This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 14 July 2015, At: 21:09

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Production Planning & Control: The Management of

Operations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical

investigation on Indian automobile industry
a b
P.R.C. Gopal & Jitesh Thakkar
a
Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai, India
b
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE), IIT Kharagpur, Khargapur, India
Published online: 08 Jul 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: P.R.C. Gopal & Jitesh Thakkar (2015): Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical
investigation on Indian automobile industry, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2015.1060368

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1060368

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Production Planning & Control, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1060368

Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical investigation on Indian automobile industry

P.R.C. Gopala* and Jitesh Thakkarb
a
Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai, India; bDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE), IIT Kharagpur,
Khargapur, India
(Received 9 November 2014; accepted 1 June 2015)

The purpose of this research study is to analyze sustainable supply chain (SSC) management practices for Indian
automobile industry and to identify the critical factors for its successful implementation. Despite the fact that SSC has
been frequently promoted as a means of improving business competitiveness, little empirical evidence exists in the litera-
ture validating its positive link with organizational performance. Sustainable supply chain practices (SSCP) not only help
in reducing environmental degradation but it also has social and economic implications (as per tipple bottom line
approach). For this purpose, empirical data is collected to measure the SSCP prevailing in Indian automobile industry. A
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015

structural equation modeling technique is used to build the measurement and structural models. Later, statistical estimates
are used to validate the model that has been built. The data analysis helps to determine whether to accept or reject the
hypothesis that has been stated based on the structural model. The result shows how SSCP are correlated and help in
improving the supply chain performance among the industries being surveyed. It is also observed that environmental and
social performance have a positive relationship with economic performance.
Keywords: supply chain sustainability; structural equation modeling; performance measurement; supply chain
management; sustainability

1. Introduction Diabat 2013). Moreover, gaining competitive edge

Intensified competition at the supply chain level, rapid
changes in customer demand patterns and pressures from
governments and other stakeholder groups has encour-
aged most companies to increase its attention on adop-
tion of sustainability practices. Sustainability has become
a competitive advantage of the individual firm’s supply
chain (Zhu and Sarkis 2006). However, researchers have
differing views on adoption of sustainable practices in
supply chain. (Zhu and Sarkis 2007) study in China on
implementation of green supply chain management
(GSCM) practices found that environmental and opera-
tional performance slightly improved and has not
resulted in significant improvement of economic perfor-
mance. In similar lines (Zaabi, Dhaheri, and Diabat
2013) also mentioned that adopting these practices incur
additional cost and unprofitable. However, (Craig and
Rogers 2008) argued that sustainability is a concept to
achieve long term economic benefits rather than short
term. For this, organizations needed supporting factors
for successful implementation of sustainable practices in
supply chain (Seuring and Müller 2008a). Implementa-
tion of sustainable practices in supply chains is fraught
with several challenges. These challenges lead to nega-
tive impacts particularly during initiation stage of sus-
tainability practices (Faisal 2010; Zaabi, Dhaheri, and
through effective implementation of sustainable practices
in a highly competitive environment becomes increas-
ingly difficult. Such increased competition has even
greater effect on industry such as the automobile un
undoubtedly which is large, diverse and influential of
many other business sectors. Without an adequate under-
standing of the sustainability related enablers and inhibi-
tors, it is unlikely to accurately evaluate the effect of the
sustainability practices on supply chain.
The benefits of implementing sustainability practices
is to avoid risk related to all three dimensions (eco-
nomic, environmental, and social) of sustainability and
improve the overall supply chain performance (SCP)
(Seuring and Müller 2008a). Despite widely accepted
benefits of sustainability, there is a dearth of literature
regarding the implementation of sustainability practices
and their impacts on the SCP particularly in developing
countries like India (Xu et al. 2013). It is reported that,
automobile industry is seen as a flagship bearer and is
frequently regarded as a barometer measuring the current
wealth of a nation’s economy (Childerhouse et al. 2003).
It is also highlighted that, automobile supply chain
processes such as designing, sourcing, producing and
distributing products in global markets play a central
role, and these activities account for a bulk of the

