yet. Furthermore,
very few studies are available in the literature that focus on technological innovation’s
mediating effect. Past studies mainly focused on the influences of GSCM practices on en-
vironmental, economic, and organizational performance. Still, no theoretical framework
provides a mediating link of technological innovation between the relationship of GSCM
practices and operational performance. Therefore, the study has achieved this objective.
Secondly, the study considered five dimensions of GSCM practices (i.e., eco-design,
green manufacturing, green purchasing, green information systems, and investment re-
covery). Green information systems and green manufacturing were included in this study
to find the impact of GSCM practices on technological innovation and operational perfor-
mance. Previous studies have not notably focused on the influence of green information
systems and green manufacturing on technological innovation and operational perfor-
mance.
6.2. Managerial Implication

This study has significant managerial implications for manufacturing firms of Paki-
stan and other developing countries. Firstly, organizations need to consider the im-
portance of GSCM practices and be more proactive in implementing these practices. In
particular, designing eco-friendly products, selecting methods of manufacturing the prod-
ucts, and purchasing environmentally friendly materials are major components of the
green supply chain, which must be adopted by manufacturing organizations to improve
sustainable performance.
Secondly, this study provides a practical implication to the firms to enhance their
technological innovation through better understanding of the various practices of the
green supply chain that may be applied in their firms. Moreover, the study also provides a
self-diagnostic tool to the firms to identify and analyze the current status of improvement in
the product and process of the firm and improve it by focusing more on GSCM practices.
Thirdly, those entrepreneurs and managers striving to achieve greater product qual-
ity, reduction in operational costs, and greater flexibility in the system should adopt
GSCM practices to improve these operational performance parameters. Implementing a
green supply chain will help managers and entrepreneurs build cost-effective and prod-
uct- and process-oriented strategies to reduce the harmful effects of their products and
processes in the environment.
Lastly, the study facilitates the implementation of GSCM practices in organizations
and the improvement of technological innovation to increase operational performance
and decrease negative impacts on the environment.
7. Conclusions
Sustainable environmental growth is a major concern nowadays. In a developing
economy, industrial development aims to enhance the performance of the economy while
addressing ecological sustainability. Implementing GSCM procedures in a corporation is
a comparatively new concept in Pakistan. This research paper highlights the relationship
between GSCM practices, technological innovation, and operational performance. This
study collects data from different manufacturing industries situated in Pakistan. To per-
form hypothesis testing, SmartPLS3 software is used to employ PLS-SEM. The findings
reveal that GSCM practices positively and considerably connect with both technological
innovation and operational performance. A positive and significant effect is observed be-
tween technological innovation and operational performance. The partially mediating in-
fluence of technological innovation is also observed between GSCM practices and opera-
tional performance. According to the findings, operational performance can be improved
by practicing GSCM, which leads to greater operational efficiency, better product quality,
greater flexibility of the system, and a decrease in the extra utilization of resources, which
further leads to a reduction in the production cost. Development in product and process
will not negatively be affected by GSCM practices, but it will enhance the capabilities of
innovation and enhance the impact of GSCM practices on an organization’s sustainable
performance. Similarly, adopting the latest technology in product and process will also
not divert the effects of GSCM practices in improving the operational performance, ac-
cording to the results of this study. Organizations can grow their innovational abilities by
practicing GSCM to obtain product novelty, the latest technological usage, the speed of
new product development, upgrades to technology in the process, and greater system
flexibility to manage large and slight variations in the product and the process. With tech-
nology, manufacturing firms can become more consistent in improving their productivity.
For having sustainable environmental growth, there is a vital role for manufacturing firms in
Pakistan. The organizations should focus on the effective utilization of energy, wastewater,
and material consumption in manufacturing and designing their particular products.
Overall, this study makes a considerable contribution to the GSCM and TI literature
and makes suggestions for managers and entrepreneurs in establishing an ecologically
sustainable society and demonstrating their legitimacy. This research offers managers in-
sight into the importance of technological innovation and GSCM practice adoption to
achieve competitive advantages. Thus, it provides the groundwork for managers, practi-
tioners, and environmental management researchers to emphasize the value of GSCM
practice in improving operational sustainability.
Limitations and Future Research Direction

