The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Antecedents,
Antecedents, mediators mediators and
and consequences of consequences
of SO
sustainable operations
A framework for analysis 2189
of the manufacturing industry Received 26 September 2018
Revised 27 October 2018
Julio Cesar Ferro De Guimarães Accepted 28 October 2018

Post-Graduate Program in Administration (PPGA-UnP) and

Post-Graduate Program in Process Engineering (PPGEP/UnP),
Universidade Potiguar, Natal, Brazil
Eric Charles Henri Dorion
Post-Graduate Program in Administration (PPGA-UCS),
Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil, and
Eliana Andréa Severo
Post-Graduate Program in Administration (PPGA-UnP),
Universidade Potiguar, Natal, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for analyzing the relationships between the
antecedent factors, mediators and consequences of sustainable operations (SO), which can be applied for
empirical studies in the manufacturing industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the importance of identifying the determinants of SO, a
qualitative and exploratory research was developed through an extensive review of the literature.
Findings – The main theoretical contribution of this research on organizational studies is the SO analysis
proposition framework, which allows the elaboration of scales, based on observable variables of each factor,
as well as evaluating the influence intensity of the relations between the constructs.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed framework of this research was developed to analyze
companies of the manufacturing industry. In order to use the proposed framework in other industries
(commerce, services), it will be necessary to make adaptations and adjustments on the observable variables
and constructs.
Originality/value – The paper has an important theoretical value in proposing scales for the SO factors and
can be useful for future quantitative approach and surveys. Consequently, the researcher will be able to
evaluate the scales of the factors and the intensity of the relations between observable variables in the
formation of the constructs, as well as the intensity of influence among the constructs.
Keywords Sustainable operations, Organizational performance, Innovativeness,
Environmental sustainability, Knowledge management, Corporate social responsibility, Productivity,
Dynamic capabilities, Sustainable competitive advantage, Innovation drivers, Market drivers,
Cleaner production
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The organizations systematically seek to increase operational efficiency and improve their
position in the market. One way to succeed is through the use of principles and strategies
related to sustainable operations (SO) management, which contributes to sustainable
Benchmarking: An International
competitive advantage (SCA) and organizational performance (OP). Journal
In this sense, SO constitute a set of economic, social and environmental actions Vol. 27 No. 7, 2020
pp. 2189-2212
and strategies aimed at reducing the use of productive resources, eco-innovation, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
product design, innovation and process improvements and logistics (Sarkis et al., 2010; DOI 10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0296
BIJ Gunasekaran et al., 2014; Jaehn, 2016; De Guimarães et al., 2017; Machado et al., 2017;
27,7 De Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018).
SO actions are influenced by strategic drivers, which are directly linked to the perception
of organizations’ managers, the direction of the business and the decisions that involve the
organization’s focus on the market. The antecedents of SO factors are highlighted among
the strategic drivers of SO (Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Castaño et al., 2015; Hörisch et al., 2015;
2190 Severo et al., 2015; Gu and Su, 2018; Rodrigues and Mendes, 2018). They may influence the
mediator factors of SO (Gavronski et al., 2011; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011; Despeisse et al.,
2012; Liu, 2013; Khalili et al., 2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015) and the consequent factors of SO
(Paladino, 2007; Tan et al., 2015; Richard et al., 2009; Jabbour et al., 2015; De Guimarães et al.,
2018), which are represented by financial and market results.
In order to identify some relevant factors that make up SO, this paper aims to propose a
framework to analyze the relationships between the antecedent factors, the mediators and
the consequences of SO, which can be applied in empirical studies in the manufacturing
industry. Consequently, a literature review was carried out from the studies indexed in the
Scopus® database, and other articles and books relevant to the development of the
proposed framework.

2. Method
From the importance of identifying the determinants of SO, and the research objective of
proposing an analysis framework (Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009), a qualitative and
exploratory research was developed (Mayring, 2000; Duriau et al., 2007). It was
operationalized through a literature review, based on Torraco (2005), which argue that a
systematic review of the literature can be performed to identify relevant topics of a given
area and to propose new analytical structures topic.
It is worth noting that methodological rigor is fundamental in a literature review,
especially with the detailed description of the data collection, in the justification for the
standard of analytical categories, and in the quality criteria such as replicability, reliability
and validity (Seuring and Gold, 2012). In this sense, a content analysis technique was used to
analyze the data, with a priori categories (Bardin, 2004), related to the antecedents’ factors,
the mediators and the consequences of SO, which determined the sub-categories of analysis:
(1) Antecedents of SO: innovation drivers (ID) (process and technological innovations);
knowledge management drivers (KMD); market drivers (MD); corporate social
responsibility drivers (CSRD); and environmental sustainability drivers (ESD).
(2) Mediators of SO: innovativeness; productivity; cleaner production; and dynamic
capabilities.
(3) Consequences of SO: SCA and OP.
The literature review was based on the identification of relevant research works that were
published between 2007 and 2018 in the Scopus® database (Elsevier BV ), since it represents
the largest database of articles and abstracts available on the scientific web. This study also
used other sources of information for the construction of the theoretical reference, coming
from other academic articles and books, which contributed significantly to the identification
of SO-related factors.
The research used “sustainable operations” as keywords and it was identified that in the
period from August 2007 to August 2016, 1,524 documents were published, distributed in
1,456 articles and 78 reviews, demonstrating a growing academic interest about the subject.
The subject areas that are discussed in most published articles and reviews are: engineering
(742); environmental science (638); energy (427); business, management and accounting
(312); and social sciences (170).
 The main journals with the number of SO articles found in the research are: Journal Of Antecedents,
Cleaner Production (123); Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (27); Applied Energy mediators and
(24); European Journal of Operational Research (21); International Journal of Production consequences
Economics (21); Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment (19); Renewable
Energy (18); Sustainability Switzerland (18); Bioresource Technology (17); and Energy (17). of SO
Finally, in the search in Scopus® search, the use of the “sustainable operations”
keyword, 126 papers (article and review) were selected, based on the criterion of direct 2191
relation with the research theme. To complement the search, 12 papers from periods prior to
2007 in addition to four books dealing directly with the topics were included.

