See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223691542

An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China:

Drivers and practices

Article in Journal of Cleaner Production · December 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003

CITATIONS READS

838 2,709

2 authors:

Qinghua Zhu Joseph Sarkis

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Worcester Polytechnic Institute
140 PUBLICATIONS 20,749 CITATIONS 520 PUBLICATIONS 47,631 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

socially inclusive circular economy View project

Recent issues and future directions on effective multi-tier supply chain management for sustainability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qinghua Zhu on 21 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain

management in China: Drivers and practices
Qinghua Zhu a,*, Joseph Sarkis b,1
a
School of Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning Province 116024, PR China
b
Graduate School of Management, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610-1477, USA
Received 4 May 2004; accepted 24 January 2005
Available online 16 March 2005

Abstract

The issue of green supply chain management (GSCM) has received increased attention in recent years among manufacturing
practice and research. Yet, the corporate and environmental manufacturing issues in developing countries have not been as well
investigated. This paper compares drivers and practices of GSCM in one developing country, China, focusing on three typical
sectors, the automobile industry, the thermal power plants and the electronic/electrical industry. We sought to determine where the
differences occur and which industries are further along. This study indicates that Chinese companies in different industries have
differing drivers and practices. We tend to confirm that globalization and China’s entry into the world trade organization have
helped promote GSCM practices in manufacturing enterprises.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Green supply chain management; Manufacturing practices; Empirical study

1. Introduction on the philosophy of environmental management as

Increasingly companies have realized that environ-
mental management is a key strategic issue with the
potential for a lasting impact on organizational perfor-
mance. For example, more than 40,000 companies have
implemented ISO14001, the environmental management
system standard. Most of these companies are manu-
facturing firms which have realized that they will be
unable to escape from their production’s environmental
dimensions. In the future, it is expected that all companies
will need to implement strategies to reduce the environ-
mental impacts of their products and services [1]. Building
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C86 411 84707331; fax: C86 411
84708342.
E-mail addresses: zhuqh@dlut.edu.cn (Q. Zhu), jsarkis@
clarku.edu (J. Sarkis).
1
Tel.: C1 508 793 7659; fax: C1 508 793 8822.
a competitive advantage, environmental dimensions of
operations and production should be viewed as a stimulus
for innovation and more efficient allocation of business
resources, not just as a requirement for regulatory
compliance. Success in addressing these factors may
provide new opportunities for competition, and new
ways, to add value to core business programs [2,3].
Environmental impacts occur at all stages of a product’s
life cycle, from resource extraction, to manufacturing, use
and reuse, final recycling, or disposal. Environmentally
responsible manufacturing and green supply chain
management (GSCM), and their many related principles,
have therefore, become an important strategy for
companies to achieve profit and market share objectives
by lowering their environmental impacts and raising
efficiency [4e6].
Recent studies have shown that a majority of the
world’s manufacturing will be carried out in Asia in the