*Corresponding author. Email: prcgopal@tsm.ac.in

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
resources consumed and the environmental impact
(Halldórsson, Kotzab, and Larsen 2009; Handfield and
Nichols 1998). Kagawa et al. (2013) reported that automo-
bile industry uses more energy indirectly through its sup-
ply chain than directly at facility. Hence, automobile
supply chain has a significant role in sustainable develop-
ment. Recent changes in global economy resulted; India is
becoming one of the cheapest sourcing destinations in the
automotive map edging out arch rivals like China, Mexico
and Eastern Europe. In line with this, many multi-national
industries (BMW, FORD, NISSAN) have identified India
as a potential market for strong product growth and have
started investing heavily by setting up manufacturing
facilities and distribution centers (Mathiyazhagan and
Noorul Haq 2013; Xu et al. 2013). It depicts one side
huge demand for Indian automobile industry, and other
hand challenges such as climate change, energy provision
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
and shortage of natural resources need to handle.
The products of the automobile industry touch our
daily lives on one hand by providing personal mobility
for millions, and on the other, by bringing a wide range
of challenges such as, deterioration air quality, global
warming, and the treatment of end of life (ELVs) vehi-
cles. The automotive industry has a critical role to play
in ensuring more responsible product creation and sus-
tainable facilities, and for more efficient, eco-friendly
and innovatively imagined personal transport options for
a burgeoning global population (Senxian, Jenkins, and
Rowell 2009). Though many researchers have addressed
economic and environment issues of automobile industry
in literature (e.g. Azevedo, Carvalho, and Cruz-Machado
2011; Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2014; Mitra and Datta
2014; Smith 2012). However, there is a gap exists
between the desirability of supply chain sustainability in
theory and its implementation in practice (Bowen et al.
2006; Despeisse et al. 2012). This depicts the importance
of automobile industry contribution in development of
sustainable communities through products particularly
developing countries like India.
Indian auto component industry is quite comprehen-
sive with near around 500 firms in the organized sector
producing practically all parts and more than 10,000
firms in small unorganized sector, in tierized format
(Automotive Component Manufacturers Association
(ACMA), Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enter-
prises 2006). Assemblers are still considered as the major
competitive units, rather than the complete supply chain
including the first tier component suppliers (Saad and
Patel 2006). It is also observed that, the collection of
ELVs are not much emphasized in India. So, promotion
of sustainability practices in supply chain vital and chal-
lenge. Though assemblers (e.g. Hyundai, Tata, Maruthi,
Manhidra&Mahindra) have the recognized importance of
sustainability practices; these are at nascent stage and
have been gaining attention recently (Xu et al. 2013). It
is clear that there is not much work on the investigation
of sustainability issues from the Indian scenario and there
is a large research gap in this field (Xu et al. 2013).
In view of the above, this study is divided into two
phases. First phase analyze the relationship between sus-
tainable supply chain inhibitors (SSCI), sustainable sup-
ply chain practices (SSCP), sustainable supply chain
enablers (SSCE) and SCP. In this stage we also investi-
gate the moderating effect of SSCE, practices and perfor-
mance. In the second phase we analyze relationship
among the economic (ECO), environmental (ENV) and
social (SO) indicators. For this, a sample of automobile
supply chain players to achieve sustainability, which
includes suppliers, original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) in India is considered for the investigation.
Since, in literature researchers highlighted that suppliers
and OEMs play a key role in achieving sustainability in
automobile supply chain. For example, Mayyas et al.
(2012) and Dincer (2007); reported that OEMs play
major role in incorporating sustainability principles in
designing and manufacturing new vehicles. In addition,
Hassini, Surti, and Searcy (2012) reported that OEMs in
the supply chain force their upstream suppliers to
become more green and sustainable. In similar lines
Carter and Dresner (2001) and Ageron, Gunasekaran,
and Spalanzani (2012) reported that suppliers can act as
a direct acting force to achieve sustainability and sup-
plier support is one of the critical success factors in
achieving sustainability in supply chain.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows.
The next section presents the literature review that supports
the research framework and hypotheses. The research
methodology is presented in the third section. Results and
discussion are in Section 4 followed by conclusion, implica-
tions, limitations and future scope of research.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Model 1
The research framework adopted in this study is pre-
sented in Figure 1 (model 1) and Figure 2 (model 2).
Model 1 proposes that sustainability practices and inhibi-
tors have influence on their SCP. Sustainability enablers
have moderating effect on SCP. The explanation of
respective constructs is provided in the following subsec-
tions. Based on the existent literature, four hypotheses
are developed with respect to the proposed relationships
among the SSCI, SSCP, SSCE and SCP.
2.1.1. SSC practices
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is now
identified as a primary factor in promoting industrial sus-
tainability (Tonelli, Evans, and Taticchi 2013). The term
 Production Planning & Control
Sustainable supply SSC enablers
chain practices
(SSCP) (SSCE)
H4
H1+
-
H2 SC Performance
(SCP)
H3-
SSC inhibitors
(SSCI)
Figure 1. Research framework (model 1).
‘sustainability’ has been interpreted in a variety of ways,
ranging from an inter-generational philosophical position
to a multi-dimensional term for business management
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
(Ahi and Searcy 2013). For instance, researchers used
environmental, green, carbon account, reverse logistics,
closed loop supply chain and social sustainability.
However, most of the researchers are inclined to environ-
mental issues, as time goes on, they are increasingly
adopting a triple bottom line (TBL) (i.e. environment,
economic, and social) approach. Since, TBL signifies the
resiliency of organizations over time so that organiza-
tions better positioned to respond internal and external
shocks (Ahi and Searcy 2013). From the review of litera-
ture authors concluded that objectives of all the themes
(environmental, economical, social) individually dis-
cussed in literature are closed to the macro level defini-
tion of sustainable development that is, development that
meets the needs of the present generation without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs (WCED 1987). Hence, SSCM is an extension
of traditional concept of supply chain management by
adding various perspectives from organizational theory,
operations management, business ethics, corporate social
responsibility, technology, engineering, economics, pol-
icy, political science, law and environmental science are
combined to evaluate in multi-dimensional and multi-
scale approaches (Preuss 2009; Seuring and Müller
2008b; Wittstruck and Teuteberg 2012).
Environmental
(ENV) H5+
Economic
(ECO)
H6+
Social
(SO)
Figure 2. Research framework (model 2).
3
Sustainability is a remarkable concept to increase
environmental performance and reduce environmental
impacts (Kannan, Pokharel, and Kumar 2009; Srivastava
2007). Significant environmental impacts are associated
in three phases of life cycle of a car. These are pre-
assembly, assembly and use phases. The sustainable
objective of preassembly and assembly phases is to make
clean and highly efficient production process to minimize
the waste, adverse environmental and human health haz-
ard emissions. This can be attained by the adoption of
lean practices in the preassembly and assembly phases.
Implementation of lean practices results significant gain
in environmental efficiency and reduce environmental
impact through more efficient use of materials and natu-
ral resources (Ageron, Gunasekaran, and Spalanzani
2012; Lee and Cheong 2011). Further, the design of a
car is the important activity when aiming for decreasing
an adverse affect on the natural environment. Zhu,
Sarkis, and Lai (2007) reported in his study eco design
practices helps automobile organizations to enhance their
contribution towards sustainability. This can be attained
through the effective supply policy of a company, it sets
the overall frame and conditions for sustainable supply
issues. Marinuzzi et al. (2011) found that Toyota was the
most innovative organizations who designed cars for less
energy demand and were also more successful in dis-
covering new technology to gether with its more open
minded approach to environmental issues. Hence,
technological innovation seen as a one of the important
approach to achieve sustainability in automobile industry.
For this organizations should incorporate sustainability
into their corporate strategy (Koplin, Seuring, and
Mesterharm 2007). An efficient information technology
(IT) system is essential for supporting the GSCM during
various stages of automobile supply chain. Since,
information’s flows associated with both forward and
backward flow of materials and other resources to man-
age green supply chain efficiently (AlKhidir and Zailani
2009).
Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2007) in their study, attempted
to develop and validate a measurement instrument for
green automobile supply chain management practices
and they identified additional three empirically validated
and reliable dimensions which include internal environ-
mental management, investment recovery, and customer
cooperation. Investment recovery covers the practices on
sale of excess inventory and scrap and used material.
Customer cooperation means cooperation with customer
for eco design, green packaging using less energy during
product transportation.
In addition to the environmental practices this study
identifies from the literature and company published
reports, a set of sustainability practices relevant to the
social concerns and sustainability leadership practices in
automobile industry. Rao and Holt (2005) highlighted
 4 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
that positive and encouraging results are realized for
those who get involved in SSCM. Ageron, Gunasekaran,
and Spalanzani (2012) supported these views with
empirical study and reported that customer satisfaction,
suppliers’ innovation capacity, quality, trust, supply risk
management, and fill rate are major benefits of SSCM.
Continuous improvement is a key performance
indicator of sustainability in automobile industry in the
areas such as energy consumption, materials and produc-
tion, air emissions, treating of end of life vehicles which
are associated with preassembly, assembly and usage
stages of life cycle of car. Because, these can be reaffirm
over a period of time so that continuous improvement
leads to improved SCP.
The previous research as noted above clearly demon-
strates that these (lean practices, eco design practices, con-
tinuous improvement, risk management practices,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
customer cooperation ethical behaviour, investment recov-
ery, technological innovation) sustainability practices, lead
to higher levels of sustainable SCP, There is, however,
many other specific sustainability practices leads to
enhance SCP. Based on this discussion, we expect that:
H1: Adoption of sustainability practices has positive
influence on SCP for Indian automobile Industry.
Adoption of sustainability practices in automobile
industry and understanding its impact on the SCP in
Indian automobile industry is quite in a nascent stage
and hence the above hypothesis can help us to under-
stand that can automobile industry be positively con-
vinced for SSCP or not.
2.1.2. Sustainable supply chain inhibitors
Understanding the effect of sustainable inhibitors on
automobile SC performance will not be complete unless
due consideration is given to s the sustainability related
inhibitors. Sustainability challenges consist of factors that
prevent the achievement of the sustainability SCP
through sustainability practices. In this study, a set of sus-
tainability inhibitors are identified in the Indian context.
These include cost implications, lack of long term per-
spective, lack of IT implementation, resistance to technol-
ogy advancement adoption, poor quality of human
resources, market competition and uncertainty, lack of
government support systems, lack of top management
commitment, supplier reluctance and unawareness of cus-
tomers (Luthra et al. 2011). In the adaptation and imple-
mentation of sustainability practices, cost implications are
seen as one of the fundamental reason which prevent
organizations from fully realizing the benefits of sustain-
ability in supply chains. For example, implementing
green practices IT enablement, technology advancement
adoption, hiring good quality of employees, motivating
and training of employees will require high initial invest-
ment and these are associated with the increase of direct
and transaction costs and finally turn up to the increased
overall product cost (AlKhidir and Zailani 2009; Hsu and
Hu 2008; Seuring and Müller 2008a). Even though
implementing these practices organizations can engage in
sustainable contribution, benefits of economic and com-
petitive advantage will be realized in only in the long
term. Another important barrier is unawareness of cus-
tomers; it means that customers do not know about green
products and their benefits so that there is no significant
demand of green products (Luthra et al. 2011). Seuring
and Müller (2008a) mentioned in their study that insuffi-
cient or missing communication in the supply chain is
one of the barriers for SSCM. It indicates lack of trust in
the relationship and fear that data confidentiality may be
compromised (Hassini, Surti, and Searcy 2012). Hence,
transparency of information among the supply chain is
one of the challenges for SSCM. These challenges (resis-
tance to technology advancement adoption, supplier
reluctance, cost implications, lack of government support,
missing communication, poor quality of human resources,
lack of top management commitment, market uncertainty)
will negatively impact the SSC performance.
This discussion suggests that the SSC challenges
affect negatively sustainable SCP. Although this relation-
ship has not been empirically examined in previous
research, it is axiomatic that these challenges are likely
to constitute the core reasons preventing automobile
organizations to improve their sustainability performance.
This leads to the following hypotheses.
H2: There is a negative and strong direct relationship
between SSC inhibitors and the implementation
level of sustainability practices for Indian
automobile industry.
H3: There is a negative and strong direct relationship
between SSC inhibitors and the SC performance
for Indian automobile industry.
2.1.3. Moderating impact of SSC enablers
Understanding the effect of sustainability sustainable SCP
will not be complete unless due consideration is placed
on exploring the sustainability related enablers (Sarkis
2001; Zhu and Sarkis 2006). These enablers facilitate the
achievement of the SCP through sustainability practices.
In this study, the following four major enablers are identi-
fied. These are, measurement or monitoring and manage-
ment system (Seuring and Müller 2008), awareness about
sustainability (Brown, de Jong, and Levy 2009;
Geldermann, Treitz, and Rentz 2007; Luthra, Garg, and
Haleem 2014; Seuring and Müller 2008b), collaborative
relationships (Cox, Chicksand, and Palmer 2007; Geffen
and Rothenberg 2000; Lee 2008). Carter and Dresner
 Production Planning & Control
(2001) suggest that suppliers can act as a direct acting
force to achieve sustainability. Ageron, Gunasekaran, and
Spalanzani (2012) also reported in his empirical study
supplier support is critical success factor for a sustainable
supply chain (SSC). Management systems play an impor-
tant role to promote sustainability practices in supply
chains (Marshall et al. 2014). They mainly centre on
environmental management systems, namely ISO 14001
and socially related approaches, such as social account-
ability SA-8000. Arimura, Darnall, and Katayama (2011)
examined the multifaceted relationship between Japanese
firms’ ISO 14001 certification and GSCM practices and it
was found that ISO 14001 promotes the sustainability
activities. Organizations have to also create awareness
(Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2015) of the sustainability
practices that makes the product more eco friendly. It is
similar that, focal companies in the supply chain force
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
their upstream suppliers to become more green and sus-
tainable, they also trying to educate and convince its cus-
tomers to buy its green products (Hassini, Surti, and
Searcy 2012). According to Luthra et al. (2011) this is
one of the important supporting factor for automobile
customers in India. Many organizations realized the
importance of working collaboratively with their supply
chain partners to enhance their sustainability performance
(Faisal 2010). It is also increases the organizational capa-
bilities which are expected to generate competitive advan-
tage and improve sustainable SCP (Ageron, Gunasekaran,
and Spalanzani 2012; Faisal 2010; Luthra, Garg, and
Haleem 2014). This sustainability related enablers are
undoubtedly affirm the level of implementation practices
in supply chain and hence improve SC performance.
So, it leads to the following hypothesis
H4: The positive relationship between SSC practices
and SC performance is greater when the level of
sustainability enablers is high than when the
level of sustainability enablers is low for Indian
automobile industry.
2.1.4. Supply chain performance
To measure SCP the following performance measure are
considered on-time delivery, market share, return on
investment, the growth of market share. These measures
are adopted from Gunasekaran, Patel, and McGaughey
(2004) and Fawcett, Magnan, and McCarter (2008).
2.2. Causal analysis of sustainable SCP indicators
(model 2)
In the previous section, we discussed about the causality
among the sustainability adoption factors such as chal-
lenges, enablers, practices and SCP. In this section, we
will discuss the relationship among the sustainable SCP
5
indicators. Since many organizations have put significant
investment to gain benefits from these practices. The
debate on relationship among the TBL has been an area
of study for the past two decades. However, the signifi-
cance of this area in supply chain is evolving in recent
years. Because of external pressures such as regulatory
requirements and stake holders are imposed on industries
to adopt these practices (Berrone et al. 2013; Dey and
Cheffi 2013; Hofer, Cantor, and Dai 2012; Zhu and
Sarkis 2007). The fundamental question is whether
implementation of SSC practices leads to improve eco-
nomic performance. Much of the literature has focused
on relationship between environmental and economic
performance than social and economic performance.
However, recently Wang and Sarkis (2013) discussed
association of environmental and social to economic per-
formance. Distant views have been reported in literature
on association of these dimensions. For example
Reinhardt (1999) reported that environmentally oriented
practices can aid in cost reductions and then improve
economic performance. Rao and Holt (2005) and Zhu
and Sarkis (2004) supported this view. Recent studies
(Chan et al. 2012; Green et al. 2012; Lai and Wong
2012; Liu, Tang, and Xue 2012) have also confirmed
there is a direct and positive relationship between envi-
ronmental and economic performance. Rao and Holt
(2005) mentioned that the economic performance of
firms is improved by environmental performance through
waste minimization; it results in better utilization of
natural resources, improved efficiency and higher pro-
ductivity and reduces operating costs. However, some
researchers (Cordeiro and Sarkis 1997; Sarkis and
Cordeiro 2001) have reported that there is a negative
relationship between economic and environmental perfor-
mance. Zhu and Sarkis (2007) conducted an empirical
study in Chinese automobile industry and reported that
green supply chain practices have not resulted in signifi-
cant improvement in economic performance.
Over all, the results in the literature have often
shown that there is a positive relationship between eco-
nomic and environmental performance. From the back-
drop of this we framed following hypothesis
H5: Environmental sustainability positively influence
the economic sustainability
To test the above hypothesis authors considered key
measures from literature (Chaabane, Ramudhin, and
Paquet 2011; Dey and Cheffi 2013; Koplin, Seuring, and
Mesterharm 2007; Mohanty and Prakash 2014; Olugu,
Wong, and Shaharoun 2011) such as reduction in energy
consumption, reduction in resource consumption, reduc-
tion in green house gas emissions, and reduction of solid
waste, operating cost, total sales, employee wages and
benefits, economic value retained.
 6 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
As we discussed in previous section the number of
articles focused on assessing the relationship between
social and economic sustainability is very limited
(Seuring and Gold 2013). Seuring and Müller (2008a)
concluded that there is a gap in understanding the rela-
tionship between social and economical sustainability in
supply chain. Researchers (Ageron, Gunasekaran, and
Spalanzani 2012; Ashby, Leat, and Smith 2012; Gold,
Seuring, and Beske 2010; Hassini, Surti, and Searcy
2012; Halldórsson, Kotzab, and Larsen 2009; Seuring
and Müller 2008a, 2008b) have discussed the social and
economical dimensions of sustainability in supply chain
along with environmental dimensions (TBL) in different
contexts. However, understanding the relationship
between social and economical dimensions in automobile
industry is at a nascent stage. Unlike in economic and
environmental association there is a debate in association
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
of social and economical performance. According to
Friedman (1970) the relationship ought to be negative.
Hoejmose, Brammer, and Millington (2013) argue that
many firms refrain from investing in social responsibility
because it is costly, and it hampers the economic perfor-
mance. Freeman’s (1984) discussed in stakeholder point
of view and augmented that the relationship is positive.
Recent empirical studies (Margolis and Walsh 2003;
Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes 2003) provide some sup-
port for the existence of a U-shaped or inverse U shaped
relationship between corporate social performance and
corporate financial performance. Researchers such as
Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003); Barnett and
Salomon (2012); Allouche and Laroche (2005); Wu
(2006); Margolis, Elfenbein, and Walsh (2007); Wang
and Sarkis (2013); Falck and Heblich (2007) and
Kossmeier, Ariely, and Bracha (2009) argued that there
is a positive relation between social performance and
economic performance. In addition to this, Loureiro,
Sardinha, and Reijnders et al. (2012) conducted empiri-
cal study among the three car manufacturers and reported
that there is positive relationship was found between the
social and economic performance indicators. With this
backdrop we posit the following hypothesis
H6: Social sustainability positively influence the eco-
nomic sustainability
To test the above hypothesis authors considered
key measures from literature (Koplin, Seuring, and
Mesterharm 2007; Olugu, Wong, and Shaharoun 2011)
such as child labour, disclosure of environmental initia-
tives to the public, employee wellbeing, training and
education operating cost, total sales, employee wages
and benefits, economic value retained.
To test these hypotheses, measurement instruments
have been taken from Global Reporting Initiative website.
3. Research methodology
Items for survey measurement have been adopted from
the literature discussed in Section 2.
Two questionnaires are developed in order to allow
testing of the hypotheses of model 1 and model 2. To
develop the questionnaire all items used 5 point Likert
scale (Appendix). Since, the concept of sustainability is
more close to cognitive understanding (Byrch et al.
2007) and Likert scale is more consistent with definitions
of beliefs or cognitions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1974). To
support this further, Geller, Roberts, and Gilmore (1996),
and Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2010) reported that Likert
scale is most widely used scale in questionnaire survey
based research. For example, researchers (Ageron,
Gunasekaran, and Spalanzani 2012; Paulraj 2011; Zhu,
Sarkis, and Lai 2007) used Likert scale to assess sustain-
ability in supply chain.
3.1. Sampling and data collection
We obtained a list of potential contacts for this research
through a ACMA of India and Confederation of Indian
Industry. A survey instrument was developed to investi-
gate the hypotheses. The questionnaire was pretested
through discussions with the academicians and supply
chain managers of automobile industry to ensure its con-
tent validity. During this process few items were deleted.
The final items on the questionnaire were edited by two
supply chain managers those who have a twenty years of
experience in automobile industry to ensure content
validity.
The finalized questionnaire (Appendix 1) was mailed
to 636 supply chain managers. After a period of one
month the survey questionnaire mailed again to 533 of
non respondents. Totally 103 responses were obtained
with a response rate of 16.2%. Which was found to be
good response rate when compared to previous studies
of similar lines (Chow et al. 2008; Power, Sohal, and
Rahman 2001; Sahay, Cavale, and Mohan 2003) which
are 9–18%. A total of 103 respondents five of them were
not useable because of significant data missing and
incompleteness. The percentage of rest 98 usable
responses. This data represents 72% of suppliers and
28% of original manufacturing equipment. To assess
non-respondent bias, we compared the responses of early
and late respondents to test for their significant differ-
ences (Armstrong and Overton 1977). We divided the 98
survey respondents into two groups based on their
responses received (first and second) and performed t-test
(Armstrong and Overton 1977) on the responses of the
two groups. It is observed at the 5% level, there are no
significant differences between the two groups in the
measurement items. Hence, there was no non-response
bias. We also tested common method bias first, using the
 Production Planning & Control 7

