Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance

Kenneth W. Green Jr, Pamela J. Zelbst, Jeramy Meacham, Vikram S. Bhadauria,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Pamela J. Zelbst, Jeramy Meacham, Vikram S. Bhadauria, (2012) "Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.290-305, https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126
Downloaded on: 05 October 2017, At: 09:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 22154 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"Evaluating ecological sustainable performance measures for supply chain management", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 78-92 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212221">https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212221</a>
(1997),"Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1
pp. 15-34 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805565">https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805565</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:310049 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Green supply chain management practices:
impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr
Department of Management, Marketing, and Management Information Systems, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas, USA
Pamela J. Zelbst
Department of Management and Marketing, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA, and
Jeramy Meacham and Vikram S. Bhadauria
Department of Management, Marketing, and Management Information Systems, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The aim is to contribute significantly to the first wave of empirical investigations related to the impact of green supply chain management
(GSCM) practices on performance. The paper also aims to theorize and empirically assess a comprehensive GSCM practices and performance model.
The model incorporates green supply chain practices that link manufacturers with supply chain partners (both suppliers and customers) to support
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

environmental sustainability throughout the supply chain.

Design/methodology/approach – Data collected from 159 manufacturing managers were analyzed using a structural equation modeling
methodology. Manufacturing managers provide data reflecting the degree to which their organizations work with suppliers and customers to improve
environmental sustainability of the supply chain.
Findings – Generally, the adoption of GSCM practices by manufacturing organizations leads to improved environmental performance and economic
performance, which, in turn, positively impact operational performance. Operational performance enhances organizational performance.
Research limitations/implications – As a first wave empirical investigation of the impact of GSCM practices on performance, the study is by
necessity exploratory.
Practical implications – Practitioners are provided with a framework for assessing the synergistic impact of GSCM practices on performance. Internal
environmental management and green information systems are identified as necessary precursors to the implementation of green purchasing,
cooperation with customers, eco-design, and investment recovery.
Originality/value – A comprehensive GSCM practices performance model is proposed and empirically assessed. The results of this investigation
support the proposition that GSCM practices are both environmentally necessary and good business. A structured two-wave approach to the
implementation of GSCM practices is recommended.

Keywords Green supply chain management, Green information systems, Environmental performance, Economic performance,
Operational performance, Organizational performance

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction chain level and a focus on the changing demands of final

Supply chain management (SCM) requires the integration
and coordination of business processes and strategy alignment
throughout the supply chain for the purpose of satisfying the
final customers of the supply chain (Green et al., 2008, 2006;
Cohen and Roussel, 2005; Ho et al., 2002). Business
processes that must be integrated and coordinated include
purchasing, manufacturing, marketing, logistics, and
information systems. Strategic imperatives that must be
aligned include customer focus, efficiency, quality, and
responsiveness (Zelbst et al., 2010), and most recently
environmental sustainability. With competition at the supply
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
customers, it is necessary to identify and adopt practices that
yield competitive advantage at the supply chain level which, in
turn, yield improved performance for the individual supply
chain partners (Green et al., 2008). Environmental
sustainability is a supply chain imperative rather than an
organizational imperative (Vachon and Klassen, 2007; Vachon
and Klassen, 2006; Vasileiou and Morris, 2006).
Development of environmentally friendly processes,
products, and services requires a unified effort by all
members of the supply chain to avoid sub-optimization at
the partner level (Vasileiou and Morris, 2006).
Manufacturing organizations have begun to implement
green supply chain management (GSCM) practices in
response to customer demand for products and services that

Received: 10 August 2011

Revised: 1 September 2011
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
17/3 (2012) 290– 305 1 December 2011
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] 3 January 2012
[DOI 10.1108/13598541211227126] Accepted: 6 January 2012

290
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
are environmentally sustainable and that are created through
environmentally sustainable practices and in response to
governmental environmental regulations (Murray, 2000;
Green et al., 1998). These practices require that
manufacturers work in concert with suppliers and customers
to enhance environmental sustainability. The implementation
of GSCM practices is expected to result in improved
environmental performance as measured by reductions in air
emissions, effluent waste, solid waste, and the consumption of
toxic materials. There is concern, however, whether such
environmental sustainability efforts will ultimately translate
into improved market share and profitability. Ultimately,
manufacturing managers are responsible for the performance
of the organizations for which they work (Green et al., 2008).
How best can they improve organizational performance
within the context of their supply chains? Local managers
must make decisions that support the supply chain first and
their organizations second (Green et al., 2008). In short,
managers must “globalize to localize.” Success at the supply
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
chain level leads to success at the organizational level (Chopra
and Meindl, 2004). Since customers and governmental
entities have begun to demand that processes, products, and
services be environmentally friendly, it is important that
managers identify and implement environmental
sustainability practices that extend throughout the supply
chain.
Klassen (1993) and Preuss (2002) argue for integrating
environmental issues into the mainstream of SCM. Handfield
et al. (1997) suggest that environmental sustainability efforts
be integrated throughout the value chain. Linton et al. (2007)
assert that the focus of environmental management has
moved from the organization level to the supply chain level.
Whether going “green” really pays has been investigated with
inconclusive results (King and Lenox, 2001; Rao and Holt,
2005; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Seuring (2004) questions
whether the adoption of environmental sustainability results
in a win-win situation or environmental and economic
tradeoffs for the supply chain partners. There is a lack of
empirical research that looks into this phenomenon from a
holistic and integrated perspective that could be used as a
foundation for both theory building and theory testing.
We contribute to the GSCM literature by incorporating
recently developed constructs (Zhu et al., 2008a; Green and
Inman, 2005; Esty and Winston, 2006) in a comprehensive
GSCM practices model and providing early empirical
evidence concerning the efficacy of the model. Generally,
we propose that manufacturing organizations should adopt
environmental sustainability as a strategic imperative and
expand existing enterprise information system capabilities to
monitor environmental sustainability activities and outcomes
prior to implementation of GSCM practices. Further, we
propose that successful implementation of GSCM practices
such as green purchasing, cooperation with customers, eco-
design, and investment recovery will lead to improved
environmental and economic performance which support
improved operational and organizational performance. A
theorized model is assessed using data from a national sample
of 159 managers working for US manufacturing
organizations. The managers responded to survey items
related to the internal environmental practices of their
organizations and to the environmental practices
coordinated and integrated with both suppliers and
customers.
291
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
The broad view of sustainability incorporates the concepts of
economic, social, and environmental performance (Carter
and Easton, 2011; Carter and Rogers, 2008). The literature
related to sustainability is relatively well developed (Carter
and Easton, 2011; Carter and Rogers, 2008). Our focus is on
the environmental performance component of sustainability.
The focus of environmental management has moved from the
organization level to the supply chain level (Linton et al.,
2007; Preuss, 2002). Seuring (2004) describes
“environmental supply chain management” as the
managerial integration of material and information flows
throughout the supply chain to satisfy the demand of
customers for green products and services produced by
green processes.
Supply chains strive to maintain internal health and
environmental sustainability using the capability to self
correct based on information from the external environment
(Vachon, 2007). As the organizations making up a supply
chain become aware of customer demands for products and
services provided without damage to the environment,
managers will make decisions that support the integration
and coordination of GSCM practices throughout the supply
chain (Vachon and Klassen, 2007; Vachon and Klassen,
2006). Supply chains and organizations can gain competitive
advantage by being the first to adopt environmental
sustainability and implement GSCM practices (Sen, 2009;
Barratt and Oke, 2007; Handfield et al., 1997). Preuss (2001,
2002) emphasizes the “boundary-spanning” role of SCM as
key to the implementation of environmental strategies both
downstream and upstream through the supply chain. He
describes the possibility of a “green multiplier effect” resulting
from the collaboration of supply chain partners concerning
environmental issues. Seuring (2001) cautions that
transaction costs associated with interactions among supply
chain partners must be considered as the partners work to
improve the environmental sustainability of the supply chain.
In addition to customer requirements, environmental
legislation and regulation have been identified as drivers of
the adoption of green practices (Preuss, 2002). There is not a
clear consensus of the impact of environmental legislation on
firm competitiveness. Jorgensen and Wilcoxen (1990)
quantify the impact of the costs of pollution controls on
costs of goods and services in the US economy. While they
estimate that pollution abatement may account for as much as
10 percent of the total costs of some goods and services, they
do not assess the benefits associated with a cleaner
environment. There is concern that firms may lose
competitive advantage due to the increased costs from
implementation of environmental sustainability guidelines.
Jaffe et al. (1995) conclude that there is little evidence to
support the proposition that environmental regulations
damage competitiveness. More empirical research is
necessary to definitively establish the impact of
environmental sustainability legislation on the
competitiveness of business firms.
The literature specifically related to GSCM is in the early
stages of development, with related articles dealing primarily
with theoretical discussions and anecdotal evidence (Quazi,
2001). In addition, a number of authors have done
preliminary work in developing measurement scales related
to environmental sustainability (Zhu et al., 2008a; Vachon
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
and Klassen, 2006; Wee and Quazi, 2005). King and Lenox
(2001) raise the question of whether or not embracing
environmental sustainability really pays. They do not find a
strong and conclusive link between environmental
sustainability practices and environmental and financial
performance and call for further empirical investigation.
The existing research provides some direction but remains
inconclusive (Rao and Holt, 2005; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
2.1 Theoretical model
Each of the hypotheses depicted in Figure 1 is theorized as
being direct and positive. Definitions of the constructs
incorporated in the model are provided in Table I. Generally,
GSCM practices are the focal constructs in the theorized
model with internal environmental management and green
information systems as antecedents and environmental,
economic, operational, and organizational performance as
consequences. In addition, green information systems provide
the information necessary to make decisions about green
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
purchasing, the level of cooperation with customers, design of
the product, and investment recovery. Changes made as a
result of internal environmental management or green
information systems impact the ability to implement green
supply chain practices which will impact environmental
performance, economic performance, operational
performance, and organizational performance.
2.2 Hypotheses
2.2.1 Internal environmental management and green information
systems
Once firms adopt environmental sustainability as a strategic
imperative, they can proceed to develop green information
systems capabilities. Information systems are essential for
creation, maintenance, and survival of supply chains.
Figure 1 Comprehensive green supply chain management practices performance model with hypotheses
292
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
Adoption of environmental sustainability as a strategic
imperative requires that organizations develop and
implement green information systems. A strategic focus on
GSCM necessitates the need to monitor manufacturing,
purchasing, and selling processes to ensure environmental
sustainability (Preuss, 2002). Information systems are not just
enablers of interconnectedness; they can also be used to
enhance trust and commitment among the supply chain
partners (Welty and Becerra-Fernandez, 2001). Information
systems are primarily used by organizations for providing
tools, techniques, and mechanisms for collaboration. Jiang
and Klein (1999) found that management support was a
necessary precursor to successful information system
implementation:
H1. Internal environmental management directly and
positively impacts green information systems.
2.2.2 Internal environmental management and green supply chain
practices
Once environmental sustainability has been adopted as a
strategic imperative and the imperative receives the
commitment and support from top and mid-level
management, the organization can proceed with the
implementation of the GSCM practices of green
purchasing, cooperation with customers, eco-design, and
investment recovery. The incorporation of the imperative into
the overall strategy of the organization is a necessary precursor
to successful implementation of the practices (Murray, 2000).
Top-management support is a key driver of the successful
adoption and implementation of innovations, including new
technologies, programs, and activities (Hamel and Prahalad,
1989). To ensure environmental excellence, top management
must be totally committed (Rice, 2003; Zsidisin and Siferd,
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

