sustainability

Article
Implementation of Collaborative Activities for
Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation: An Analysis of
the Firm Size Effect
DonHee Lee
College of Business Administration, Inha University, 100 Inharo, Namgu, Incheon 22212, Korea;
[email protected]




Received: 15 April 2019; Accepted: 24 May 2019; Published: 28 May 2019


Abstract: This study examines the effects of collaborative and implementation activities on
environmental performance for sustainable supply chain management. Specifically, the proposed
research investigates the moderating effect of firm size on the effect relationships. The structural
equation modeling with AMOS 23.0 was employed to test hypotheses. The results confirm the positive
effects of collaborative activities on environmental performance and the positive relationship between
collaborative activities and green certification programs in both small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) and large-sized firms. Contrary to general belief, firm size did not moderate the relationship
between autonomous collaborative activities and green activities. However, other relationships were
supported in the research model, thus firm size partially moderates the relationships of collaborative
activities with implementation activities and environmental performance. The study demonstrates
that implementation activities play a key role in improving collaborative activities with suppliers
and vendors for sustainable supply chain innovation. Additionally, it contributes to the practice of
sustainable supply chain innovation as well as to efficiency through collaborative activities in the
supply chain process.

Keywords: sustainable supply chain innovation; collaborative activities; implementation activities;

environmental performance; firm size

1. Introduction
Industry 4.0 and digitization present many opportunities to organizations. However, they also
bring challenges because of the increased dynamicity and complexity of supply chain management
(SCM). In addition, severe weather and climate change have received significant attention as they bring
difficulties to coordination and response issues with suppliers and customers in SCM [1]. Given the
increased uncertainty and risk, these phenomena force firms to invest on technical resources toward
disaster prevention so as to enhance organizational resilience, visibility, agility, tightness, simplification,
on-demand data, and prevention in the supply chain (SC) [1–5]. In addition, with the fluid global
market demand, many organizations strive to reduce risk and cost, including environmental issues in
their global/regional SC [1–4,6,7]. Environmental issues are critical in developing sustainable SCM with
suppliers [8,9], managing economic, social, and environmental responsibility [1,10], enhancing SCM
innovation [3], fostering dynamic capabilities of SCM [2], and improving sustainable performance [1].
Thus, companies should develop innovative solutions to meet customer needs with agile responses to
dynamic changes in the environment.
For an innovative and sustainable supply chain, collaborative activities among partner firms
within the SC are important. For example, Walmart asked all of its associated carriers and transportation
companies that supply and deliver their products to reduce environmental pollution and terminated

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026; doi:10.3390/su11113026 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 2 of 16

contracts with those who failed to meet the target [11]. Thus, collaborative activities for the successful
implementation among companies in the SC play a major role in sustainable SC innovation.
The expected benefit of collaborative and implementation activities is improved organizational
performance. To introduce successful sustainable SC innovation, we suggest two fundamental
requirements: (1) Collaborative activities that are autonomous and espousal among partner
organizations in the SC; and (2) Implementation activities that are espousal and yet compulsory
among partner firms. To derive collaborative activities, it is necessary to develop a trust relationship
among partner organizations that is voluntary and enforceable at the same time. Collaborative activities
should be completely autonomous. Implementation activities, on the other hand, can be espousal
but compulsory simultaneously, such as participation in green certification programs (e.g., ISO 14001
certification) and green practices (e.g., reducing pollution and greening of products and processes).
Accordingly, for the shared goal of sustainable SC innovation, all partner organizations should actively
participate in both collaborative and implementation activities [12]. To encourage participation, it is
necessary to first clarify how autonomous collaborative activities and compulsory implementation
activities would affect firms within the SC. In other words, the sequential interrelationship of
collaborative and implementation activities for organizational performance should be analyzed
for sustainable SC innovation based on empirical data. This analysis of interrelationship would provide
valuable basic information for establishing trust among related SC companies.
As a result of this research, organizational outcomes of collaborative activities in SCM would
provide valuable strategic information. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical research on the collaborative
activities for sustainable SC innovation as well as on environmental performance. Thus, this research
focuses on operational strategies for effective collaborative activities within the SC. This study attempts
to provide answers to the following two basic research questions: (1) Does a company’s collaborative
activities in the SC impact the implementation of sustainable SC innovation? (2) Do the implementation
activities for sustainable SC innovation have an impact on environmental performances? Considering
the expected results of the research based on previous research and studies, this study will contribute
to the theory and practice through examining the proposed research model with developed hypotheses
on sustainable SC innovation. The results of this study will be practically applied in sustainable SC
innovation to enhance environmental performance.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 proposes a research model with developed
hypotheses based on relevant literature reviews on SCM; Section 3 presents research methodology;
Section 4 reports the results of analysis; and Section 5 provides the study with the conclusions and
limitations of the study, including future research opportunities.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Sustainable Supply Chain Management

The supply chain is a dynamic system that undergoes constant change in terms of demand,
supply, trade, and market conditions because it is inherently exposed to risks and uncertainties [1,13].
The cause of the volatility (uncertainty) of the SC can be explained based on previous studies as
follows (e.g., [1–4,14–17]): (1) Demand variability due to customers’ urgency changes, customer/market
forecasting, and demand shaping; (2) Supply chain information inaccuracy (e.g., production capacity,
inventory information, availability of raw materials) and supply variability due to disruptions in
development/production/purchase; and (3) Simplifying and rapid sharing of volatility due to the
pursuit of efficiency in each sector, such as sales, development, production, and purchasing, and lack of
integration of unprocessed information. In particular, the speed and scale of change in terms of distance,
diversity, and cycle would compound operational uncertainty. Therefore, continuous monitoring of
delivery period, transit times, production yield, and component availability should be maintained,
including environmental conditions. However, with the increased uncertainty and vulnerability due
to the geographical scope of the global supply chain, there is a need to secure the robustness of SC
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 3 of 16