Harman’s single factor test (Harman 1967) (Appendix 2).
In our study, the largest variance explained by any single
factor was 27.43% (model 1) and 30.90% (model 2). To
further support the absence of common method bias, we
conducted the latent factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
In this test, a latent factor is introduced to the original
measurement model. We found no loss in significance of
the factor loadings, further indicating that common
method bias is minimized in our study.
3.2. Validity and reliability
To test the assumptions of factor analysis Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) was employed in this research. The results
(KMO = 0.73) indicated that factor analysis loadings
may be considered for analyzing discriminate and con-
vergent validity for all constructs. Tables 1 and 2 provide
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
1994) authors analysed factor loadings and t-statistics for
the path coefficients to the corresponding items for the
both the models. In the AMOS text output file, the t-value
is the critical ratio which represents the estimate of regres-
sion weight divided by its standard error of regression
weight. In general, value greater than 1.96 or smaller than
−1.96 implies statistical significance at the 95% level (Ory
and Mokhtarian 2009). From Tables 1 and 2 it evidenced
that each of the standardized factor loadings indicates that
each item reaches critical values at the 95% significance
level and factor loadings exceed 0.5.The construct validity
of our models is explained through the AVE (Fornell and
Larcher 1981; Koufteros 1999) and it is recommended at
least 0.5. The AVE results ranged for model 1 from 0.64
and 0.84 for model 2 in between 0.53 and 0.62.
Discriminant validity was established by comparing
the squared correlation between two latent constructs to