Table I Construct definitions

Construct
Internal environmental management
Green information systems
Green purchasing
Cooperation with customers
Eco-design
Investment recovery
Environmental performance
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
Definition
Internal environmental management is the practice of developing green supply chain management as a strategic
organizational imperative through commitment and support of the imperative from senior and mid-level
managers (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Green information systems are information systems that have been modified and are used to monitor
environmental practices and outcomes (Esty and Winston, 2006)
Green purchasing focuses on cooperating with suppliers for the purpose of developing products that are
environmentally sustainable (Zhu et al., 2008a; Carter and Carter, 1998)
Cooperation with customers requires working with customers to design cleaner production processes that
produce environmentally sustainable products with green packaging (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Eco-design requires that manufacturers design products that minimize consumption of materials and energy, that
facilitate the reuse, recycle, and recovery of component materials and parts, and that avoid or reduce the use of
hazardous products within the manufacturing process (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Investment recovery requires the sale of excess inventories, scrap and used materials, and excess capital
equipment (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Environmental performance relates the ability of manufacturing plants to reduce air emissions, effluent waste,

Economic performance
Operational performance
Organizational performance
and solid wastes and the ability to decrease consumption of hazardous and toxic materials (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Economic performance relates to the manufacturing plant’s ability to reduce costs associated with purchased
materials, energy consumption, waste treatment, waste discharge, and fines for environmental accidents (Zhu
et al., 2008a).
Operational performance relates to the manufacturing plant’s capabilities to more efficiently produce and deliver
products to customers (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Financial and marketing performance of the organization as compared to the industry average (Green and Inman,
2005)

2001; de Bakker et al., 2002). Zhu et al. (2008b) found that
organizational learning and management support positively
affect the implementation of GSCM practices. According to
Klassen and McLaughlin (1993), environmental excellence
starts during the initial product and process design.
Management commitment to an environmental
sustainability strategy is necessary to ensure that a full green
life-cycle approach is adopted (Byrne and Deeb, 1993;
Herod, 1989; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993; Zsidisin and
Hendrick, 1998):
H2a. Internal environmental management directly
positively impacts green purchasing.
H2b. Internal environmental management directly
positively impacts cooperation with customers.
H2c. Internal environmental management directly
positively impacts eco-design.
H2d. Internal environmental management directly
positively impacts investment recovery.
2.2.3 Green information systems and green supply chain
management practices
The successful implementation of the GSCM practices
depends on the capability of the organization’s information
systems to capture data related to the environmental
sustainability efforts and outcomes of the organization’s
manufacturing, purchasing, selling, and logistics processes
(Preuss, 2002). The data can then be analyzed to generate the
information necessary to make decisions that lead to improved
environmental sustainability throughout the supply chain
(Preuss, 2002). In effect, green information systems represent
the backbone of environmental management efforts by
supporting the firm’s internal environmental management
systems and by meeting the reporting needs for various
stakeholders (El-Gayar and Fritz, 2006). Green information
systems provide the information needed for coordinating with
customers in terms of eco-design, production, packaging, and
transportation. Information sharing, through the use of green
information systems, is a key enabler for SCM in terms of
integration and coordination (Chandra et al., 2007). Frohlich
and Westbrook (2001) proposed that the concept of logistical
integration includes the extent of cooperation in managing basic
informational and material flows along the supply chain. Based
on a case study of the food industry, Hamprecht et al. (2005)
and argue the importance of incorporating environmental controls
with other quality controls within the information system that
and extends throughout the food supply chain. Green information
systems will provide the information necessary to make
and decisions about eco-design, in terms of material and energy
consumption, reuse, recycling and recovery of materials. Green
and information systems also provide the information necessary to
recover the organization’s investment in excess inventories,
scrap, and excess capital equipment:
H3a. Green information systems directly and positively
impacts green purchasing.
H3b. Green information systems directly and positively
impacts cooperation with customers.
H3c. Green information systems directly and positively
impacts eco-design.
H3d. Green information systems directly and positively
impacts investment recovery.
2.2.4 Green supply chain management practices and
environmental performance
We argue that GSCM is now a strategic imperative based on
customer demands for products that are environmentally
sustainable themselves and that have been produced by

293
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
processes that are designed and operated to enhance
environmentally sustainability. Based on an analysis the
Xerox, Ltd. product life cycle, McIntyre et al. (1998) propose
evaluating the environmental performance outcomes of the
various stages of the product life cycle using an environmental
performance matrix that assesses the collective impact of
environmental practices throughout the supply chain. Zhu
and Sarkis (2004) found a positive relationship between
adoption of green supply chain practices and improvements in
environmental and economic performance. Geffen and
Rothenberg (2000) found that, in the manufacturing
setting, strong relationships and close collaboration with the
suppliers results in improved environmental performance.
Preuss (2001) describes the possibility of a “green multiplier
effect” that results from the extension of green purchasing
practices from immediate suppliers to second and third tier
suppliers’ suppliers. Based on anecdotal evidence, Green et al.
(1998) argue that green purchasing and supply policies are
likely to result in improved environmental performance.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
GSCM practices are developed specifically to improve the
environmental performance of manufacturing firms.
Practices, such as green purchasing, cooperation with
customers, eco-design, and investment recovery, are
designed to positively impact environmental performance.
Diabat and Govindan (2011) studied various drivers that
affect the implementation of green supply chains and found
that green design positively influences the performance of
green supply chains. The aim of eco-design is the reduction of
a product’s environmental impact without creating a negative
trade-off with other design criteria, such as costs and
functionality. Eco-friendly design and an emphasis on
investment recovery will directly and positively influence
environmental performance as the impetus of the designers
will be on reducing the environmental impact of the design:
H4a. Green purchasing directly and positively impacts
environmental performance.
H4b. Cooperation with customers directly and positively
impacts environmental performance.
H4c. Eco-design directly and positively impacts
environmental performance.
H4d. Investment recovery directly and positively impacts
environmental performance.
2.2.5 Green supply chain management practices and economic
performance
GSCM practices focus on the elimination of wastes associated
with environmental sustainability. Such waste minimization
should lead to reduced costs resulting in improved economic
performance. Rao and Holt (2005) demonstrated a link
between green supply chains and economic performance.
They also found that GSCM practices led to competitiveness
and better economic performance. Klassen and McLaughlin
(1996) studied the effect of announcements of winning
environmental awards by the organizations on stock prices.
They found evidence that the market valued such recognition
and duly awarded the firms with increased valuations as
reflected by higher stock prices. We argue that GSCM
practices enhance economic performance:
H5a. Green purchasing directly and positively impacts
economic performance.
H5b. Cooperation with customers directly and positively
impacts economic performance.
294
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
H5c. Eco-design directly and positively impacts economic
performance.
H5d. Investment recovery directly and positively impacts
economic performance.
2.2.6 Environmental, economic, operational, and organizational
performance
The cost saving nature of environmental performance should
lead to improved economic performance and both
environmental performance and economic performance
should yield improve operational efficiency. Environmental,
economic, and operational performance generate cost savings
and reflect an organization’s ability to satisfy changing
customer demands for environmentally sustainable products
and services. The cost and marketing implications of
environmental, economic, and operational performance
should lead to improvement in the overall financial and
marketing performance of the organization:
H6a. Environmental performance directly and positively
impacts economic performance.
H6b. Environmental performance directly and positively
impacts operational performance.
H6c. Environmental performance directly and positively
impacts organizational performance.
H7a. Economic performance directly and positively
impacts operational performance.
H7b. Economic performance directly and positively
impacts organizational performance.
H8. Operational performance directly and positively
impacts organizational performance.
3. Methodology
The GSCM practices performance model is theorized and the
constructs included in the model are defined and described
with a focus on manufacturing organizations. Considering this
manufacturing focus, data were collected from a sample of
plant-level managers working for US manufacturing
organizations. It should be noted that the GSCM practices
and environmental performance scales were originally
assessed for validity using a sample of Chinese
manufacturers (Zhu et al., 2008a). Zhu et al. (2008a)
recommend that validation of measurement scales be fully
established through a series of studies testing the scales across
industries and countries. The US sample provides an
important contrast to the Chinese sample supporting
validation and generalization. While we appreciate the
importance of considering the environmental impact of
processes and products as they extend fully through first-
order and second-order supply chains as emphasized by
Svensson (2007) and Preuss (2001), we necessarily adopt a
more limited view of the supply chain incorporating
manufacturing firms, immediate suppliers, and immediate
customers for practical reasons. The available GSCM
practices measurement scales support surveying
manufacturers concerning environmental relationships with
immediate suppliers and customers. The data were collected
during the spring of 2010 via an on-line data service
(Zoomerang through MarketTools, Inc.) following a data
collection process similar to the one employed by Inman et al.
(2009). This data collection process was managed by
Zoomerang and was structured to ensure unique responses
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

from validated members of the manufacturing panel. Two Table II Sample demographics summary
waves of requests to participate in the study were sent to
2,325 members of the panel. Screening questions were in Number
place to identify only plant-level manufacturing managers Title
working for US manufacturing organizations. Plant manager 35
A total of 2,325 managers were contacted via an e-mail Operations manager 52
process, 342 were screened out as non-managers and 255 Purchasing manager 12
managers completed the survey. Of the 255 respondents, 96
Logistics manager 7
selected the “other manager” category. Because of concerns
Sales manager 14
related to a lack of knowledge of GSCM practices and plant
Engineering manager 16
and organizational performance, data from the 96 were not
Industrial waste manager 1
included in the dataset analyzed. Data from 159
manufacturing managers likely to have the necessary Supply chain manager 7
knowledge to fully complete the survey were included in the Information systems manager 15
dataset subsequently analyzed. The effective response rate is 8 Total 159
percent (159/(2325-342)). Industry category
All of the respondents hold plant-level management Food manufacturing 8
positions in manufacturing organizations. The majority (55 Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 4
percent) are plant and operations managers. The respondents Textile mills 1
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

selected 20 different industry categories representing a diverse Apparel manufacturing 2

array of manufacturing organizations. The respondents are Leather and allied product manufacturing 1
experienced having been in their current positions an average Wood product manufacturing 9
of 10.85 years. They work for plants that have an average of Paper manufacturing 4
497 employees and firms with an average of 15,573 Printing and related support activities 9
employees. The sample is diverse as intended and is made Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 2
up of individuals with knowledge of their plant’s GSCM
Chemical manufacturing 8
practices and plant and organizational performance. Table II
Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 13
displays the sample demographics.
Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 2
Respondents were categorized as responding to either the
Primary metal manufacturing 10
initial or follow-up requests that were sent approximately two
weeks later. Of the respondents, 64 percent (101) were Fabricated metal product manufacturing 25
categorized as early respondents and 36 percent (58) were Machinery manufacturing 8
categorized as late respondents. A comparison of the means of Computer and electronic product manufacturing 6
the demographic variables and the summary variables for the Electrical equipment, appliance, and component
two groups was conducted using one-way ANOVA. The manufacturing 6
comparisons resulted in statistically non-significant Transportation equipment manufacturing 5
differences at the 0.01 level. Because non-respondents have Furniture and related product manufacturing 1
been found to descriptively resemble late respondents Miscellaneous manufacturing 35
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977; Lambert and Harrington, Total 159
1990), this finding of general equality between early and late Mean years in current position 10.85
respondents indicates that non-response bias has not Mean number of plant employees 497.37
negatively impacted the assembled data set. Mean number of firm employees 15,573.27
The internal environmental management, green
purchasing, cooperation with customers, eco-design,
investment recovery, environmental performance, economic the measurement scales exceed the recommended 0.70 level
performance, and operational performance scales were indicating sufficient reliability (Garver and Mentzer, 1999).
developed and assessed by Zhu et al. (2008a). The The scales are also assessed within the context of the full
organizational performance scale was previously used and measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis
assessed by Green and Inman (2005). The green information
(Koufteros, 1999). The results of this confirmatory factor
systems scale was developed from items identified by Esty
analysis are displayed in Table III. The measurement model
and Winston (2006). The scales are displayed in the
fits the data well with a relative chi-square value of 1.507, an
Appendix.
Since all scales were taken directly from prior research (Zhu RMSEA value of 0.057, a CFI value of 0.990, and an NNFI
et al., 2008a; Green and Inman, 2005; Esty and Winston, value of 0.988.
2006), content validity is assumed. Chi-square difference tests Lindell and Brandt (2000) recommend that the smallest
for pairings of each scale with other study scales returned correlation among the variables be used as a proxy for
significant differences at the 0.01 level, indicating sufficient common method variation. Following this approach, the
discriminant validity for all scales (Garver and Mentzer, 1999; smallest correlation among the study variables is 0.316
Ahire et al., 1996; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The between environmental performance and organizational
standardized coefficients for scale items presented in Table III performance. The smallest correlation among the
exceed the recommended 0.70 minimum and are significant relationships specified in the structural model is 0.512 for
at the 0.01 level indicating sufficient convergent validity eco-design and economic performance. Substituting these
(Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Cronbach alpha values for all of correlations into the formulas provided by Malhotra et al.