There are some limitations to this study. First, the study is limited to only a single
country’s manufacturing sector. Second, the study’s generalizability is limited because the
data were obtained from a single responder per firm (e.g., top or middle management).
Third, most data were gathered from large firms, and only a small portion of SMEs’ data
was considered. Future research may be conducted on SMEs that focuses on the relation-
ships between different dimensions of GSCM (e.g., green transportation, internal environ-
mental management, green packaging, and green distribution) and green innovational
performance in Pakistani manufacturing companies.
Author Contributions: Manuscript writing and conceptual design, M.T.K.; data processing, meth-
odology, and validation, M.D.I.; analysis and review, M.R.; Supervision, A.S.; contribution to man-
uscript text, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Survey questionnaire (instrument).
Questionnaire Items SD D N A SA
Green Manufacturing
This organization’s product is recyclable and reusa-
GM1 1 2 3 4 5
ble.
Manufacturing operations guarantee that hazard-
GM2 ous compounds are used less frequently in the pro- 1 2 3 4 5
cess.
The product life cycle method is utilized to improve
GM3 the product’s environmental performance, as well 1 2 3 4 5
as its manufacturing efficiency.
Efforts were made to limit the amount of material,
GM4 water, and energy consumed in the production pro- 1 2 3 4 5
cess.
Compliance with all applicable requirements is en-
GM5 1 2 3 4 5
sured by a waste management program.
In manufacturing operations, the use of energy ob-
GM6 1 2 3 4 5
tained from renewable resources is optimized.
Harmful waste is kept to a minimum during the
GM7 1 2 3 4 5
production process.
Pollution sources were identified and eliminated
GM8 1 2 3 4 5
through the development of preventative initiatives.
Eco-design
Our company adheres to stringent product design
ED1 guidelines in order to decrease material and energy 1 2 3 4 5
usage.
Our company maintains a product design that al-
ED2 lows for the reuse, recycling, and recovery of mate- 1 2 3 4 5
rials and parts.
Our company maintains product design in order to
ED3 eliminate or limit the usage of hazardous goods and 1 2 3 4 5
production processes.
Investment Recovery
During the previous year, surplus inventories/ma-
IR1 1 2 3 4 5
terials were recovered through investment (sale).
During the previous year, scrap and used materials
IR2 1 2 3 4 5
were sold.
During the previous year, surplus capital equip-
IR3 1 2 3 4 5
ment was sold.
During the previous year, participation in environ-
IR4 mental improvements was improved, and the recy- 1 2 3 4 5
cled items were sold.
Green Information System
Our organization has a formal structure in place to
GIS1 1 2 3 4 5
enhance the environment in its operations.
We have institutional departments in place that are
GIS2 1 2 3 4 5
in charge of environmental issues.
Green practices and steps in the system are gener-
GIS3 1 2 3 4 5
ally available practices and processes in the system.
Within our company, we formally track and report
GIS4 1 2 3 4 5
on our environmental performance.
Within the firm, we measure, monitor, and com-
GIS5 1 2 3 4 5
municate environmental data on a regular basis.
To track and monitor environmental risks, the com-
GIS6 1 2 3 4 5
pany has a well-developed database.
Green Purchasing
Environmental criteria for bought products in de-
GP1 1 2 3 4 5
sign specifications is provided to vendors.
Our organization collaborates with suppliers to
GP2 1 2 3 4 5
achieve environmental goals.
Internal environmental audit for suppliers’ man-
GP3 1 2 3 4 5
agement is performed.
The ISO14001 certification of suppliers is per-
GP4 1 2 3 4 5
formed.
Environmentally friendly practice review of a sec-
GP5 1 2 3 4 5
ond-tier supplier is performed.
Environmental parameters are used to choose sup-
GP6 1 2 3 4 5
pliers.
GP7 Products are eco-labeled. 1 2 3 4 5
Technological Innovation
We have the ability to create items with unique
TI1 1 2 3 4 5
characteristics.
For new product development, we employ cutting-