details of the measurement model parameters and relia-
bility. Individual construct reliability, composite reliabil-
ity, and the average variance extracted (AVE) were also
calculated in the research. The Cronbach’s α value
ranges between 0.72 and 0.83. All values are well within
the recommended range (Nunnally 1978). Composite
reliabilities (CR) was found to be at least 0.6, (Fornell
and Larcher 1981; Lin, Wang, and Yu 2010). These val-
ues are computed according to the formulae discussed by
Hair et al. (1998) and results are shown in Tables 1 and
2. CR ranged from between 0.87 and 0.9 for the model
1, 0.81 to 0.85 for model 2. The values were found to
be well within the recommended range and they provide
further evidence that the measures used are internally
consistent and have sufficient reliability.
To assesses convergent validity for each construct in
confirmative factor analysis (Dunn, Seaker, and Waller
their respective AVE estimates (Fornell and Larcher,
1981). According to this test, discriminant validity exists
if the squared correlation between each pair of constructs
is less than the AVE for each individual construct. Com-
paring the correlation coefficients given in Tables 3 and
4 with the AVE values given in Tables 1 and 2, none of
the squared correlations was found to be higher than the
AVE for each individual construct.
4. Results
We have used structural equation models (SEM) to test
the causal relationships between four different constructs
of models 1 and 2. The structural model exhibits a rea-
sonable fit with the data collected. Based on the analysis,
the AMOS provides details of the significant relation-
ships found and shown in Figure 3 (model 1), and subse-

Table 1. Measurement model parameters and reliability (model 1).

Items Factor loading t-value SMC Crobach’s α

Sustainability inhibitors (SI) (CR = 0.879; AVE = 0.841) 0.819
1. Resistence to technology advancement adoption (C1) 0.78 6.32 0.60
2. Supplier reluctance (C2) 0.93 6.89 0.86
3. Cost implications (C3) 0.63 a 0.40
4. Lack of government support (C4) 0.55 4.78 0.60
5. Missing communication(C5) 0.61 5.20 0.37
Sustainability practices (SP) (CR = 0.904; AVE = 0.657) 0.727
1. Lean practices (SP1) 0.60 4.86 0.36
2. Eco design practices (SP2) 0.63 5.08 0.40
3. Continous improvement (SP3) 0.78 5.86 0.60
4. Risk management practices (SP4) 0.66 a 0.43
5. Customer cooperation(SP5) 0.59 4.84 0.35
Supply chain performance (SCP) (CR = 0.877; AVE = 0.644) 0.789
1. Return on investment (SC1) 0.70 a 0.50
2. Total inventory cost (SC2) 0.53 4.31 0.28
3. On-time delivery(SC3) 0.69 5.22 0.48
4. Market share (SC4) 0.59 4.72 0.35
 8 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar

Table 2. Measurement model parameters and reliability (model 2).

Items Factor loading t-value SMC Crobach’s α

Economic indicator (ECO) (CR = 0.819; AVE = 0.534) 0.828
1. Operating cost (EC1) 0.83 5.89 0.69
2. Total sales (EC2) 0.60 a 0.36
3. Employee wages and benefits (EC3) 0.66 5.15 0.44
4. Economic value retained (EC4) 0.82 5.86 0.68
Environmental indicator (ENV) (CR = 0.856;AVE = 0.602) 0.824
1. Reduction in energy consumption (EN1) 0.94 8.64 0.89
2. Reduction in resources consumption (EN2) 0.78 a 0.62
3. Reduction in green house gas emissions (EN3) 0.61 6.10 0.37
4. Reduction of solid waste (EN4) 0.59 5.91 0.35
Social indicator (SO) (CR = 0.822; AVE = 0.538) 0.822
1. Child labour (SO1) 0.69 6.50 0.48
2. Disclosure of environmental initiative to the Public (SO2) 0.81 7.45 0.66
3. Employee wellbeing (SO3) 0.79 a 0.62
4. Training and education (SO4) 0.67 6.27 0.44
P 2
ð kÞ
Notes: CR ¼ P 2 P .
P ð 2 kÞ þ ej
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015

ðk Þ
AVE ¼ P ðk2 ÞþP e (Hair et al. 1998).
j

quent hypotheses are shown in Table 5. Model fit indices
values shows good fit (1.30 in the chi-square to degree
of freedom ratio, GFI = 0.88, IFI = 0.95, and
RMSEA = 0.06. All these values are satisfactory with
respect to the recommended range values
(v2 =df ¼ 0:02  0:80; GFI = 0.75–0.99; IFI = 0.88–0.98,
RMSEA = 0.00–0.13, Ory and Mokhtarian, 2009). As
hypothesized, significant relationship between SSCP and
SCP has been established (c ¼ 0:41, t = 2.59). So, H1 is
supported. This finding is not particularly surprising and
it tends to confirm the views of Craig and Rogers
(2008); Green et al. (2012), and also it depicts benefits
of sustainability practices from our sample firms, which
is also widely recognized literature.
Table 3. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of con-
structs (model 1).
Table 5 shows that there is support for H2 that the
sustainable inhibitors have strong negative relationship
with implementation level of SSCP (c ¼ 0:30,
t = −2.08). Similarly (H3), a negative relationship was
found between sustainable inhibitors and SCP
(c ¼ 0:53, t = −3.74). This indicates the sustainable
inhibitors hamper the SCP and it also advocate the views
of Zaabi, Dhaheri, and Diabat (2013) that during initia-
tion stage of sustainability in supply chain these inhibi-
tors have a negative impact.
To verify H4 in model 1 regarding the moderating
effect of SSCE, a two group analysis relying the base
model represented in Figure 3 was conducted. Based on
enablers the sample was split into two groups according
to the mean score of the SSCE. The data above the mean
were defined as high moderating group of enablers and
below the mean was considered as low moderating group

Constructs SI SP SCP
SSCI 1 SSC practices
SSCP −0.53 1 (SSCP)
SCP −0.52 0.57 1
Mean 2.23 3.15 3.27
SD 1.05 1.50 1.41 0.41
-0.53
SC
performance
(SCP)
Table 4. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of con-
structs (model 2).