295
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

Table III Measurement model results

Construct/measures Alpha Standardized coefficients t-values
Internal environmental management 0.947
IEM1 0.92 15.02
IEM2 0.92 14.89
IEM3 0.86 13.44
IEM4 0.86 13.36
Green information systems 0.956
GIS5 0.88 14.08
GIS6 0.88 14.02
GIS8 0.85 13.20
GIS9 0.91 14.70
GIS10 0.91 14.68
Green purchasing 0.953
GP1 0.85 13.32
GP2 0.88 13.91
GP3 0.88 14.07
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

GP5 0.89 14.38

GP6 0.91 14.87
Cooperation with customers 0.956
CWC1 0.90 14.43
CWC2 0.90 14.43
CWC3 0.92 15.18
CWC4 0.89 14.28
Eco-design 0.903
ED1 0.81 12.11
ED2 0.93 15.00
ED3 0.97 13.44
Investment recovery 0.816
IR1 0.78 11.10
IR2 0.79 11.29
IR3 0.80 11.53
Environmental performance 0.920
ENP1 0.83 12.62
ENP3 0.83 12.74
ENP4 0.85 13.09
ENP6 0.91 14.69
Economic performance 0.904
ECP3 0.87 13.57
ECP4 0.92 14.87
ECP5 0.81 12.04
Operational performance 0.895
OPP4 0.77 11.20
OPP5 0.92 14.84
OPP6 0.89 13.95
Organizational performance 0.938
ORP2 0.90 14.30
ORP3 0.93 15.19
ORP4 0.88 13.88
ORP7 0.82 12.52
Notes: Chi-square ratio ¼ 1:507; RMSEA ¼ 0:057; NFI ¼ 0:971; NNFI ¼ 0:988; CFI ¼ 0:990; IFI ¼ 0:990

(2007) the computed z-score is 3.69. This computed z-score
corresponds with significance at the 0.01 level. Adjusting for
common method variance using the smallest correlation
(0.316), the smallest correlation among the hypothesized
relationships (0.512) remains significantly different from zero
at the 0.01 level. Based on the results of the proxy test,
problems associated with common method bias are not
considered significant (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Summary variables, descriptive statistics, and correlation
coefficients are computed. The theorized model is assessed
following a structural equation modeling methodology. Hair
et al. (2006) argue that sample sizes from 150 to 400 are

296
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

generally suitable for structural equation modeling analysis
with sample size varying according to the complexity of the
model and the number of parameters to be estimated. In this
case, because of the number of constructs embedded in the
theoretical model, it was necessary to reduce the total number
of measurement items by removing those items with
standardized coefficients less than 0.75 from the
measurement model. The traditional path analysis
methodology based on regression analysis described by
Kline (1998) is also considered as an appropriate model
testing methodology.
Because of our objective to assess the theorized model as a
whole, in spite of the small sample size and the large number
of constructs, we opted to assess the model using structural
equation modeling techniques. LISREL 17.0 software was
used do perform both the confirmatory factor analysis
necessary to assess the measurement model and the
structural analysis necessary to assess the structural model
because of the important model fit information available.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
green information systems are necessary precursors to
implementation of GSCM practices. H4a through H4d,
which predict positive associations between the GSCM
practices and environmental performance, are positive and
significant as expected with the exception of the green
purchasing to environmental performance link. H5a through
H5d, which predict positive associations between the GSCM
practices and economic performance, are not positive and
significant with the exception of the green purchasing to
economic performance link. Cooperation with customers and
investment recovery do not impact economic performance,
while eco-design negatively impacts economic performance.
H6a, H7a and H6b are positive and significant as expected
indicating that environmental and economic performance
positively impact operational performance. Of H6c, H7b, and
H8, only the hypothesized positive link between operational
performance and organizational performance (H8) is
supported. Environmental and economic performance do
not directly impact organizational performance, rather they

indirectly impact organizational performance through

4. Results
4.1 Structural equation modeling results
Summary values for the study variables were computed by
averaging the items in the scales. Descriptive statistics are
presented in Table IV. All variables are sufficiently normally
distributed with skewness and kurtosis coefficients within the
2 2.00 and þ2.00 range. The correlations are presented in
Table V. Correlation coefficients are positive and significant at
the 0.01 level for all variable pairings.
Figure 2 illustrates the model with the structural equation
modeling results specified in the LISREL 8.7 output. Results
relating to fit of the model generally support a claim of good
fit. The relative chi-square (chi-square/degrees of freedom)
value of 1.67 is less than the 3.00 maximum recommended by
Kline (1998) and the root mean square error of
approximation (0.07) is below the recommended maximum
of 0.08 (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). While the GFI
(0.73) is below the 0.90 level recommended by Byrne (1998),
it is more heavily impacted by a small sample size and, as
Byrne (1998) points out, the Comparative-Fit Index (CFI)
and Incremental-Fit Index (IFI) are more appropriate when
the sample size is small. The CFI (0.99) and IFI (0.99) both
exceed the recommended 0.90 level (Byrne, 1998).
Hypotheses test results are presented in Table VI. H1
through H3d are positive and significant as expected
indicating that internal environmental management and
operational performance.
4.2 Interpretation of results
Internal environmental management is positively associated
with green information systems and both appear as
antecedents to successful implementation of green
purchasing, cooperation with customers, eco-design, and
investment recovery. Manufacturing organizations first adopt
environmental sustainability as a strategic imperative before
modifying existing information systems to capture data and
generate information related to environmental sustainability
initiatives and outcomes. The first stage in implementing
GSCM practices is to embrace the strategy organizationally
and to modify existing enterprise resource planning (ERP)
information systems to monitor environmental initiatives. The
second stage includes implementation of green purchasing,
cooperation with customers, eco-design, and investment
recovery practices. The associations between the stage one
and stage two practices are all positive and significant
supporting the proposition that the practices should be
implemented in stages.
The results linking the stage two GSCM practices to
environmental and economic performance are not as clear
cut. Environmental performance is focused on decreases in
the levels of environmental pollutants, while economic
performance is focused on reductions in environmentally
related costs such as materials purchases and energy

Table IV Descriptive statistics

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Internal environmental management 1.00 5.00 3.201 1.294 20.278 21.026
Green information systems 1.00 5.00 3.198 1.102 20.301 20.542
Green purchasing 1.00 5.00 2.909 1.319 20.012 21.161
Cooperation with customers 1.00 5.00 3.222 1.341 20.235 21.188
Eco-design 1.00 5.00 3.421 1.279 20.493 20.828
Investment recovery 1.00 5.00 3.776 1.147 20.916 20.032
Environmental performance 1.00 5.00 3.539 1.030 20.607 0.119
Economic performance 1.00 5.00 3.294 1.177 20.391 20.684
Operational performance 1.00 5.00 3.637 1.016 20.584 20.005
Organizational performance 1.00 5.00 3.384 0.924 20.289 0.139

297
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

Table V Correlation matrix

IEM GIS GP CWC ED IR ENP ECP OPP ORP
IEM 1
GIS 0.665 * 1
GP 0.715 * 0.783 * 1
CWC 0.694 * 0.732 * 0.828 * 1
ED 0.610 * 0.599 * 0.680 * 0.704 * 1
IR 0.550 * 0.496 * 0.562 * 0.568 * 0.629 * 1
ENP 0.657 * 0.666 * 0.665 * 0.748 * 0.691 * 0.640 * 1
ECP 0.625 * 0.663 * 0.616 * 0.625 * 0.512 * 0.533 * 0.736 * 1
OPP 0.547 * 0.547 * 0.553 * 0.532 * 0.482 * 0.543 * 0.657 * 0.662 * 1
ORP 0.423 * 0.435 * 0.436 * 0.391 * 0.330 * 0.332 * 0.316 * 0.382 * 0.557 * 1
Notes: * indicates significance at the 0.01 level; IEM ¼ Internal environmental management; GIS ¼ Green information systems; GP ¼ Green purchasing;
CWC ¼ Cooperation with customers; ED ¼ Eco-design; IR ¼ Investment recovery; ENP ¼ Environmental performance; ECP ¼ Economic performance; OPP ¼
Operational performance; ORP ¼ Organizational performance
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 2 Comprehensive green supply chain management practices performance model with SEM results

consumption. Green purchasing is not significantly linked to
environmental performance but is positively linked to
economic performance. Cooperation with customers is
positively associated with both environmental and
economic performance. Eco-design is positively linked to
environmental performance but is negatively associated with
economic performance. Eco-design capability to reduce
environmental pollutants is counterbalanced by increases in
associated costs perhaps related to materials purchases.
Investment recovery is positively associated with
environmental performance but not economic performance.
It should be noted each of the stage two practices is positively
associated with either environmental performance or
economic performance. Only eco-design is negatively and
significantly associated to either performance measure.
The performance constructs are related as hypothesized
with two exceptions. Neither environmental performance nor
economic performance is directly related to organizational

298
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

Table VI Structural model results supported, the general model holds together reasonably
well. The significance and strength of the positive links among
Model link Std coefficients Support the stage one and stage two GSCM practices suggest the
Hypotheses tests importance of a staged implementation of the practices.
IEM ! These results are straightforward leaving little doubt as to the
GIS 0.72 * H1: supported recommended ordering.
GP 0.39 * H2a: supported As the model depicts, environmental sustainability must
first be adopted as a strategic imperative. This requires that
CWC 0.39 * H2b: supported
top-level management work to incorporate environmental
ED 0.45 * H2c: supported
sustainability as a key part of the organization’s mission
IR 0.52 * H2d: supported
statement and that the necessity to develop processes and
GIS !
deliver products and services that are environmentally friendly
GP 0.59 * H3a: supported be communicated throughout all levels of the organization.
CWC 0.54 * H3b: supported There is considerable evidence linking supply chain success to
ED 0.36 * H3c: supported the ability of ERP information systems to facilitate
IR 0.22 * H3d: supported information sharing among supply chain partners (Green
GP ! et al., 2007). Because environmental sustainability is a supply
ENP 20.04ns H4a: not supported chain level imperative (Vachon and Klassen, 2007), it is
ECP 0.40 * H5a: supported important that organizations develop information systems
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