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
next couple of decades [7]. This growth is expected
to create many opportunities in this part of the world,
but it will also bring about substantial environmental
burdens [8]. China and the Chinese economy will
represent a large portion of this growth. This is
a primary reason why study of Chinese environmental
and GSCM practices is critical for regional and global
environmental health.
With the relative scarcity of resources, increased
international pressures, and the potential pressure of
‘green barriers’ to trade, both the Chinese government
and companies operating in China have started to
promote a variety of environmental management
principles within various manufacturing enterprises.
Some of the principles and measures include environ-
mental impact assessments, ISO 14001 certification and
more recently, GSCM. As a developing country, the
environmental issues facing China need to be addressed
since long-term expenses of environmental degradation
may not be as easily addressed as they are in more
developed nations. This paper describes the results of
surveys and site visits to various Chinese manufacturing
enterprises. Over one hundred respondents provide
insights into GSCM drivers (or pressures) and practices
within China with a focus on inter-industry, size, and
ownership characteristics. This is one of the first studies
to examine these inter-sectoral relationships within
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. A main goal of this
paper is to examine if differences exist in GSCM drivers
(or pressures) and practices in three industries, automo-
bile, thermal power generating and electronic, in China.
We also explored which industries are further along the
various drivers (or pressures) and practices. The results
may influence the way environmental regulatory policy
and corporate environmental knowledge sharing and
benchmarking can be expanded in China. Conclusions
are drawn from the survey, the site visits and the
interviews.
2. Literature review and study propositions
A number of authors have studied GSCM, which is
one of the more popular emerging corporate environ-
mental management topics that have arisen over the
past decade. A range of aspects on GSCM studies have
been covered, including drivers and/or pressures for
GSCM [9e16] and GSCM practice [17e24]. The growth
in this literature extends back to the early 1990’s with
the advent of corporate environmental management,
environmentally conscious manufacturing strategy, and
supply chain management literature. The literature has
ranged from empirical studies to modeling the behavior
of GSCM including such topics as product stewardship,
green purchasing, eco-design, remanufacturing, disas-
sembly, and reverse logistics, just to name a few topical
473
areas. Many of these topics have recently been covered
from a conceptual, empirical, and analytical perspective
which are reviewed in subsequent sections of this paper.
We contribute to this literature through an empirical
broad-based study of many of these issues in China. We
feel that further investigation of GSCM practice in
China is warranted, especially as continued globaliza-
tion in industrial production practice and research is
expected to increase in importance.
2.1. Drivers and/or pressures for GSCM
There are some explanations as to why firms should
engage in GSCM activities. In addition to overall
environmental improvement there may be congruent
results in tangible positive economic performance. Hall
also argued that large customer firms meet stakeholder
pressure that goes beyond legal environmental respon-
sibilities while many suppliers are often under consider-
able pressures from their customers [16]. Henriques and
Sadorsky identified four critical environmental stake-
holder groups: (1) regulatory stakeholders, which either
set regulations or have the ability to convince govern-
ments to set standards; (2) organizational stakeholders
that are directly related to an organization and that
can have a direct financial impact on the company; (3)
community groups, environmental organizations and
other potential lobbies who can mobilize public opinion
in favor of or against a firm’s environmental policies;
and (4) the media, which have the ability to influence
society’s perception of a firm [13]. These types of
pressures are incurred in a wide variety of international
locals, for example, research in Spanish industries
confirmed that some of the external pressures could
become sources of opportunity for those companies with
the intention to improve their environmental control
[25]. It is similar for many Chinese companies. For
example, many Chinese companies acquired ISO14001
certification to meet environmental requirements from
their foreign customers, which also helps them to market
their products to other customers [26].
Yet, all organizations are not exposed to the same
types of pressure or to the same extent. Globalization,
especially after China’s entry into the World Trade
Organization (WTO), may result in higher pressure and
drivers for Chinese enterprises to improve environmen-
tal performance. Christmann and Taylor suggested that
export and sales to foreign customers are two major
drivers for improving the environmental performance of
Chinese enterprises [27]. Sometimes, it is the latest
global environmental issue that is facing Chinese
regulatory bodies, which may emphasize one environ-
mental issue and industry over other environmental
issues and industries. For example, with Kyoto Protocol
requirements and international pressures for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, there may be differing and
474 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
increased pressures on those industries that are heavy
emitters of greenhouse gases (e.g. power generation).
Another example is that some industries are more
domestic in orientation (e.g. power generation and
utilities) whereas other industries are more globally
focused (e.g. electronic) and thus will have differing
national and international pressures and motivations for
incorporating GSCM practices. Overall, different in-
dustries have different controls in competition, un-
certainty and technology, and thus, individual firms in
different sectors face different types and intensities of
environmental challenges [28e30]. Given these initial
arguments, we make the first general proposition we will
evaluate in this study:
Proposition 1. Chinese companies in different industrial
sectors have different drivers and/or pressures for imple-
mentation of GSCM practices.
2.2. Practice of GSCM
GSCM has emerged as a strategy for some leading
companies. GSCM practices have ranged from green
purchasing to integrated supply chains flowing from
suppliers, to manufacturers, to customers and reverse
logistics, which is ‘‘closing the loop’’ as defined by
supply chain management literature. Similar to the
concept of supply chain management, the boundary of
GSCM is dependent on the goal of the investigator, e.g.
should it be just the procurement stage or the full
logistics channel? The research in GSCM addresses
a variety of issues ranging from organizational research
and practice in GSCM [16,31,32] to prescriptive models
for evaluation of green supply chain management
practices and technology [33e35].
Given that the literature in this area is expanding in
a number of directions, this paper focuses on five
GSCM practices (internal environmental management,
green purchasing, cooperation with customers including
environmental requirements, investment recovery, and
eco-design practices) that Chinese enterprises may
implement to improve their performance. All five
GSCM practices are integrative and need cross-func-
tional cooperation rather than oriented to a single
function or department.
Internal environmental management is a key to
improving enterprises’ performance [36,37]. Large cus-
tomers have exerted pressure on their suppliers for
better environmental performance, which results in
greater motivation for suppliers to cooperate with
customers for environmental objectives [38,39]. Green
purchasing and eco-design are two emerging approaches
in evidence in Chinese enterprises [40] and focus on the
inbound or early portions of a product’s supply chain.
United States and European enterprises have also
considered investment recovery as a critical aspect for
GSCM [41], which may occur at the back end of the
supply chain cycle. In China, the government has
changed its policies from a focus on resource subsidies
to levying taxes for some resources such as coal and
natural gas [40]. However, investment recovery has
received much less attention in China compared to more
developed countries such as the U.S. and Germany,
primarily due to waste management policies and lack of
recycling systems and infrastructure. The other set of
practices defining the ‘‘back-end’’ of the supply chain
include the relationship with customers on environmen-
tal issues. In many cases international companies are
now emphasizing the need for their suppliers to main-
tain an environmentally benign position and would
require this of many Chinese suppliers so that these
organizations’ products are not boycotted due to
environmental reasons.
Yet, the issues facing various industrial sectors may
cause some of the practices to be very different in terms
of levels of adoption and implementation. For example,
by using an economic inputeoutput model of the USA
economy with 519 commodity sectors, McMichael et al.
found that different industries have different direct and
indirect environmental effects by emissions (toxic, harm-
ful, and ozone depleting) and resources used (electricity
and fuels) [42]. Due to different drivers and pressures, as
well as potential improvements companies can make,
manufacturers in different sectors have made different
efforts on GSCM. Thus, we posit the second proposition.
Proposition 2. Chinese companies in different sectors
implement different practices of GSCM.
3. Methodology
The data used in this study consist of questionnaire
responses from managers in the Chinese automobile,
power generating and electronic/electrical industries.
These three industries have significant environmental
and economic concerns within China. After China’s
entry into the WTO, the automobile industry is one of
industries that have faced some of the most stringent
pressures to compete with international companies.
Suppliers in this industry have worked on improving
their environmental performance, which has helped
them to establish relationships with foreign customers
in China [26]. Thus, the automobile industry was
selected as one industry. The power generating industry
is chosen because it is a heavy polluter in China and has