Constructs ECO ENV SO -0.30

Sustainability
ECO 1 inhibitors
(SSCI)
ENV 0.36 1
SO 0.30 0.17 1
Mean 3.18 3.35 3.14
SD 1.10 1.21 1.15 Figure 3. Results of base path model without moderating
effect of SSC enablers (model 1).
 Production Planning & Control 9

Table 5. Standardized path estimates of the model without

moderating effect (model 1). Sustainable SC
practices (SSCP)
0.39
Hypothesis Path coefficient t-value Result
H1 SSCP → SCP 0.41* 2.59 Supported SC
Performance
H2 SSCI → SSCP −0.53** −3.74 Supported (SCP)
-0.15
H3 SSCI → SCP −0.30* −2.08 Supported
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001. -0.47
Sustainability
Inhibitors
(SSCI)
of enablers. Figures 4 and 5 shows the results of the path
model with high and low moderating effect. These
results indicate that there is a good deal of support for Figure 5. Results of base path model with low moderating
H4, that is the positive relationship between SSCP and effect of SSC enablers (model 2).
SCP much stronger (c ¼ 0:66, t = 2.94) in the high
moderating group SSCE than in the low moderating
Table 6. Standardized path estimates of the (model 2).
group of SSCE (c ¼ 0:39, t = 1.64). The explanatory
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015