CWC ! capable of integrating and coordinating environmental

ENP 0.49 * H4b: supported sustainability initiatives with suppliers and customers (Esty
ECP 20.10ns H5b: not supported and Winston, 2006). Adoption of environmental
ED ! sustainability as strategy through the implementation of
ENP 0.24 * H4c: supported internal environmental management practices both directly
ECP 20.23 * H5c: not supported and indirectly (through green information systems) impacts
IR ! the stage two GSCM practices. As the firm’s SCM strategy
ENP 0.32 * H4d: supported expands to incorporate the environmental sustainability
ECP 0.04ns H5d: not supported imperative, the firm’s ERP system must expand to monitor
ENP ! environmental efforts and outcomes in cooperation with
ECP 0.76 * H6a: supported customers and suppliers.
OPP 0.28 * H6b: supported The impact of the stage two practices on environmental
ORP 20.19ns H6c: not supported
performance and economic performance is less clear cut.
Specifically, the results associated with eco-design are
ECP !
problematic. Grote et al. (2007, p. 4100) state the aim of
OPP 0.52 * H7a: supported
eco-design as “the reduction of a product’s environmental
ORP 0.10ns H7b: not supported
impact without creating a negative trade-off with other design
OPP !
criteria, such as costs and functionality.” While eco-design is
ORP 0.68 * H8: supported positively associated with environmental performance
Notes: * Significant at 0.01 level; Chi-square ratio ¼ 1.672; (beta ¼ 0:24, sig. at 0.01 level), it is negatively associated
RMSEA ¼ 0.067; NFI ¼ 0.967; NNFI ¼ 0.985; CFI ¼ 0.987; IFI ¼ 0.987; with economic performance (beta ¼ 20:23, sig. at the 0.01
IEM ¼ Internal Environmental management; ENP ¼ Environmental level). It appears then that eco-design is not fully
performance; GIS ¼ Green information systems; OPP ¼ Operational accomplishing the intended aim. Grote et al. (2007) argue
performance; GP ¼ Green purchasing; ORP ¼ Organizational that this may be because eco-design methodologies require
performance; CWC ¼ Cooperation with customers; ED ¼ Eco-design; further development and improvement.
IR ¼ Investment recovery Also surprising is the result that green purchasing does not
significantly impact environmental performance, while
significantly impacting economic performance. These results
performance. Both environmental performance and economic are in line with the Zhu and Sarkis (2007) findings for
performance are positively associated with operational Chinese firms under competitive pressure. As in the Zhu and
performance which, in turn, is strongly associated with Sarkis (2007) study, the measurement scales for
organizational performance. Operational performance reflects environmental and economic performance were completed
the organization’s ability to satisfy customers in terms of on- by manufacturing managers focusing on the plant level. As
time delivery of quality products and the ability to do so more measured, the environmental impact of green purchasing may
efficiently through reduced inventory and scrap levels. lie with the supplier rather than manufacturer, while still
Environmental performance and economic performance positively impacting economic performance for the
enhance operational performance which enhances manufacturer. As Zhu and Sarkis (2007) argue green
organizational performance. purchasing is less costly for manufacturers to implement
that other green practices such as eco-design.
5. Conclusions Cooperation with customers directly impacts environmental
performance but does not directly impact economic
5.1 Discussion of findings performance. Instead, cooperation with customers indirectly
We theorize and assess a comprehensive GSCM practices impacts economic performance through environmental
model. While all of the individual hypotheses are not performance. Of the four green constructs linked to

299
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
environmental performance in the model, cooperation has the
largest impact followed by investment recovery and eco-
design. Zhu and Sarkis (2007) did not find cooperation with
customers to be significantly associated with either
environmental or economic performance for manufacturers
under pressure from customers to adopt environmental
practices in China. The difference in results may be
attributed to differences in the samples employed. Our
sample is made up of a diverse group US manufacturers,
while the sample used by Zhu and Sarkis (2007) and Zhu et al.
(2008a) is made up of a more focused group of Chinese
manufacturers. Our use of a diverse group from a different
country serves to establish the validity of the measurement
scales across manufacturers and countries as recommended
by Zhu et al. (2008a). It may be that US manufacturers are
more market oriented and, therefore, are more responsive to
changes in customer demand related to environmental
expectations. As Zhou et al. (2008) note, Chinese firms
have only recently begun to embrace market orientation as a
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
means to survive intensified competition. This may explain
the finding that cooperation with customers is strongly
associated with environmental performance for the US
sample.
Investment recovery directly impacts environmental
performance but does not directly impact economic
performance as hypothesized for the US sample. Zhu and
Sarkis (2007) did not find a positive association for
investment recovery with environmental performance for the
Chinese sample. They also found that investment recovery
positively impacts economic performance under conditions of
regulatory and competitive pressures but not market pressure.
We generally found the opposite for the US sample.
Investment recovery leads to significant environmental
improvement but does not directly impact economic
performance. The impact of investment recovery on
economic performance is indirect through environmental
performance. These contradictory results may also be
explained by differences in the samples. As Zhu et al.
(2008c, p. 331) note, “[investment recovery] has received
much less attention in China than in other countries such as
the U.S. and Germany.”
Because all of the stage two practices are positively
associated with either environmental performance or
economic performance, we assert that this portion of the
model also holds promise. Finally, the relationships among
the performance constructs seem to make logical sense.
Environmental performance and economic performance
leverage improved operational performance which leads to
improved organizational performance.
5.2 Limitations of the study
We propose and assess a comprehensive GSCM practices
performance model. It is our belief that the primary
contribution of this study lies in the comprehensive nature
of the model as opposed to parsing and assessing pieces of the
model. This approach stretches the limits of the sample,
however. Rather than adopt the traditional path analysis
methodology indicated by the large number of constructs
compared to the small sample size, we have chosen to push
the limits of structural equation modeling in an effort to assess
the fit of the entire model to the data. It was necessary to
reduce the number of measurement scale items from 57 to 38
300
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
to ensure that the degrees of freedom exceed the number of
parameters estimated.
5.3 Future research
Because this is the first testing of the comprehensive
theoretical model, it is important that the model be assessed
using data from additional samples. In comparing the results
with those reported by Zhu and Sarkis (2007) differences
were noted concerning the impact of cooperation with
customers and investment recovery on environmental and
economic performance. The differences may be attributable
to differences in the sample, US manufacturers for this study
and Chinese manufacturers in the Zhu and Sarkis (2007)
study. Further research is necessary to reconcile these
differences. It is also important to verify the findings using a
larger sample. In addition, this research focuses on the
implementation of GSCM practices by manufacturing
organizations. The model should be modified to reflect
other organization types, such as wholesalers and retailers,
and data should be collected to assess the impact of supply
chain practices on the organizational performance of these
different types of organizations.
We developed a GSCM model focusing on GSCM
practices implemented by manufacturing organizations to
integrate and coordinate environmental sustainability efforts
with immediate supply chain partners and the impact of those
practices on performance. While it is important to evaluate
each of the individual associations depicted within the model,
it is more important to consider the model as a whole and
how well the model reflects reality. The model level results
imply that the implementation of GSCM practices should be
considered within the context of the supply chain and the
existing functioning business processes that extend
throughout the supply chain. Considering the contextual
approach, it is important to assess constructs representing
other improvement programs such as JIT, TQM, lean
manufacturing, and agile manufacturing as potential
antecedents to GSCM practices. For example, it is likely
that the capability that JIT organizations have to eliminate
wastes will support efforts to eliminate environmental wastes.
5.4 Implications for practitioners
We argue that environmental sustainability is a supply chain
level imperative and provide evidence supporting the need for
manufacturing organizations to implement GSCM practices
in collaboration with suppliers and customers. Manufacturing
managers have had to develop SCM knowledge and skills in
addition to the knowledge and skills necessary to manage at
the organizational level. Manufacturing managers must now
focus on improving the supply chain in order to improve
organizational performance. We reiterate the importance that
organizations adopt SCM strategies and work to improve the
processes that extend throughout the supply chain to better
satisfy the final customers of the supply chain. From a very
practical view, however, manufacturing managers are held
responsible for the performance of their organizations. If
improving the supply chain and satisfying final customers
finally results in improved organizational performance,
organizational managers will adopt such an approach. We
set out to discover whether the adoption of GSCM practices
focused on collaboration with suppliers and customers will
lead to improved environmental performance and
consequently improved organizational performance.
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
The theorized and empirically supported model offers a
structured approach to the successful implementation of an
environmental sustainability strategy that requires that
manufacturers work directly with both suppliers and
customers to achieve desired results – an improved
environment with an accompanying improvement in firm
performance. It is important to adopt environmental
sustainability as a strategic imperative and to modify
existing enterprise information systems to monitor the
processes and outcomes related to the organization’s
sustainability initiatives prior to the implementation of the
green practices. Once environmental sustainability has
become a strategic focus and information systems have been
modified to monitor efforts to become environmentally
sustainable, manufacturers can begin to implement
sustainability practices with some degree of confidence that
the practices will yield not only improved environmental and
economic performance but improved operational and
organizational performance. The adoption of GSCM
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
practices improves the organization’s capabilities to sustain
the environment and to strengthen the organization’s
economic viability.
Major manufacturers have begun to implement
comprehensive programs to control environmental practices
throughout their supply chains (Vachon, 2007). Specific
activities that support environmental collaboration,
monitoring, and control include:
.
monitoring reverse flows of materials;
.
sharing techniques and knowledge related to
environmental management with supply chain partners;
.
working to control the environmental risk associated with
suppliers’ operations; and
.
working to assure proper product use (Vachon, 2007).
Vachon (2007, p. 4357) asserts, “Ultimately, such activities
with suppliers or with customers can affect environmental
management decisions within any particular manufacturing
plant.” The items in the GSCM practices scales (Appendix)
developed by Zhu et al. (2008a) also delineate characteristics
of manufacturers that practice environmental collaboration
and monitoring with suppliers and customers. These
characteristics provide more specific direction to
manufacturers working to extend environmental practices
throughout their supply chains.
References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996),
“Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain
visibility in retail supply chains: a resource-based theory
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 1217-33.
Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with
LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Byrne, P.M. and Deeb, A. (1993), “Logistics must meet the
‘green’ challenge”, Transportation & Distribution, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 33-7.
301
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
Carter, C.R. and Easton, P.L. (2011), “Sustainable supply
chain management: evolution and future directions”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of
sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new
theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.
Carter, R.C. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational
determinants of environmental purchasing: initial evidence
from the consumer products industry”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 28-38.
Chandra, C., Grabis, J. and Tumanyan, A. (2007), “Problem
taxonomy: a step towards effective information sharing in
supply chain management”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 11, pp. 2507-44.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2004), Supply Chain Management:
Strategy, Planning, and Operation, 2nd ed., Pearson Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cohen, S. and Roussel, J. (2005), Strategic Supply Chain
Management: The Five Disciplines for Top Performance,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
de Bakker, F., Fisscher, O. and Brack, A. (2002), “Organizing
product-oriented environmental management from a firm’s
perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 455-64.
Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011), “An analysis of the
drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain
management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55
No. 6, pp. 659-67.
El-Gayar, O.F. and Fritz, B.D. (2006), “Environmental
management information system (EMIS) for sustainable
development: a conceptual overview”, Communications of
AIS, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 2-49.
Esty, D. and Winston, A. (2006), Green to Gold: How Smart
Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create
Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of
integration: an international study of supply chain
strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), “Logistics research
methods: employing structural equation modeling to test
for construct validity”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Geffen, C. and Rothenberg, S. (2000), “Suppliers and
environmental innovation: the automotive paint process”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 166-86.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated
paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-92.
Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1998), “Green
purchasing and supply policies: do they improve
companies’ environmental performance?”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 89-95.
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
Green, K.W. Jr and Inman, R.A. (2005), “Using a just-in-
time selling strategy to strengthen supply chain linkages”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16,
pp. 3437-53.
Green, K.W. Jr, McGaughey, R. and Casey, K.M. (2006),
“Does supply chain management strategy mediate the
association between market orientation and organizational
performance?”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 407-14.
Green, K.W. Jr, Whitten, D. and Inman, R.A. (2007), “The
impact of timely information on organizational performance
in a supply chain”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 274-82.
Green, K.W. Jr, Whitten, D. and Inman, R.A. (2008), “The
impact of logistics performance on organizational
performance in a supply chain context”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 317-27.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
Grote, C., Jones, R., Blount, G., Goodyer, J.J. and Shayler,
M.M. (2007), “An approach to the EuP Directive and the
application of the economic eco-design for complex
products”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45 Nos 18/19, pp. 4099-117.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 63-76.
Hamprecht, J., Corsten, D., Noll, M. and Meier, E. (2005),
“Controlling the sustainability of food supply chains”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 7-10.
Handfield, R., Walton, S., Seegers, L. and Melnyk, S. (1997),
“‘Green’ value chain practices in the furniture industry”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 293-315.
Herod, T. (1989), “Waste behind the waste”, Risk
Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 80-4.
Ho, D.C.K., Au, K.F. and Newton, E. (2002), “Empirical
research on supply chain management: a critical review and
recommendations”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 40 No. 17, pp. 4415-30.
Inman, R.A., Sale, M.L. and Green, K.W. Jr (2009), “Jr
Analysis of the relationships among TOC use, TOC
outcomes, and organizational performance”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 341-56.
Jaffe, A.B., Peterson, S., Portney, P. and Stavins, R. (1995),
“Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US
manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?”, Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 132-63.
Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (1999), “Project selection criteria by
strategic orientation”, Information and Management, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 63-75.
Jorgensen, D.W. and Wilcoxen, P.J. (1990), “Environmental
regulation and US economic growth”, Rand Journal of
Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 314-40.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An
empirical examination of the relationship between lean
302
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
production and environmental performance”, Production
and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.
Klassen, R.D. (1993), “The integration of environmental
issues into manufacturing: toward an interactive open-
systems model”, Production & Inventory Management
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-8.
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1993), “TQM and
environmental excellence in manufacturing”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 14-22.
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1996), “The impact of
environmental management on firm performance”,
Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1199-213.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Koufteros, X.A. (1999), “Testing a model of pull production:
a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural
equation modeling”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 467-88.
Lambert, D.M. and Harrington, T.C. (1990), “Measuring
nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys”, Journal
of Business Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-25.
Lindell, M.K. and Brandt, C.J. (2000), “Climate quality and
climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between
organizational antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 331-48.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for
common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 114-21.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007),
“Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.
McIntyre, K., Smith, H., Henham, A. and Pretlove, J. (1998),
“Environmental performance indicators for integrated
supply chains: the case of Xerox Ltd”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 149-56.
Malhotra, N.K., Patil, A. and Kim, S.S. (2007), “Bias
breakdown”, Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-9.
Murray, G. (2000), “Effects of a green purchasing strategy:
the case of Belfast City Council”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 37-44.
Preuss, L. (2001), “In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener
manufacturing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34 No. 3
and 4, pp. 345-59.
Preuss, L.L. (2002), “Green light for greener supply”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 308-17.
Quazi, H.A. (2001), “Sustainable development: integrating
environmental issues into strategic planning”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 64-70.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance?”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 9 and 10, pp. 898-916.
Rice, S. (2003), “Commitment to excellence: practical
approaches to environmental leadership”, Environmental
Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 9-22.
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginner’s
Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Sen, S. (2009), “Linking green supply chain management and
shareholder value creation”, The IUP Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 7 No. 3 and 4, pp. 95-109.
Seuring, S. (2001), “Green supply chain costing: joint cost
management in polyester linings supply chain”, Greener
Management International, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-80.
Seuring, S. (2004), “Industrial ecology, life cycles, supply
chains: differences and interrelations”, Business Strategy
& The Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 306-19.
Svensson, G. (2007), “Aspects of sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM): conceptual framework and
empirical example”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 262-6.
Vachon, S. (2007), “Green supply chain practices and the
selection of environmental technologies”, International
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 18 and 19,
pp. 4357-79.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. (2007), “Supply chain
management and environmental technologies: the role of
integration”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 401-23.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green
practices across the supply chain: the impact of upstream
integration”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Vasileiou, K. and Morris, J. (2006), “The sustainability of the
supply chain for fresh potatoes in Britain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 317-27.
Wee, Y.O. and Quazi, H.A. (2005), “Development and
validation of critical factors of environmental
management”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 96-114.
Welty, B. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2001), “Managing trust
and commitment in collaborative supply chain
relationships”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 67-73.
Zelbst, P., Green, K. Jr, Sower, V. and Abshire, R. (2010),
“Relationships among market orientation, JIT, TQM, and
agility”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110
No. 5, pp. 637-58.
Zhou, K., Li, J., Zhou, N. and Su, C. (2008), “Market
orientation, job satisfaction, product quality, and firm
performance: evidence from China”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 985-1000.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between
operational practices and performance among early
adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-89.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “The moderating effects of
institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain
practices and performance”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 18 and 19, pp. 4333-55.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2008a), “Confirmation of a
measurement model for green supply chain management
303
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305
practices implementation”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 261-73.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J. and Lai, K. (2008b), “Firm-
level correlates of emergent green supply chain
management practices in the Chinese context”, Omega –
The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 577-91.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K. and Geng, Y. (2008c), “The role
of organizational size in the adoption of green supply chain
management practices in China”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 322-37.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Hendrick, T.E. (1998), “Purchasing’s
involvement in environmental issues: a multi-country
perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 98 No. 7, pp. 313-20.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001), “Environmental
purchasing: a framework for theory development”,
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Further reading
Malhotra, A., Melville, N.P. and Watson, R.T. (2010),
“Information systems and environmental sustainability”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 429-30.
Miller, J.G. (1978), Living Systems, McGraw-Hill Publishing,
New York, NY.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in
organizational research: problems and prospects”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Watson, R.T., Boudreau, M.-C., Chen, A. and Huber, M.H.
(2008), “Green IS: building sustainable business practices”,
in Watson, R.T. (Ed.), Information Systems, Global Text
Project, Athens, GA.
Appendix. Measurement scales
Internal environmental management (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
plant is implementing each of the following. (Five-point scale:
1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning to consider it; 3 ¼
considering it currently; 4 ¼ initiating implementation; 5 ¼
implementing successfully)
.
Commitment of GSCM from senior managers.
.
Support for GSCM from mid-level managers.
.
Cross-functional cooperation for environmental
improvements.
.
Total quality environmental management.
.
Environmental compliance and auditing programs.
.
ISO 14001 certification.
. Environmental Management Systems.
Green information systems (Esty and Winston, 2006)
Please indicate the extent to which your organization’s
information system is used for each of the following
(1 ¼ not used at all; 5 ¼ used to a great extent).
. Reducing transportation costs.
.
Supporting team work and meetings of globally
distributed employees to limit their air travel.
.
Tracking environmental information (such as toxicity,
energy used, water used, air pollution.
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