seen increased environmental pressures from the gov-
ernment and the public [43]. In China, thermal power
plants generate a majority of the electricity, about 81%
of the total [43]. Power plants have struggled to improve
their environmental performance for survival.
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
Due to increasing concerns and importance of
environmental issues, manufacturers, especially elec-
tronic companies, are seeking methods to improve their
environmental performance [44]. Electronic/electrical
companies in China have strong export product markets
and have significant close relationships with foreign
customers in China. Thus, experiences from this in-
dustry may be useful for other Chinese manufacturing
industries during their process of globalization, espe-
cially after China’s entry into the WTO.
The questionnaire includes items of drivers/pressures
and practice and was initially developed using literature
as the main resource. Twenty items of drivers/pressures
were based on a number of sources from the literature
[27,45e47]. Questions were developed using a five-point
Likert-type scale (e.g. 1 Z not at all important, 2 Z not
important, 3 Z not thinking about it, 4 Z important,
5 Z extremely important). Twenty-six items of GSCM
practices were based on the literature [41,48,49].
Questions were answered using another five-point scale
(1 Z not considering it, 2 Z planning to consider it,
3 Z considering it currently, 4 Z initiating implementa-
tion, 5 Z implementing successfully).
To customize the questionnaire to the situations in
China, we asked for suggestions from environmental
managers when they participated in workshops. The
draft questionnaire was handed out to environmental
managers during two workshops in September of 2002
in the Tianjin Economic and Technological Area
(TEDA) and Dalian Economic and Technological
Development Zone (DETDZ), the largest and the
second largest industrial zones in China according to
GDP. Twenty-eight of 36 managers provided sugges-
tions for the modification of the questionnaire. On the
basis of brief results from two workshops, we began to
focus on companies in the three selected industries,
namely, the automobile industry, power plants and
electronic/electrical industry.
The survey instrument was administered using
convenience sampling2 through three steps:
(1) Surveys during workshops: Forty-six questionnaires
in a training workshop for managers from a variety
of disciplines from the automobile, electrical and
2
The National Center for Industrial Science and Technology in the
School of Management at Dalian University of Technology was
established in 1980. The Center was directly proposed by Mr. Deng
Xiaoping. The center is the first joint training project between Chinese
and American stakeholders. Since 2001, it has been one of nine
training bases for industries in China designated by the State
Economic & Trade Commission. In recent years, the center has
provided training for manager in three main industries targeted by our
study. Since managers involved in training programs are representa-
tives from these industries throughout China, we can argue that
responses from them during two workshops can generally represent
situations in China for these industries.
475
electronic industries were administered in October of
2002 in the School of Management at Dalian
University of Technology, and 27 usable question-
naires were collected.
(2) Interviews and site visits: To further understand the
situation of GSCM in Chinese enterprises, inter-
views and site visits in the Dalian High-tech Zone in
Liaoning Province and the Zibo Industrial Zone in
Shandong Province were also completed. During
this time a total of 25 questionnaires were com-
pleted. When more than one completed question-
naire was obtained from one enterprise they were
aggregated into one questionnaire.
(3) Surveys during workshops for the second time: In
February and March of 2003, mid-level managers
from three industries were asked to complete the
surveys during three training workshops at Dalian
University of Technology. Sixty-six usable question-
naires out of a total 100 were obtained after collating
several questionnaires from one enterprise into one
response; simple means were used to collate the
multi-company samples. Before each of the three
training workshops, the objective of the survey and
the concept of GSCM were briefly introduced to the
respondents such that definitions were clear.
Our study methodology has precedent in that the
work of Christmann and Taylor [27], who saw the same
difficulty in data collection for Chinese organizational
practices, completed their empirical study by surveying
Chinese managers participating in two seminars on
standards-based management practices conducted by
the Asia Pacific Economic Corporation. In addition
Lou’s study investigated 60 EMBA students and 55
participants in the Advanced Management Training
Program, both in Southeast University in China [50].
Out of a total of 171 questionnaires administered to
these enterprises and representatives a total of 118 unique
and usable manufacturing enterprise responses were
received. The people targeted by this study and respond-
ing to the survey had middle management or higher
experience. This level of response is supported by other
research such as Carter et al. who concluded that mid-
level managers such as those in a purchasing department
could, at a minimum, facilitate incremental adoption of
environmental practices, which is consistent with our
findings from extensive corporate interviews beyond the
survey instrument [36]. Bowen et al. used middle
managers to find positive relationships between middle
managers’ perceptions of corporate environmental pro-
activity and GSCM [51]. In another paper, Bowen et al.
found that the further the middle managers’ perceptions
of the corporate attitude to environmental issues is in
advance of legislation, regulation and other firms in the
industry, the more likely the unit is to implement a GSCM
practice [52].
476 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondent enter- specific elements within those groupings that were
prises in terms of industry and enterprise size using included in the questionnaires. Composite factors and
employment levels. Enterprise sizes ranged from under items for each category together with means and
500 to over 8000 employees with the majority of standard deviations are shown in Table 2. ANOVA
companies falling into medium-sized company classifi- and the t-test results across industries and their
cation of between 501 and 3000 employees. significance are used to evaluate Proposition 1 and are
These three industries represent companies that have shown in the final four columns of Table 2.
struggled to become suppliers of foreign companies in ANOVA results in Table 2 show that only one
China, heavy polluters and those exporting products, composite factor, ‘marketing,’ has significant differences
respectively. Due to higher awareness or pressures, it (at the !0.05 level) among these three industries while
can be argued that these enterprises in China are another internal factor shows slight differences (at the
innovators in GSCM and their experiences will diffuse !0.10 level). Generally speaking, the ANOVA results
to other enterprises [53]. for five composite factors only partly support Proposi-
tion 1. Further, the results of the t-tests show that the
automobile industry has the highest marketing pres-
4. Analysis and results sures, significantly stronger than power plants and
slightly significantly stronger than the electronic in-
We compared drivers/pressures and practices of dustry. Another slightly significant difference is the
GSCM in the three industry sectors. To evaluate if internal composite factor. The automobile industry has
significant differences exist in the drivers/pressures and slightly stronger internal drivers (or pressures) than the
practices among three industries, a one-way analysis of electronics industry.
variance (ANOVA) was performed. To further compare
if one industry is further along than the other two 4.1.1. Regulations
industries in certain aspects, two-tailed independent- Overall, regulations are still the most prevalent
samples t-tests were used. To obtain overall results, we pressure for Chinese companies. Table 2 shows that all
compared composite factors before we evaluated the means of four items for the three sectors are over 4.00
specific items within the factors. with one exception of import countries’ environmental
regulation for power plants, which makes sense since it
4.1. Drivers and pressures comparisons is not expected that much of the power plant’s output is
generated for export.
According to the literature [27,36,41,45,47e49] and The ANOVA results presented in Table 2 show
suggestions from experts of environmental management significant differences among the means for the pressure
departments in manufacturing industries, we grouped of central governmental environmental regulations.
the items of environmental drivers/pressure into five Further, t-tests show that the means do not show
categories. Table 2 provides the various groupings and a statistically significant difference between the automo-
bile industry and power plants, yet there does seem to be
statistically significant differences between the electronic/
Table 1
Distribution of survey respondent enterprises by industry, size and electrical industry and the other two industries.
ownership Since China has more strict laws for air emission
Total Percentage from vehicles, automobile industry ranks domestic
central governmental environmental regulations as the
Industry
Automobile 59 50 most important factor with a mean of 4.75. Because of
Power generating 34 28.8 more serious air pollution, China has enacted more laws
Electrical and electronic 25 21.2 to control sulfur dioxide. Since the 1990’s, several small
Total 118 100 thermal power plants have been closed due to govern-
Size (employees) ment intervention [43]. Thus, thermal power plants
O3000 28 23.7 consider central governmental environmental regula-
500e3000 58 49.2 tions as the highest pressure with the mean of 4.79. As
!500 32 27.1
!100 9 7.9
for electronic/electrical industry, companies are ‘cleaner’
Total 118 100 than the automobile industry and thermal power plant.
As a result, these companies meet relatively lower
Ownership
State-owned 72 61.0 pressures from the central government.
Foreign direct 27 22.9 Our survey shows that regional environmental
investment or joint venture regulation is the second important pressure for all res-
Private 19 16.1 pondent companies, with the average mean of 4.40. This
Total 118 100
may be due to regional governments adopting and/or
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486 477