power of the path model with high moderating effect of Hypothesis Path coefficient t-value Result
SSCE is also more significant (R2 = 0.86) than that of
H5 ENV → ECO 0.32* 2.67 Supported
the path model with low moderating group of SSCE H6 SO → ECO 0.24* 2.02 Supported
(R2 = 0.23). These findings indicate that SSCE have a
moderating effect on the relationship between SSCP and *p < 0.05.
SCP. There is no effect when enablers are low, but when
they are high the effect is significant and positive.
The hypotheses (H5 and H6) framed from the
research framework (Figure 2) were tested. Model fit Environme
ntal (ENV)
indices vales shows a value of 2.01 in the chi-square to 0.32
degree of freedom ratio, GFI = 0.85, IFI = 0.90,
Economic
RMSEA = 0.10. All these values are satisfactory with (ECO)
respect to the recommended range values 0.17
(v2=df ¼ 0:02  4:80; GFI = 0.75–0.99; IFI = 0.88–0.98,
RMSEA = 0.00–0.13, Ory and Mokhtarian, 2009). 0.24
The results of the path estimates and corresponding Social (SO)
t values are shown in Table 6. From Figure 6, indicate
that the relationship between environmental and eco-
nomic performance of automobile supply chain found to
Figure 6. Results of path model of sustainable SCP indicators
be positive and significant (c ¼ 0:32, t = 2.67). Similarly, (model 2).
we found that there is a significant positive relationship
between social and economic performance (c ¼ 0:24,
t = 2.02) that support hypothesis H6. It is observed that even though significant cost incurred to gain social sus-
tainability, but cost reduction benefits though tax exemp-
tions and incentives from the government. There is a
correlation existed in between environmental and social
Sustainable SC performance indicators.
practices
(SSCP)
SC 5. Conclusion and discussion
Performance
(SCP) This paper has empirically tested a framework identifying
the relationships among the SSCP, inhibitors, enablers
Sustainability
and SCP. This study was conducted drawing on a sample
Inhibitors (SSCI) of 98 automobile companies within India. SEM approach
was used to test the developed hypotheses. The result of
this research investigation focuses on to enhance the SSC
Figure 4. Results of base path model with high moderating literature. Hypothesis H1 revealed that SSCP have
effect of SSC enablers. positive impact on SCP. Contrary to expectations, some
 10 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
of the literature revealed that sustainable practices were
not significantly and positively related to SCP. One possi-
ble explanation comes from Craig and Rogers (2008)
studied in the view of resource dependence theory,
transaction cost economics, population ecology, and men-
tioned that sustainability is a concept to achieve long
term economic benefits rather than short term. Therefore,
automobile OEMs in India can encourage their supply
chain partners to adopt sustainability practices, and
OEMs have to share cost at initial stage of adoption of
sustainability practices to motivate them.
Similarly, results indicated that there are negative and
strong direct relationships among SSCI with SSCP and
SCP. These findings in general indicate a need for seri-
ously considering effects of certain (cost implications,
market uncertainty, and missing communication) poten-
tial barriers to effective implementation of sustainability
practices. This finding is consistent with past research
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
including Zaabi, Dhaheri, and Diabat (2013) which
argued that there are many barriers to the successful
implementation of SSCM, and it should be noted that
not all the barriers carry an equal impact. Hence,
automobile supply chain managers should identify and
take remedial actions prior to the introduction of the
SSCE. Hence, the effect of inhibitors is minimised or
eradicated. From H4, it is concluded that SSC enablers
improve the SCP. In automobile industry SC managers
should implement high level of enabling factors to gain
significant improvement in SCP. In contrast, SC man-
agers will not experience significant improvement in
their SCP, even when sustainability practices are in
place, because of the missing enablers to improve the
SC performance. Over all, based on the organization size
SC managers can introduce various enablers’ levels to
achieve continuous improvement. This study is also in
line with the finding of Seuring and Müller (2008) who
emphasized the importance of enablers from literature.
From model 2, environmental and economic perfor-
mance of automobile supply chain was found to be posi-
tive and significant. As we mentioned in Section 2.2,
researchers have conflicting views on this relationship.
From this study, it is concluded that, in automobile
industry, improvement of environmental performance
leads to cost reductions. It supports the views of
Azevedo et al. (2011) who analyzed the impact of green
practices on SCP in Portuguese automobile supply chain,
found that there is a significant positive relationships
exist between social and economic performance in
automobile industry. This result is in line with the
Loureiro, Sardinha, and Reijnders (2012)’s study in the
automobile industry where they found, social perfor-
mance can lead to lowering costs and risks.
As, implementation of sustainable practices are in a
nascent stage in India, this study helps the automobile
practitioners to reinforce their views on adoption of sus-
tainable practices in supply chain. Understanding the
relationship among the TBL is vital, since the intensity
of relationship differ from industry to industry. Once
practitioners know the relationship among the three
indicators they can trade-off between the SC measures.
6. Managerial implications
The Indian auto industry has been growing exponentially
since in the last one decade, several global auto assem-
blers have started their operations in India and it has
become the outsourcing hub for global auto manufac-
tures. Indian automobile industry is anticipated to have
fourfold increments in investments and 30 new automo-
bile factories through mergers and acquisitions in next
8 years (ASAA, May 2014). The phenomenal growth in
this sector is evidential of the higher production and
higher use of resources. While there is a huge increase
in the production and servicing aspects, Indian automo-
bile sector today is facing several challenges on sustain-
ability front. The Indian auto industry is fragmented into
large (OEMs) and small players (SMEs & MSMEs), but
sustainability focus is mostly limited to only large and
tier 1 suppliers. There are other players such as MSMEs
and unorganized sector organizations who need to shift
to sustainability aspects. Though various views have
been addressed on impact of sustainability on SC perfor-
mance, this study sets the motivation for Indian auto
industry to implement sustainability practices such as
lean, eco design, risk management, continuous improve-
ment and ethical behavior. This demands a proactive
support from Indian government in terms of specific
subsidies to automobile organizations for implementing
sustainable practices. OEMs may not realize the full
scope of sustainability benefits unless bring awareness in
customers for eco design vehicles and end of life vehi-
cles returns in India. OEMs and suppliers need to focus
on supply chain integration and should constantly moni-
tor the key performance indicators. Today most of the
Indian auto assemblers are following reuse, recycle and
reduction methods through recent technological adop-
tions. However, OEMs have to extend an adequate sup-
port and motivate their suppliers continually. For
example in India, about 4.4 million tonnes/annum of
hazardous waste ends up in waste moulds or a landfill
(Kulkarni, Rao, and Patil 2014).
Management system that is certifications (ISO&GRI)
help organizations to align their practices with sustain-
ability objectives. During the interaction with SC man-
agers, the authors ascertained that OEMs need to
improve their frequency of training programs on sustain-
ability with employees and suppliers. This study has
revealed that adoption of environmental practices in
Indian automobile organizations such as reduction of
energy consumption, resource consumption, emissions
 Production Planning & Control
and solid waste can see significant improvements in their
economic performance. Luthra, Garg, and Haleem (2014)
also reported that these measures are critical success fac-
tors for achieving sustainability in Indian automobile
industry. Hence, SC managers can consider these mea-
sures as continuous improvement areas. Social practices
such as disclosure of environmental initiatives, employee
wellbeing can improve Indian automobile organizations’
brand in globally and further it improves the economic
performance. The Indian automobile industry’s great con-
cerns is about identifying and defining appropriate sup-
ply chain sustainability measures and hence keep on
monitoring the portfolio of their sustainability measures
and their relative importance. This study advocates the
development of an index for evaluating sustainability for
an individual organization and seeking the opportunities
for future improvements based on a holistic (TBL
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
approach) assessment of present practices.
7. Limitations and future research directions
It should be noted that although this study contributes
new insights to both automobile supply chain practition-
ers and researchers. It has limitations and viable pro-
spects for further research. The sample size is small.
Further research is required to make confident general-
izations. In future longitudinal studies can be conducted
to understand whether the relationship among the TBL
indicators remains positive or not (e.g. curvilinear or U
shape). Future research should explore cross-industry
studies to understand the relationship among the sustain-
ability indicators. For this a case study oriented approach
can be employed to study individual companies within
the industry to establish benchmarks. In this study
authors used TBL approach to understand the relation-
ship between sustainability dimensions. Future research
should explore if there are any other dimensions in addi-
tion to TBL which are necessary to assess sustainability
performance for Indian automobile organizations.
Authors found that from the review of literature that
there is a wide scope for empirical research in social
sustainability performance assessment in Indian auto
industry.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very much thankful to the unanimous review-
ers of the paper and editors of the journal for their constructive
and helpful comments that improved the quality of the paper.
11
Notes on contributors
P.R.C. Gopal is an assistant professor in
Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai,
Tamilnadu. He is a part time research scholar
in the Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering at IIT Kharagpur. He did his
MBA from National Institute of Technology
(NIT) Warangal in 2008 and Bachelors
in Mechanical Engineering in 2005 from
Bapatla Engineering College, Acharya Nagar-
juna University, Andhra Pradesh. He has two research publications
in peer reviewed international journals like International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management.
Jitesh Thakkar is an associate professor in
the Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering at IIT Kharagpur. He obtained
his Doctoral Degree in the area of Supply
Chain Management from Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Delhi in 2009. He did his
M.Tech. in Industrial Engineering with 9.157
CGPA from Indian Institute of Technology
(IIT) Delhi and Bachelors in Mechanical
Engineering with Gold Medal from B.V.M Engineering College,
S.P. University, Gujarat. He is a recipient of award “Excellence
in teaching and research (for Year 2007)” given by Charutar
Vidya Mandal – a leading educational trust in Gujarat. He has 15
research publications in peer reviewed international journals like
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Manage-
ment, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Interna-
tional Journal of Innovation and Learning etc.
References
Ageron, B., A. Gunasekaran, and A. Spalanzani. 2012. “Sus-
tainable Supply Management: An Empirical Study.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 168–182.
Ahi, P., and C. Searcy. 2013. “A Comparative Literature
Analysis of Definitions for Green and Sustainable Supply
Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 52 (1):
329–341.
Allouche, J., and P. Laroche. 2005. “A Meta-analytical
Investigation of the Relationship between Corporate Social
and Financial Performance.” Revue de Gestion des Resources
Humaines 57 (Jul.–Sep.): 18–41.
AlKhidir, T. A., and S. Zailani. 2009. “Going Green in Supply
Chain towards Environmental Sustainability.” Global Journal
of Environmental Research 3 (3): 246–251.
Arimura, T. H., N. Darnall, and H. Katayama. 2011. “Is ISO
14001 a Gateway to More Advanced Voluntary Action? The
Case of Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Envi-
ronmental Economics and Management 61 (2): 170–182.
 12 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonre-
sponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research 14: 396–402.
ASA & Associates LLP. 2014. A Brief Report on Auto and
Auto Ancillaries in India. May. http://www.asa.in.
Ashby, A., M. Leat, and H. M. Smith. 2012. “Making Connec-
tions: A Review of Supply Chain Management and Sustain-
ability Literature.” Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 17 (5): 497–516.
Azevedo, S., H. Carvalho, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2011. “The
Influence of Green Practices on Supply Chain Performance:
A Case Study Approach.” Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (6): 850–871.
Barnett, M. L., and R. M. Salomon. 2012. “Does It Pay to Be
Really Good? Addressing the Shape of the Relationship
between Social and Financial Performance.” Strategic
Management Journal 33 (11): 1304–1320.
Berrone, P., A. Fosfuri, L. Gelabert, and L. R. Gomez-Mejia.
2013. “Necessity as the Mother of ‘Green’ Inventions:
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
Institutional Pressures and Environmental Innovations.”
Strategic Management Journal 34 (8): 891–909.
Bowen, F. E., P. D. Cousins, R. C. Lamming, and A. C. Faruk.
2006. “Horses for Courses: Explaining the Gap between the The-
ory and Practice of Green Supply.” Greening the Supply Chain,
edited by Joseph Sarkis, 151–172. London: Springer-Verlag.
Brown, H. S., M. de Jong, and D. L. Levy. 2009. “Building
Institutions Based on Information Disclosure: Lessons from
GRI’s Sustainability Reporting.” Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion 17 (6): 571–580.
Byrch, C., K. Kearins, M. Milne, and R. Morgan. 2007.
“Sustainable “What”? a Cognitive Approach to Understand-
ing Sustainable Development.” Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management 4 (1): 26–52.
Carter, C. R., and M. Dresner. 2001. “Purchasing’s Role in
Environmental Management: Cross-functional Development
of Grounded Theory.” The Journal of Supply Chain Manage-
ment 37 (3): 12–27.
Chaabane, A., A. Ramudhin, and M. Paquet. 2011. “Designing
Supply Chains with Sustainability Considerations.” Produc-
tion Planning & Control 22 (8): 727–741.
Chan, R. Y., H. He, H. K. Chan, and W. Y. Wang. 2012.
“Environmental Orientation and Corporate Performance: The
Mediation Mechanism of Green Supply Chain Management
and Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity.” Industrial
Marketing Management 41 (4): 621–630.
Childerhouse, P., R. Hermiz, R. Mason-Jones, A. Popp, and
D. Towill. 2003. “Information Flow in Automotive Supply
Chains – Present Industrial Practice.” Industrial Management
& Data Systems 103 (3): 137–149.
Chow, W. S., C. N. Madu, C. H. Kuei, M. H. Lu, C. Lin, and
H. Tseng. 2008. “Supply Chain Management in the US and
Taiwan: An Empirical Study.” Omega 36 (5): 665–679.
Cordeiro, J., and J. Sarkis. 1997. “Environmental Proactivism
and Firm Performance: Evidence from Security Analyst
Earnings Forecasts.” Business Strategy and the Environment
6 (2): 104–114.