.
Monitoring emissions and waste production. Environmental performance (Zhu et al., 2008a)
.
Providing information to encourage green choices by Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
consumers. plant has achieved each of the following during the past year.
.
Improving decision making by executives by highlighting (Five-point scale: 1 ¼ not at all; 2 ¼ a little bit; 3 ¼ to some
sustainability issues. degree; 4 ¼ relatively significant; 5 ¼ significant).
.
Reducing energy consumption. .
Reduction of air emissions.
.
Supporting the generation and distribution of renewable .
Reduction of effluent waste.
energy. .
Reduction of solid wastes.
.
Limiting carbon and other emissions. .
Decrease in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic
.
Identifying the role of IS in energy policy. materials.
.
Decrease in frequency for environmental accidents.
.
Improvement in an enterprise’s environmental situation.
Green purchasing (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
Economic performance (Zhu et al., 2008a)
plant is implementing each of the following. (Five-point scale:
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning to consider it; 3 ¼
plant has achieved each of the following during the past year.
considering it currently; 4 ¼ initiating implementation; 5 ¼
(Five-point scale: 1 ¼ not at all; 2 ¼ a little bit; 3 ¼ to some
implementing successfully).
degree; 4 ¼ relatively significant; 5 ¼ significant).
.
Eco labeling of products. .
Decrease in cost of materials purchasing.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

.
Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives.
.
Environmental audit of suppliers’ internal management.
.
Suppliers’ ISO 14000 certification.
.
Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice
evaluation.
.
Providing design specification to suppliers that include
environmental requirements for purchased item.
Cooperation with customers (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
plant is implementing each of the following. (Five-point scale:
1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning to consider it; 3 ¼
considering it currently; 4 ¼ initiating implementation; 5 ¼
implementing successfully).
.
Cooperation with customers for eco design.
.
Cooperation with customers for cleaner production.
.
Cooperation with customers for green packaging.
. Cooperation with customers for using less energy during
product transportation.
Eco-design (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
plant is implementing each of the following. (Five-point scale:
1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning to consider it; 3 ¼
considering it currently; 4 ¼ initiating implementation; 5 ¼
implementing successfully).
.
Design of products for reduced consumption of material/
energy.
.
Design of products for reuse, recycle, recovery of material
and/or component parts.
.
Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous
products and/or their manufacturing process.
Investment recovery (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
plant is implementing each of the following during the past
year. (Five-point scale: 1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning
to consider it; 3 ¼ considering it currently; 4 ¼ initiating
implementation; 5 ¼ implementing successfully).
.
Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials.
.
Sale of scrap and used materials.
.
Sale of excess capital equipment.
.
Decrease in cost for energy consumption.
.
Decrease in fee for waste treatment.
.
Decrease in fee for waste discharge.
.
Decrease in fine for environmental accidents.
Operational performance (Zhu et al., 2008a)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your
plant has achieved each of the following during the past year.
(Five-point scale: 1 ¼ not at all; 2 ¼ a little bit; 3 ¼ to some
degree; 4 ¼ relatively significant; 5 ¼ significant).
.
Increase in the amount of goods delivered on time.
.
Decrease in inventory levels.
.
Decrease in scrap rate.
.
Increase in product quality.
.
Increase in product line.
.
Improved capacity utilization.
Organizational performance (Green and Inman, 2005)
Please rate your organization’s performance in each of the
following areas as compared to the industry average (1 ¼ well
below industry average, 5 ¼ well above industry average).
.
Average return on investment over the past three years.
.
Average profit over the past three years.
.
Profit growth over the past three years.
.
Average return on sales over the past three years.
.
Average market share growth over the past three years.
.
Average sales volume growth over the past three years.
.
Average sales (in dollars) growth over the past three years.
About the authors
Kenneth W. Green Jr is a DBA from Louisiana Tech
University and the LeMay Professor of Technology at
Southern Arkansas University. His research appears in
Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, International Journal of
Production Research, Industrial Marketing Management,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Production
Planning and Control, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, and Management
Research Review. Kenneth W. Green Jr is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: kwgreen@saumag.edu