operations through a buffer stock or multi-procurement strategies, including collaborative activities

with SC partners.
The objective of SCM is to maximize the value of the SC as a whole, that is, SC profitability.
The value generated within SC can be assessed as the difference between the value of the final finished
product provided to the customer and the efforts required to meet customer needs. Since value
creation can be accomplished in collaboration with partners within the SC, collaborative activities
for sustainable SC innovation can be a strategy to optimize value creation. As the overall customer
experience is becoming more important, beyond the level of providing goods/services, the scope of
customers as extended internal members, partner organizations, and society at large, it is important to
implement effective collaborative activities to ensure sustainability.
Sustainability is assumed to have a positive influence on environment conditions through
energy-efficient operations, greenhouse gas emission reduction, green management, and corporate
social responsibility (CSR). Sustainability in SCM has been introduced for tackling environmental issues,
maintaining sustainable business, and implementing SC innovation [1–4,7,16,18–20]. Shrivastava ([21],
p. 955) defined sustainability as “the potential for reducing long-term risk associated with resource
depletion, fluctuations in energy costs, product liabilities, and pollution and waste management.”
Góncz et al. ([22], p. 4) defined sustainability as “equal weightings for economic stability, ecological
compatibility, and social equilibrium.” Carter and Rogers [18] emphasized attainment of organizational
goals of economic, social, and environmental responsibility to define sustainability and expanded
their research to develop sustainable SCM. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is covered
by the flow of material and information, cooperation with partners and stakeholders, and meeting
requirements of customers and stakeholders within SC [20]. Ahi and Searcy ([23], p. 339) defined SSCM
based on previous studies related to green supply chain management (GSCM) and characteristics of
business sustainability as “The creation of coordinated supply chains through the voluntary integration
of economic, social, and environmental considerations with key inter-organizational business systems
designed to efficiently and effectively manage the material, information, and capital flows associated
with the procurement, production, and distribution of products or services”.
Although sustainability is difficult to define in terms of SCM because of the latter’s complex global
nature, most definitions encompass environmental, social, and economic issues, and highlight the
importance of innovation in the SC [3,7,16,24]. To develop sustainable SC innovation, firms attempt
to lower the risk level in the uncertain environment, including sustainable collaboration with in-out
partners, suppliers, and customers.
In SCM, advanced technologies have important roles in linking suppliers and vendors within
internal and external SCs [6,16]. In particular, environmentally friendly technologies can contribute to
cost and risk reduction [25], developing a sustainable process system [15,16], and better communication
with suppliers and customers [13]. Such technologies can lead innovation for the sustainable SC based
on environmental strategies, such as reduction of pollution and gas emission, expanded environmental
policies, and optimization of inputs (e.g., resources, raw materials, capitals, and energies) [6,16,26].
Lee and Lim ([27], p. 21) defined innovation as “actual application of any idea or approach in
fundamentally different ways to create new or greater value for the organization and other stakeholders”.
In SCM, innovation is not only focused on technology or ideas, but it also strives to prevent negative
impacts on the environment [6,13]. A set of collaborative activities is laid out to improve communication,
promote energy efficiency, and mitigate the effects of environmental issues through the synergy of
partners [28]. Innovation in SCM is crucial for creating new solutions and close relationships with
subcontractors, including continuous quality improvement; quick responses to suppliers, venders, and
customers; and development of technology-based processes and procedures [1,14]. Artsiomchyk and
Zhiviskaya [14] proposed SC innovation linked with information technology and logistic procedures
for improving operational efficiency.
Although innovation in the SC helps generate operational strategies, it is derived by collaborative
activities among suppliers, vendors, and governments to prevent environmental issues. Thus,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 4 of 16

sustainable SC innovation can address environmental issues through SC activities. In this study,
sustainable SC innovation is defined as operational management approaches to achieve better
results of sustainable development by responding to environmental regulations and issues through
implementation of innovative solutions within the SC.
In this study, the scope of research for sustainable SC innovation focuses on the environment
within the SC through collaborative and implementation activities and their results in the form of
performance. This is primarily because collaboration among related SC partners is important for
sustainability in SCM. Therefore, this study examines how collaborative activities (e.g., autonomous
collaborative and adoption activities) and actual implementation activities (e.g., green certification
programs and green activities) impact environmental performance, depending on firm size.

2.2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

2.2.1. Collaborative and Implementation Activities

Firms often develop SC partnerships within SCs in order to deal with internal and external
environmental changes for SSCM [1,29,30]. The collaborative efforts with partners and suppliers can
be beneficial in attaining world-class SC competence. However, in the external environment, it may
not be possible to cover all risk possibilities in spite of the partnerships. Thus, most firms strive to
develop good relationships with partners through promotional and collaborative activities to manage
and sustain the internal and external environment with agility.
Previous studies suggested the scope of SC collaboration activities with internal and external
partners for efficient SCM. This includes the willingness of the top management of organizations to
encourage participation of employees [31], promoting human capacity or skill development [32,33],
encouraging cooperation and collaboration with partners and vendors [1,34–36], and developing
sustainable SCM strategies [31,37,38]. These studies suggest that firms can develop collaborative
relationships and implement strategies with partners to build a sustainable SC model that can help
create competitive advantage over conventional SCs. In general, collaboration within SCM enables the
formation of a partnership with suppliers and vendors within the internal and external SC [16].
Lambert and Knemeyer [35] identified two types of partnerships, one is a limited cooperative and
integrated relationship with multiple parts in the SC, and the other is a cooperative relationship with a
partner company. On the contrary, Lee and Schniederjans [16] proposed three categories of partnerships,
namely a limited cooperative, an integrated cooperative, and a mutual cooperative relationship.
Matopoulos et al. [39] emphasized the importance of collaboration among SC partners to enhance
operational efficiency. According to Villena et al. [40], cooperation achieved by building trust among
firms leads to a positive influence in the formation of strong relationships. Lee and Schniederjans [16]
suggested that sustainable SCM is achieved through collaboration among subcontractors within the
SC. Therefore, increased collaborative activities should improve operational efficiency among partner
firms [40,41]. As revealed in earlier studies, a sustainable SC might be developed through more
collaborative activities.
The implementation of voluntary collaborative activities enables firms to co-create competitive
advantage [13]. Furthermore, participation of vendors and suppliers to achieve shared goals and
outcomes can promote commitment of partner firms toward sustainable SC innovation. For example,
voluntary collaborative activities within the SC on environmental issues may include: (1) reinforcement
of information sharing according to environmental norms or behaviors; (2) monitoring and regulation
of the existing processes and systems to reduce waste and emission; (3) active participation in
environmental regulation to maintain sustainability within SC; and (4) evaluation and promotion of
measures among subcontractors with respect to achievement of environmental goals. On the other
hand, actual implementation of collaborative and mandatory activities within the SC on environmental
issues may require: (1) obtaining and/or implementing green vendor certification programs (e.g.,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 5 of 16