3. Sustainable operations
The economic activity of the companies brings challenges to the operations of the
organizations, more specifically related to the integration of environmental issues, workers’
health and safety, the eco-design of products and the ecological and lean operations. They
all are aligned with the dimensions of the triple-bottom-line, which considers sustainability
as the integration between their social, environmental and economic dimensions
(Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Gimenez et al., 2012). To meet the new environmental and social
demands and considering the economic aspects, the organizations develop production and
logistics techniques called SO.
The SO deal with activities carried out by the organizations, which involve
environmental, economic and social aspects ( Jaehn, 2016). In this sense, the organizations
seek ways to optimize the use of resources (De Guimarães et al., 2017), through the actions of
SO management oriented on production and processes (Gunasekaran and Irani, 2014;
Gunasekaran et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2014). Contributing to the conceptualization,
De Sousa Jabbour et al. (2018) stated that SO management decisions are also related to the
design of products, production, logistics and reverse logistics. Therefore, SO bring
together a set of planning, production and logistics practices that make operations
environmentally sustainable (Sarkis et al., 2010; Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012).
Therefore, the integration of business sustainability is a complex task, with multiple
dimensions and strongly linked to the management of operations (Machado et al., 2017).
The strategic orientations of the organizations are drivers that stimulate the
entrepreneurial activities (De Guimarães et al., 2018), which are articulated by the
organizational operations. In that perspective, the cultural, environmental, social and
economic aspects of an organization will influence the SO management decision process
(Castaño et al., 2015; Severo et al., 2015).
It then confirms the existence of factors that precede SO (Damanpour and
Gopalakrishnan, 2001; OECD, 2005; Gallouj, 2007; Gu and Su, 2018), such as: the ID
(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001; OECD, 2005; Gallouj, 2007; Gu and Su, 2018); the
KMD (Kim and Lee, 2006; Prieto et al., 2009; Zack et al., 2009; Askarany et al., 2012;
De Guimarães et al., 2016; Vagnani and Volpe, 2017); the MD (Hult et al., 2003, 2004;
Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Ozkaya et al., 2015; Rakthin et al., 2016; De Guimarães et al., 2018);
the CSRD (Instituto Ethos, 2016; Dey et al., 2018; Rodrigues and Mendes, 2018;
Severo et al., 2018); and the ESD (Hörisch et al., 2015; Instituto Ethos, 2016; Dey et al., 2018;
Rodrigues and Mendes, 2018).
The SO actions are planned to optimize the use of resources available to the
organizations, in the sense that they broaden internal capabilities to generate economic,
social and environmental value. The use of resources can generate SCA (Gavronski et al.,
2011; Liu, 2013; De Guimarães et al., 2016), since it can be potentialized and transformed into
capacities and routines.
In such perspective, it is obvious that SO can generate internal factors (mediators of SO),
which contribute to OP. Among the SO mediator factors are cited: the innovativeness
BIJ (Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001; OECD, 2005; Gallouj, 2007; De Guimarães et al.,
27,7 2016); productivity (Slack et al., 1997; Despeisse et al., 2012; Piercy and Rich, 2015;
Jabbour et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2015); cleaner production (Khalili et al., 2015; Bhupendra
and Sangle, 2016; Severo et al., 2017); and dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2000; Jansen et al., 2009; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009; Eisenhardt et al., 2010; Hoang and
Rothaermel, 2010; Helfat and Winter, 2011; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011).
2192 The effective use of an organization’s capabilities, considering the economic aspects of
the market in which it operates, can promote its development and impact on the regional
economy. The strategic resources, converted into capacities (Liu and Liang, 2015,
De Guimarães et al., 2016), through SO actions contribute to the improvement of the
economic and socio-environmental performance indicators of an organization (Richard et al.,
2009; Liu and Liang, 2015). By embracing the use of SO, companies try to improve their
business results through: SCA (Paladino, 2007; Tan et al., 2015, Jabbour et al., 2015;
De Guimarães et al., 2016, Karia and Asaari, 2016), and through OP (Paladino, 2007; Richard
et al., 2009; De Guimarães et al., 2016).
Therefore, the research strategy used the antecedent factors, mediators and
consequences of SO to establish the observable and latent variables that compose a
new SO analysis framework of the manufacturing industry.

3.1 Antecedents of sustainable operations

The factors related to ID, KMD, MD, CSRD and ESD are considered as the antecedents
of SO.
The ID factor represents the establishment of corporate incentive policies for the
generation of innovations. They constitute effective strategic postures to compete in the
market (Khazanchi et al., 2007; Dziallas and Blind, 2018; Gu and Su, 2018). In a context of
process innovation (Khazanchi et al., 2007), they are related to manufacturing processes and
technological innovation (Yildiz et al., 2013; Azar and Ciabuschi, 2017; Bechtsis et al., 2018;
Anzola-Román et al., 2018; Gu and Su, 2018), and refer to the development of software
and equipment.
Process and technological innovations also refer to the resources of a company for the
production/services of goods, to differentiate itself from its competitors at different market
levels (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Paladino, 2007; Pantano et al., 2017). The process,
product and technological innovations significantly contribute to improving OP and success
(Kafetzopoulos et al., 2015; Kach et al., 2016; Najafi-Tavani et al., 2018). The ID, focused on
process and technological innovations, refers to any company’s actions in quality
improvement, capacity expansion and flexibility in production/service, as well as in the
systematic reduction of operating costs (Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001; OECD,
2005; Gallouj, 2007; De Guimarães et al., 2016). Figure 1 represents the variables that
constitute the ID factor.

Quality of
products/services

Productive capacity
Innovation Drivers
Flexibility in (ID)
Figure 1. production/service
Innovation drivers
factor Reduction of
operating costs
With the use of human resources and the adoption of new technologies, the organizations Antecedents,
become capable to learn, to expand and to enhance knowledge. In this context, companies mediators and
that have KMD use their organizational structure, infrastructure and information consequences
technologies to store, organize, disseminate and generate new knowledge (Kim and Lee,
2006; Cheng et al., 2016). Organizational knowledge is generated by collective work, of SO
obtained through interactions between people, which includes the internal and external
agents of an organization (Prieto et al., 2009; De Guimarães et al., 2016; Markovic and 2193
Bagherzadeh, 2018).
For Dubey et al. (2017), knowledge-based view theory influences SO, such as green
supply chain management. Therefore, it is fundamental to consider the dimensions of
knowledge management as a background to SO.
The KMD factor premises include the aspects of organizational culture and structure, as
the facilitators and stimulators of “information sharing” to generate new knowledge.
Therefore, an organization should stimulate individuals’ creativity, provide a barrier-free
organizational structure, promote the exchange of knowledge among the departments,
encourage collective effort and foster an organizational climate of cooperation based on
trust (Prieto et al., 2009; Zack et al., 2009; Askarany et al., 2012; Vagnani and Volpe, 2017).
Figure 2 introduces the variables that compose the KMD.
The MD factor relies on the premise that an organization can stay and grow in the
market, based on meeting the market demands. The premise suggests that the strategy
focuses on identifying the needs and desires of the customers and that it should be able to
develop processes, services and products that meet the demands of customers in a superior
way compared to competitors.
In this scenario, the MD use market intelligence to identify new demands, to transform
information into market action, to deliver value to customers through services and
products and to innovate with market focus (Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Hult et al., 2003,
2004; Ozkaya et al., 2015; Rakthin et al., 2016). The variables of the MD factor are
highlighted in Figure 3.
However, companies use CSRD as strategic guidelines, in order to improve the living
conditions of the community where they operate and to generate value of the company’s
brand vis-à-vis the society (Aguilera et al., 2007; Hansen et al., 2011; Agarwal, 2014; Arndt
et al., 2015; Jamali et al., 2015; Pollach, 2015; Bhardwaj, 2016; Odera et al., 2016).
Consequently, the CSRD actions of the organizations are focused on meeting the social
demands of the stakeholders (Abreu et al., 2015) and on motivating workers through
voluntary actions (Hansen et al., 2011). The management of social responsibility actions is a
difficult management process (Klassen and Vereecke, 2012), but it represents good results
for the organization.