304
 Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr et al. Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2012 · 290 –305

Pamela J. Zelbst is a PhD from University of Texas at
Arlington and is an Associate Professor of Management at
Sam Houston State University. Her research appears in the
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Management Research Review, and International
Journal Management in Education.
Jeramy Meacham is a PhD from Jackson State University
and is an Assistant Professor of Management at Southern
Arkansas University. His research interests include
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)
information systems, supply chain management, knowledge
management, and healthcare quality and outcomes. His
research has appeared in the Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management. He has presented several research
papers in leading national conferences.
Vikram S. Bhadauria is a PhD from University of Texas at
Arlington and is an Assistant Professor of Management
Information Systems at Southern Arkansas University. He has
presented several papers at the Americas Conference of
Information Systems, the annual conferences of the Decision
Sciences Institute, and other regional conferences.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

305
 This article has been cited by:

1. Simone Sehnem, Gean Pacheco Oliveira. 2017. Analysis of the supplier and agribusiness relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production
168, 1335-1347. [Crossref]
2. Rocio Ruiz-Benitez, Cristina López, Juan C. Real. 2017. Environmental benefits of lean, green and resilient supply chain
management: The case of the aerospace sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 850-862. [Crossref]
3. Sreejith Balasubramanian, Vinaya Shukla. 2017. Green supply chain management: the case of the construction sector in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE). Production Planning & Control 28:14, 1116-1138. [Crossref]
4. P. Thamsatitdej, S. Boon-itt, P. Samaranayake, M. Wannakarn, T. Laosirihongthong. 2017. Eco-design practices towards
sustainable supply chain management: interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering 2, 1-12. [Crossref]
5. HuangYi-Chun, Yi-Chun Huang, HuangChih-Hsuan, Chih-Hsuan Huang, YangMin-Li, Min-Li Yang. 2017. Drivers of green
supply chain initiatives and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:9, 796-819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Chunguang Bai, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Joseph Sarkis. 2017. An implementation path for green information technology systems
in the Ghanaian mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 1105-1123. [Crossref]
7. Keun Hyo Yook, Jeong Hoon Choi, Nallan C. Suresh. 2017. Linking green purchasing capabilities to environmental and economic
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

performance: The moderating role of firm size. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management . [Crossref]
8. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Diego Vazquez-Brust, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Hengky Latan. 2017. Green supply
chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil: Survey, case studies, and implications for B2B. Industrial Marketing
Management 66, 13-28. [Crossref]
9. Debadyuti Das. 2017. Development and validation of a scale for measuring Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices and
performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 1344-1362. [Crossref]
10. Surajit Bag, Shivam Gupta, Arnesh Telukdarie. 2017. Exploring the relationship between unethical practices, buyer–supplier
relationships and green design for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 19, 1-13. [Crossref]
11. Jamal EL BAZ, Issam Laguir. Third party logistics providers (TPLs) and environmental sustainability practices in developing
countries: the case of Morocco. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
12. Yulia Panova, Eugene Korovyakovsky, Anton Semerkin, Ville Henttu, Weidong Li, Olli-Pekka Hilmola. Russian Railways on the
Eurasian Market: Issue of Sustainability. European Business Review 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
13. Anass Cherrafi, Said Elfezazi, Kannan Govindan, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Khalid Benhida, Ahmed Mokhlis. 2017. A framework
for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability performance. International Journal of Production
Research 55:15, 4481-4515. [Crossref]
14. Zhaojun Yang, Jun Sun, Yali Zhang, Ying Wang. 2017. Green, Green, It’s Green: A Triad Model of Technology, Culture, and
Innovation for Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability 9:8, 1369. [Crossref]
15. Paula de Camargo Fiorini, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour. 2017. Information systems and sustainable supply chain management
towards a more sustainable society: Where we are and where we are going. International Journal of Information Management
37:4, 241-249. [Crossref]
16. Yubing Yu, Min Zhang, Baofeng Huo. 2017. The impact of supply chain quality integration on green supply chain management
and environmental performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-16. [Crossref]
17. Steffen Maas, Tassilo Schuster, Evi Hartmann. 2017. Stakeholder Pressures, Environmental Practice Adoption and Economic
Performance in the German Third-party Logistics Industry—A Contingency Perspective. Journal of Business Economics 22. .
[Crossref]
18. Kenneth W. Green, Pamela J. Zelbst, Victor E. Sower, Jeremy C. Bellah. 2017. Impact of Radio Frequency Identification
Technology on Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Computer Information Systems 57:3, 269-277. [Crossref]
19. Ali Esfahbodi, Yufeng Zhang, Glyn Watson, Tao Zhang. 2017. Governance pressures and performance outcomes of sustainable
supply chain management – An empirical analysis of UK manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 155, 66-78.
[Crossref]
20. Hadi Mokhtari, Aliakbar Hasani. 2017. A multi-objective model for cleaner production-transportation planning in manufacturing
plants via fuzzy goal programming. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 44, 230-242. [Crossref]
 21. J.A. Bamgbade, A.M. Kamaruddeen, M.N.M. Nawi. 2017. Towards environmental sustainability adoption in construction firms:
An empirical analysis of market orientation and organizational innovativeness impacts. Sustainable Cities and Society 32, 486-495.
[Crossref]
22. Nora Hänninen, Heikki Karjaluoto. 2017. Environmental values and customer-perceived value in industrial supplier relationships.
Journal of Cleaner Production 156, 604-613. [Crossref]
23. Valeria Costantini, Francesco Crespi, Giovanni Marin, Elena Paglialunga. 2017. Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and
environmental performance in European industries 1 1We gratefully acknowledge the support by the European Union's Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 649186 – ISIGrowth. The comments and suggestions
by three anonymous referees are also acknowledged. The usual disclaimers apply. Journal of Cleaner Production 155, 141-154.
[Crossref]
24. Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, Dong Qianli. 2017. Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms’ performance: an
empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24:20, 16829-16844. [Crossref]
25. Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Asghar, Haji Rahman. 2017. The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management Practices
on Performance: Moderating Role of Institutional Pressure with Mediating Effect of Green Innovation. Business, Management
and Education 15:1, 91-108. [Crossref]
26. Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour, André Luis Mauricio, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2017. Critical success factors and
green supply chain management proactivity: shedding light on the human aspects of this relationship based on cases from the
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

Brazilian industry. Production Planning & Control 28:6-8, 671-683. [Crossref]

27. Sachin Modgil, Sanjay Sharma. 2017. Information Systems, Supply Chain Management and Operational Performance: Tri-
linkage?An Exploratory Study on Pharmaceutical Industry of India. Global Business Review 18:3, 652-677. [Crossref]
28. J.A. Bamgbade, A.M. Kamaruddeen, M.N.M. Nawi. 2017. Malaysian construction firms' social sustainability via organizational
innovativeness and government support: The mediating role of market culture. Journal of Cleaner Production 154, 114-124.
[Crossref]
29. Yong-Hui Li, Jing-Wen Huang. 2017. The moderating role of relational bonding in green supply chain practices and
performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management . [Crossref]
30. Mahamaya Mohanty, Ravi Shankar. 2017. Modelling uncertainty in sustainable integrated logistics using Fuzzy-TISM.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 53, 471-491. [Crossref]
31. FÁBIO YTOSHI SHIBAO, GERALDO CARDOSO DE OLIVEIRA NETO, FLAVIA CRISTINA DA SILVA,
EDUARDO CABRINI POMPONE. 2017. CORPORATE PROFILE, PERFORMANCE AND GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN
MANAGEMENT: A RESEARCH AGENDA. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 18:3, 117-146. [Crossref]
32. Rosangela Maria Vanalle, Gilberto Miller Devós Ganga, Moacir Godinho Filho, Wagner Cezar Lucato. 2017. Green supply chain
management: An investigation of pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain. Journal of
Cleaner Production 151, 250-259. [Crossref]
33. Yongtao Song, Junya Cai, Taiwen Feng. 2017. The Influence of Green Supply Chain Integration on Firm Performance: A
Contingency and Configuration Perspective. Sustainability 9:5, 763. [Crossref]
34. VijayvargyLokesh, Lokesh Vijayvargy, ThakkarJitesh, Jitesh Thakkar, AgarwalGopal, Gopal Agarwal. 2017. Green supply chain
management practices and performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28:3, 299-323. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
35. Volker Frehe, Frank Teuteberg. 2017. Information and communication technology in green logistics: status quo and research
gaps. Management Review Quarterly 67:2, 65-96. [Crossref]
36. Wantao Yu, Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, Prithwiraj Nath. 2017. Environmental pressures and performance: An analysis of the
roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 117, 160-169.
[Crossref]
37. André Luiz Mauricio, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2017. Fatores críticos de sucesso à adoção de GSCM: estudo de casos
no setor de baterias automotivas. Gestão & Produção 24:1, 78-94. [Crossref]
38. Shida Xu, Yanqiu Liu, Mingfei Chen. 2017. Optimisation of partial collaborative transportation scheduling in supply chain
management with 3PL using ACO. Expert Systems with Applications 71, 173-191. [Crossref]
39. Garza-ReyesJose Arturo, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, KumarVikas, Vikas Kumar, ChenF. Frank, F. Frank Chen, WangYi-Chi, Yi-
Chi Wang. 2017. Editorial. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 8:1, 2-6. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. MalviyaRakesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar Malviya, KantRavi, Ravi Kant. 2017. Modeling the enablers of green supply chain
management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:2, 536-568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 41. Seok-Beom Choi, Hokey Min, Hye-Young Joo, Han-Byul Choi. 2017. Assessing the impact of green supply chain practices on
firm performance in the Korean manufacturing industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 20:2, 129-145.
[Crossref]
42. Nisakorn Somsuk, Tritos Laosirihongthong. 2017. Prioritization of applicable drivers for green supply chain management
implementation toward sustainability in Thailand. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24:2,
175-191. [Crossref]
43. Miguel Afonso Sellitto, Juliane Luchese, Jéssica Mariella Bauer, Gislaine Gabrielle Saueressig, Cláudia Viviane Viegas. 2017.
Ecodesign Practices in a Furniture Industrial Cluster of Southern Brazil: From Incipient Practices to Improvement. Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 5, 1750001. [Crossref]
44. Maher A.N. Agi, Rohit Nishant. 2017. Understanding influential factors on implementing green supply chain management
practices: An interpretive structural modelling analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 351-363. [Crossref]
45. Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, Usha Ramanathan, Yongmei Bentley. 2017. The debate on flexibility of environmental regulations,
innovation capabilities and financial performance – A novel use of DEA. Omega . [Crossref]
46. Seyed Reza Madani, Morteza Rasti-Barzoki. 2017. Sustainable supply chain management with pricing, greening and governmental
tariffs determining strategies: A game-theoretic approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 105, 287-298. [Crossref]
47. Nick Johnstone, Shunsuke Managi, Miguel Cárdenas Rodríguez, Ivan Haščič, Hidemichi Fujii, Martin Souchier. 2017.
Environmental policy design, innovation and efficiency gains in electricity generation. Energy Economics 63, 106-115. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