ISO 14001 certification) to certify quality and operations; (2) adopting other similar green vendor
certification programs; and (3) making aligned green activities with partner firms.
If the incumbent firm is a well-known organization for environmental conservation and
commitment toward sustainability issues within the SC, then the firm’s brand value can be maximized
through its contribution toward environment projects and recognition of the brand reputation by
customers [42,43]. Vendors who have collaborative relationships with organizations that are well-known
for their commitment toward environmental issues are more likely to have environmental activities
in their SC system. This indicates that collaborative activities can be implemented through vendors,
suppliers, and subcontractors to provide a milestone for the partner firms on performance improvement.
In turn, SC firms secure competitive advantage through implementing sustainable SC innovation
activities [17]. It is evident that collaborative activities impact the performance of all SC partner
firms. Additionally, collaborative and promotional activities with vendors and stakeholders lead to
improvement in business activities and removal of environmental obstacles to SSCM.
Thus, collaboration activities that involve vendors can drive implementation of sustainable SC
strategies where information and risk sharing with suppliers, vendors, manufacturers, and consumers
improve responsiveness and agility to environmental changes, including improvement in organizational
performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are suggested.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Autonomous collaborative activities will positively influence implementation of green
certification programs.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Autonomous collaborative activities will positively influence implementation of

green activities.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Adoption activities will positively influence implementation of green certification programs.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Adoption activities will positively influence implementation of green activities.

2.2.2. Implementation Activities and Environmental Performance

As SCM is a complex network of activities, SC firms need to deal with operational strategies with
their partners to achieve better long-term relationships and performance [1]. SC activities include
reverse logistics that involves recycling and/or disposal of products as environment-friendly activities
for sustainable development [6]. A number of firms have implemented green initiatives in SCM for
sustainable development activities, such as reduction in pollutant discharge, and production, storage,
packaging, transportation, distribution, and consumption of recyclable products [44]. In addition
to this, a set of collaborative activities with subcontractors for promoting a synergy among SC
partners to improve environmental performance through eliminating waste and implementing
environment-friendly activities has been set up. These activities are performed through collaborative
initiatives in association with other related SC firms and governments, instead of just within the
company [45]. Therefore, collaborative activities can positively influence the widely accepted elements,
such as green vendor certification programs and suppliers’ green practices.
Sustainable SC innovation can be driven through the optimization of processes that reduce waste,
the production of emissions, and the adoption of collaborative activities within the SC to manage the
increasing concerns related to the environment such as green actions. It is also necessary for the lead
SC firm to provide environmental criteria (e.g., certification; roles of savings in water and energy;
environment-friendly packaging and distribution; and reverse logistics) to suppliers and vendors.
These activities can be implemented by mandatory roles within the SC to ensure that the shared
goals are achieved through collaborative activities of all associated vendors. Thus, improvement of
environmental performance can be expected from the voluntary adoption of collaborative activities by
all firms within the SC [46].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 6 of 16

To attain sustainable SC innovation, it is imperative that SC firms do not act alone, but rather
collaborate and work in harmony to ensure environmental protection and the search for opportunities to
improve SC processes, build environment-friendly corporate ecosystems, and improve organizational
performance and brand value [16]. In general, companies tend to ignore environmental protection
activities that are not profitable in the short term. Thus, it is important for governments to develop
regulations that compel firms to safeguard environmental protection activities. The parent firm should
request that green vendor certification programs are obtained or implemented to make sure that
similar green vendor certification programs are adapted by SC partners, and investment in suppliers’
green activities is made. Such activities represent environmental protection commitment for achieving
common goals, e.g., environmental performance, brand reputation, and competitive advantage through
adoption of collaborative activities in the SC. Sustainable SC innovation provides value to SC partner
firms, stakeholders, and the community by building a sustainable ecosystem. Some of the reasons
for performing collaborative practices in sustainable SC innovation include improvement of cost
competitiveness, flexibility, delivery, regulatory compliance, and image enhancement through green
activities. Thus, the actual implementation of SC innovation activities with vendors can improve
environmental performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Implementation of green certification programs will positively influence environmental
performance.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Implementation of green activities will positively influence environmental performance.

The impact of firm size depends on the various factors of the enterprises (e.g., number of suppliers
and distribution centers). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) usually use low-tech information
technology applications while large firms use high-tech applications [13,47]. Thus, firm size (large vs.
small or medium) has an impact on SCM activities or processes [5].
The examination of firm size by tier may shed additional insight about the relationships between
suppliers and vendors. Previous studies on SCM have rarely examined the moderating effect of
firm size. Large-sized firms invest more on resource efficiency, recycling, developing eco-friendly
products and services, and adopting systems that prevent environmental damage than SMEs [5,48].
Consequently, characteristics such as firm size seem to have a moderating effect on SCM. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Firm size will moderate the relationships between collaborative activities, implementation
activities, and environmental performance for sustainable SC innovation.