Table 2
Comparison of GSCM drivers/pressures in Chinese enterprises in different industrial sectors
Itemsa Automobile Power plants Electronic ANOVA Industries comparisonb
(n Z 59) (n Z 34) (n Z 25) (F-statistic)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 1 and 2 1 and 3 2 and 3
Regulations 4.46 0.596 4.31 0.507 4.27 1.315 0.625 1.072 0.865 0.695
Central governmental 4.75 0.632 4.79 0.415 4.24 1.348 3.371* ÿ0.328c 2.207* 1.908C
environmental regulations
Regional environmental regulations 4.47 0.796 4.50 0.590 4.06 1.435 1.585 ÿ0.141 1.557 1.358
Import countries’ 4.47 0.754 3.88 1.361 4.29 1.312 2.770C 2.521* 0.686 ÿ0.986
environmental regulations
Products potentially conflict 4.14 0.805 4.08 0.830 4.25 1.342 0.161 0.277 ÿ0.421 ÿ0.486
with laws
Marketing 4.41 0.593 4.02 0.750 4.07 1.071 3.102* 2.483* 1.680C ÿ0.152
Export 4.40 0.699 3.67 1.435 4.00 1.366 4.368* 3.101** 1.594 ÿ0.734
Sales to foreign 4.31 0.725 3.87 1.058 3.69 1.195 3.986* 2.134* 2.597* 0.501
customers in China
Chinese consumers’ 4.36 0.846 4.13 0.850 4.27 1.100 0.580 1.126 0.343 ÿ0.452
environmental drivers
Establishing enterprise’s 4.56 0.726 4.29 0.550 3.94 1.478 3.581* 1.625 2.387* 1.067
green image
Suppliers 4.15 0.652 3.94 0.538 3.80 1.057 0.058 0.116 0.321 0.203
Supplier’s advances in developing 4.14 0.753 4.14 0.702 3.50 1.155 4.176* ÿ0.174 2.649** 2.275*
environmentally friendly goods
Supplier’s advances 4.15 0.867 3.75 0.989 3.69 1.352 2.255 1.840C 1.672C 0.169
in developing environmentally
friendly packages
Environmental partnership 4.12 0.745 3.96 0.690 3.94 1.237 0.496 0.907 0.740 0.068
with suppliers
Making sure that suppliers will 4.20 0.761 3.88 0.680 3.80 1.207 2.242 1.836C 1.611 0.249
remain in business
Competitors 4.10 0.687 4.08 0.565 4.03 1.056 0.058 0.116 0.321 0.203
Competitors’ green strategies 4.36 0.760 4.21 0.884 4.13 1.088 0.587 0.765 0.978 0.266
Industrial professional 3.85 0.805 3.96 0.624 3.94 1.124 0.187 ÿ0.604 ÿ0.363 0.075
group activities
Internal factor 4.28 0.623 4.15 0.385 3.88 0.985 2.372C 0.921 1.977C 1.184
Enterprise’s environmental mission 4.54 0.703 4.67 0.482 4.06 1.391 3.042C ÿ0.793 1.958* 1.988C
Internal multinational policies 4.34 0.710 4.36 0.492 4.20 1.082 0.255 ÿ0.150 0.604 0.624
Potential liability 4.49 0.679 4.25 0.442 3.94 1.249 3.671* 1.606 2.392* 1.121
for disposal of harmful materials
Cost for disposal 4.24 0.953 3.96 0.806 4.00 1.000 0.971 1.261 0.895 ÿ0.148
of harmful materials
Cost of environmentally 4.05 0.860 3.71 0.859 3.82 1.015 1.420 1.646C 0.922 ÿ0.393
friendly goods
Cost of environmentally 4.03 0.830 3.83 0.816 3.71 1.047 1.143 1.003 1.352 0.438
friendly packaging
a
Scales of items based on, 1 Z not at all important; 2 Z not important; 3 Z not thinking about it; 4 Z important; 5 Z extremely important.
b
1 Z Automobile industry, 2 Z power plants, 3 Z electrical/electronic.
c C
p ! 0.10; *p ! 0.05; **p ! 0.01; ***p ! 0.001.