48. Abdul-RashidSalwa Hanim, Salwa Hanim Abdul-Rashid, SakundariniNovita, Novita Sakundarini, Raja GhazillaRaja Ariffin,
Raja Ariffin Raja Ghazilla, ThurasamyRamayah, Ramayah Thurasamy. 2017. The impact of sustainable manufacturing practices
on sustainability performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37:2, 182-204. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
49. Rakesh D. Raut, Balkrishna Narkhede, Bhaskar B. Gardas. 2017. To identify the critical success factors of sustainable supply
chain management practices in the context of oil and gas industries: ISM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
68, 33-47. [Crossref]
50. Khalid Zaman, Sadaf Shamsuddin. 2017. Green logistics and national scale economic indicators: Evidence from a panel of selected
European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 143, 51-63. [Crossref]
51. BalasubramanianSreejith, Sreejith Balasubramanian, ShuklaVinaya, Vinaya Shukla. 2017. Green supply chain management: an
empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:1, 58-81. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
52. Abdul Ali, Yongmei Bentley, Guangming Cao, Farooq Habib. 2017. Green supply chain management – food for thought?.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 20:1, 22-38. [Crossref]
53. Yongtao Song, Taiwen Feng, Wenbo Jiang. 2017. The Influence of Green External Integration on Firm Performance: Does Firm
Size Matter?. Sustainability 9:8, 1328. [Crossref]
54. Samantha Islam, S. G. Ponnambalam, Hon Loong Lam. 2017. A novel framework for analyzing the green value of food supply
chain based on life cycle assessment. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 19:1, 93-103. [Crossref]
55. Anass Cherrafi, Said Elfezazi, Andrea Chiarini, Ahmed Mokhlis, Khalid Benhida. Exploring Critical Success Factors for
Implementing Green Lean Six Sigma 183-195. [Crossref]
56. V.N.S.A. Kumar, V. Kumar, M. Brady, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, M. Simpson. 2017. Resolving forward-reverse logistics multi-
period model using evolutionary algorithms. International Journal of Production Economics 183, 458-469. [Crossref]
57. Hamed Jafari, Seyed Reza Hejazi, Morteza Rasti-Barzoki. 2017. Sustainable development by waste recycling under a three-echelon
supply chain: A game-theoretic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 2252-2261. [Crossref]
58. Marco Antonio Ferreira, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2017. Maturity levels of material
cycles and waste management in a context of green supply chain management: an innovative framework and its application to
Brazilian cases. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 19:1, 516-525. [Crossref]
59. Ahmad Adnan Al-Tit. 2017. Factors affecting the organizational performance of manufacturing firms. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management 9, 184797901771262. [Crossref]
60. Korosh Emamisaleh, Kamaleddin Rahmani. 2017. Sustainable supply chain in food industries: Drivers and strategic sustainability
orientation. Cogent Business & Management 4:1. . [Crossref]
61. Xu Chen, Xiaojun Wang, Vikas Kumar, Niraj Kumar. 2016. Low carbon warehouse management under cap-and-trade policy.
Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 894-904. [Crossref]
 62. Ke Xing, Wei Qian, Atiq Uz Zaman. 2016. Development of a cloud-based platform for footprint assessment in green supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 191-203. [Crossref]
63. Omar Boutkhoum, Mohamed Hanine, Hicham Boukhriss, Tarik Agouti, Abdessadek Tikniouine. 2016. Multi-criteria decision
support framework for sustainable implementation of effective green supply chain management practices. SpringerPlus 5:1. .
[Crossref]
64. Ali Esfahbodi, Yufeng Zhang, Glyn Watson. 2016. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Trade-offs
between environmental and cost performance. International Journal of Production Economics 181, 350-366. [Crossref]
65. Rakesh Kumar Malviya, Ravi Kant. 2016. Hybrid decision making approach to predict and measure the success possibility of
green supply chain management implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 135, 387-409. [Crossref]
66. ModgilSachin, Sachin Modgil, SharmaSanjay, Sanjay Sharma. 2016. Total productive maintenance, total quality management
and operational performance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 22:4, 353-377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. LaariSini, Sini Laari, SolakiviTomi, Tomi Solakivi, TöyliJuuso, Juuso Töyli, OjalaLauri, Lauri Ojala. 2016. Performance
outcomes of environmental collaboration. Baltic Journal of Management 11:4, 430-451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Aseel Ajamieh, Jose Benitez, Jessica Braojos, Carsten Gelhard. 2016. IT infrastructure and competitive aggressiveness in
explaining and predicting performance. Journal of Business Research 69:10, 4667-4674. [Crossref]
69. Zhaojun Yang, Jun Sun, Yali Zhang, Ying Wang. 2016. Peas and carrots just because they are green? Operational fit between
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

green supply chain management and green information system. Information Systems Frontiers . [Crossref]
70. VanpouckeEvelyne, Evelyne Vanpoucke, QuintensLieven, Lieven Quintens, Van EngelshovenMerel, Merel Van Engelshoven.
2016. The role of motivation in relating green supply chain management to performance. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 21:6, 732-742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. AdebanjoDotun, Dotun Adebanjo, TehPei-Lee, Pei-Lee Teh, Ahmed Pervaiz K., Pervaiz K. Ahmed. 2016. The impact
of external pressure and sustainable management practices on manufacturing performance and environmental outcomes.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36:9, 995-1013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. ManningLouise, Louise Manning, SoonJan Mei, Jan Mei Soon. 2016. Development of sustainability indicator scoring (SIS) for
the food supply chain. British Food Journal 118:9, 2097-2125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. SharifAmir M., Amir M. Sharif, IraniZahir, Zahir Irani. 2016. People, process and policy perspectives on food security.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 10:3, 359-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Wantao Yu, Ramakrishnan Ramanathan. 2016. Environmental management practices and environmental performance. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 116:6, 1201-1222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Minhao Zhang, Ying Kei Tse, Bob Doherty, Si Li, Pervaiz Akhtar. 2016. Sustainable supply chain management: Confirmation
of a higher-order model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling . [Crossref]
76. D.L. Keairns, R.C. Darton, A. Irabien. 2016. The Energy-Water-Food Nexus. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering 7:1, 239-262. [Crossref]
77. Teng-Yuan Hsiao, Chung-Ming Chuang. 2016. Creating Shared Value Through Implementing Green Practices for Star Hotels.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 21:6, 678-696. [Crossref]
78. Bruno Silvestre. 2016. Sustainable supply chain management: current debate and future directions. Gestão & Produção 23:2,
235-249. [Crossref]
79. Azadeh Rajabian Tabesh, Peter J. Batt, Bella Butler. 2016. Modelling the Impact of Environmental and Organizational
Determinants on Green Supply Chain Innovation and Performance. Journal of Food Products Marketing 22:4, 436-454. [Crossref]
80. SharmaSanjay, Sanjay Sharma, GandhiMohd. Asif, Mohd. Asif Gandhi. 2016. Exploring correlations in components of green
supply chain practices and green supply chain performance. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 332-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. SinghR.K., R.K. Singh, RastogiSanjay, Sanjay Rastogi, AggarwalMallika, Mallika Aggarwal. 2016. Analyzing the factors for
implementation of green supply chain management. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 246-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. YounisHassan, Hassan Younis, SundarakaniBalan, Balan Sundarakani, VelPrakash, Prakash Vel. 2016. The impact of
implementing green supply chain management practices on corporate performance. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 216-245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Jon F Kirchoff, Wendy L Tate, Diane A Mollenkopf. 2016. The impact of strategic organizational orientations on green supply
chain management and firm performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:3, 269-292.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 84. Suresh Prasad, Dinesh Khanduja, Surrender K. Sharma. 2016. An empirical study on applicability of lean and green practices in
the foundry industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:3, 408-426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Su-Yol Lee. 2016. Responsible supply chain management in the Asian context: the effects on relationship commitment and
supplier performance. Asia Pacific Business Review 22:2, 325-342. [Crossref]
86. Javier González-Benito, Gustavo Lannelongue, Luis Miguel Ferreira, Carmen Gonzalez-Zapatero. 2016. The effect of green
purchasing on purchasing performance: the moderating role played by long-term relationships and strategic integration. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:2, 312-324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Risto Rajala, Mika Westerlund, Tommi Lampikoski. 2016. Environmental sustainability in industrial manufacturing: re-
examining the greening of Interface's business model. Journal of Cleaner Production 115, 52-61. [Crossref]
88. Chih-Chao Chung, Li-Chung Chao, Shi-Jer Lou. 2016. The Establishment of a Green Supplier Selection and Guidance
Mechanism with the ANP and IPA. Sustainability 8:3, 259. [Crossref]
89. Roberto Chavez, Wantao Yu, Mengying Feng, Frank Wiengarten. 2016. The Effect of Customer-Centric Green Supply Chain
Management on Operational Performance and Customer Satisfaction. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:3, 205-220.
[Crossref]
90. I.M. Coelho, P.L.A. Munhoz, L.S. Ochi, M.J.F. Souza, C. Bentes, R. Farias. 2016. An integrated CPU–GPU heuristic inspired on
variable neighbourhood search for the single vehicle routing problem with deliveries and selective pickups. International Journal
of Production Research 54:4, 945-962. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

91. K. Govindan, K. Muduli, K. Devika, A. Barve. 2016. Investigation of the influential strength of factors on adoption of green
supply chain management practices: An Indian mining scenario. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 107, 185-194. [Crossref]
92. Min-Ren Yan, Kuo-Ming Chien, Tai-Ning Yang. 2016. Green Component Procurement Collaboration for Improving Supply
Chain Management in the High Technology Industries: A Case Study from the Systems Perspective. Sustainability 8:2, 105.
[Crossref]
93. 나나나. 2016. Bibliometric Network Analysis on the Recent Green Supply Chain Management Research. Korean Journal of Logistics
24:1, 63-80. [Crossref]
94. Yang Liu, Jagjit Singh Srai, Steve Evans. 2016. Environmental management: the role of supply chain capabilities in the auto
sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:1, 1-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. P.R.C. Gopal, Jitesh Thakkar. 2016. Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical investigation on Indian automobile industry.
Production Planning & Control 27:1, 49-64. [Crossref]
96. Hanne Ala-Harja, Petri Helo. 2016. Food supply chain sustainable performance in plant decision. International Journal of Advanced
Logistics 5:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
97. K. Grekova, R.J. Calantone, H.J. Bremmers, J.H. Trienekens, S.W.F. Omta. 2016. How environmental collaboration with
suppliers and customers influences firm performance: evidence from Dutch food and beverage processors. Journal of Cleaner
Production 112, 1861-1871. [Crossref]
98. Lee Matthews, Damien Power, Anne Touboulic, Leonardo Marques. 2016. Building Bridges: Toward Alternative Theory of
Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52:1, 82-94. [Crossref]
99. Xing Liu, Xu Xiao. 2016. The Optimization of Cyclic Links of Live Pig-Industry Chain Based on Circular Economics.
Sustainability 8:1, 26. [Crossref]
100. Ai Qiang Li, Pauline Found. 2016. Lean and Green Supply Chain for the Product-Services System (PSS): The Literature Review
and A Conceptual Framework. Procedia CIRP 47, 162-167. [Crossref]
101. Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2016. Green Human Resource Management and Green
Supply Chain Management: linking two emerging agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1824-1833. [Crossref]
102. Rusinah Siron, Tan Kwe Lu, Mohd Amin Tasripan. 2016. An Analysis of Environmental Dimensions Affected in Adoption
of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Study in Shah ALAM Industrial AREA, Selangor. MATEC Web of Conferences 81, 08001.
[Crossref]
103. Sini Laari, Juuso Töyli, Tomi Solakivi, Lauri Ojala. 2016. Firm performance and customer-driven green supply chain
management. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1960-1970. [Crossref]
104. Li Zheng, Claude Baron, Philippe Esteban, Rui Xue, Qiang Zhang, Karla Itzel Gomez Sotelo. 2016. Pointing out the gap between
academic research and supporting software tools in the domain of the performance measurement management of engineering
projects. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49:12, 1561-1566. [Crossref]
 105. Bo Li, Mengyan Zhu, Yushan Jiang, Zhenhong Li. 2016. Pricing policies of a competitive dual-channel green supply chain.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2029-2042. [Crossref]
106. Donghyun Choi, Taewon Hwang. 2015. The impact of green supply chain management practices on firm performance: the role
of collaborative capability. Operations Management Research 8:3-4, 69-83. [Crossref]
107. Sunil Luthra, Dixit Garg, Abid Haleem. 2015. An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green
supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources Policy 46, 37-50. [Crossref]
108. Elcio M. Tachizawa, Cristina Gimenez, Vicenta Sierra. 2015. Green supply chain management approaches: drivers and performance
implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:11, 1546-1566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Wantao Yu, Ramakrishnan Ramanathan. 2015. An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green operations practices
and environmental performance. International Journal of Production Research 53:21, 6390-6407. [Crossref]
110. Michael Leigh, Xiaohong Li. 2015. Industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis and supply chain environmental sustainability: a case
study of a large UK distributor. Journal of Cleaner Production 106, 632-643. [Crossref]
111. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Fernanda Cortegoso de Oliveira Frascareli, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour. 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 104, 366-374. [Crossref]
112. Sachin Kumar Mangla, Pradeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2015. Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP
approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104, 375-390. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