We examined in this study the effects of collaborative activities on environmental performance

through implementation activities in sustainable SC innovation depending on firm size. As with
previous studies, we assumed that collaborative activities are a prerequisite for sustainable SC
innovation, and that implementation activities improve environmental performance in an SC, including
the moderating effects of firm size. The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1.
 We examined in this study the effects of collaborative activities on environmental performance
through implementation activities in sustainable SC innovation depending on firm size. As with
previous studies, we assumed that collaborative activities are a prerequisite for sustainable SC
innovation,2019,
Sustainability and
11, that
3026 implementation activities improve environmental performance in an7 of SC,
16
including the moderating effects of firm size. The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1.

Collaborative activity Implementation activity Performance

Autonomous Green
collaborative H1 certification
activities programs H5
H2
Environmental
H3 performance
Green H6
Adoption
activities
activities H4

H7: Firm size

Figure 1. The proposed research model.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

Data was collected from supplier firms by means of visits and/or online contacts with the staff
and/or manager of related SC firms from 20 August to 30 November 2018 in South Korea. Supplier firms
voluntarily participated in this study. The questionnaire items were developed through the double
translation protocol approach [49]. The measurement items for autonomous collaborative activities,
adoption activities, green certification programs and green activities, and environmental performance
in sustainable SC innovation are shown in Table 1 based on Global Manufacturing Research Group
(GMRG) 5.0 survey questionnaire [50] and Lee [1].
Out of 700 questionnaires that were distributed to manufacturing supplier firms in South Korea,
227 (32.4%) responses were returned. As incomplete questionnaires were discarded, the final useable
sample consisted of 218 (31.1%) valid questionnaires.

Table 1. Measurement items.

Variables Measurement Items References

ACA1: systematically control the environmental impact
Autonomous
ACA 2: implement a systematic approach for setting environmental targets
collaborative
ACA 3: implement a systematic approach for achieving environmental targets
activities
ACA 4: implement a systematic approach for demonstrating environmental targets
AAE1: a systematic approach to reduce cost
Adoption activities AAE 2: a systematic approach to demonstrate delivery speed
AAE 3: a systematic approach to set regulatory compliance
GMRG 5.0
GCP1: use green vendor certification programs to certify survey
Green certification
GCP 2: implement green vendor certification programs with suppliers questionnaire [50];
programs
GCP 3: adopt similar green vendor certification programs Lee [1]
GCA1: with partners for reducing pollution activities
Green activities GCA 2: with partners for perceived favorable activities by their customers
GCA 3: with partners for products’ and processes’ green activities
ENP1: reduced energy use in our facilities
Environmental ENP2: reduced water use in our facilities
performance ENP3: reduced waste at our facilities
ENP4: reduced emissions at our facilities

As shown Table 2, the characteristics of the sample firms and respondents are summarized.
The majority of business units are manufacturers of parts of machines and machinery (61.2%). Of the
respondents, 98.2% were male, with working experiences ranging from less than 10 years (54.6%) to
more than 20 years (11.0%) in the current organization.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 8 of 16

Table 2. Characteristics of firms and respondents.

Characteristics of Firms Frequency Percent

Less than 10 years 75 33.0
More than 10 years–less than 20 years 80 35.2
Years since establishment
More than 20 years–less than 30 years 49 21.6
More than 30 years 23 10.1
Less than 300 145 63.9
Number of employees
More than 300 82 36.1
Less than 50 143 63.0
More than 50–less than 100 20 8.8
Number of partners
More than 100 60 26.4
Missing 4 1.8
Electronic and other electrical equipment 14 6.2
Manufacture of motor vehicles 17 7.5
Business unit Petroleum refining and related industries 28 12.3
Metal industry 29 12.8
Manufacture of parts of machines and machinery 139 61.2
Characteristics of Respondents Frequency Percent
Male 223 98.2
Gender
Female 4 1.8
Team Leader 97 42.7
Manager 50 22.0
Position
Director/Supervisor 18 7.9
Executive 62 27.3
Less than 10 124 54.6
Working years More than 10–less than 20 78 34.4
More than 20 25 11.0
Total 227 100.0

3.2. Variables
The questionnaire utilized the five-point Likert scales to measure the variables. To analyze the
collected data, the SPSS 23.0 and the AMOS 23.0 programs were used. Structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used considering the tools necessary to test the developed hypotheses.
Reliability of these constructs was tested based on Cronbach’s α-value (Table 3). All of the
coefficients of reliability measures for the constructs exceed the threshold value of 0.7 for exploratory
constructs in basic research [51]. In the reliability test, Cronbach’s α-value for autonomous collaborative
activities was the highest (0.926), while it was the lowest (0.855) for green activities. Thus, all of the
study constructs have Cronbach’s α-value larger than 0.8, which reveals high reliability p < 0.05.
Validity refers to the accuracy of a measure. Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to identify
the most meaningful basis and to express similarities and differences of the data, and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) is a way of testing how well the measured variables represent the constructs
based on Brown’s [52] recommendation. As the Eigen values and percent of variance explained for
each construct of the study are shown in Table 3, the cumulative percentage of explained variance was
80.294 for the constructs. The loading values of each factor of the study ranged from 0.752 to 0.898 as
shown in Table 3.
For the convergent and discriminant validity test [52], the measurement model was used for
autonomous collaborative activities, adoption activities, green certification programs, green activities,
and environmental performance. The standardized factor loadings, t-values, and p-values for
measurement variables, and results of CFAs are presented in Table 3. In the measurement model,
the values of standardized loading of all variables reported by the study were greater than 0.7 and
significant at the 0.001 level.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 9 of 16

Table 3. Results of PCA and CFA.