enforcing more strict environmental standards than
China’s central government. Both the ANOVA result
and the t-tests in Table 2 shows that means for three
industries are not statistically significantly different.
Import countries’ environmental regulations are
another very important pressure, with a mean of 4.47
for the automobile industry and 4.29 for electronic/
electronic industry. The ANOVA result shows a slight
statistically significant difference among three industries.
The t-tests show that automobile industry and elec-
tronic/electrical companies have similar high pressures
from foreign countries’ regulations, but further analysis
shows that it may be due to different reasons. For
example, after China joined the WTO, automobile
companies, especially component suppliers, were eager
to establish relationships with foreign companies [53].
By using the same environmental standard all over the
world, multinational enterprise subsidiaries in develop-
ing countries might exert pressure on domestic suppliers
to self-regulate environmental performance [27]. Thus,
478 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
automobile companies have struggled to meet not only
China’s regulations but also regulations of their
customers’ countries. Different from the automobile
industry, the electronic/electrical industry highlights
import countries’ environmental regulations because
they developed better environmental awareness pro-
cesses for meeting ‘‘green barriers’’ at the beginning of
their supply chain relationships. As an important
manufacturing country, China exports many electron-
ic/electrical components. Thermal power plants have
significantly lower pressures from other countries than
the automobile industry. Environmental regulations in
other countries have not affected thermal power plants
in China, yet. However, since China joined the WTO, it
is the trend for China’s government to enact more laws
with similar environmental standards such as sulfur
dioxide emission for power plants.
All respondents in the three industries have similar
awareness of products potentially conflicting with laws,
with the mean of 4.14 for the automobile industry and
4.08 for power plants. Both the ANOVA result and t-
test also indicates no difference of means for all three
industries. Electronic/electrical companies have a rela-
tively higher mean, 4.25, which may due to higher
environmental awareness since they have exported
products or established relationship with foreign cus-
tomers in China.
In summary, results indicate that regulations, as a
group, seem to exert the highest pressure on the
automobile industry. In addition, the three industries
have slightly differing pressures except for the products
that potentially conflict with laws factor, which gener-
ally, but only partially supports Proposition 1.
4.1.2. Marketing
Marketing is a relatively important driver of GSCM in
Chinese enterprises. To obtain more sustainable solu-
tions, environmental properties of products and services
must meet customer requirements [54]. Using survey data
from firms in China, Christmann and Taylor concluded
that multinational ownership, multinational customers,
and exports to developed countries increase self-regula-
tion of environmental performance [27]. This is consis-
tent with our survey results. As stated in the previous
paragraphs, export and sales to foreign customers in
China are two most important drivers for the automobile
industry in China, with the mean of 4.40 and 4.31,
respectively. Chan and Lau compare the greening
purchasing behaviors between American and Chinese
Consumers, and concluded that both subjective norm
and perceived behavioral control exert stronger influen-
ces on Chinese consumers’ behavioral intention than on
American consumers while the translation of green
purchasing intention to corresponding behavior is more
effective in American consumers [47]. However, Chinese
consumers are developing an increasingly heightened
environmental awareness and are starting to prefer
‘green’ products [55]. Thus, Chinese enterprises pro-
ducing final products have considered Chinese consum-
ers’ environmental awareness as an important pressure.
Table 2 shows that all means of this item are over 4.00,
and the highest for the automobile industry with 4.36.
With increasing environmental awareness and high
pressure, more Chinese companies have tried to establish
their green image. For example, leading companies have
integrated environmental aspects into their strategies and
missions [56]. Traditional heavy polluters, such as the
automobile industry and thermal power plants, have
been stimulated to improve their environmental image,
with the mean of 4.56 and 4.29, respectively. Electronic/
electrical companies are relatively reluctant to improve
their green image with the mean of 3.94, which may be
partly because that most of these companies have
established long-term relationship with their customers.
ANOVA results in Table 2 show that all items except
an item of Chinese consumers’ environmental drivers
have significant differences. The t-tests show that the
automobile industry has significantly more pressures
from the export market than power plants and has
significantly higher pressures for sales to foreign custom-
ers in China than both power plants and electronic/
electrical industry. Public environmental awareness
results in similar pressure for all respondents. It is also
an important driver for power plants to establish their
green image though the driver is not as strong as that for
automobile industry. Electronic/electrical companies
have significant lower pressures for establishing compa-
nies’ green image than automobile industry. This is
a surprising finding since it can be argued that both these
industries have strong consumer driven supply chains
that would require a good environmental image.
Overall, the automobile industry seems to emphasize
all marketing items as important ones. Generally
speaking, power plants and electronic/electrical industry
have similar pressures from green marketing while
realizing the importance of different drivers. Results of
marketing support Proposition 1.
4.1.3. Suppliers and competitors
Environmental performance of suppliers is consid-
ered a less important driver for GSCM practices when
compared to other drivers. Through a survey, Min and
Galle identified ten key factors that affect a buying
firm’s choice of suppliers [45]. Among ten factors,
supplier’s advances in providing environmentally friend-
ly packages, supplier’s advances in developing environ-
mentally friendly goods and environmental partnership
with suppliers were on the list and ranked 8, 9 and 10.
Zhu and Geng found factors related to suppliers were
ranked similarly. However, further analysis indicated
that companies in China consider these factors less
important than those counterparts in the USA [26].
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
ANOVA results presented in Table 2 show one
significant difference among the three industries, that
is, suppliers’ advances in developing environmentally
friendly goods. The t-tests show more differences for
means of items across different industries. For the first
item, supplier’s advances in developing environmentally
friendly goods, the mean for automobile industry is not
significantly different to power plants but very signifi-
cantly higher than that for the electronic/electrical
industry. This driver for power plants is also significantly
stronger than for the electronic/electrical industry. This
is a somewhat surprising result, but may be attributed to
where in the supply chain companies are located. It may
be that the electrical/electronic industry suppliers are
early in the electronic supply chain (e.g. suppliers of parts
and components rather than end products), and the
other industries are closer to the end product or service
development and thus manage suppliers more closely.
As for the second item, supply’s advances in providing
environmentally friendly packages, the driver for the
automobile industry is slightly stronger than that for both
power plants and electronic/electrical industry. The
t-tests show no significant difference for the driver of
environmental partnership with suppliers for all in-
dustries. As to business continuity, making sure that
suppliers will remain in business, the automobile industry
considers it slightly more important than power plants.
All companies consider competitors’ green strategies
important but rank industrial professional group
activities as the least important item with means below
4.00. The t-tests show there are no differences for both
items related to competitors for all industries.
Therefore, we can conclude that drivers and pressures
from suppliers are perceived as mostly different amongst
the three Chinese sectors, but pressures and drivers
related to competitors has little significant difference
amongst these industries. Thus, there is partial support
for Proposition 1.
4.1.4. Internal pressures and drivers
Internal pressures, especially enterprise’s environ-
mental mission and internal multinational policies, are
considered very important, and all means for three
industries are equal or close to those of regulations.
However, electronic companies in China are not well
aware of the importance of potential liability for
disposal of harmful materials with the industry mean
of 3.94, which is consistent with the results of previous
literature by Zhu and Geng [26]. On the contrary,
companies in the USA highlight potential liability for
disposal of hazardous materials, ranking it the most
important factor that affecting a buying firm’s choice of
suppliers [45]. This result supports the idea that it is still
a relatively reactive stance by Chinese enterprises who
may not be faced with Superfund like regulations at this
time and are not farsighted enough to integrate a change
479
in regulations that may make them historically re-
sponsible for harmful wastes.
It also seems that the environmental mission of
companies in China is more important for Chinese
enterprises compared to those results of Min and Galle
[45]. This result may be due to the reason that export
and sales to foreign enterprises in China are two
important incentives for Chinese enterprises [38,39].
The ANOVA results show one significant difference,
that is, potential liability for disposal of harmful
materials. The t-tests show some differences among
internal items in different industries, and are summa-
rized in Table 2. Some examples include the automobile
industry’s consideration that enterprise’s environmental
mission and potential liability for disposal of harmful
materials is significantly more important for them than
it is for the electronic/electrical industry. Another
example is that enterprise’s environmental mission is
considered slightly more important by power plants
than by the electronic/electrical industry. Proposition 1
is partly supported. It is interesting that the electrical
and electronic industry considers potential liability for
disposal of harmful materials less important, especially
if these Chinese companies complete business in Europe
where harmful material laws for electronic are prevalent.
It may be that the electronic industry may have some of
these factors already under control and thus does not
view many of these elements as important.
In conclusion, all companies have strong drivers and
pressures to implement GSCM, with most means over
4.00. Among all the investigated companies, the auto-
mobile industry seems to have the highest importance in
drivers and pressure factors. Power plants and electronic/
electrical industry have similar levels but differing drivers
and pressure. Overall, there are many similarities across
industries in China, but significant differences do exist.
4.2. GSCM practice comparison
Recognizing the increased importance of environ-
mental programs to market success, companies in the
USA have sought to invest billions of dollars during the
1990s to green their products and processes [57]. Given
the various drivers and pressures introduced above,
a growing number of companies in China have started
to develop their GSCM and environmental programs. A
broad set of activities relating to GSCM have been
considered and/or implemented, including green pur-
chasing, cooperation with customers including environ-
mental requirements, investment recovery, eco-design
and internal management. The results of this portion of
the analysis are shown in Table 3.
Overall, looking at the means, the results may indicate
that there is a lag between the pressures being felt by
Chinese organizations in Chinese manufacturing enter-
prises and their adoption of these practices, with a prepon-
480 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
derance of results around the ‘considering it currently’
stages. It can be argued that these Chinese manufacturing
enterprises are still in the early learning stages of corporate
environmental programs and practices. This overall result
also points to the need for Chinese enterprises to become
better educated in GSCM practices. ANOVA results for
five composite factors show that two of them have
significant differences, that is, green purchasing and
internal environmental management. Thus, Proposition
2 is partially supported. We shall now investigate the five
major grouped practices in more details.
4.2.1. Green purchasing
Green purchasing seems to get significant attention
within leading companies in developed countries.
However, Chinese companies’ practices are still in the
early stages, lagging behind practices in developed
countries. For example, many enterprises from dev-
eloped countries evaluate not only their direct suppliers
but also second-tier suppliers (suppliers’ suppliers). In
this regard, it is noteworthy that in their investigation,
Walton et al. put forward the ten top environmental
supplier evaluation criteria and that, among these,
second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice
evaluation is the second most important criterion [48].
However, second-tier suppliers’ environmental practice
is only in early consideration stages by Chinese enter-
prises, with relatively low means of 2.74, 2.95 and 3.29
for three sectors, respectively.
ANOVA results presented in Table 3 show that three
items have significant differences among the three
industries. The t-tests show more details in different
levels of green purchasing practices in different in-
dustries. Power plants seem to be significantly further
along in implementing green purchasing than the other
two industries, but most clearly, over the automobile
industry. For example, power plants seem to have
provided design specification to suppliers that include
environmental requirements for purchased items with the
mean of 4.23. It was confirmed by our interviews that
showed that power plants such as the thermal power
plant in Dalian Economic and Technological Develop-
ment Zone and Yuanbaoshan power plant in Inner
Mongolia select low-sulfur coal to reduce their sulfur
dioxide emissions which are highly restricted in China.
However, the automobile industry is, at most, in early
consideration stages, with a mean of 2.91. It seems that all
practices of green purchasing are not really implemented
in automobile industry with all means lower than 3.00.
This clearly supports Proposition 2 that GSCM
practices are adopted at differing levels.
4.2.2. Cooperation with customers including
environmental requirements
Competitive Chinese companies have an increased
focus on customers’ needs and the development of
value-added products and services. More foreign com-
panies have established real or anticipated requirements
for their suppliers. For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
IBM and Xerox have encouraged their Chinese suppliers
to develop environmental management systems consis-
tent with ISO 14001, while Ford, GM and Toyota have
required their Chinese suppliers to obtain the ISO 14001
certification [58]. This is the case for companies that
want to become long-term suppliers to joint ventures or
foreign direct investment (FDI) enterprises in China
with strong environmental policies. ANOVA results
show a significant difference in cooperation with
customers for eco-design and a slightly significant
difference in cooperation with customers for cleaner
production. Proposition 2 is partially supported.
Results in Table 3 show that automobile industry has
lower levels of cooperation with customers. This may
change since the automobile companies, especially
leading component suppliers, are seeking to cooperate
with foreign customers in China. For example, Dalian
Diesel Engine Plant has planned to establish a joint
venture with a German company, Deutz, to produce
new generation diesels that will meet more strict
environmental standards [59]. In this situation, it seems
that power plants have significantly more established or
evolving cooperative programs with their customers
than the automobile industry has. This may be because
most of them are state-owned and maintain long-term
relationships with their customers.
As for the electronic/electrical industry, they are
considering cooperation with customers for eco-design
with the mean of 3.06 which is slightly less than power
plants. Many of these electronic/electrical industry
companies have exported products or sell products to
foreign companies in China for a longer time than
automobile industry, which may mean longer and closer
customer/supplier relationships and awareness to co-
operate with their customers. These results do point to
further support of Proposition 2.
4.2.3. Investment recovery
One area of a more broad comparative GSCM practice
where research has been completed and information
exists is in the area of investment recovery. Zsidisin and
Hendrick found that in the U.S. and Germany, enter-
prises highlight investment recovery as the most impor-
tant practice for green purchasing [41]. In China,
investment recovery has received much less attention
than in developed countries such as the U.S. and
Germany due to Chinese waste management policies
and lack of recycling systems. Yet, the results in this
evaluation show that the means are relatively higher in
terms of consideration and implementation in the
automobile industry than for most of the other practices
within that industry (e.g. mid-high 3.6 levels in responses).
Yet, the industries do not show a significant difference in
Table 3
Comparison of GSCM practices in Chinese enterprises in different sectors
Itemsa Automobile (n Z 59) Power plants (n Z 34) Electronic (n Z 25) ANOVA Industries comparisonb
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. (F-statistic) 1 and 2 1 and 3 2 and 3
Green purchasing 2.77 1.072 3.61 0.880 3.60 1.163 7.847*** ÿ3.330*** ÿ2.884** 0.031
Providing design 2.91 1.354 4.23 0.869 3.71 1.263 9.699*** ÿ4.222*** ÿ2.151* 1.527
specification to suppliers
that include environmental
requirements for purchased item
Cooperation with 2.69 1.340 3.83 1.029 3.65 1.498 7.916*** ÿ3.656*** ÿ2.522* 0.448
suppliers for environmental objectives
Environmental audit 2.84 1.344 3.18 1.332 3.53 1.179 1.969 ÿ1.021 ÿ1.909C ÿ0.849
for suppliers’ internal management