Encourage the
creativity

Barrier-free
structure
Knowledge
Exchange of
Management Drivers
knowledge
(KMD)
Encouraging
collective effort Figure 2.
Knowledge
Climate of trust and
management drivers
cooperation
BIJ Provide high value
27,7 to customers

Meet the market

demands

Prioritization of
Market Drivers (MD)
2194 market demands

Market intelligence

Figure 3.
Market drivers Market-focused
innovation

The CSRD factor may also refer to “sustainable business models.” It is primarily oriented
toward solving social and environmental issues (Dentchev et al., 2016; McIntyre et al., 2016;
Rajala et al., 2016), which are expressed in reports on social responsibility and relations with
communities (Rodrigues and Mendes, 2018). The emphasis lies on the role of small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on achieving social and environmental practices as a way
to enhance OP (Hernández-Perlines and Rung-Hoch, 2017; Dey et al., 2018), where committed
SMEs toward sustainability do consider the advantages of sustainability in relation to the
market by also considering innovation as an asset (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; Jansson et al.,
2017). In addition, SMEs contribute significantly to regional sustainable development
(Walker and Preuss, 2008).
The CSRD factor lies on organizational elements that focus toward social matters
(Halkos and Skouloudis, 2018). They use institutional programs to promote social actions
related to local community involvement, strict ethical policy, honesty and anti-corruption.
Another form of corporate social responsibility includes the involvement of suppliers and
sub-suppliers in social actions and in monitoring the social policies of these business partners
(Sancha et al., 2016; Grimm et al., 2018; Yawar and Seuring, 2018; Yadlapalli et al., 2018). There is
a positive relationship between the suppliers’ social sustainability practices and supply chain
performance (Mani et al., 2018). The programs enhance continuous improvement of quality of
life at work, respect for gender diversity, combating child labor and suggest fair remuneration
for workers (Instituto Ethos, 2016; Dey et al., 2018; Severo et al., 2018; Rodrigues and Mendes,
2018). Based on the literature, the variables of the CSRD factor are presented in Figure 4.

Engagement with
the local community

Ethical and honest

attitude

Quality of life of
employees Corporate Social
Responsibility Drivers
Gender equality (CSRD)

Does not use child

Figure 4. labor
Corporate social
responsibility drivers Unfair remuneration
The ESD should be a social concern, considering the increase in the world population, the Antecedents,
increased consumption of food and products, as well as the greater generation of waste. mediators and
All these factors have a major impact on the environment, which compromises consequences
sustainability for the future (Severo et al., 2018). The ESD are a set of actions that
systematically seek environmental improvement, by reducing the use of natural resources, of SO
water, energy and materials, through the improvement of the production processes and
environmental practices, and by reducing waste emissions and pollutants, to minimize the 2195
impact on the environment (Potts, 2010; Suwanteep et al., 2016) and the preservation of the
environment (Hörisch et al., 2015).
The ESD factor can significantly contribute to reducing costs and improving the
financial performance of the organizations (Severo et al., 2015). These drivers propose the
use of environmental management technologies to minimize environmental impacts on
environmental management system, recycling, waste treatment, effluent treatment plant,
treatment of atmospheric emissions, ISO 14001, cleaner production, life cycle assessment,
efficiency gains, industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis (Darnall et al., 2008; Seiffert,
2008; Nunes and Bennett, 2010; Sarkis et al., 2010; Van Berkel, 2010; Busi et al., 2016; Oliveira
et al., 2016). The integration between green supply chain management and human resource
management ( Jabbour and De Sousa Jabbour, 2016) improves OP. The use of knowledge
management methods and information technologies enhance the results of environmental
management performance (Gimenez et al., 2015; De Guimarães et al., 2018).
Based on studies realized by Hörisch et al. (2015) and Severo et al. (2017), the ESD can be
evaluated in the organizations by measuring their actions (Figure 5), such as: design of an
environmental policy maintained by the company, known from the workers, suppliers and
customers; implementation of environmental practices aimed at minimizing impacts to the
environment; the reduction of consumption of water, energy and raw materials; the
treatment and final disposal of waste generated; and the environmental education projects
for its employees.

3.2 Mediators of sustainable operations

Based on the literature, the factors that express the SO process use SO mediators that refer
to: innovativeness (INN); productivity (PRO); cleaner production (CP); and dynamic
capabilities (DC).
Innovativeness can be considered as the orientation of an organization to develop
process, product or organizational innovations. It deals with the organization’s
capacity to innovate (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Story et al. 2015). In a SO management
context, environmental innovations are considered as a form of process innovation

Strategy with
environmental focus

Environmental
practices
Environmental
Reduced resource
Sustainability Drivers
consumption
(ESD)
Treatment and
disposal of waste Figure 5.
Environmental
Environmental sustainability drivers
education
BIJ (Boons et al., 2013; Rodriguez and Wiengarten, 2017), which encourage research and
27,7 development of socio-environmental innovations.
The innovativeness relates to a degree of novelty that the product or process innovations
may generate for an organization, in terms of market and company’s performance
(Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Caridi et al., 2012). The innovativeness refers to the
organizational internal capacity to develop product or process innovations from an
2196 SO perspective, considering that the innovation capacity of a manufacturer is positively
influenced by the innovativeness of its supplier (Huo et al., 2018), since it is necessary to
consider the actions of the different stakeholders.
In this sense, innovativeness is composed of the following variables, as follows
(Figure 6): the use of market information to develop products/services that meet consumer
demand in terms of socio-environmental sustainability; the use of formal organizational
procedures and systems, to encourage people to develop product and process innovations;
the development of products/services with a higher level of quality than the competitors; the
design of innovative products/services with features and functionality superior to the
competitors; and the development of new products/services that incorporate new
technological knowledge and socio-environmental sustainability. The variables of
innovativeness were developed based on the studies of Paladino (2007), Besner and
Hobbs (2008), Lerch and Spieth (2012) De Guimarães et al. (2017), Rodriguez and Wiengarten
(2017) and Severo et al. (2017).
The productivity can be measured on the cost, quality, flexibility and time
dimensions (Slack et al., 1997), joint with environmental precepts, as a result of
sustainable innovations of quality and competitiveness (Chen et al., 2006; Despeisse et al.,
2012; Swink and Jacobs, 2012; Wong, 2012).
It should be noted that improving the performance of the manufacturing industry with
the efficient use of natural resources and materials (Despeisse et al., 2012) should include a
system of operations management (Davis et al., 2012) that considers strategic dimensions
such as: product quality, process guarantees, operational costs reduction norms and
reduction of manufacturing residues (Guerrieri and Meliciani, 2005; Piercy and Rich, 2015;
De Guimarães et al., 2016). Jabbour et al. (2015) suggested that the organizational managers
should add in the assessment of OP the market, operational and environmental performance
aspects, since these are influenced by environmental management and the adoption of green
product development practices.

Capability to Meet
Market Demands

People Motivated to
Innovate
Innovativeness (INN)
Superior
innovations in
resources and
functionality
Incentive to
Figure 6. technological and
Innovativeness socio-environmental
innovation
The measurement of the productivity refers to the variables presented in Figure 7, based Antecedents,
on the studies of Slack et al. (1997), Piercy and Rich (2015) and Jabbour et al. (2015): mediators and
the operating costs, during the production or provision of services, in comparison with the consequences
competitors; the quality of new products/services compared to the competitors; the
flexibility to support different orders in terms of volume; and the company’s ability to of SO
meet the customer needs within an established time frame.
The cleaner production (CP) is an environmental methodology, which was created by the 2197
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, which is a specialized agency of the
United Nations, which promotes industrial development for poverty reduction through an
inclusive globalization and environmental sustainability. In this context, the organizations
play an important role in systematically reducing resource consumption and reducing the
emission of their waste (Hicks and Dietmar, 2007; Shin et al., 2008; Lukena et al., 2016).
Among the environmental practices, cleaner production is a methodology of operations
management, composed of actions and productive planning that focuses on reducing the costs
of the production process, through the re-education of the consumption of raw materials,
resources and energy, as well as minimizing the generation of waste and pollutants
(Zeng et al., 2010; Khalili and Duecker, 2013; Khalili et al., 2015; Ghannadzadeh and
Sadeqzadeh, 2016; Yong et al., 2016). Cleaner production also deals with waste segregation
and the re-use and recycling of materials, to reduce potential environmental impacts
(Khalili et al., 2015; Bhupendra and Sangle, 2016), and to increase the economic gains of these
practices (Severo et al., 2015, Bhupendra and Sangle, 2016; Gong et al., 2017).
It should be noted that the use of environmental practices, such as cleaner production, has
a positive relationship with OP. It shows that an organization with robust cleaner production
practices stands out in the market in comparison to the competition (D’Agostini et al., 2017).
De Sousa Jabbour et al. (2015) indicated that if a company intends to improve environmental
performance, it can create procedures and programs based on the environmental management
system and can adopt cleaner production initiatives for superior performance.
The cleaner production factor designs and carries out environmental actions, within an
organizational process, with the purpose of optimizing the use of resources, and to
contribute to the improvement of productivity and the improvement of the quality of
products and services (Figure 8) (Khalili et al., 2015; Bhupendra and Sangle, 2016;
De Guimarães et al., 2017; Severo et al., 2017).
Dynamic capabilities deal with routines and processes by which an organization
mobilizes, coordinates and integrates dispersed efforts, in which it allocates and combines
resources and assets, to increase its competitiveness. It constitutes a portfolio management
pattern ( Jansen et al., 2009; Helfat and Winter, 2011), since OP is related to how leaders
manage the tension between efficiency and flexibility (Eisenhardt et al., 2010), and deal with
the continuous improvement processes (Anand et al., 2009). Consequently, dynamic
capabilities help to reconfigure existing operational capacities, transforming them into
new capacities, with better adaptation toward the environment (Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011).