TI2 1 2 3 4 5
edge technologies.
The rate at which new products are developed is
TI3 1 2 3 4 5
adequate and competitive.
There has already been a sufficient number of new
TI4 1 2 3 4 5
items launched to the market.
We have a number of new goods that are first-to-
TI5 1 2 3 4 5
market (early market entrants).
TI6 In terms of technology, we are competitive. 1 2 3 4 5
In the process, we employ cutting-edge/new tech-
TI7 1 2 3 4 5
nology.
We are quick to integrate the most recent technol-
TI8 1 2 3 4 5
ogy advancements.
Our company’s processes, procedures, and technol-
TI9 1 2 3 4 5
ogy evolve at a quick pace.
Operational Performance
We create products that are high-performing and
OP1 1 2 3 4 5
suit the expectations of customers.
OP2 Scrap, rework, and faults are all on the decline. 1 2 3 4 5
The number of complaints from consumers is stead-
OP3 1 2 3 4 5
ily decreasing.
OP4 Productivity has been steadily rising. 1 2 3 4 5
OP5 Manufacturing unit costs are steadily falling. 1 2 3 4 5
OP6 We respond quickly to changes in market demand. 1 2 3 4 5
SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree.
References
1. Waidyasekara, K.; Sandamali, R. Impact of Green Concept on Business Objectives of an Organisation; World Construction Conference,
Colombo, Sri Lank, 28–30 June 2012.
2. Lin, Y.; Luo, J.; Ieromonachou, P.; Rong, K.; Huang, L. Strategic orientation of servitization in manufacturing firms and its
impacts on firm performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 292–316.
3. Zahraee, M.S.; Mamizadeh, F.; Vafaei, S.A. Greening assessment of suppliers in automotive supply chain: An empirical survey
of the automotive industry in Iran. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2018, 19, 225–238.
4. Fornasiero, R.; Zangiacomi, A.; Franchini, V.; Bastos, J.; Azevedo, A.; Vinelli, A. Implementation of customisation strategies in
collaborative networks through an innovative Reference Framework. Prod. Plan. Control 2016, 27, 1158–1170.
5. Chan, T. Y.; Wong, C. W.; Lai, K. H.; Lun, V. Y.; Ng, C. T.,; Ngai, E. W. Green service: Construct development and measurement
validation. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2016, 25, 432–457.
6. Chin, T. A.; Tat, H. H.; Sulaiman, Z.; Muhamad Zainon, S. N. L. Green supply chain management practices and sustainability
performance. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2015, 21, 1359–1362.
7. Ong, S.T.; Magsi, H.B.; Burgess, T.F. Organisational culture, environmental management control systems, environmental
performance of Pakistani manufacturing industry. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 1293–1322.
8. Anwar, A.; Younis, M.; Ullah, I. Impact of Urbanization and Economic Growth on CO2 Emission: A Case of Far East Asian
Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2531.
9. Shah, A.S.A.; Solangi, Y.A. A sustainable solution for electricity crisis in Pakistan: Opportunities, barriers, and policy
implications for 100% renewable energy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 29687–29703.
10. Wang, Y.; Yang, Y. Analyzing the green innovation practices based on sustainability performance indicators: A Chinese
manufacturing industry case. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1181–1203.
11. Sarwar, A.; Zafar, A.; Hamza, M.; Qadir, A. The effect of green supply chain practices on firm sustainability performance:
Evidence from Pakistan. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 9, 31–38.
12. Lorette, K. Why Businesses Should Go Green. Available online: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/businesses-should-green-
766.html (accessed on 10 June 2018).
13. Lin, H.-Y.; Tseng, M.-L. Assessing the competitive priorities within sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. J.
Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2133–2144.
14. Kurian, J. The role of digitalization in adopting green supply chain management practices: A critical review of literature. Econ.
Environ. Cons. 2020, 26, 213–220.
15. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2015, 162, 101–114.
16. Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean.
Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710.
17. Tseng, M. L.; Islam, M. S.; Karia, N.; Fauzi, F. A.; Afrin, S. A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and
future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 145–162.
18. Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2005,
12, 330–350.
19. Fragouli, E.; Yankson, J.K. The role of strategic planning on the management of organizational change. Financ. Risk Manag. Rev.
2015, 1, 68–87.
20. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80.
21. Haake, H.; Seuring, S. Sustainable procurement of minor items–exploring limits to sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17, 284–294.
22. Vanalle, R. M.; Ganga, G. M. D.; Godinho Filho, M.; Lucato, W. C. Green supply chain management: An investigation of
pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 250–259.
23. Zhu, Q.; Feng, Y.; Choi, S.-B. The role of customer relational governance in environmental and economic performance
improvement through green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 46–53.
24. Wang, K. H.; Umar, M.; Akram, R.; Caglar, E. Is technological innovation making world “Greener”? An evidence from changing
growth story of China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 165, 120516.
25. Dodgson, M. Technological collaboration and innovation. In The Handbook of Industrial Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.:
Cheltenham, UK, 1994; pp. 285–292.
26. Lee, V. H.; Ooi, K. B.; Chong, A. Y. L.; Seow, C. Creating technological innovation via green supply chain management: An
empirical analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 6983–6994.
27. Börjesson, S.; Elmquist, M.; Hooge, S. The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of
innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014, 31, 120–140.
28. Wang, C.-H.; Lu, I.-Y.; Chen, C.-B. Evaluating firm technological innovation capability under uncertainty. Technovation 2008, 28,
349–363.
29. Aljanabi, A.R.A. The mediating role of absorptive capacity on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
technological innovation capabilities. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2018, 24, 818–841.
30. Yonghong, Z.; Zigang, Z.; Kaijin, L. Impact of technological innovation on growth trajectory of enterprise's technological
capability: A theoretical analysis. Singap. Manag. Rev. 2005, 27, 81–102.
31. Abdallah, B.A.; Phan, A.C.; Matsui, Y. Investigating the effects of managerial and technological innovations on operational
performance and customer satisfaction of manufacturing companies. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2016, 10, 153–183.
32. Prajogo, I.D.; Sohal, A.S. The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: An
empirical examination. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2003, 20, 901–918.
33. Hong, J.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, Z. (2019). The effect of supply chain quality management practices and capabilities on
operational and innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 212, 227–235.
34. Gunday, G.; Ulusoy, G.; Kilic, K.; Alpkan, L. Effects of innovation types on firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 133, 662–
676.
35. Kim, D.-Y.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, U. Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30,
295–315.
36. Liu, C.-C. An empirical study on the construction of a model for measuring organisational innovation in Taiwanese high-tech
enterprises. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2005, 9, 241–257.
37. Damanpour, F.; Gopalakrishnan, S. The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. J. Manag.
Stud. 2001, 38, 45–65.
38. Green, K. W.; Zelbst, P. J.; Meacham, J.; Bhadauria, V. S. Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance.
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17, 290–305.
39. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-H. Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their mediations on
performance improvements. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 1377–1394.
40. Uygun, Ö.; Dede, A. Performance evaluation of green supply chain management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making techniques. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 102, 502–511.
41. Tippayawong, K. Y.; Niyomyat, N.; Sopadang, A.; Ramingwong, S. Factors affecting green supply chain operational
performance of the thai auto parts industry. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1161.
42. Suryanto, T.; Haseeb, M.; Hartani, N.H. The correlates of developing green supply chain management practices: Firms level
analysis in Malaysia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 316.
43. Mumtaz, U.; Ali, Y.; Petrillo, A. A linear regression approach to evaluate the green supply chain management impact on
industrial organizational performance. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 162–169.
44. Hashmi, D.S.; Akram, S. Impact of green supply chain management on financial and environmental performance: Mediating
role of operational performance and the moderating role of external pressures. LogForum 2021, 17, 359–371.
45. Umar, M.; Khan, S. A. R.; Yusliza, M. Y.; Ali, S.; Yu, Z. Industry 4.0 and green supply chain practices: An empirical study. Int. J.
Product. Perform. Manag. 2021, 71, 814–832.
46. Mady, M.T. The impact of plant size and type of industry on manufacturing competitive priorities: An empirical investigation.
Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2008, 18.
47. Abdallah, B.A.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Aqqad, N.O. The impact of supply chain management practices on supply chain performance in
Jordan: The moderating effect of competitive intensity. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 13.
48. Tan, K.-C.; Kannan, V.R.; Narasimhan, R. The impact of operations capability on firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45,
5135–5156.
49. Fine, H.C.; Hax, A.C. Manufacturing strategy: A methodology and an illustration. Interfaces 1985, 15, 28–46.
50. Ferdows, K.; de Meyer, A. Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. J. Oper. Manag.
1990, 9, 168–184.
51. Squire, B.; Brown, S.; Readman, J.; Bessant, J. The impact of mass customisation on manufacturing trade-offs. Prod. Oper. Manag.
2006, 15, 10–21.
52. Ortega, H.C.; Garrido-Vega, P.; Machuca, J.A.D. Analysis of interaction fit between manufacturing strategy and technology
management and its impact on performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2012, 32, 958–981.
53. Di Al-Sa’, F.A.; Abdallah, A.B.; Dahiyat, S.E. The mediating role of product and process innovations on the relationship between
knowledge management and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2017, 23,
349–376.
54. Abdallah, B.A.; Phan, A.C.; Matsui, Y. Investigating the relationship between strategic manufacturing goals and mass