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486

Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification 2.91 1.213 3.82 1.332 3.60 1.404 4.683* ÿ2.882** ÿ1.890C 0.479
Second-tier supplier 2.74 1.396 2.95 1.395 3.29 1.213 1.106 ÿ0.576 ÿ1.476 ÿ0.794
environmentally friendly practice evaluation
Cooperation with 2.98 1.043 3.49 1.069 3.31 1.261 0.142 ÿ0.551 ÿ0.169 0.267
customers including environmental requirements
Cooperation with 2.39 1.260 3.65 1.182 3.06 1.519 7.604*** ÿ3.925*** ÿ1.841C 1.331
customer for eco-design
Cooperation with 3.10 1.180 3.79 0.976 3.35 1.412 2.418C ÿ2.288* ÿ0.733 1.089
customers for cleaner production
Cooperation with 3.11 1.319 3.22 1.263 3.47 1.281 0.521 ÿ0.331 ÿ1.009 ÿ0.578
customers for green packaging
Cooperation with customers for using 3.36 1.186 3.67 1.317 3.35 1.320 0.521 ÿ1.002 0.060 0.730
less energy during product
transportation
Investment recovery 3.51 1.065 3.67 1.010 3.56 1.263 0.142 ÿ0.551 0.169 0.267
Investment recovery 3.58 1.235 3.74 1.195 3.65 1.455 0.120 ÿ0.497 ÿ0.200 0.203
(sale) of excess inventories/materials
Sale of scrap 3.68 1.252 3.90 1.136 3.59 1.228 0.370 ÿ0.730 0.261 0.824
and used materials
Sale of excess 3.47 1.215 3.59 1.333 3.37 1.360 0.139 ÿ0.375 0.276 0.489
capital equipment
Eco-design 3.44 1.088 3.92 1.100 3.60 1.064 1.439 ÿ1.688C ÿ0.485 0.851
Design of products 3.65 1.217 3.90 1.165 3.87 1.125 0.430 ÿ0.802 ÿ0.625 ÿ0.085
for reduced consumption
of material/energy
Design of products 3.31 1.193 3.86 1.236 3.14 1.292 1.973 ÿ1.804C 0.450 1.645
for reuse, recycle,
recovery of material,
component parts
Design of products to 3.36 1.186 4.10 1.044 3.88 1.204 3.670* ÿ2.528* ÿ1.548 0.595
avoid or reduce use of harmful
of products and/or
their manufacturing process
(continued on next page)

481
482 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486

this practice across industries. Thus, Proposition 2 is not

2 and 3
0.284
0.386

0.991

0.627

1.154

0.553

0.646
0.982

ÿ0.973
as well supported for this category of GSCM practices.

4.2.4. Eco-design
ÿ2.926***

No matter where in the product life cycle lies, most of

ÿ2.873**

ÿ2.985**
ÿ2.879**
ÿ1.650C
ÿ2.086*

ÿ2.124*

ÿ2.401*
1 and 3

ÿ1.467
Industries comparisonb

the environmental influence is ‘locked’ into the product

at the design stage when materials and processes are
selected and product environmental performance is
largely determined [1]. Since much of the environmental
ÿ3.654***

ÿ3.328***

ÿ3.364***

ÿ4.193***

ÿ4.588***
ÿ4.776***
ÿ2.922**

ÿ3.210**

impacts are associated with packaging and use of

1 and 2

ÿ1.142
products, the supply chain is implicated, as is design.
Eco-design (and design for the environment (DFE)) is
a helpful, emerging tool to improve companies’ environ-
mental performance by addressing product functionality
(F-statistic)

1 Z Not considering it, 2 Z planning to consider it, 3 Z considering it currently, 4 Z initiating implementation, 5 Z implementing successfully.
9.004***

10.243***

11.828***
12.919***
ANOVA

5.547**

5.551**

6.744**

5.695**

2.819C
while simultaneously minimizing life-cycle environ-
mental impacts. The success of eco-design requires the
internal cross-functional cooperation among the entire
company and the external cooperation with other
partners throughout the supply chain.
Results presented in Table 3 show that eco-design has
1.000
1.078

1.147

1.033

1.246

1.131

1.335
1.163

1.100
S.D.
Electronic (n Z 25)

received relatively more attention than green purchasing

and cooperation with customers, especially for design of
products for reduced consumption of material and/or
energy. All three activities are being considered or
Mean
3.98
4.31

3.88

4.07

3.87

4.18

3.93
3.93

3.73

initiated with all means between 3.00 and 4.00. With

increasing scarcity of resources in China, materials and
energy tend to be more expensive. As a result, products
consuming less materials and/or energy tend to be more
profitable and/or garner more market share, which is
1.006
0.771
0.896

0.998

0.864

0.864

0.832

0.935

1.593
Power plants (n Z 34)
S.D.

consistent with conclusions from our interviews.

ANOVA results show one significant difference among
three industries, that is, design of products to avoid or
reduce use of harmful of products and/or their manu-
Mean

facturing process. The t-tests show that power plants

4.18
4.06
4.43

4.22

4.26

4.26

4.35

4.27

3.26

highlight eco-design more than other industries. For

1 Z Automobile industry, 2 Z power plants, 3 Z electrical/electronic.

example, power plants have initiated to avoid or reduce

use of harmful of products and/or their manufacturing
process through eco-design with the mean of 4.10 which is
1.131
0.984
1.271

1.154

1.186

1.143

0.999

1.108

1.320
Automobile (n Z 59)
S.D.

significantly higher than for the automobile industry.

Power plants also seem to consider or initiate eco-design
for reuse, recycle and recovery of material or component
parts, which is slightly better than for the automobile
p ! 0.10; *p ! 0.05; **p ! 0.01; ***p ! 0.001.

industry. Overall, it is surprising that the automobile

Mean

2.91
3.13
3.59

3.34

3.36

3.37

3.36

3.00

2.84

industry seems to be lagging the other two industries in

eco-design since they have a reputation of being on the
cutting edge of product and process design. Clearly, these
for environmental improvements
Internal environmental management

advances have not filtered into the Chinese automobile

environmental management

industry. Since differences do exist in this GSCM practice,

Commitment of GSCM from

Cross-functional cooperation

Environmental management
Environmental compliance

we can say that there is further support for Proposition 2.

Support for GSCM from

and auditing programs

Eco-labeling of products
ISO 14001 certification
mid-level managers

4.2.5. Internal management

Table 3 (continued)