Operating Costs

Quality of Products
and Services
Productivity (PRO)
Production
Flexibility
Figure 7.
Delivery on Time Productivity
BIJ It should be stressed that the organizations develop the necessary skills to compete more
27,7 effectively in the market, based on skill-oriented training and teamwork, as well as provide
insights for decisions within a broader view of the chain of operations (Sarkis et al., 2010).
With the instability of the markets, companies seek to rationalize the use of resources
through the dynamic capabilities, which use specific processes to match the different
features (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Jansen et al., 2009). The organizations that integrate
2198 dynamic capabilities show an internal capacity to build new competencies and, therefore, to
enable their capacity to explore new markets and to use new technologies (Danneels, 2008).
Such organizations seek to rationalize the use of resources and establish specific
processes to combine these different resources (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Jansen et al.,
2009). In practical terms, such strategy would leverage partnerships and the use of
technology outsourcing (Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009) to combine both internal and
external experiences to generate an organizational learning model that allows greater
success (Hoang and Rothaermel, 2010).
In that context, the dynamic capabilities factor (Figure 9) relates to strategic elements
that include: the ability to combine resources; the improvement of internal operations; the
generation of unique capabilities with external partners; and learning leadership. The
variables that compose the dynamic capabilities were developed based on the studies of
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), Jansen et al. (2009), Rothaermel and Alexandre (2009),
Eisenhardt et al. (2010), Hoang and Rothaermel (2010), Helfat and Winter (2011) and Pavlou
and El Sawy (2011).

3.3 Consequences of sustainable operations

The organizations develop capabilities and strategies to obtain market and financial results,
which can be assessed through the consequences of SO: SCA; and OP.
The SCA factor deals with organizational capabilities and resources, which result
in a unique feature of products/services that contribute to maintain an organization
in a privileged posture compared to its competitors (Barney, 1991; Kim et al., 2012).

Reduced Use of
Resources

Production
Improvement Cleaner Production
Sustainability (CP)
Practices
Figure 8.
Cleaner production Influence of CP on
Quality

Capacity to
combine resources

Improve internal
operations Dynamic Capabilities
Unique capabilities/ (DC)
external partners
Figure 9.
Leadership focused
Dynamic capabilities
on learning
It includes strategies of innovation and socio-environmental sustainability to expand the Antecedents,
possibilities of market action (Kim et al., 2012; Severo et al., 2017). mediators and
It can be measured through the outcome of the main competitors, considering the consequences
innovation aspects of products/services, environmental sustainability and corporate social
responsibility (Paladino, 2007; Tan et al., 2015; De Guimarães et al., 2016). of SO
The variables that make up the SCA factor (Figure 10) include the success of new
products/services, their revenues, the presence of sustainable innovation (reduction of 2199
resource and used material), as well as the environmental sustainability practices and the
social responsibility corporate governance, which improve the organization’s reputation and
image in the market (Paladino, 2007; Tan et al., 2015; Jabbour et al., 2015; Karia and Asaari,
2016; De Guimarães et al., 2018).
OP is one of the most important constructs in management research (Richard et al., 2009),
since this is the measurement of operations and organizational strategies results ( Jiménez-
Jiménez and Sanz-Valle, 2011; De Guimarães et al., 2016; Lichtenthaler, 2016). The results of
OP on SO are closely related to environmental management practices, eco-design and green
supply chain management (Sarkis, 2012).
According to studies by Richard et al. (2009), OP encompasses both direct and indirect
financial measures. The direct criteria include three specific areas: financial performance
like profits, return on assets and return on investment; product market performance, such as
sales and market share; and shareholder return like total return to shareholder, aggregate
economic value. The indirect criteria include market recognition gains related to
environmental sustainability practices and corporate social responsibility (Richard et al.,
2009; Severo et al., 2015).
In this research, the dimensions of OP include (Figure 11): the return on investment;
the return on assets; the profitability of innovations; and the overall performance,
based on the studies of Paladino (2007), Richard et al. (2009), Severo et al. (2015) and
De Guimarães et al. (2016).

Success of New
Products/Services

New Products/
Services Revenue Sustainable
Competitive
Reducing Impact on Advantage (SCA)
the Environment Figure 10.
Sustainable
Improvement in
competitive advantage
Company Image

Return on
investment

Return on Assets
Organizational
Performance (OP)
Profitability of
innovations Figure 11.
Organizational
Overall
performance
performance
BIJ 4. Framework for sustainable operations analysis
27,7 Based on the literature, the framework for the SO analysis includes: antecedents of SO (ID,
KMD, MD, CSRD and ESD); mediators of SO (innovativeness, productivity, cleaner
production and dynamic capabilities); and consequences of SO (SCA, OP), which expresses
the theoretical propositions of influence among the constructs (Figure 12).

2200 4.1 P1 – innovation drivers

The ID are composed of a set of organizational actions and policies that encourage constant
innovation strategy, which can increase innovation capacity (Khazanchi et al., 2007;
Gu and Su, 2018) and improve the productive processes through process innovation
(Khazanchi et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2016; Anzola-Román et al., 2018; Gu and Su, 2018;
Najafi-Tavani et al., 2018). The ID consider the possibilities of sustainable innovation,
through eco-innovation and cleaner production (Lin et al., 2012; Severo et al., 2015), as well as
the influence of innovation orientation on the acquisition of dynamic capacities (Rothaermel
and Alexandre, 2009; Rohrbeck and Gemünden, 2011).
The first proposition suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the ID and
the mediators of SO (INN, PRO, CP and DC). P1 includes:
P1a. The ID positively influences innovativeness.
P1b. The ID positively influences productivity.
P1c. The ID positively influences cleaner production.
P1d. The ID positively influences dynamic capabilities.

4.2 P2 – knowledge management drivers

The KMD constitute a means to develop and diffuse new knowledge, extending the
individual and collective competences (Kim and Lee, 2006; Prieto et al., 2009; De Guimarães
et al., 2016; Markovic and Bagherzadeh, 2018). These drivers represent a knowledge catalyst
that contributes to the improvement of innovation capacities, productivity and
environmental practices. They intensify the possibilities of using dynamic capabilities
(Olavarrieta and Friedmann, 2008; Prieto et al., 2009; Zack et al., 2009; Askarany et al., 2012;
Vagnani and Volpe, 2017).