Cox, A., D. Chicksand, and M. Palmer. 2007. “Stairways to
Heaven or Treadmills to Oblivion?” British Food Journal
109 (9): 689–720.
Craig, R. C., and D. S. Rogers. 2008. “A Framework of Sus-
tainable Supply Chain Management: Moving toward New
Theory.” International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 38 (5): 360–387.
Despeisse, M., F. Mbaye, P. D. Ball, and A. Levers. 2012.
“The Emergence of Sustainable Manufacturing Practices.”
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Opera-
tions 23 (5): 354–376.
Dey, P. K., and W. Cheffi. 2013. “Green Supply Chain Perfor-
mance Measurement Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process:
A Comparative Analysis of Manufacturing Organisations.”
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Opera-
tions 24 (8–9): 702–720.
Dincer, I. 2007. “Environmental and Sustainability Aspects of
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Systems.” International Journal of
Energy Research 31 (1): 29–55.
Dunn, S. C., R. F. Seaker, and M. A. Waller. 1994. “Latent Vari-
ables in business logistics research: Scale development and val-
idation.” Journal of Business Logistics 15 (2): 145–172.
Faisal, M. N. 2010. “Sustainable Supply Chains: A Study of
Interaction among the Enablers.” Business Process Manage-
ment Journal 16 (3): 508–529.
Falck, O., and S. Heblich. 2007. “Corporate Social Responsibility:
Doing Well by Doing Good.” Business Horizons 50 (3): 247–254.
Fawcett, S. E., G. M. Magnan, and M. W. McCarter. 2008.
“Benefits, Barriers and Bridges to Effective Supply Chain
Management.” Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 13 (1): 35–48.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1974. “Attitudes towards Objectives
as Predectors of Single and Multiple Behavorial Criteria.”
Psychological Review 81: 1–59.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcher. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure-
ment Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 25: 186–192.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. “Corporate Views of the Public Interest.
Academy of Management.” The Academy of Management
Review 9: 366.
Friedman, M. 1970. “The Social Responsibility of Business is
to Increase Its Profits.” New York times Magazine. http://qu
ery.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=E05E0DA153CE531A
15750C1A96F9C946190D6CF.
Geffen, C., and S. Rothenberg. 2000. “Sustainable Develop-
ment across Firm Boundaries: The Critical Role of Suppliers
in Environmental Innovation.” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 20 (2): 166–186.
Geldermann, J., M. Treitz, and O. Rentz. 2007. “Towards
Sustainable Production Networks.” International Journal of
Production Research 45 (18/19): 4207–4224.
Geller, E. S., D. S. Roberts, and M. R. Gilmore. 1996.
“Predicting Propensity to Actively Care for Occupational
Safety.” Journal of Safety Research 27: 1–8.
Green, K. W., P. J. Zelbst, J. Meacham, and V. S. Bhadauria.
2012. “Green Supply Chain Management Practices: Impact
on Performance.” Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal 17 (3): 290–305.
Gold, S., S. Seuring, and P. Beske. 2010. “Sustainable Supply
Chain Management and Inter Organizational Resources: A
Literature Review.” Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 17 (4): 230–245.
 Production Planning & Control
Gunasekaran, A., C. Patel, and R. E. McGaughey. 2004. “A
Framework for Supply Chain Performance Measurement.” In-
ternational Journal of Production Economics 87 (3): 333–347.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black.
1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halldórsson, A., H. Kotzab, and T. S. Larsen. 2009. “Supply
Chain Management on the Crossroad to Sustainability: A
Blessing or a Curse? Logistics Research 1 (2): 83–94.
Handfield, R. B., and E. L. Nichols. 1998. Introduction to Supply
Chain Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harman, H. H. 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Hassini, E., C. Surti, and C. Searcy. 2012. “A Literature
Review and a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chains with
a Focus on Metrics.” International Journal of Production
Economics 140: 69–82.
Hoejmose, S., S. Brammer, and A. Millington. 2013. “An
Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Business
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
Strategy and Socially Responsible Supply Chain Manage-
ment.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 33 (5): 589–621.
Hofer, C., D. E. Cantor, and J. Dai. 2012. “The Competitive
Determinants of a Firm’s Environmental Management Activi-
ties: Evidence from US Manufacturing Industries.” Journal
of Operations Management 30 (1–2): 69–84.
Hsu, C. W., and A. H. Hu. 2008. “Green Supply Chain Man-
agement in the Electronic Industry.” International Journal of
Environmental Science & Technology 5 (2): 205–216.
Kagawa, S., S. Suh, Y. Kondo, and K. Nansai. 2013. “Identify-
ing Environmentally Important Supply Chain Clusters in the
Automobile Industry.” Economic Systems Research 25 (3):
265–286.
Kannan, G., S. Pokharel, and P. S. Kumar. 2009. “A Hybrid
Approach Using ISM and Fuzzy TOPSIS for the Selection
of Reverse Logistics Provider.” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 54 (1): 28–36.
Koplin, J., S. Seuring, and M. Mesterharm. 2007. “Incorporat-
ing Sustainability into Supply Management in the Automo-
tive Industry – The Case of the Volkswagen AG.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 15 (11–12): 1053–1062.
Kossmeier, S., D. Ariely, and A. Bracha. 2009. “Doing Good
or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives
in Behaving Prosocially.” American Economic Review 99
(1): 544–555.
Koufteros, X. A. 1999. “Testing a Model of Pull Production: A
Paradigm for Manufacturing Research Using Structural Equation
Modeling.” Journal of Operations Management 17: 467–488.
Kulkarni, S., P. Rao, and Y. Patil. 2014. “Are the Non-renewable
Resource Utilization and Waste Management Practices
Employed in Indian Automobile Sector Sustainable?” Pro-
cedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 133: 364–371.
Lai, K. H., and C. W. Wong. 2012. “Green Logistics Manage-
ment and Performance: Some Empirical Evidence from
Chinese Manufacturing Exporters.” Omega 40 (3): 267–282.
Lee, H. L. 2008. “Embedding Sustainability: Lessons from the
Front Line.” International Commerce Review 8: 10–20.
Lee, K. H., and I. M. Cheong. 2011. “Measuring a Carbon
Footprint and Environmental Practice: The Case of Hyundai
13
Motors Co. (HMC).” Industrial Management & Data Sys-
tems 111 (6): 961–978.
Lin, Y., Y. Wang, and C. Yu. 2010. “Investigating the Drivers
of the Innovation in ChannelIntegration and Supply Chain
Performance: A Strategy Orientated Perspective.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 127 (2): 320–332.
Liu, L., M. Tang, and F. Xue. 2012. “The Impact of Manufac-
turing Firms’ Green Supply Chain Management on Competi-
tive Advantage.” Advanced Materials Research 472–475:
3349–3354.
Loureiro, S., I. Sardinha, and L. Reijnders. 2012. “The Effect
of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Satisfaction
and Perceived Value: The Case of the Automobile Industry
Sector in Portugal.” Journal of Cleaner Production 37
(December): 172–178.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2014. “Critical Success
Factors of Green Supply Chain Management for Achieving
Sustainability in Indian Automobile Industry.” Production
Planning & Control 26 (5): 339–362.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2015. “Critical Success Fac-
tors of Green Supply Chain Management for Achieving Sus-
tainability in Indian Automobile Industry.” Production Planning
& Control the management of Operations 26 (5): 339–362.
Luthra, S., V. Kumar, S. Kumar, and A. Haleem. 2011. “Barri-
ers to Implement Green Supply Chain Management in
Automobile Industry Using Interpretive Structural Modeling
Technique – An Indian Perspective.” Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 4 (2): 231–257.
Margolis, J. D., H. A. Elfenbein, and J. P. Walsh. 2007. “Does
It Pay to Be Good? A Meta-analysis and Redirection of
Research on the Relationship between Corporate Social and
Financial Performance.” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371.
Margolis, J. D., and J. P. Walsh. 2003. “Misery Loves Compa-
nies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business.” Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268–305.
Marinuzzi, A., R. Kudlak, C. Faber, and A. Wiman. 2011.
“CSR Activities and Impacts of the Automotive Sector.”
(RIMAS Working Papers No. 3, 2011).
Marshall, D., L. M. Carthy, C. Heavey, and P. McGrath. 2014.
“Environmental and Social Supply Chain Management
Sustainability Practices: Construct Development and
measurement.” Production Planning & Control 1–18.
Ahead-of-print. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.963726.
Mathiyazhagan, K., and A. Noorul Haq. 2013. “Analysis of the
Influential Pressures for Green Supply Chain Management
Adoption – An Indian Perspective Using Interpretive Struc-
tural Modeling. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 68 (1–4): 817–833. 961–978.
Mayyas, A., A. Qattawi, M. Omar, and D. Shan. 2012. “Design
for Sustainability in Automotive Industry: A Comprehensive
Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (4):
1845–1862.
Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. 2006.
Automotive Mission Plan. 2006–2016. www.dhi.nic.
in/draft_automotive_mission_plan.pdf.
Mitra, S., and P. P. Datta. 2014. “Adoption of Green Supply Chain
Management Practices and Their Impact on Performance: An
Exploratory Study of Indian Manufacturing Firms.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 52 (7): 2085–2107.
 14 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar
Mohanty, R. P., and A. Prakash. 2014. “Green Supply Chain
Management Practices in India: An Empirical Study.” Pro-
duction Planning & Control 25 (16): 1322–1337.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. Michigan, MI:
McGraw-Hill.
Olugu, E. U., K. Y. Wong, and A. M. Shaharoun. 2011.
“Development of Key Performance Measures for the
Automobile Green Supply Chain.” Resources Conservation
and Recycling 55: 567–579.
Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt, and S. L. Rynes. 2003. “Corporate
Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis.”
Organization Studies 24 (3): 403–441.
Ory, D. T., and P. L. Mokhtarian. 2009. “Modeling the Struc-
tural Relationships among Short Distance Travel Amounts,
Perceptions, Affections, and Desires.” Transportation
Research Part A 43 (1): 26–43.
Paulraj, A. 2011. “Understanding the Relationships between
Internal Resources and Capabilities, Sustainable Supply
Management and Organizational Sustainability.” Journal of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015
Supply Chain Management 47 (1): 19–37.
Podsakoff, P., S. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. Podsakoff. 2003.
“Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Power, D. J., A. S. Sohal, and S. Rahman. 2001. “Critical Suc-
cess Factors in Agile Supply Chain Management: An
Empirical Study.” International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion & Logistics Management 31 (4): 247–265.
Preuss, L. 2009. “Addressing Sustainable Development through
Public Procurement: The Case of Local Government.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (3): 213–223.
Rao, P., and D. Holt. 2005. “Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Com-
petitiveness and Economic Performance?” International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 25 (9/10): 898–916.
Reinhardt, F. 1999. “Market Failure and the Environmental
Policies of Firms: Economic Rationales for “beyond Compli-
ance” Behavior.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 3 (1): 9–21.
Saad, M., and B. Patel. 2006. “An Investigation of Supply Chain
Performance Measurement in the Indian Automotive Sector.”
Benchmarking: An International Journal 13(1/2): 36–53.
Sahay, B. S., V. Cavale, and R. Mohan. 2003. “The “Indian”
Supply Chain Architecture.” Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 8 (2): 93–106.
Sarkis, J. 2001. “Manufacturing’s Role in Corporate Environ-
mental Sustainability.” International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 21 (5/6): 666–686.
Sarkis, J., and J. J. Cordeiro. 2001. “An Empirical Evaluation
of Environmental Efficiencies and Firm Performance: Pollu-
tion Prevention versus End-of-pipe Practice.” European Jour-
nal of Operational Research 135 (1): 102–113.
Senxian, J., B. Jenkins, and A. Rowell. 2009. Sustainable
Mobility: Automotive Industry Challenges, Opportunities and
the Role of PLM. Cambridge, MA: Sustainability Guild LLC
and Ora Research LLC.
Seuring, S., and S. Gold. 2013. “Sustainability Management
beyond Corporate Boundaries: From Stakeholders to Perfor-
mance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 56: 1–6.
Seuring, S., and M. Müller. 2008a. “From a Literature Review
to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain
Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15):
1699–1710.
Seuring, S., and M. Müller. 2008b. “Core Issues in Sustainable
Supply Chain Management: A Delphi Study.” Business Strat-
egy and the Environment 17 (8): 455–466.
Srivastava, S. K. 2007. “Green Supply-chain Management: A
State-of-the-art Literature Review.” International Journal of
Management Reviews 9 (1): 53–80.
Smith, A. D. 2012. “Green Supply Chain Management and
Consumer Sensitivity to Greener and Leaner Options in the
Automotive Industry.” International Journal of Logistics Sys-
tems and Management 12 (1): 1–31.
Tonelli, F., S. Evans, and P. Taticchi. 2013. “Industrial Sustain-
ability: Challenges, Perspectives, Actions.” International
Journal of Business Innovation Research 7 (2): 143–163.
Vinodkumar, M. N., and M. Bhasi. 2010. “Safety Management
Practices and Safety Behaviour: Assessing the Mediating
Role of Safety Knowledge and Motivation.” Accident Analy-
sis & Prevention 42 (6): 2082–2093.
Wang, Z., and J. Sarkis. 2013. “Investigating the Relationship
of Sustainable Supply Chain Management with Corporate
Financial Performance.” International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management 62 (8): 871–888.
WCED, U. 1987. “Our Common Future.” World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittstruck, D., and F. Teuteberg. 2012. “Understanding the
Success Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Management:
Empirical Evidence from the Electrics and Electronics Indus-
try.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 19 (3): 141–158.
Wu, M. L. 2006. “Corporate Social Performance, Corporate
Financial Performance and Firm Size: A Meta-analysis.”
Journal of American Academy of Business 8 (1): 163–171.
Xu, L., K. Mathiyazhagan, K. Govindan, A. Noorul Haq, N. V.
Ramachandran, and A. Ashokkumar. 2013. “Multiple Com-
parative Studies of Green Supply Chain Management: Pres-
sures Analysis.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 78:
26–35.
Zaabi, S. A., N. A. Dhaheri, and A. Diabat. 2013. “Analysis of
Interaction between the Barriers for the Implementation of
Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68 (1–4):
895–905.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2004. “Relationships between Opera-
tional Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of
Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese
Manufacturing Enterprises.” Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 22 (3): 265–289.
Zhu, Q. H., and J. Sarkis. 2006. “An Inter-sectoral Comparison
of Green Supply Chain Management in China: Drivers and
Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 472–486.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2007. “The Moderating Effects of
Institutional Pressures on Emergent Green Supply Chain
Practices and Performance.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 45 (18–19): 4333–4355.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2007. “Green Supply Chain
Management: Pressures, Practices and Performance within
the Chinese Automobile Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 15 (11/12): 1041–1052.
 Production Planning & Control 15