senior managers

Overall, it seems that most internal environmental

systems exist
Total quality

management factors are further along in adoption in

these Chinese industries, albeit in very early stages.
Itemsa

Commitment of GSCM by senior managers is the

b
a

second furthest along (3.77 mean overall rating). This

C
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
factor may also be considered as a driver, but without
this initial upper management commitment, most
programs are bound to fail, much less be truly initiated.
Overall, in each of the industries, this internal environ-
mental management support by senior managers is very
conducive to other practices advancing in their imple-
mentation and adoption stages. ANOVA results show
significant differences for all items, and thus Proposition
2 is strongly supported for this factor.
Further analysis shows that power plant and electron-
ic/electrical industry have higher levels of internal
environmental management practices than the automo-
bile industry organizations. The t-tests show that all
internal GSCM practices in automobile industry are very
significantly earlier on in implementation and adoption
stages as the power plants, and also less so than the
electronic industry. On the contrary, all practices in power
plants and electronic/electrical industry are relatively
similar in adoption. Thus, there is some support, and very
strong support for the automobile industry versus other
industries, that levels of practice implementation and
adoption are different, supporting Proposition 2.
5. Discussion of results
Overall, we see that there are differences in drivers
and pressures for GSCM adoption, and that adoption
rates differ in various industries throughout China. This
initial investigation was to determine where the differ-
ences occurred and which industries seem to be further
along, from a group of highly environmentally sensitive
and influential industries.
We see that the pressures and drivers for the
automobile industry are greatest, especially import
countries’ environmental regulations, export and sales
to foreign customers in China. This may result from the
fact that they are so far behind the other industries in
terms of adoption and implementation of GSCM
practices, especially on cooperation with customers.
However, a more important reason seems that they have
met more pressure during globalization. Chinese auto-
mobile manufacturers have to compete with their foreign
counterparts after China’s entry into the WTO, espe-
cially because of the reduction of duties such as 25% for
automobiles and 10% for components from July 1 in
2006, and the cancellation of quotas for import cars from
January 1 in 2005 [60]. Gan indicated that increasing
number of private vehicles and the greening of automo-
bile production and use are two trends for the industry
development in China [61]. From a competitive perspec-
tive, the automobile industry has ample opportunity for
some organizations within that industry to gain further
advantage by implementing various practices.
Regulatory pressures especially seem to have been
influential in the power plant industry and seem to be
483
doing the job in pressuring adoption of improved
environmental practices. Domestic regulations and the
enterprise’s environmental mission are two main pres-
sures for thermal power plants in China. With the
reform of the power generating industry and the
competition of hydropower plants, thermal power
plants have struggled to reduce their costs and to
improve their environmental image simultaneously.
Reduction of the sulfur dioxide emission and the
amount of fly and bottom ash to landfills are two
challenges. By purchasing low-sulfur coal and installing
desulfurization facilities, thermal power plants in China
have reduced their sulfur dioxide emissions. By explor-
ing more applications such as for fly ash incorporation
into cement and bottom ash use as a road construction
material, power plants both reduce the amount of solid
wastes and gain economic benefits [43].
The electronic and electrical industry seem to be more
mature in their adoption and implementation stages, but
still have other potential challenges. Take-back obliga-
tions, especially in Europe, have been designed for
electronics. Though China has not yet established such
regulations, international laws in other regions have
caused China to re-evaluate their investment recovery
and reclamation programs. For example, the European
Community Directive on Waste Electrical and Elec-
tronic Equipment (WEEE) will be implemented starting
August 13, 2005, and thus, Chinese manufacturers have
been asked to take back used products or pay extra
money when they export electrical and electronic
equipments to Europe. Nearly one quarter of exported
electronic/electrical appliances in China are sold to the
European Community, and in 2003 products with sales
of about 30 billion US dollars are related to the WEEE.
It was estimated that Chinese companies will pay about
3e5% of the sales price for the treatment of used
products which is about 0.9e1.5 billion US dollars [62].
Many Chinese electronic companies are struggling to
initiate their take-back programs.
Yet, it is not clear, from this study which of the
pressures are truly tied to which practices that are
adopted. Further investigation of this issue is warranted
for each industry. It is not clear which alternative driver/
pressure factor would be best to keep industry
advancing in the adoption of these practices; however,
regulatory policies are clearly something that is central
to much of the advancement in this area. The continued
emergence of globalization is also evident with the
various external regulatory and competitive pressures
that are evident.
6. Conclusions and implications
Lye et al. indicated that ecological damage can be
minimized if all stages of a product are designed to be
484 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
environmentally sustainable [63]. Therefore, through
cooperation with upstream and downstream companies,
GSCM can improve environmental performance not
only for an individual company but also for the whole
supply chain. O’Brien put forward creating a sustainable
economy in developing countries represents a challenge
on achieving economy parity with the developed world
without extensive pollution of the environment [28]. At
the same time, manufacturing bears a particular re-
sponsibility for achieving international standard for
sustainability. Thus, this paper presents results of our
studies of three manufacturing industrial sectors in
China on drivers and practices related to GSCM.
Compared to Canada and Japan, China may have
weaker corporate culture, resource, knowledge and
performance on environmental management [64,65].
However, Christmann and Taylor argued that increas-
ing globalization has made different cultures more
similar [27]. Chinese manufactures have strong drivers
and pressures to implement GSCM, especially for those
trying to establish long-term relationships with foreign
customers in China such as in the automobile industry,
those meeting high regulatory pressures such as thermal
power plants, and those exporting products such as
electronic/electrical industry. GSCM is still a relatively
new concept in China. Some Chinese companies have
recognized its importance and tried to put it into
practice, but most of these companies lack experiences
as well as necessary tools and management skills. The
automobile industry has the strongest drivers and
pressure to implement GSCM but the practice level is
lowest, it could also be the other way around where
these drivers and pressures are significant for this
industry because they have so few GSCM practices.
With the process of globalization, especially after
China’s entry into the WTO, Chinese companies tend to
have higher environmental awareness, which may result
in stronger drivers and pressure for GSCM practice. By
learning more international experiences from leading
companies in developed countries, Chinese companies
hopefully better implement their GSCM. It will be
helpful to establish long-term relationship with foreign
companies in China and export more products.
This paper presents results of our studies of drivers
and practices of GSCM in three typical manufacturing
industries in China. Further research on comparisons
according to size and ownership characteristics is
needed. Also, we do not identify the relationships that
exist between specific drivers and practices. In addition,
the influence of the globalization, especially after
China’s entry into the WTO, should be more carefully
examined. A comparative analysis to other developing
and industrializing nations and their industries could
prove beneficial since most studies at this time are for
developed nations. Even though we studied a compre-
hensive set of drivers/pressures and practices here, they
are not necessarily exhaustive. Additional drivers/pres-
sures (e.g. capital investment, local community pres-
sures, productivity gains, etc.) could be included and
should be investigated.
Acknowledgement
Supported by the CIDA Tier 1 ECOPLAN China
Project (S-61562), the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China Project (70202006), the National Social
Science Foundation of China (03CJY001), the Ninth
Huo-yingdong Young Faculty Foundation (91082), the
Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Over-
seas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry and the
Liaoning Doctoral Startup Project (2001102090).
References
[1] Lewis H, Gretsakis J. Design C environment: a global guide to
designing greener goods. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing;
2001.
[2] Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the
stalemate. Harvard Business Review 1995;73(5):120e34.
[3] Hansmann KW, Claudia K. Environmental management policies.
In: Sarkis J, editor. Green manufacturing and operations: from
design to delivery and back. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing;
2001. p. 192e204.
[4] Sarkis J. Manufacturing strategy and environmental conscious-
ness. Technovation 1995;15(2):79e97.