Innovation P1a
Drivers (ID)
P1b
P1c Innovativeness
P1d P6a
(INN)
Knowledge P6b
P2a
Management P2b
Drivers (KMD) P2c Sustainable
P2d
Productivity P7a Competitive
(PRO) Advantage
P3a P3b P7b (SCA)
Market Drivers
(MD) P3c
P3d P8a
Cleaner Organizational
Production (CP) P8b Performance
P4a (OP)
Corporate Social P4b
Responsibility P4c
Drivers (CSRD) P4d P9a
Figure 12. Dynamic
Framework for P5a P5b
Capabilities P9b
(DC)
sustainable operations Environmental P5c
analysis Sustainability
Drivers (ESD)
P5d
Based on the literature, P2 establishes the existence of a positive relation between the KMD Antecedents,
and the mediators of SO (INN, PRO, CP and DC). P2 includes: mediators and
P2a. The KMD positively influences innovativeness. consequences
P2b. The KMD positively influences productivity. of SO
P2c. The KMD positively influences cleaner production.
P2d. The KMD positively influences dynamic capabilities.
2201

4.3 P3 – market drivers

The MD constitute an important strategy for market evaluation and the transformation of
such knowledge into product and process innovations (Hult et al., 2003; Baker and Sinkula,
2005; Rakthin et al., 2016). These drivers represent the means of obtaining and expanding
innovative capacities, productive parameters and socio-environmental premises
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Hörisch et al., 2015; Dentchev
et al., 2016; Jansson et al., 2017).
P3 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the MD and the mediators of
SO (INN, PRO, CP and DC), which are established as follows:
P3a. The MD positively influences innovativeness.
P3b. The MD positively influences productivity.
P3c. The MD positively influences cleaner production.
P3d. The MD positively influences dynamic capabilities.

4.4 P4 – corporate social responsibility drivers

The CSRD represent a set of integrated actions aimed at improving working conditions
within an organization. It focuses on respect for human beings in its diversity, including the
implementation of a relationship strategy with the local community and the different
stakeholders (Aguilera et al., 2007; Hansen et al., 2011; Agarwal, 2014; Jamali et al., 2015;
Pollach, 2015; Odera et al., 2016). Furthermore, it contributes to the empowerment and the
engagement of the employees so that they can become involved and contribute in the
innovation, production and socio-environmental actions of the organization (Hansen et al.,
2011; Abreu et al., 2015; Jansson et al., 2017; Hernández-Perlines and Rung-Hoch, 2017; Dey
et al., 2018; Halkos and Skouloudis, 2018).
P4 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the CSRD and the mediators
of SO (INN, PRO, CP and DC), which are established as follows:
P4a. The CSRD positively influences innovativeness.
P4b. The CSRD positively influences productivity.
P4c. The CSRD positively influences cleaner production.
P4d. The CSRD positively influences dynamic capabilities.

4.5 P5 – environmental sustainability drivers

The ESD constitute a set of practices and methods that aims to improve the conditions of the
environment. It uses environmental precepts that stimulate the reduction of resource
consumption and waste production, to minimize the environmental impact (Potts, 2010;
Hörisch et al., 2015; Suwanteep et al., 2016). Their practices promote operational efficiency
by enhancing eco-innovation capabilities, DC and significant process improvements
BIJ (Darnall et al., 2008; Seiffert, 2008; Sarkis et al., 2010; Van Berkel, 2010; Busi et al., 2016;
27,7 Severo et al., 2017).
P5 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the ESD and the mediators
of SO (INN, PRO, CP and DC). P5 includes:
P5a. The ESD positively influences innovativeness.

2202 P5b. The ESD positively influences productivity.

P5c. The ESD positively influences cleaner production.
P5d. The ESD positively influences dynamic capabilities.

4.6 P6 – innovativeness
The innovativeness (INN) is the innovation capacity of an organization through an Integrated
use of resources (Paladino, 2007; Richard et al., 2009; Tsai and Yang, 2013; Story et al., 2015;
Boons et al., 2013; Rodriguez and Wiengarten, 2017). Therefore, an organizational competence
can generate competitive differentials and broaden an organization’s competitiveness
(Paladino, 2007; Tan et al., 2015; Karia and Asaari, 2016; Lichtenthaler, 2016).
P6 suggests that there is a positive relationship between innovativeness (INN) and the
consequences of SO (SCA, OP). P6 includes:
P6a. The innovativeness positively influences SCA.
P6b. The innovativeness positively influences OP.

4.7 P7 – productivity
The productivity (PRO) is comprised of operational activities that result in reduced
operating costs, production flexibility and customer order fulfillment (Slack et al., 1997;
Jabbour et al., 2015). In this context, productivity can influence the determination of
competitive differentials and influence the OP (Guerrieri and Meliciani, 2005; Piercy and
Rich, 2015; Tan et al., 2015; De Guimarães et al., 2016).
P7 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the productivity (PRO) and
the consequences of SO (SCA, OP). P7 includes:
P7a. The productivity positively influences SCA.
P7b. The productivity positively influences OP.

4.8 P8 – cleaner production

Based on the precepts of environmental sustainability, the cleaner production (CP)
constitutes a set of practices and methods, in an organizational program, that uses
techniques for the systematic reduction of resource consumption and reduction of waste
production, as well as waste segregation, re-use and recycling of materials used in the
process (Hicks and Dietmar, 2007; Shin et al., 2008; Khalili and Duecker, 2013; Khalili et al.,
2015; Lukena et al., 2016; Severo et al., 2017). The CP practices contribute to the
organization’s operating results, as well as to SCA (Zeng et al., 2010; Severo et al., 2015;
Bhupendra and Sangle, 2016; Gong et al., 2017; De Guimarães et al., 2018).
P8 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the cleaner production (CP)
and the consequences of SO (SCA, OP). P8 includes:
P8a. The cleaner production positively influences SCA.
P8b. The cleaner production positively influences OP.
4.9 P9 – dynamic capabilities Antecedents,
The dynamic capabilities (DC) constitute a set of coordinated activities, which combine mediators and
resources and efforts, through routines and processes (Anand et al., 2009; Pavlou and El Sawy, consequences
2011). They allow an organization to generate capabilities and competencies unique from its
competitors (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Jansen et al., 2009; Rothaermel and Alexandre, of SO
2009; Eisenhardt et al., 2010; Hoang and Rothaermel; 2010; Helfat and Winter, 2011;
Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011). 2203
P9 suggests the existence of a positive relationship between the dynamic capabilities
(DC) and the consequences of SO (SCA, OP). P9 includes:
P9a. The dynamic capabilities positively influence SCA.
P9b. The dynamic capabilities positively influence OP.