PCA CFA
Percent of Cronbach’s
Constructs Variables Eigen Factor Standardized
Variance t-Value p-Value Alphas
Value Loading Loading
Explained
ACA1 0.881 0.845 15.747 0.000
Autonomous
ACA2 0.890 0.908 17.683 0.000
collaborative 4.807 28.276 0.926
ACA3 0.880 0.891 17.172 0.000
activities
ACA4 0.846 0.839 - -
AAE1 0.752 0.751 13.269 0.000
Adoption
AAE2 1.048 6.162 0.896 0.887 16.292 0.000 0.876
activities
AAE3 0.877 0.886 - -
Green GCP1 0.832 0.839 13.651 0.000
certification GCP2 1.276 7.505 0.851 0.905 14.521 0.000 0.879
programs GCP3 0.808 0.791 - -
GCA1 0.847 0.797 11.989 0.000
Green
GCA2 2.217 13.044 0.898 0.882 12.542 0.000 0.855
activities
GCA3 0.859 0.776 - -
ENP1 0.853 0.834 13.993 0.000
Environmental ENP2 0.841 0.789 13.029 0.000
4.226 24.857 0.894
performance ENP3 0.862 0.862 14.560 0.000
ENP4 0.827 0.810 - -

Table 4 is summarized the results of fit indices of the measurement model. Based on the
recommended values, the values of GFI, CFI, RMR SRMR, RMSEA, and χ2 were satisfactory. This
model, thus, showed good acceptance measures for a majority of fit indices.

Table 4. Results of fit indices for CFA.

Model χ2 d.f χ2 /d.f GFI CFI RMR SRMR RMSEA

Measurement model 163.052 109 1.496 0.924 0.978 0.034 0.045 0.047
Recommended values ≤3.0 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≤0.08 ≤0.08 ≤0.08
GFI: goodness of fit index, CFI: comparative fit index, RMR: root mean square residual, SRMR: standardized root
mean square residual, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

The off-diagonal elements are correlations between latent variables, while the square roots of
average variance extracted (AVE) of latent variables are shown in Table 5. For adequate discriminant
validity, the square root of AVE of any latent variable should be greater than the correlation between
this particular latent variable and other latent variables [53]. A value of AVE above 0.7 and an
acceptable value of CR above 0.7 would be considered very good [54]. As the values of AVE and
CR of autonomous collaborative activities, adoption activities, green certification programs, green
activities, and environmental performance were all greater than 0.7 and 0.9, respectively, the convergent
validity met the threshold. The statistics shown in Table 5, therefore, satisfied this requirement, lending
evidence to discriminant and construct validity.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 10 of 16

Table 5. Correlation matrix and average variance extracted.

Autonomous Green
Adoption Green Environmental
Constructs Collaborative Certification
Activities Activities Performance
Activities Programs
Autonomous collaborative activities 0.920
Adoption activities 0.096 0.930
Green certification programs 0.604 0.035 0.899
Green activities 0.160 0.022 0.383 0.866
Environmental performance 0.042 0.576 0.055 0.011 0.905
CR 0.957 0.950 0.927 0.900 0.947
AVE 0.847 0.865 0.809 0.750 0.819
ratio) = (factor loading2 ) / (factor loading2 ) + (error); AVE = (factor loading)2 / (factor
P P P P P
CR (critical P
loading)2 + (error); Bold value was the square root of AVE.

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents the results of hypotheses tests, including the standardized coefficient of each
path in the research model. Compared to the recommended values for the goodness of fit tests, the
proposed model had the values of GFI (0.891), CFI (0.948), RMR (0.039), SRMR (0.054), and RMSEA
(0.070), which had good fit, and χ2 /d.f (2.115) and p-value (0.000) were satisfactory, but the value of
GFI (0.891) was slightly inferior.
The results of significance tests for paths of the research model are shown in Table 6. For the H1
and the H2, the standardized path coefficients between autonomous collaborative activities and green
certification programs and green activities were 0.304 and 0.222, respectively, and significant at the
0.05 level. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported. The results of this research imply that firms provide
collaborative and implementation activity to improve environmental performance in sustainable SCM
for their supplier, vendors, and subcontractors to promote synergy effects such as eliminating waste,
saving resources, and reducing pollution. Thus, collaborative/cooperative activities with stakeholders
can be seen as a preliminary task in developing a sustainable ecosystem [1].

Table 6. Results of significance test for paths of the model.

Path Hypothesis
Path S.E. t-Value p-Value
Coefficient Test
Autonomous collaborative
→ Green certification programs 0.304 0.079 2.957 0.003 ** Supported H1
activities
Autonomous collaborative
→ Green activities 0.222 0.076 2.122 0.034 * Supported H2
activities
Adoption activities → Green certification programs 0.241 0.071 2.380 0.017 * Supported H3
Adoption activities → Green activities 0.237 0.069 2.276 0.023 * Supported H4
Green certification programs → Environmental performance 0.212 0.099 2.686 0.007 ** Supported H5
Green activities → Environmental performance 0.950 0.125 9.136 0.000 *** Supported H6
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

For H3 and H4, the standardized path coefficients between adoption activities and green
certification programs and green activities were 0.241 and 0.237, respectively, and also statistically
significant at the 0.05 level, supporting both. An organization strives to achieve business goals through
effective strategies such as voluntary participation activities and adoption activities of employees with
subcontractors. To control the adoption activities in SCM, organizations should develop sustainable
activities with suppliers through cooperation/collaboration—for example, systematic and integrated
green vendor certification programs to implement environmental goals in SCM.
For H5 and H6, the standardized path coefficients between environmental performance and
green certification programs and green activities were 0.212 and 0.950, respectively, and statistically
significant at the 0.01 level, supporting H5 and H6. Green certification programs and green activities for
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 11 of 16

improving environmental performance can help implementation of SC activities, which can be adapted
in SCM processes with internal and external activities of supplier, vendors, and subcontractors.