customization. In Proceedings of the 16th International Annual European Operations Management Association (EurOMA),
Göteborg, Sweden, 14-17, June 2009.
55. De Carvalho; L. S., Stefanelli’ N. O.; Viana, L. C.; Vasconcelos, D. D. S. C.; Oliveira, B. G. Green supply chain management and
innovation: A modern review. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 470–482.
56. H’Mida, S.; Lakhal, S.Y. A model for assessing the greenness effort in a product supply chain. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2007,
7, 4–24.
57. Lee, K.-H. Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: The case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the
automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1216–1223.
58. Tseng, M.-L.; Tan, K.; Chiu, A.S. Identifying the competitive determinants of firms’ green supply chain capabilities under
uncertainty. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2016, 18, 1247–1262.
59. Silva, G.M., P.J. Gomes, and J. Sarkis, The role of innovation in the implementation of green supply chain management practices. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 2019. 28(5): p. 819-832.
60. Song, H.; Gao, X. Green supply chain game model and analysis under revenue-sharing contract. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 183–
192.
61. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply
chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315.
62. Bowen, E.F.; Rostami, M.; Steel, P. Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational
performance and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1179–1185.
63. Boer, H.; During, W.E. Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organisational innovation.
Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2001, 22, 83–107.
64. Ju, K.-J.; Park, B.; Kim, T. Causal relationship between supply chain dynamic capabilities, technological innovation, and
operational performance. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2016, 7, 6–15.
65. Kafetzopoulos, D.; Psomas, E. The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing companies: The Greek
case. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2015, 26, 104–130.
66. Abdallah, A.; Phan, C. The relationship between just-in-time production and human resource management, and their impact
on competitive performance. Yokohama Bus. Rev. 2007, 28, 27–57.
67. Mallikarathna, D.H.; Silva, C.C. The impact of Green supply chain management practices on operational performance and
customer satisfaction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management,
Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 March 2019.
68. Famiyeh, S.; Kwarteng, A.; Asante-Darko, D.; Dadzie, S. A.. Green supply chain management initiatives and operational
competitive performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 607–631.
69. Yang, J.; Han, Q.; Zhou, J.; Yuan, C. The influence of environmental management practices and supply chain integration on
technological innovation performance—Evidence from China’s manufacturing industry. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15342–15361.
70. Feng, M.; Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Wong, C. Y.; Xu, M.; Xiao, Z. Green supply chain management and financial performance: The
mediating roles of operational and environmental performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 811–824.
71. Khan, R.S.A.; Qianli, D. Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms’ performance: An empirical study from
the perspective of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 16829–16844.
72. Yang, C. S.; Lu, C. S.; Haider, J. J.; Marlow, P. B. The effect of green supply chain management on green performance and firm
competitiveness in the context of container shipping in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2013, 55, 55–73.
73. de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L.; Jabbour, C. J. C.; Latan, H.; Teixeira, A. A.; de Oliveira, J. H. C. Quality management, environmental
management maturity, green supply chain practices and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certification:
Direct and indirect effects. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2014, 67, 39–51.
74. Jermsittiparsert, K.; Sutduean, J.; Sutduean, C. The mediating role of innovation performance between the relationship of green
supply chain management skills and environmental performance. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 107–119.
75. Mughal, M. Impact of green supply chain management practices on performance of manufacturing companies in Jordan: A
moderating role of supply chain traceability. Arthatama 2019, 3, 67–82.
76. Hasan, M. Sustainable supply chain management practices and operational performance. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2013, 3,42–48.
77. Bagheri, M.; Mitchelmore, S.; Bamiatzi, V.; Nikolopoulos, K. Internationalization orientation in SMEs: The mediating role of
technological innovation. J. Int. Manag. 2019, 25, 121–139.
78. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-H. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices
implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273.
79. Gholami, R.; Molla, A.; Goswami, S.; Brewster, C. Green information systems use in social enterprise: The case of a community-
led eco-localization website in the West Midlands region of the UK. Inf. Syst. Front. 2018, 20, 1345–1361.