5. Conclusions, contributions and future research

From review of the literature, the relevant factors that potentially influence SO were
identified, including a trilogy distributed between the antecedent, mediator and consequent
SO factors.
The main theoretical contribution of this research is the proposition of a new framework
(Figure 12), which allows the researcher to elaborate a scale based on the observable
variables of each factor. In the case of innovativeness (INN), for example, the variables that
propose to measure the factor by means of observable variables are: capability to meet
market demands; people motivated to innovate; superior innovations in resources and
functionality; and incentive to technological and socio-environmental innovation.
The observable variables proposed in the antecedents (Figures 1–5), the mediators
(Figures 6–9) and the consequences of sustainable operators (Figures 10 and 11), can be
transformed into indicators and used in measuring the intensity that companies use in each
factor. Consequently, it can determine the degree of strategy implementation (ID, KMD, MD,
CSRD and ESD), the utilization practices and capacities (INN, PRO, CP and DC) and the
strategic outcomes (SCA, OP).
The proposed framework can be used to identify, in a future survey, the intensity of the
relations between the factors. Therefore, based on the quantitative results, the researcher
can identify which factors and which variables are most relevant. Consequently,
management actions can be implemented in order to maximize the use of organizational
resources and capacities.
This research proposes that the framework be used, in whole or in part, to investigate
SO in the manufacturing industry. For future studies, it is suggested a survey with applied
to different sizes of organizations, as well as the use of multivariate data analysis
techniques, such as exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Consequently, it will be possible to evaluate the factor scales and the intensity of the
relationships between the observable variables in the formation of the constructs, as well as
the intensity of influence among the constructs.
In addition to the limitations of the research, there is the aspect of the research scope
which is directly related to the delimitation of a single database, within a stipulated period of
time for the publications. The framework proposed in this research was developed to
analyze the manufacturing industry companies. In order to use the proposed framework in
other industries (commerce, services), it is necessary to consider adaptations and
adjustments on the observable variables and constructs. The commerce and service
operations are more related to processes since there is no product production. It then
changes the concepts of quality of products/services, productivity, flexibility, organizational
structure, innovations in resources and functionality and cleaner production.
BIJ Finally, the research results allowed the formulation of propositions through a
27,7 framework that supports new research questions, such as:
RQ1. What are the influence intensities of relationships between constructs?
RQ2. What are the statistical correlations between constructs?
RQ3. What are the factors that the organizations consider determinant for SCA and OP?
2204 However, only empirical research will corroborate the hypotheses (propositions) and will
indicate the most effective strategies (ID, KMD, MD, CSRD and ESD) to select the most
important capacities (INN, PRO, CP and DC), and thus obtain better results in SCA and OP.