[5] Sarkis J. Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental
sustainability: concerns for the new millennium. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 2001;
21(5/6):666e86.
[6] van Hock RI. Erasmus. From reversed logistics to green supply
chains. Logistics Solutions 2000;2:28e33.
[7] US-AEP. Sector based public policy in the Asia-Pacific region.
US-AEP; 1999.
[8] Rao P. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East
Asia. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 2002;21(6):632e55.
[9] Hunt C, Auster E. Proactive environmental management:
avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review Winter 1990;
7e18.
[10] Kemp R, Soete L. The greening of technological progress: an
evolutionary perspective. Futures 1992;16:437e57.
[11] Williams H, Medhurst J, Drew K. Corporate strategies for a
sustainable future. In: Fischer K, Schot J, editors. Environmental
strategies for industry. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1993.
p. 117B146.
[12] Walley N, Whitehead B. It’s not easy being green. Harvard
Business Review May/June 1994;46e53.
[13] Henriques I, Sadorsky P. The determinants of an environmentally
responsive firm: an empirical approach. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 1996;30:381e95.
[14] Henriques I, Sadorsky P. The relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder impor-
tance. Academy of Management Journal 1999;42(1):87e99.
[15] Lamming R, Hampson J. The environment as a supply chain
management issue. British Journal of Management 1996;7:
45e62.
 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
[16] Hall J. Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2000;8(6):206e25.
[17] Peattie K, Ringler A. Management and the environment in the
UK and Germany: a comparison. European Management Journal
1994;12(2):216e25.
[18] BiE (Business in the Environment). The index of corporate
environmental engagement. London, UK: Business in the
Community, AEA Technology and SustainAbility; 1996.
[19] BiE (Business in the Environment). The index of corporate
environmental engagement. London, UK: Business in the
Community, AEA Technology and SustainAbility; 1997.
[20] BiE (Business in the Environment). The index of corporate
environmental engagement. London, UK: Business in the
Community, AEA Technology and SustainAbility; 1998.
[21] BiE (Business in the Environment). The index of corporate
environmental engagement. London, UK: Business in the
Community, AEA Technology and SustainAbility; 2000.
[22] WRI (World Resource Institute). The next bottom line. Business
Week 3 May 1999;45e96.
[23] Wycherley I. Greening supply chains: the case of the body shop
international. Business Strategy and the Environment 1999;
8:120e7.
[24] Sarkis J, Rao P, editors. Greening supply chain management.
Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing; 2005, in press.
[25] Del BrÍo JÁ, Junquera B. Influence of the perception of the
external environmental pressures on obtaining the ISO 14001
standard in Spanish industrial companies. International Journal
of Production Research 2003;41(2):337e48.
[26] Zhu Q, Geng Y. Integrating environmental issues into supplier
selection and management: a study of large and medium-sized
state-owned enterprises in China. Greener Management Interna-
tional 2001;9(3):27e40.
[27] Christmann P, Taylor G. Globalization and the environment:
determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies 2001;32(3):439e58.
[28] King AA, Lenox MJ. Industry self-regulations with sanctions: the
chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of
Management Journal 2000;43(4):698e716.
[29] Lyon TP, Maxwell JW. ‘Voluntary’ approaches to environ-
mental regulation: a survey. In: Franzini M, Nicita A, editors.
Economic institutions and environmental policy. England:
Aldergate; 2000.
[30] Russo M, Fouts P. A resource-based perspective on corporate
environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 1997;40:534e51.
[31] Geffen C, Rothenberg S. Sustainable development across firm
boundaries: the critical role of suppliers in environmental
innovation. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 2000;20(2):166e86.
[32] Theyel G. Customer and supplier relations for environmental
performance. Greener Management International Autumn
2001;35:61e9.
[33] Faruk AC, Lamming RC, Cousins PD, Bowen FE. Analyzing,
mapping, and managing environmental impacts along the supply
chain. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2002;5(2):13e36.
[34] Handfield R, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA. Applying
environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the
application of the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal
of Operations Research 2002;141:70e87.
[35] Sarkis J. A strategic decision making framework for green supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11(4):
397e409.
[36] Carter CR, Ellram LM, Kathryn LM. Environmental purchasing:
benchmarking our German counterparts. International Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management 1998;34(4):28e38.
[37] Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone RL, Montabon FL. Assessing
the effectiveness of US voluntary environmental programmes: an
485
empirical study. International Journal of Production Research
2002;40(8):1853e78.
[38] Zhu Q, Geng Y. Analysis on current practices of green purchasing
on the basis of international comparisons. Science and Science
Technology Management 2002;23(3):71e4 (in Chinese).
[39] Zhu Q, Geng Y. Studies on effects of green purchasing in
enterprises. China Soft Science 2002;17(11):67e70 (in Chinese).
[40] Zhu Q, Cote R. Green supply chain management in China: how
and why? The Fifth International Eco-city Conference, August
2002, Shenzhen, China.
[41] Zsidisin GA, Hendrick TE. Purchasing’s involvement in environ-
mental issues: a multi-country perspective. Industrial Manage-
ment and Data Systems 1998;7:313e20.
[42] McMichael FC, Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, Lave LB.
Comparison of direct and indirect environmental effects of critical
industries. Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management
Association’s Annual Meeting and Exhibition, San Diego (CA,
USA), June 14e18 1998; p. 98e107.
[43] Zhu Q, Zhang L. Study on sustainable development strategies in
thermal power plants on the basis of green purchasing. Energy
Conservation and Environmental Protection 2004;13(2):18e20 (in
Chinese).
[44] Hui IK, He L, Dang C. Hierarchical environmental impact
evaluation of a process in printed circuit board manufacturing.
International Journal of Production Research 2003;41(6):
1149e65.
[45] Min H, Galle WP. Green purchasing strategies: trends and
implications. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management Summer 1997;10e7.
[46] Carter CR, Carter JR. Interorganizational determinants of
environmental purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer
products industry. Decision Sciences 1998;29(3):28e38.
[47] Chan RYK, Lau LBY. Explaining green purchasing behavior:
a cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing 2001;14(2/3):9e41.
[48] Walton SV, Handfield RB, Melnyk ST. The green supply chain:
integrating suppliers into environmental management process.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
Spring 1998;2e11.
[49] Carter CR, Kale R, Grimn CM. Environmental purchasing and
firm performance: an empirical investigation. Transportation
Research Part E 2000;36:219e88.
[50] Luo YD. Toward a cooperative view of MNG-Host government
relations: building block and performance implications. Journal
of International Business Studies 2001;32(3):401e19.
[51] Bowen FE, Cousins PD, Lamming RC, Faruk AC. The role of
supply management capabilities in green supply. Production and
Operations Management 2001;10(2):174e89.
[52] Bowen FE, Cousins PD, Lamming RC, Faruk AC. Horse for
courses: explaining the gap between the theory and practice of
green supply. Greener Management International 2001;3:41e60.
[53] Zhu Q, Geng Y. Eco-design model on the basis of EMS. Science
and Science Technology Management 2003;24(4):19e23 (in
Chinese).
[54] Lo CW, Leung SW. Environmental agency and public opinion in
Guangzhou: the limits of a popular approach to environmental
governance. The China Quarterly September 2000;163:677e704.
[55] Bovea MD, Wang B. Identifying environmental improve-
ment options by combining life cycle assessment and fuzzy set
theory. International Journal of Production Research 2003;41(3):
593e609.
[56] Zhu Q, Xu X. A report on environmental awareness and practice
in Dalian High-tech Zone, Report for CIDA (Canadian Inter-
national Development Agency) Tier 1 Eco-plan China project
(S-61562), May 2003.
[57] Garvin AO. The 12 commandments of environmental compli-
ance. International Engineering 1993;25(9):18e22.
486 Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 472e486
[58] GEMI (Global Environmental Management Initiative). New
Paths to Business Value March 2001.
[59] Han QL. Dalian industry leads to a new road of industrialization.
Available at: http://www.ln.xinhuanet.com June 5, 2003 (in Chinese).
[60] EID (Economic Information Daily). Will import automobiles
strongly influence domestic automobile industry after the
cancellation of the quotas? Available at: http://www.jjckb.com
March 11, 2003 (in Chinese).
[61] Gan L. Globalization of the automobile industry in China:
dynamics and barriers in greening of the road transportation.
Energy Policy 2003;31(6):537e51.
View publication stats
[62] CCTV-2 (China’s Central TV), 2004. European Community
established measures on electronic waste management. August
16 (15:21: 52 2004) (in Chinese). Available at: http://www.okxr.
com/news/temp/20040816/20040816152152296.shtml.
[63] Lye SW, Lee SG, Khoo MK. A design methodology for the
strategic assessment of a product’s eco-efficiency. International
Journal of Production Research 2001;39(11):2453e74.
[64] World Bank. China 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1997.
[65] Zhang VI, Ursacki T, Nemetz P. Can China be a clean tiger?
Growth strategies and environmental realities. Pacific Affairs
1999;72(1):23e37.