80. Damanpour, F.; Evan, W.M. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of “organizational lag”. Adm. Sci. Q.
1984, 29, 392–409.
81. Kotabe, M.; Martin, X.; Domoto, H. Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier
performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 293–316.
82. Mustaghis-ur-Rahman, R.R.; Jalees, T. The effectiveness of support policies for SMEs in Pakistan: A study of Karachi based
SMEs. Pak. Bus. Rev. 2015, 16, 829–916.
83. Policy, S. SME Led Economic Growth—Creating Jobs and Reducing Poverty, Ministry of Industries, Production & Special Initiatives;
Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority Pakistan: Lahore, Pakistan, 2007.
84. Rao, K.; Bogale, G.M. Developing tools to describe green manufacturing practices. Int. J. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2017, 5, 94–103.
85. Habib, M.; Bao, Y.; Nabi, N.; Dulal, M.; Asha, A. A.; Islam, M. Impact of Strategic Orientations on the Implementation of Green
Supply Chain Management Practices and Sustainable Firm Performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 340.
86. Yu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Huo, B. The impact of supply chain quality integration on green supply chain management and
environmental performance. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2019, 30, 1110–1125.
87. Qu, K.; Liu, Z. The Moderating Role of Green Information System over Supply Chain in Promoting Green Innovation and
Production. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3516068 (accesses on: 20 June 2018 ).
88. Shahid, H. M.; Waseem, R.; Khan, H.; Waseem, F.; Hasheem, M. J.; Shi, Y. Process innovation as a moderator linking sustainable
supply chain management with sustainable performance in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2303.
89. Bagozzi, P.R.; Yi, Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 8–34.
90. Munim, H.Z.; Schramm, H.-J. The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: The mediating
role of seaborne trade. J. Shipp. Trade 2018, 3, 1.
91. Zeng, N.; Liu, Y.; Gong, P.; Hertogh, M.; König, M. Do right PLS and do PLS right: A critical review of the application of PLS-
SEM in construction management research. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 2021, 8, p. 356–369.
92. Khan, R.A.S.; Yu, Z. Assessing the eco-environmental performance: An PLS-SEM approach with practice-based view. Int. J.
Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 24, 303–321.
93. Hair Jr, J. F.; Matthews, L. M.; Matthews, R. L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int.
J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123.
94. Astrachan, B.C.; Patel, V.K.; Wanzenried, G. A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family
firm research. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2014, 5, 116–128.
95. Khan, S. A. R.; Zhang, Y.; Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E.; Streimikiene, D. Measuring the impact of renewable energy, public health
expenditure, logistics, and environmental performance on sustainable economic growth. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 833–843.
96. Hair Jr, J. F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V. G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An
emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121.
97. Sarstedt, M.; Hair Jr, J. F.; Cheah, J. H.; Becker, J. M.; Ringle, C. M. How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs
in PLS-SEM. Australas. Mark. J. 2019, 27, 197–211.
98. Purwanto, A.; Sudargini, Y. Partial Least Squares Structural Squation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Analysis for Social and Management
Research: A Literature Review. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Res. 2021, 2, 114–123.
99. Purwanto, A.; Asbari, M.; Santoso, T. I.; Paramarta, V.; Sunarsi, D. Social and Management Research Quantitative Analysis for
Medium Sample: Comparing of Lisrel, Tetrad, GSCA, Amos, SmartPLS, WarpPLS, and SPSS. J. Ilm. Ilmu Adm. Publik J. Pemikir.
Dan Penelit. Adm. Publik 2020, 9, 518–532.
100. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics; Sage
Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981.
101. Hult, G. T. M.; Hair Jr, J. F.; Proksch, D.; Sarstedt, M.; Pinkwart, A.; Ringle, C. M. Addressing endogeneity in international
marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling. J. Int. Mark. 2018, 26, 1–21.
102. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. E Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10.
103. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1988; pp. 20–26.
104. Geffen, A.C.; Rothenberg, S. Suppliers and environmental innovation: The automotive paint process. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
2000, 20, 166–186.
105. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New
Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009.
106. Gharakhani, D.; Mavi, R.K.; Hamidi, N. Impact of supply chain management practices on innovation and organizational
performance in Iranian Companies. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 5939–5949.
107. Shafique, M.; Asghar, M.; Rahman, H. The impact of green supply chain management practices on performance: Moderating
role of institutional pressure with mediating effect of green innovation. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2017, 15, 91–108.
108. Seman, N.A.A.; et al. The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain management
and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 115–127.