113. Elcio M. Tachizawa, Cristina Gimenez, Vicenta Sierra. 2015. Green supply chain management approaches: drivers and performance
implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1546-1566. [Crossref]
114. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Stephen J. Childe. 2015. Green supply chain management
enablers: Mixed methods research. Sustainable Production and Consumption 4, 72-88. [Crossref]
115. Maher Agi. Analysis of the influence of organisational and inter-organisational factors on the implementation of Green Supply
Chain Management practices 803-812. [Crossref]
116. Wen-Lung Shiau, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Chia-Han Tsai. 2015. Supply chain management: exploring the intellectual structure.
Scientometrics 105:1, 215-230. [Crossref]
117. Philip Beske-Janssen, Matthew Phillip Johnson, Stefan Schaltegger. 2015. 20 years of performance measurement in sustainable
supply chain management – what has been achieved?. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:6, 664-680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes. 2015. Green lean and the need for Six Sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:3, 226-248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. Elcio M. Tachizawa, Chee Yew Wong. 2015. The Performance of Green Supply Chain Management Governance Mechanisms:
A Supply Network and Complexity Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 51:3, 18-32. [Crossref]
120. George Vlahakis, Dimitris Aposotlou. A FCM analysis for supply chain management 1-6. [Crossref]
121. Cristina Gimenez, Vicenta Sierra, Juan Rodon, Jorge Andres Rodriguez. 2015. The role of information technology in the
environmental performance of the firm. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 28:2, 273-291. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
122. Yingli Wang, Vasco Sanchez Rodrigues, Leighton Evans. 2015. The use of ICT in road freight transport for CO2 reduction –
an exploratory study of UK’s grocery retail industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management 26:1, 2-29. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
123. Santosh Mahapatra, Raktim Pal, Tomas Hult, Srinivas Talluri. 2015. Assessment of Proactive Environmental Initiatives:
Evaluation of Efficiency Based on Interval-Scale Data. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62:2, 280-293. [Crossref]
124. J. Alberto Aragon-Correa, Inmaculada Martin-Tapia, Jose de la Torre-Ruiz. 2015. Sustainability issues and hospitality and
tourism firms’ strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:3, 498-522. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
125. Kenneth Wilburn Green, Lisa C. Toms, James Clark. 2015. Impact of market orientation on environmental sustainability strategy.
Management Research Review 38:2, 217-238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
126. Neeraj Anand, Neha Grover. 2015. Measuring retail supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:1,
135-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
127. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Hengky Latan, Adriano Alves Teixeira, Jorge Henrique
Caldeira de Oliveira. 2015. Reprint of “Quality management, environmental management maturity, green supply chain practices
 and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certification: Direct and indirect effects”. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 74, 139-151. [Crossref]
128. Su-Yol Lee. 2015. The effects of green supply chain management on the supplier’s performance through social capital
accumulation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 42-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Sumit Gupta, G.S. Dangayach, Amit Kumar Singh. 2015. Key Determinants of Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.
Procedia CIRP 26, 99-102. [Crossref]
130. Thoo Ai Chin, Huam Hon Tat, Zuraidah Sulaiman. 2015. Green Supply Chain Management, Environmental Collaboration and
Sustainability Performance. Procedia CIRP 26, 695-699. [Crossref]
131. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2015. Understanding the genesis of green supply chain management: lessons from leading
Brazilian companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 385-390. [Crossref]
132. Suresh Kumar Jakhar. 2015. Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision model for a sustainable supply chain of an
apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 391-413. [Crossref]
133. Zu’bi M. F. Al-Zu’bi, Ekhleif Tarawneh, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Mahmoud A. Fidawi. 2015. Investigating Supply Chain
Integration Effects on Environmental Performance in the Jordanian Food Industry. American Journal of Operations Research 05:04,
247-257. [Crossref]
134. Andrea Appolloni, Hui Sun, Fu Jia, Xiaomei Li. 2014. Green Procurement in the private sector: a state of the art review between
1996 and 2013. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 122-133. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

135. Everton Drohomeretski, Sergio Gouvea da Costa, Edson Pinheiro de Lima. 2014. Green supply chain management. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 25:8, 1105-1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Wantao Yu, Roberto Chavez, Mengying Feng, Frank Wiengarten. 2014. Integrated green supply chain management and
operational performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 683-696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
137. Manuel Díaz-Madroñero, Josefa Mula, David Peidro. 2014. A review of discrete-time optimization models for tactical production
planning. International Journal of Production Research 52:17, 5171-5205. [Crossref]
138. George Papachristos. 2014. Transition inertia due to competition in supply chains with remanufacturing and recycling: A systems
dynamics model. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 12, 47-65. [Crossref]
139. Rosangela Maria Vanalle, Leandro Blanco Santos. 2014. Green supply chain management in Brazilian automotive sector.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 25:5, 523-541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
140. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Hengky Latan, Adriano Alves Teixeira, Jorge Henrique
Caldeira de Oliveira. 2014. Quality management, environmental management maturity, green supply chain practices and green
performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certification: Direct and indirect effects. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review 67, 39-51. [Crossref]
141. Cheng-Tang Zhang, Hong-Xi Wang, Ming-Lun Ren. 2014. Research on pricing and coordination strategy of green supply chain
under hybrid production mode. Computers & Industrial Engineering 72, 24-31. [Crossref]
142. Rosangela Maria Vanalle, Leandro Blanco dos Santos. 2014. Análise das práticas de sustentabilidade utilizadas na gestão da cadeia
de suprimentos: pesquisa de campo no setor automotivo brasileiro. Gestão & Produção 21:2, 323-339. [Crossref]
143. Daniel Prajogo, Ailie K.Y. Tang, Kee-Hung Lai. 2014. The diffusion of environmental management system and its effect on
environmental management practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:5, 565-585. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
144. Subrata Mitra, Partha Priya Datta. 2014. Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their impact on performance:
an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research 52:7, 2085-2107. [Crossref]
145. Shwu-Ing Wu, Yu-Chen Wu. 2014. The influence of enterprisers' green management awareness on green management strategy
and organizational performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:4, 455-476. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
146. Simona Kildienė, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Jolanta Tamošaitienė. 2014. Complex assessment model for advanced
technology deployment. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 20:2, 280-290. [Crossref]
147. James W. Clark, Lisa C. Toms, Kenneth W. Green. 2014. Market-oriented sustainability: moderating impact of stakeholder
involvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:1, 21-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. Jolanta Tamo�aitien�, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, James J.H. Liou, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. Selecting Suppliers In Green
Supply Chain Management . [Crossref]
 149. S. Maryam Masoumik, Salwa Hanim Abdul-Rashid, Ezutah Udoncy Olugu, Raja Ariffin Raja Ghazilla. 2014. Sustainable Supply
Chain Design: A Configurational Approach. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-16. [Crossref]
150. Xiaohua Chen, Guoyi Xiu. 2014. Research on the Degree of Ecological Supply Chain Management Practice among Chinese
Manufacturing Enterprises. Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering 2014, 1-5. [Crossref]
151. H.S. de Figueirêdo Junior, M.P.M. Meuwissen, A.G.J.M. Oude Lansink. 2014. Integrating structure, conduct and performance
into value chain analysis. Journal on Chain and Network Science 14:1, 21-30. [Crossref]
152. Kuan Siew Khor, Zulkifli Mohamed Udin. 2013. Reverse logistics in Malaysia: Investigating the effect of green product design
and resource commitment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81, 71-80. [Crossref]
153. Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Luthra, Abid Haleem. 2013. Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: an interpretive structural
modeling methodology. Journal of Industrial Engineering International 9:1. . [Crossref]
154. Wendy L. Tate, Lisa M. Ellram, Ismail Gölgeci. 2013. Diffusion of environmental business practices: A network approach.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 19:4, 264-275. [Crossref]
155. Zhihong Wang, Joseph Sarkis. 2013. Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain management with corporate
financial performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:8, 871-888. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
156. Silvia Rossi, Claudia Colicchia, Alessandra Cozzolino, Martin Christopher. 2013. The logistics service providers in eco-efficiency
innovation: an empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:6, 583-603. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 09:14 05 October 2017 (PT)

157. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Fernanda de Souza Azevedo, Ariana Fernandes Arantes, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour.
2013. Green supply chain management in local and multinational high-tech companies located in Brazil. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68:1-4, 807-815. [Crossref]
158. Yao-Fen Wang, Su-Ping Chen, Yi-Ching Lee, Chen-Tsang (Simon) Tsai. 2013. Developing green management standards for
restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 263-273.
[Crossref]
159. Tritos Laosirihongthong, Dotun Adebanjo, Keah Choon Tan. 2013. Green supply chain management practices and performance.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:8, 1088-1109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour, Kannan Govindan, Devika Kannan, Manoel Henrique
Salgado, Celeste José Zanon. 2013. Factors affecting the adoption of green supply chain management practices in Brazil: empirical
evidence. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70:2, 302-315. [Crossref]
161. Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Fernanda de Souza Azevedo, Ariana Fernandes Arantes, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour.
2013. Esverdeando a cadeia de suprimentos: algumas evidências de empresas localizadas no Brasil. Gestão & Produção 20:4,
953-962. [Crossref]
162. Padmanabha Aital, Prince Vijai. ‘Green' Supply Chain Management: 1-23. [Crossref]
163. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Multifaceted Applications of Green Supply Chain Management 327-354. [Crossref]
164. Selin Kucukkancabas Esen, Sahar Sobhy El Barky. Drivers and Barriers to Green Supply Chain Management Practices: 232-260.
[Crossref]
165. Susheela Girisaballa, Sonali Bhattacharya. Sustainable Supply Chain: 272-302. [Crossref]
166. Jay R. Brown, Maxim A. Bushuev, Andrey A. Kretinin, Alfred L. Guiffrida. Recent Developments in Green Supply Chain
Management: 191-217. [Crossref]
167. Harish C. Chandan. Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management in a Globalized Economy 402-418. [Crossref]
168. Sherif Mostafa, Jantanee Dumrak. A Waste Elimination Process: 111-152. [Crossref]
169. Bülent Sezen, Sibel Yildiz Çankaya. Green Supply Chain Management Theory and Practices 92-114. [Crossref]