Appendix 1. (Questionnaire) (Model 1) A.4 SC performance

A.1 SSC practices How did your supply chain perform over the last 3 years rela-
tive to their major competitors on each of the following perfor-
Please indicate the extent to which the following sustainability
mance criteria? (Five-point scales ranging from ‘definitely
practices were implemented in your organization supply chain
better’ to ‘definitely worse’).
(1-not at all implemented 5-fully implemented).
Question Variables Measurement
Question Variables Measurement
1. Return on investment (SC1) 1-5
1. Lean practices (SP1) 1-5
2. Total inventory cost (SC2) 1-5
2. Eco design practices (SP2) 1-5
3. On-time delivery(SC3) 1-5
3. Continuous improvement (SP3) 1-5
4. Market share (SC4) 1-5
4. Risk management practices (SP4) 1-5
5. Ethical behaviour (SP5) 1-5
6. Investment recovery* 1-5
7. Technological innovation* 1-5 Model 2 Questionnaire
8. Customer cooperation* 1-5 How did your supply chain perform over the last 3 years rela-
*Items are deleted during EFA. tive to their major competitors on each of the following perfor-
mance criteria? (Five-point scales ranging from ‘definitely
better’ to ‘definitely worse’).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015

A.2 SSC inhibitors Economic Perspective

Please indicate to what extent you perceive that the following Question Variables Measurement
items are BARRIERS/CHALLENGES to successful IMPLE-
MENTATION of sustainability practices in your organization 1. Operating cost (EC1) 1-5
supply chain (Five-point scales ranging from 1-‘not at all’ to 5- 2. Total sales (EC2) 1-5
‘very frequently’). 3. Employee wages and benefits (EC3) 1-5
4. Economic value retained (EC4) 1-5
Question Variables Measurement
1. Cost implications (SI1) 1-5
2. Resistance to technology 1-5 Environmental Perspective
advancement adoption (SI2)
How did your supply chain perform over the last 3 years rela-
3. Lack of government support(SI3) 1-5
tive to their major competitors on each of the following perfor-
4. Unawareness of customers(SI4) 1-5
mance criteria? (Five-point scales ranging from ‘definitely
5. Missing communication(SI5) 1-5
better’ to ‘definitely worse’).
6. Poor quality of human resources* 1-5
7. Lack of top management 1-5 Question Variables Measurement
commitment*
8. Market uncertainty* 1-5 1. Reduction in energy consumption 1-5
(EN1)
*Items are deleted during EFA. 2. Reduction in resources consumption 1-5
(EN2)
3. Reduction in green house gas 1-5
emissions (EN3)
4. Reduction of solid waste (EN4) 1-5
A.3 SSC enablers
Please indicate to what extent to which you perceive that the
following items are important to successful IMPLEMENTA-
TION of sustainability practices in your organization supply Social Perspective
chain (Five-point scales ranging from 1-of no importance’ to 5- How did your supply chain perform over the last 3 years rela-
‘of major importance’). tive to their major competitors on each of the following perfor-
mance criteria? (Five-point scales ranging from ‘definitely
Question Variables Measurement better’ to ‘definitely worse’).
1. Reduction in energy consumption 1-5 Question Variables Measurement
(EN1)
2. Reduction in resources consumption 1-5 1. Child labour (SO1) 1-5
(EN2) 2. Disclosure of environmental 1-5
3. Reduction in green house gas 1-5 initiative to the Public (SO2)
emissions (EN3) 3. Employee wellbeing (SO3) 1-5
4. Reduction of solid waste (EN4) 1-5 4. Training and Education (SO4) 1-5
 16 P.R.C. Gopal and J. Thakkar

Appendix 2
Model 1.
Total Variance Explained - Model 1
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.487 27.433 27.433 5.487 27.433 27.433
2 2.061 10.307 37.740 2.061 10.307 37.740
3 1.679 8.394 46.134 1.679 8.394 46.134
4 1.311 6.555 52.689 1.311 6.555 52.689
5 1.225 6.125 58.814 1.225 6.125 58.814
6 1.152 5.762 64.576 1.152 5.762 64.576
7 1.026 5.129 69.705 1.026 5.129 69.705
8 .822 4.111 73.816
9 .797 3.985 77.801
10 .679 3.393 81.194
11 .649 3.243 84.437
12 .568 2.842 87.278
13 .494 2.470 89.748
Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:09 14 July 2015

14 .396 1.981 91.729

15 .385 1.923 93.652
16 .355 1.773 95.425
17 .286 1.428 96.853
18 .262 1.310 98.162
19 .202 1.010 99.173
20 .165 .827 100.000

Model 2.
Total Variance Explained-Model 2
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.709 30.906 30.906 3.709 30.906 30.906
2 2.492 20.768 51.674 2.492 20.768 51.674
3 1.938 16.147 67.821 1.938 16.147 67.821
4 .818 6.818 74.639
5 .643 5.362 80.001
6 .563 4.690 84.691
7 .434 3.616 88.307
8 .393 3.279 91.586
9 .309 2.574 94.160
10 .302 2.514 96.674
11 .210 1.751 98.425
12 .189 1.575 100.000