Green Supply Chain Management Practices'

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Green Supply Chain Management Practices'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Green Supply Chain Management Practices’ Impact

Karachi 74800, Pakistan; muhammad.rauf@duet.edu.pk (M.R.); dr.abdulsami@duet.edu.pk (A.S.);

Karachi 74800, Pakistan; atif.jamil@duet.edu.pk

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063362 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.2. Technological Innovation (TI)

termed management innovation to quantify innovation performance comprehensively. In

Table 1. Summary of published studies on Green Supply Chain Management.

Focus of the Study Method Findings of the Study Year Reference

2.3. Operational Performance (OP)

3. Research Framework and Hypothesis Development

3.2. Technological Innovation → Operational Performance

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Technological innovation has a positive impact on operational performance.

3.3. Green Supply Chain Management Practices → Operational Performance

3.4. The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation

Table 2. Definitions of construct.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

Table 3. Demographic of participants.

4.2. Data Analysis

5.1. Measurement Model

Table 4. Construct reliability and convergent validity.

Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Figure 2. LOC measurement model.

Table 5. Discriminant validity—Fornell–Larcker criterion.

Table 6. Cross loadings.

Table 7. HTMT (Heterotrait–Monotrait) ratio of correlations.

5.2. Validating Higher-order Construct (HOC)

Table 8. Higher-order construct validity (HOC).

HOC LOC Outer Weight T Statistics p Value Outer Loadings VIF

5.3. Structural Equation Model and Hypothesis Testing

Figure 3. HOC measurement model.

Table 9. R square and Q square.

R Square R Square Adjusted Q²

Table 10. Bootstrapping results for structural model evaluation.

Coefficient Mean SD T Statistics p Values

6. Discussion and Implication

6.1. Theoretical Implication

6.2. Managerial Implication

Limitations and Future Research Direction

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Table A1. Survey questionnaire (instrument).

For new product development, we employ cutting-

You might also like