Moderating Effects of Firm Size between Groups

We utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques in AMOS Version 23.0 to compare
groups to discover whether firm size may moderate the relationships between the constructs under
study. The test for moderating effects (H7) was conducted using two groups: more than 300 and less
than 300 employees. To examine the moderating effect of firm size (large vs. SMEs), we conducted
covariance matrices to perform a measurement equivalence test through examination of combinations
of constrained and unconstrained models for determining any differences in the constructs [55].
Table 7 shows the results of the CFAs model comparing the two groups. First, the test of loose
cross validation (model 1) presented an χ2 of 329.808 (d.f = 206), a CFI of 0.860, an RMR of 0.046,
and an RMSEA of 0.047. To determine whether the measurement model is equivalent for the two
groups, the second model (model 2) was estimated. The factor loadings (λ) were constrained across
the two groups to evaluate this model 2. The χ2 difference between models 1 and 2 was significant
(∆χ2 = 16.251, d.f = 212, CFI = 0.855, RMR = 0.050, RMSEA = 0.047). This result suggests that the
measurement scale is assumed to be equivalent for the two groups [55]. However, model 3, for the
factor correlations (Φ) and factor loadings (λ), is non-significant from model 2 (∆χ2 = 23.382, d.f = 231,
CFI = 0.852, RMR = 0.064, RMSEA = 0.045). This result implies that the factor correlations and the
factor loadings are equally constrained [55]. In addition, model 4 estimated the error variances (θ) to
be equal across the two groups. Model 4 is significantly different from model 1 (∆χ2 = 38.026, d.f = 218,
CFI = 0.852, RMR = 0.066, RMSEA = 0.043) as shown in Table 7. The measurement items between the
two groups assumed the steps outlined in Table 7 to effectively determine the path coefficients between
the two groups. The measurement items for each construct of this study suggest a good acceptance
value of convergent and construct validity as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Results of CFAs Model Comparison.

Model χ2 d.f p-Value CFI RMR RMSEA ∆χ2/d.f ∆2 Sig. Diff.

Unconstrained (model 1) 329.808 206 0 0.86 0.046 0.047
λ Constrained (model 2) 346.059 212 0 0.855 0.05 0.047 16.251/6 Yes
Φ, λ Constrained (model 3) 353.19 231 0 0.852 0.064 0.045 23.382/25 No
Φ, λ, θ Constrained (model 4) 367.834 218 0 0.852 0.066 0.043 38.026/12 Yes

Table 8 shows the moderating effects of firm size groups in the proposed model. The results can
be interpreted using path loadings at p < 0.05 meaning that SMEs and large sized firms can improve
environmental performance through green activities in SCM (β = 0.855 of SMEs and β = 0.991 of large
sized firms at p < 0.01), but not for autonomous collaborative activities and green activities for both
groups (β = 0.250 of SMEs and β = 0.181 of large sized firms).
For the SMEs group, the results of moderating effects were significant at p < 0.05 for two paths in
Table 8: adoption activities and green certification programs (β = 0.299, p < 0.05) and adoption activities
and green activities (β = 0.346, p < 0.05), but not for green certification programs and environmental
performance (β = 0.109). In the large sized firm group, the moderating effects were significant at
p < 0.05 for green certification programs and environmental performance (β = 0.132, p < 0.05), but not
for adoption activities and green certification programs (β = 0.229) and green activities (β = 0.172).
As shown in Table 8, SMEs have more flexibility in collaborative and implementation activities
through autonomous and adoption activities for successful sustainable SC innovation. The results
of the moderating effects of this study also show a similar result with previous studies (e.g., [5]).
In addition, SMEs should be able to improve environmental performance though the adoption activities
in SCM. The results of this research imply that SMEs are more efficient through their mandatory
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 12 of 16

activities with suppliers to improve environmental performance while large sized companies consider
autonomous activities with suppliers.

Table 8. Results of path coefficients between groups.

SMEs Large
Path Path Path
p-Value p-Value
Coefficient Coefficient
Autonomous collaborative activities → Green certification programs 0.342 0.026 * 0.321 0.017 *
Autonomous collaborative activities → Green activities 0.250 0.121 0.181 0.175
Adoption activities → Green certification programs 0.299 0.048 * 0.229 0.082
Adoption activities → Green activities 0.346 0.036 * 0.172 0.192
Green certification programs → Environmental performance 0.109 0.205 0.132 0.019 *
Green activities → Environmental performance 0.855 0.000 ** 0.991 0.000 **
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.