References
Abreu, M.C.S., Freitas, A.R.P. and Melo, S.O.G. (2015), “The role of foreign and local companies in
shaping Brazilian positions on global sustainability: empirical evidence from a survey research”,
International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 305-323.
Agarwal, A. (2014), “The new spectrum of corporate social responsibility in emerging economies”,
International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 32-36.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the s back in corporate
social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 836-863.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., Tatikonda, M.V. and Schilling, D.A. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 444-461.
Anzola-Román, P., Bayona-Sáez, C. and García-Marco, T. (2018), “Organizational innovation,
internal & and externally sourced innovation practices: effects on technological innovation
outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 91, pp. 233-247.
Arndt, A.D., Singhapakdi, A. and Tam, V. (2015), “Consumers as employees: the impact of social
responsibility on quality of work life among Australian engineers”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 98-108.
Askarany, D., Brierley, J.A. and Yazdifar, H. (2012), “The effect of innovation characteristics on
activity-based costing adoption”, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-313.
Azar, G. and Ciabuschi, F. (2017), “Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export
performance: the effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness”, International Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 324-336.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2005), “Environmental marketing strategy and firm performance: effects
on new product performance and market share”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 461-475.
Bardin, L. (2004), Análise de conteúdo, 3rd ed., Edições 70, Lisboa.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D. and Srai, J.S. (2018), “Intelligent autonomous vehicles in digital
supply chains: a framework for integrating innovations towards sustainable value networks”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 181 No. 1, pp. 60-71.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2008), “Discriminating contexts and project management best practices on
innovative and non-innovative projects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-134.
Bhardwaj, B.R. (2016), “Role of green policy on sustainable supply chain management: a model for
implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 456-468.
Bhupendra, K.V. and Sangle, S. (2016), “Strategy to derive benefits of radical cleaner production, Antecedents,
products and technologies: a study of Indian firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 126, mediators and
pp. 236-247.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J. and Wagner, M. (2013), “Sustainable innovation, business models and
consequences
economic performance: an overview”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 1-8. of SO
Busi, E., Maranghi, S., Corsi, L. and Basosi, R. (2016), “Environmental sustainability evaluation of
innovative self-cleaning textiles”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 133, pp. 439-450.
2205
Caridi, M., Pero, M. and Sianesi, A. (2012), “Linking product modularity and innovativeness to supply
chain management in the Italian furniture industry”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 136, pp. 207-217.
Castaño, M.S., Méndez, M.T. and Galindo, M.Á. (2015), “The effect of social, cultural, and economic
factors on entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 7, pp. 1496-1500.
Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B. and Wen, C.T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on corporate
advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339.
Cheng, C.C.J., Yang, C. and Sheu, C. (2016), “Effects of open innovation and knowledge-based dynamic
capabilities on radical innovation: an empirical study”, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 41, pp. 79-91.
D’Agostini, M., Tondolo, V.A.G., Camargo, M.E., Dullius, A.I.D.S., Tondolo, R.D.R.P. and Russo, S.L.
(2017), “Relationship between sustainable operations practices and performance: a
meta-analysis”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66
No. 8, pp. 1020-1042.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), “The dynamics of the adoption of product and process
innovations in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Danneels, E. (2008), “Organizational antecedents of second‐order competences”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 519-543.
Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R. (2008), “Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability?”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-45.
Davis, J., Edgar, T., Porter, J., Bernaden, J. and Sarli, M. (2012), “Smart manufacturing, manufacturing
intelligence and demand-dynamic performance”, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 47,
pp. 145-156.
De Guimarães, J.C.F., Severo, E.A. and De Vasconcelos, C.R.M. (2018), “The influence of entrepreneurial,
market, knowledge management orientations on cleaner production and the sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 1653-1663.
De Guimarães, J.C.F., Severo, E.A. and Vieira, P.S. (2017), “Cleaner production, project management and
strategic drivers: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 881-890.
De Guimarães, J.C.F., Severo, E.A., Dorion, E.C.H., Coallier, F. and Olea, P.M. (2016), “The use of
organizational resources for product innovation and organizational performance: a survey of the
Brazilian furniture industry”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 180, pp. 135-147.
Dentchev, N., Baumgartner, R., Dieleman, H., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T., Rauter, R.,
Rosano, M., Snihur, Y., Tang, X. and Van Hoof, B. (2016), “Embracing the variety of
sustainable business models: social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity,
innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 113, pp. 1-4.
De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., De Oliveira Frascareli, F.C. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2015), “Green supply chain
management and firms’ performance: understanding potential relationships and the role of
green sourcing and some other green practices”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 104,
pp. 366-374.
De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Godinho Filho, M. and Roubaud, D. (2018), “Industry 4.0 and
the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable
operations”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 270 Nos 1/2, pp. 273-286.
BIJ Despeisse, M., Ball, P.D., Evans, S. and Levers, A. (2012), “Industrial ecology at factory level–a
27,7 conceptual model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 31, pp. 30-39.
Dey, P.K., Petridis, N.E., Petridis, K., Malesios, C., Nixon, J.D. and Ghosh, S.K. (2018), “Environmental
management and corporate social responsibility practices of small and medium-sized
enterprises”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 687-702.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management: theoretical
2206 framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 184-218.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K. and Pfarrer, M.D. (2007), “A content analysis of the content analysis literature
in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Dziallas, M. and Blind, K. (2018), “Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: an
extensive literature analysis”, Technovation, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.005.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1121.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Furr, N.R. and Bingham, C.B. (2010), “CROSSROADS – microfoundations of
performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments”, Organization
Science, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1263-1273.
Gallouj, F. (2007), “Towards a neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovation in services?”, Science and Public
Policy, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 405-420.
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 110-132.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S. and Nascimento, L.F.M.D. (2011), “A resource-based view of
green supply management”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 872-885.
Ghannadzadeh, A. and Sadeqzadeh, M. (2016), “Exergy analysis as a scoping tool for cleaner
production of chemicals: a case study of an ethylene production process”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 129, pp. 508-520.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012), “Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom
line”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 149-159.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., Rodon, J. and Rodriguez, J.A. (2015), “The role of information technology in the
environmental performance of the firm: the interaction effect between information technology
and environmental practices on environmental performance”, Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 273-291.
Gong, B., Guo, D., Zhang, X. and Cheng, J. (2017), “An approach for evaluating cleaner production
performance in iron and steel enterprises involving competitive relationships”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 Part 2, pp. 739-748.
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S. and Sarkis, J. (2018), “Interrelationships amongst factors for sub-supplier
corporate sustainability standards compliance: an exploratory field study”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 203, pp. 240-259.
Gu, Y. and Su, D. (2018), “Innovation orientations, external partnerships, and start-ups’ performance of
low-carbon ventures”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 194, pp. 69-77.
Guerrieri, P. and Meliciani, V. (2005), “Technology and international competitiveness: the
interdependence between manufacturing and producer services”, Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 489-502.
Gunasekaran, A. and Irani, Z. (2014), “Sustainable operations management: design, modelling and
analysis”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 801-805.
Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012), “Sustainable of manufacturing services: investigation for
research and applications”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Gunasekaran, A., Irani, Z. and Papadopoulos, T. (2014), “Modelling and analysis of sustainable Antecedents,
operations management: certain investigations for research and applications”, Journal of the mediators and
Operational Research Society, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 806-823.
consequences
Halkos, G. and Skouloudis, A. (2018), “Corporate social responsibility and innovative capacity:
intersection in a macro-level perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, pp. 291-300. of SO
Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W. and Angermeier, I. (2011), “Corporate social
responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective”, Journal of 2207
Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Helfat, C.E. and Winter, S.G. (2011), “Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: strategy for the
(N) ever-changing world”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1243-1250.
Hernández-Perlines, F. and Rung-Hoch, N. (2017), “Sustainable entrepreneurial orientation in family
firms”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 9 No. 7, p. 1212.
Hicks, C. and Dietmar, R. (2007), “Improving cleaner production through the application of environmental
management tools in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 395-408.
Hoang, H.A. and Rothaermel, F.T. (2010), “Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration,
exploitation, and R&D project performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 734-758.
Hörisch, J., Ortas, E., Schaltegger, S. and Álvarez, I. (2015), “Environmental effects of sustainability
management tools: an empirical analysis of large companies”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 120,
pp. 241-249.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., Gary, A. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and
impact on business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 429-438.
Hult, G.T.M., Snow, C.C. and Kandemir, D. (2003), “The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural
competitiveness in different organizational types”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 401-426.
Huo, B., Li, S. and Zhao, X. (2018), “Supply chain coordination and innovativeness: a social contagion
and learning perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, in press, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.033
Instituto Ethos (2016), “Indicadores Ethos para Negócios Sustentáveis e Responsáveis”, available at:
www3.ethos.org.br/conteudo/indicadores/#.W4BXTrgnbIU (accessed August 23, 2018).
Jabbour, C.J.C. and De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. (2016), “Green human resource management and green
supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 112, pp. 1824-1833.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A. and Latan, H. (2015), “Green
product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and
technical aspects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87, pp. 442-451.
Jackson, S.A., Gopalakrishna-Remani, V., Mishra, R. and Napier, R. (2016), “Examining the impact of
design for environment and the mediating effect of quality management innovation on firm
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 173, pp. 142-152.
Jaehn, F. (2016), “Sustainable operations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253 No. 2,
pp. 243-264.
Jamali, D.R., El Dirani, A.M. and Harwood, I.A. (2015), “Exploring human resource management roles in
corporate social responsibility: the CSR-HRM co-creation model”, Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van De Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2009), “Structural
differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms”, Organization
Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 797-811.
Jansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F. and Hed Vall, G. (2017), “Commitment to sustainability in small and
medium-sized enterprises: the influence of strategic orientations and management values”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
BIJ Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2011), “Innovation, organizational learning, and performance”,
27,7 Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 408-417.
Kach, A., Busse, C., Azadegan, A. and Wagner, S.M. (2016), “Maneuvering through hostile
environments: how firms leverage product and process innovativeness”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 907-956.
Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K. and Gkana, V. (2015), “Relationship between quality management,