5. Conclusions
The results of this study offer related SC firms new insights on ways to improve SCM processes by
tackling environmental issues to maintain competitive advantage. The hypotheses test showed positive
effects of the autonomous collaborative activities on green certification programs (H1) and green
activities (H2), and of adoption activities on green certification programs (H3) and green activities (H4).
The study also found positive relationships between environmental performance and green certification
programs (H5) and green activities (H6). The moderating effects for autonomous collaborative activities
and green certification programs (H1) and green activities and environmental performance (H6) were
significant at p < 0.05 for SMEs and large-sized firms; however, autonomous collaborative activities
and green activities (H2) were not significant at p < 0.05 for both groups.
The above results suggest potential SSCM areas that need improvement in an operational SC
process. As the results of this study indicate, green activities affect environmental performance in
both groups. In addition, the study showed that green activities of implementation play a key role
in increasing operational efficiency, thus enhancing organizational performance through suppliers.
Furthermore, this study showed a positive relationship between autonomous collaborative activities
and green certification programs in both groups. However, these results also suggest that firm size
may be a decisive factor in altering implementation activities while performing eco-friendly activities
in sustainable SCM. We view in this study the implementation activity in the SC industry as an enabler
that can be positively applied in the future when supported by the ongoing collaborative/cooperative
activities strategy for a sustainable ecosystem.
This research has made contributions in the following ways: First, for sustainable SC innovation,
environmental performance can be achieved through collaborative and implementation activities.
Thus, for sustainable business, firms can increase their operational efficiency by performing activities
simultaneously that are somewhat enforceable as well as autonomous. Second, although adopting
activities with forcedness did have a positive effect on green certification programs and collaborative
activities in SMEs, in large sized companies, it did not have significant effects. The reasons appear to be
that most large sized companies strongly pursue environmentally friendly certification and activities
to subcontractors because SC activities are conducted through sub-suppliers, but they may not actually
implement green certification and activities. For example, Walmart requires a certain level of emission
reduction from its suppliers. Third, there was not significance between autonomous collaborative
activities and green activities among companies of similar size, which means that mutual autonomous
activities among groups of different sizes are more important. Lastly, the results of the whole group
analysis and large sized firms showed that the green certification programs affect environmental
performance, but did not make a difference in SMEs. This result demonstrates that a small firm faces
difficulties in certain business situations (capital, cost, system, etc.) compared to large sized companies
due to the lack of manpower to acquire certification. Therefore, to create a sustainable environment,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 13 of 16

large sized companies conduct strategic investment activities (e.g., training and know-how to acquire
green certification, information technology usage, benchmarking materials) for SMEs. This can lead
to a cost burden for large sized companies in the short term but provide a positive synergy for all
companies within the SC in the long-term and create mutual trust among firms [13].
Thus, to ensure sustainable SC innovation, firms should continuously develop collaborative and
implementation activities considering the suppliers’ perspectives to promote voluntary participation
in SCM activities, including free participation and suggesting possible activities. To establish effective
collaborative and implementation activities with suppliers, firms should build trust-based relationships
with their suppliers for improving agility and flexibility in the increased uncertainty and risk in SCM.
In addition, related SC firms can invest in green certification programs, which lead employees and
suppliers to participate in pollution reduction activities as well as products and process related green
practices and implement activities that are favorably perceived by their customers.
Collaborative activities should be developed in SCM for autonomous participation suppliers,
vendors, and subcontractors to induce a positive influence on green certification programs and/or
green activities for improving environmental performance. These suggestions based on the study
imply that well-developed collaborative and implementation activities play a key role in a sustainable
ecosystem, which in turn affects environmental performance as well as organizational performance.
Thus, sustainable SC innovation requires collaborative and implementation activities with related
SC firms.
The results of the study have significant theoretical and practical implications for operational
efficiency and effectiveness in SCM. There are different results from previous studies and the current
research regarding the moderating effect of firm size on the relationship between autonomous
collaborative activities and green activities. Our study found no moderating effect of firm size, which
indirectly suggests that some compulsory regulations may be needed for green management rather
than just autonomous activities. Therefore, companies should strive to achieve common goals by
implementing visible and purpose-oriented programs (e.g., a range of green activities, number of
activates per year, etc.) in their operations. We believe this result applies not only to the industries we
studied but to general industries as well. The sustainability of firms depends on operational efficiency
and effective response to dynamic environment trends through collaboration/cooperation with vendors
and stakeholders in facing environmental obstacles [1,7]. For adapting dynamic environmental issues
regarding uncertainty and risk so as to enhance operational efficiency, collaborative activities in
sustainable SC innovation need to be considered. In addition, firms might apply different policies and
strategies depending on vendor competencies to ensure resilience, visibility, and agility because the SC
is a complex system that must deal with uncertainty and risk [1,5,13]. Consequently, the results of this
study will offer valuable insights to SCM-related companies and potential firms that want to develop
eco-friendly SC processes with suppliers/vendors for enhancing organizational competitiveness in the
global market.
In spite of the contributions offered by this study, they suffer from some limitations. First, while
South Korea is well-known as a manufacturing economy in the world, the data were collected from
cross-industry Korean firms. As the firms that participated in this study have similar or SC processes
with subcontractors, further analysis based on the type of industry may yield additional insights.
Second, this study used measurement items of green certification programs. However, we measured
them as perceived by respondents within SC activities. If we had selected certified companies with
green programs (e.g., ISO 14001), the results would have provided valuable new information about
successful activities for environmental performance. Third, future study might be needed to examine
the moderating effects of firm size in greater depth and scale using autonomous collaborative activities
and green activities. For developing effective strategies to achieve common sustainability goals, it is
important to compare and analyze the effects of autonomous and compulsory activities among the
related firms.

Funding: This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant (INHA-605222).
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 14 of 16

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lee, D. The Effect of safety management and sustainable activities on sustainable performance: Focusing on
suppliers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4796. [CrossRef]
2. Hong, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, M. Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic
capabilities, and enterprise performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3508–3519. [CrossRef]
3. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management:
An exploratory literature review. RD Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [CrossRef]
4. Tebaldi, L.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E. Sustainable supply chain and innovation: A review of the recent literature.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3946. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Goh, M. Moderating the role of firm size in sustainable performance improvement
through sustainable supply chain management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1654. [CrossRef]
6. Cosimato, S.; Troisi, O. Green supply chain management: Practices and tools for logistics competitiveness
and sustainability-The DHL case study. TQM J. 2015, 27, 256–276. [CrossRef]
7. Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.; Padhi, S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management:
A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 299–314. [CrossRef]
8. Koster, M.; Vos, B.; Schroeder, R. Management innovation driving sustainable supply management-process
studies in exemplar MNEs. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2017, 20, 240–257. [CrossRef]
9. Srivastava, S. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007,
9, 53–80. [CrossRef]
10. Yan, M.; Chien, K.; Yang, T. Green component procurement collaboration for improving supply chain
management in the high technology industries: A case study from the systems perspective. Sustainability
2016, 8, 105. [CrossRef]
11. Burnham, M. Wal-Mart Requires Suppliers to Reveal Environmental Impacts. Available online: https:
//www.scientificamerican.com/article/walmart-environmental-impacts-labels/ (accessed on 15 March 2019).
12. Meehan, J.; Muir, L. SCM in Merseyside SMEs: Benefits and barriers. TQM J. 2008, 20, 223–232. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, S.; Lee, D.; Schniederjans, M. Supply chain innovation and organizational performance in the health
care industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 31, 1193–1214. [CrossRef]
14. Artsiomchyk, Y.; Zhivitskaya, H. Designing sustainable supply chain under innovation influence. IFAC Papers
OnLine 2015, 48, 1695–1699. [CrossRef]
15. De Martino, M.; Morvillo, A. Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: Key factors in port
competitiveness. Marit. Policy Manag. 2008, 35, 571–589. [CrossRef]
16. Lee, D.; Schniederjans, M. How corporate social responsibility commitment influences sustainable supply
chain management performance within the social capital framework: A propositional framework. Int. J.
Corp. Strateg. Soc. Responsib. 2017, 1, 208–233. [CrossRef]
17. Schwartz, M.; Carroll, A. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Bus. Ethics Q. 2003, 13,
503–530. [CrossRef]
18. Carter, C.; Rogers, D. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [CrossRef]
19. Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case
studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2009, 45, 37–56. [CrossRef]
20. Seuring, S.; Muller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [CrossRef]
21. Shrivastava, P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20,
936–960. [CrossRef]
22. Góncz, E.; Skirke, U.; Kleizen, H.; Barber, M. Increasing the rate of sustainable change: A call for a redefinition
of the concept and the model for its implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 525–537. [CrossRef]
23. Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain
management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 329–341. [CrossRef]
24. Roscoe, S.; Cousins, P.; Lamming, R. Developing eco-innovations: A three-stage typology of supply networks.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1948–1959. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 15 of 16

25. Gilman, E.; Ellison, J.; Coleman, R. Assessment of mangrove response to projected relative sea-level rise and
recent historical reconstruction of shoreline position. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 124, 105–130. [CrossRef]
26. Hart, S. Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1997, 75, 66–77.
27. Lee, S.; Lim, S. Living innovation: From Value Creation to the Greater Good; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley,
UK, 2018.
28. Rao, P.; Holt, D. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 2005, 25, 898–916. [CrossRef]
29. Closs, D.; Speier, C.; Meacham, N. Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role of supply
chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 101–116. [CrossRef]
30. Montiel, I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures.
Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 245–269. [CrossRef]
31. Hanna, M.; Newman, W.; Johnson, P. Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee
involvement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2000, 20, 148–165. [CrossRef]
32. Jennings, P.; Zandbergen, P. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 1995, 20, 1015–1052. [CrossRef]
33. Maignan, I.; Hillebrand, B.; McAlister, D. Managing socially-responsible buying: How to integrate
noneconomic criteria into the purchasing process. Eur. Manag. J. 2002, 20, 641–648. [CrossRef]
34. Day, M.; Lichtenstein, S. Strategic supply management: The relationship between supply management
practices, strategic orientation and their impact on organizational performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2006,
12, 313–321. [CrossRef]
35. Lambert, D.; Knemeyer, A. We’re in this together. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2005, 82, 114–117.
36. Narasimhan, R.; Das, A. The impact of purchasing integration practices on manufacturing performance.
J. Oper. Manag. 2001, 19, 593–609. [CrossRef]
37. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration
in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. [CrossRef]
38. Hervani, A.; Helms, M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management.
Benchmarking Int. J. 2005, 12, 330–353. [CrossRef]
39. Matopoulos, A.; Vlachopoulou, M.; Manthou, V.; Manos, B. A conceptual framework for supply chain
collaboration: Empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 177–186.
[CrossRef]
40. Villena, V.; Revilla, E.; Choi, T. The dark side of buyer-supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. J.
Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 561–576. [CrossRef]
41. Ring, P.; Van de Ven, A. Structuring cooperative relationship between organizations. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992,
13, 483–498. [CrossRef]
42. Creel, T. How corporate social responsibility influences brand equity. Manag. Account. Q. 2012, 13, 20–24.
43. Saeed, M.; Arshad, F. Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage: The mediating
role of social capital and reputational capital. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 19, 219–232.
[CrossRef]
44. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management
practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273. [CrossRef]
45. Cooke, P.; Boekholt, P.; Todtling, F. The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global
Competitiveness; Pinter: London, UK, 2000.
46. Jenkins, H. A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. J. Gen. Manag. 2004, 29, 37–57.
[CrossRef]
47. Watcharasriroj, B.; Tang, J. The effects of size and information technology on hospital efficiency. J. High
Technol. Manag. Res. 2004, 15, 1–16. [CrossRef]
48. Vanpoucke, E.; Vereecke, A.; Wetzels, M. Developing supplier integration capabilities for sustainable
competitive advantage: A dynamic capabilities approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 446–461. [CrossRef]
49. Harkness, J. Guidelines for Best Practice in Cross—Cultural Surveys; Institute for Social Research: Michigan, MI,
USA, 2011.
50. The Global Manufacturing Research Group (GMRG). Available online: https://gmrg.org/ (accessed on
30 June 2018).
51. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3026 16 of 16

52. Brown, T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
53. Barclay, D.; Thompson, R.; Higgins, C. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal
computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309.
54. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
55. Myers, M.; Calantone, R.; Page, T., Jr.; Taylor, C. An application of multiple-group causal models in assessing
cross-cultural measurement equivalence. J. Int. Mark. 2000, 8, 108–121. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).