2208 innovation and competitiveness: evidence from Greek companies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1177-1200.
Karia, N. and Asaari, M.H.A.H. (2016), “Innovation capability: the impact of teleworking on sustainable
competitive advantage”, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 181-194.
Khalili, N.R. and Duecker, S. (2013), “Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of
sustainable environmental management system framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 47, pp. 188-198.
Khalili, N.R., Duecker, S., Ashton, W. and Chavez, F. (2015), “From cleaner production to sustainable
development: the role of academia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96, pp. 30-43.
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), “Innovation-supportive culture: the impact of
organizational values on process innovation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 871-884.
Kim, K.H., Jeon, B.J., Jung, H.S., Lu, W. and Jones, J. (2012), “Effective employment brand equity through
sustainable competitive advantage, marketing strategy, and corporate image”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1612-1617.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), “The impact of organizational context and information technology
on employee knowledge-sharing capability”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 370-385.
Klassen, R.D. and Vereecke, A. (2012), “Social issues in supply chains: capabilities link responsibility,
risk (opportunity), and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 103-115.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operations management”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E.G. (2014), “Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 57-75.
Lerch, M. and Spieth, P. (2012), “Innovation project portfolio management: a meta-analysis”,
International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 77-94.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2016), “Toward an innovation-based perspective on company performance”,
Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 66-87.
Lin, R.J., Tan, K.H. and Geng, Y. (2012), “Market demand, green product innovation, and firm
performance: evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 30, pp. 1-7.
Liu, Y. (2013), “Sustainable competitive advantage in turbulent business environments”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 2821-2841.
Liu, Y. and Liang, L. (2015), “Evaluating and developing resource-based operations strategy for
competitive advantage: an exploratory study of Finnish high-tech manufacturing industries”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1019-1037.
Lukena, R.A., Van Berkelb, R., Leuenbergerc, H. and Schwagerb, P. (2016), “A 20-year retrospective of
the national cleaner production centres programme”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112,
pp. 1165-1174.
McIntyre, M.L., Caputo, T. and Murphy, S.A. (2016), “Sustainability and large corporations”,
International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 159-182.
Machado, C.G., Lima, E.P., Costa, S.E.G., Angelis, J.J. and Mattioda, R.A. (2017), “Framing maturity Antecedents,
based on sustainable operations management principles”, International Journal of Production mediators and
Economics, Vol. 190, pp. 3-21.
consequences
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A. and Delgado, C. (2018), “Enhancing supply chain performance through
supplier social sustainability: an emerging economy perspective”, International Journal of of SO
Production Economics, Vol. 195, pp. 259-272.
Markovic, S. and Bagherzadeh, M. (2018), “How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation 2209
influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and
product innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 173-186.
Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative content analysis”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 1-10.
Najafi-Tavani, S., Najafi-Tavani, Z., Naudé, P., Oghazi, P. and Zeynaloo, E. (2018), “How collaborative
innovation networks affect new product performance: product innovation capability, process
innovation capability, and absorptive capacity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 73,
pp. 193-205.
Nunes, B. and Bennett, D. (2010), “Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: an
environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 396-420.
Odera, O., Scott, A.H.S. and Gow, J. (2016), “Factors influencing corporate social and environmental
disclosures: a systematic review”, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 116-134.
OECD (2005), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for
Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data - Oslo Manual, 3rd ed., OECD and
Eurostat, Paris.
Olavarrieta, S. and Friedmann, R. (2008), “Market orientation, knowledge-related resources and firm
performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 623-630.
Oliveira, J.A., Oliveira, O.J., Ferraudo, O.A.S. and Salgado, M.H. (2016), “Environmental management
system ISO 14001 factors for promoting the adoption of cleaner production”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 133, pp. 1384-1394.
Ozkaya, H.E., Droge, C., Hult, G.T.M., Calantone, R. and Ozkaya, E. (2015), “Market orientation,
knowledge competence, and innovation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 309-318.
Paladino, A. (2007), “Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product success: a comparison of
strategic orientations”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 534-553.
Pantano, E., Priporas, C., Sorace, S. and Iazzolino, G. (2017), “Does innovation-orientation lead to retail
industry growth? Empirical evidence from patent analysis”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 88-94.
Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2011), “Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 239-273.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 282-315.
Pollach, I. (2015), “Strategic corporate social responsibility: the struggle for legitimacy and reputation’”,
International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Potts, T. (2010), “The natural advantage of regions: linking sustainability, innovation, and regional
development in Australia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 713-725.
Prieto, I.M., Revilla, E. and Rodríguez-Prado, B. (2009), “Managing the knowledge paradox in product
development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 157-170.
Rajala, R., Westerlundb, M. and Lampikoskic, T. (2016), “Environmental sustainability in industrial
manufacturing: re-examining the greening of Interface’s business model”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 52-61.
BIJ Rakthin, S., Calantone, R.J. and Wang, J.F. (2016), “Managing market intelligence: the comparative role
27,7 of absorptive capacity and market orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12,
pp. 5569-5577.
Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S. and Johnson, G. (2009), “Measuring organizational performance:
towards methodological best practice”, Journal of management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 718-804.
Rocco, T.S. and Plakhotnik, M.S. (2009), “Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical
2210 frameworks: terms, functions, and distinctions”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 120-130.
Rodrigues, M. and Mendes, L. (2018), “Mapping of the literature on social responsibility in the mining
industry: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 181, pp. 88-101.
Rodriguez, J.A. and Wiengarten, F. (2017), “The role of process innovativeness in the development of
environmental innovativeness capability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 Part 4,
pp. 2423-2434.
Rohrbeck, R. and Gemünden, H.G. (2011), “Corporate foresight: its three roles in enhancing the
innovation capacity of a firm”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 231-243.
Rothaermel, F.T. and Alexandre, M.T. (2009), “Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating
role of absorptive capacity”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 759-780.
Sancha, C., Gimenez, C. and Sierra, V. (2016), “Achieving a socially responsible supply chain through
assessment and collaboration”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1934-1947.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Seiffert, M.E.B. (2008), “Environmental impact evaluation using a cooperative model for implementing
EMS (ISO 14001) in small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16
No. 14, pp. 1447-1461.
Seuring, S. and Gold, S. (2012), “Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 544-555.
Severo, E.A., de Guimarães, J.C.F. and Dorion, E.C.H. (2018), “Cleaner production, social responsibility
and eco-innovation: generations’ perception for a sustainable future”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 186, pp. 91-103.
Severo, E.A., Guimarães, J.C.F. and Dorion, E.C.H. (2017), “Cleaner production and environmental
management as sustainable product innovation antecedents: a survey in Brazilian industries”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 87-97.
Severo, E.A., Guimarães, J.C.F., Dorion, E.C.H. and Nodari, C.H. (2015), “Cleaner production,
environmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study in the
Brazilian metal-mechanic industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96, pp. 118-125.
Shin, D., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D. and Zwetsloot, G.I. (2008), “Development of a sustainability policy
model for promoting cleaner production: a knowledge integration approach”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 16 No. 17, pp. 1823-1837.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A. and Johnston, R. (1997), Operations Management,
2nd ed., Pitman Publishing, London.
Story, V.M., Boso, N. and Cadogan, J.W. (2015), “The form of relationship between firm level product
innovativeness and new product performance in developed and emerging markets”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Suwanteep, K., Murayama, T. and Nishikizawa, S. (2016), “Environmental impact assessment system
in Thailand and its comparison with those in China and Japan”, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 12-24.
Swink, M. and Jacobs, B.W. (2012), “Six Sigma adoption: operating performance impacts Antecedents,
and contextual drivers of success”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, mediators and
pp. 437-453.
consequences
Tan, Y., Ochoa, J.J., Langston, C. and Shen, L. (2015), “An empirical study on the relationship
between sustainability performance and business competitiveness of international construction of SO
contractors”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 93, pp. 273-278.
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples”, Human 2211
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 356-367.
Tsai, K.H. and Yang, S.Y. (2013), “Firm innovativeness and business performance: the joint moderating
effects of market turbulence and competition”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1279-1294.
Vagnani, G. and Volpe, L. (2017), “Innovation attributes and managers’ decisions about the adoption of
innovations in organizations: a meta-analytical review”, International Journal of Innovation
Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-133.
Van Berkel, R. (2010), “Evolution and diversification of national cleaner production centers (NCPCs)”,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91 No. 7, pp. 1556-1565.
Walker, H. and Preuss, L. (2008), “Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small
businesses: public sector perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1600-1609.
Walker, P.H., Seuring, S., Sarkis, J. and Klassen, R. (2014), “Sustainable operations management: recent
trends and future directions”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-12-2013-0557.
Wong, S.K.S. (2012), “The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product
innovation: empirical evidence from the Chinese electrical and electronics industry”, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 468-490.
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2018), “Socially responsible governance mechanisms
for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 196, pp. 135-149.
Yawar, S.A. and Seuring, S. (2018), “The role of supplier development in managing social and societal
issues in supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, pp. 227-237.
Yildiz, O., Bozkurt, Ö.C., Kalkan, A. and Ayci, A. (2013), “The relationships between
technological investment, firm size, firm age and the growth rate of innovational
performance”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 590-599.
Yong, J.Y., Klemeš, J.J., Varbanov, P.S. and Huisingh, D. (2016), “Cleaner energy for cleaner production:
modelling, simulation, optimisation and waste management”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 111 Part A, pp. 1-16.
Zack, M., Mckeen, J. and Singh, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizational performance:
an exploratory survey”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 392-409.
Zeng, S.X., Meng, X.H., Yin, H.T., Tamb, C.M. and Sun, L. (2010), “Impact of cleaner production on
business performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 975-983.

About the authors

Dr Julio Cesar Ferro De Guimarães received Doctorate degree in Business Administration at the
Pontifícia University Católica of Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS) and University of Caxias do Sul (UCS),
Brazil. He has experience in the area of business administration, with emphasis in management
of innovation, business competitiveness. He is currently Professor at the UnP, Post-Graduate Program in
Administration and Post-Graduate Program in Process Engineering. Dr Julio Cesar Ferro De Guimarães
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: juliocfguimaraes@yahoo.com.br
Dr Eric Charles Henri Dorion holds Doctorate degree in Business administration from Université de
Sherbrooke, Canada, a Master’s degree in Business Administration from Université Laval, Canada.
He is currently Professor at the University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil, and he is Visiting Professor at
BIJ l École de Technologie Supérieure (Que), Canada. He has experience in the area of business
27,7 administration, with emphasis in organizational studies, management of innovation, business
competitiveness for SMEs, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education.
Dr Eliana Andréa Severo received Doctorate degree in Business Administration at the Pontifícia
University Católica of Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS) and University of Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil.
She has experience in the area of business administration, with emphasis in environmental
management, innovation and entrepreneurship. She is currently Professor at the UnP, Post-Graduate
2212 Program in Administration.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.