The British University in Egypt

BUE Scholar

Business Administration, Economics and

Business Administration Political Science

2018

Impact of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices on

Egyptian Companies’ Performance
Ola Mamdouh
The British University in Egypt, [email protected]

Khaled Kadry
Ain Shams University

Baasam El Ahmady
Ain Shams University

Follow this and additional works at: https://buescholar.bue.edu.eg/bus_admin

Part of the Operations and Supply Chain Management Commons

Recommended Citation
Hamdy, O. M. M., Elsayed, K. K., & Elahmady, B. (2018). Impact of sustainable supply chain management
practices on Egyptian companies’ performance. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4),
119-119.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Business Administration, Economics and Political
Science at BUE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Business Administration by an authorized
administrator of BUE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130 ISSN: 2239-5938
Doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2018.v7n4p119

Impact of Sustainable Supply Chain Management

Practices on Egyptian Companies’ Performance

Ola Mamdouh Mahmoud Hamdy1, Khaled Kadry Elsayed2, Bassam Elahmady2

ABSTRACT
The adoption of the Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices by companies in the private
sector of Egypt aids to achieve its sustainable development strategy: Egypt Vision 2030, which aligns
with the seventeen SDGs launched by the United Nations in 2015. There is a trade-off between
sustainable development and economy. The trade-off lies between the benefits that result from
adopting environmental, social or resilient practices by companies, versus the costs incurred due to
conducting these practices. The research problem is that companies in Egypt regard sustainable
practices as a burden to their profitability and continuity. In addition to that, companies do not link
application of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) practices with their performance. The
hypothesis tests whether or not there is a significant impact for applying Sustainable Supply Chain
Management (SSCM) practices on the company’s performance measures. The research studies the
impact of this application on the economic, environmental and operational performance of these
companies. A survey tool is designed to collect the data from managers and employees in the supply
chain departments of companies that are listed on the Egyptian corporate responsibility index (S&P/
EGX ESG Index) and the sample is expanded by including their market peer companies in the
EGX100.

Keywords: Egypt, Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Green Supply Chain Management, Social
Sustainability, Resilient Supply Chain, Performance

1. Introduction

Sustainability is currently a major concern on the international and local levels. It

is a multi-discipline issue due to its broad nature and applicability across different
specialisations. In this research, sustainability is examined from a business perspective
related to the sustainability of the supply chain and its impact on a company’s
performance. Sustainable Supply Chain Management research is mainly derived from the
link between the two main streams of research, supply chain management and
sustainable development. The supply chain concept has gradually developed from the
original one, whose focus is on purchasing functions and inventory management, to a
more comprehensive concept. On the other side, "sustainability is about ensuring that
our choices and actions are not only economical but also environmentally and socially
responsible. It is the development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" (Brundtland
Commission, 1987).

|¹Faculty of Business Administration Economics and Political Science, The British University in Egypt
|2Faculty of Commerce, Ain Shams University
120 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The Sustainable Supply Chain Management has multiple definitions. A

comprehensive literature review by Ahi and Searcy (2013) analysed definitions for Green
and Sustainable Supply Chain Management. It clarified that Sustainable Supply Chain
Management (SSCM) is an extension of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM).
That extension lies mainly in both the social and the resilient characteristics of business
sustainability. In this paper, the researcher considered SSCM practices to comprise
GSCM practices in addition to both the social and the resilient aspects of the supply
chain (Ahi & Searcy, 2013). The following is an elaboration of these practices.

2.1 Green Supply Chain Management

Green Supply Chain Management has emerged as an important organisational
philosophy to achieve corporate profit by reducing environmental risks while improving
ecological efficiency of these organisations and their partners (Van Hoek, 1999).
According to Zhu, Sarkis and Lai (2008) GSCM has emerged as an effective
management tool and philosophy for proactive and leading manufacturing organisations.
The scope of GSCM practices’ implementation ranges from green purchasing to
integrated life cycle management that comprises supply chains flowing from supplier,
through to manufacturer, customer, and closing the loop with reverse logistics. This
paper considers the five practices that Zhu et al. (2008) utilised: internal environmental
management, green purchasing, customer cooperation, eco-design and investment
recovery.

2.2 Social and Resilient Supply Chain Practices

It is essential to recognise the social impacts across the supply chain stages for
companies that are committed to sustainability. Social issues in the supply chain are
defined as “product -or process- related aspects of operations that affect human safety,
welfare and community development” (Klassen & Vereecke, 2012). The social supply
chain practices that are tested in this paper are collected from previous literature and are
categorised according to Klassen and Vereecke’s (2012) definition of social issues in the
supply chain. This includes five characteristics: healthcare, child labour, philanthropy,
workplace safety and fair trade.
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) introduce supply chain resilience as “the adaptive
capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions,
and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the desired level of
connectedness and control over structure and function.” Furthermore, Fiksel (2006)
defined resilience in the business context as the capacity for complex industrial systems
to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change. That definition clarifies
explicitly that resilience is an essential variable in the sustainability of a supply chain
because the definition contains the term “survive,” a synonym to sustain (“survive”,
2017). In this research, the resilient practices examined are classified into upstream,
downstream and internal operations practices as previously debated by Carvalho,
Azevedo and Cruz-Machado (2012). Table 1 includes all SSCM practices and their
measures that are investigated in this research.

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
 O. M. M. Hamdy, K. K. Elsayed, B. Elahmady 121

Table 1: Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices investigated in this research

Variables Measures
Senior managers' commitment to Green Supply Chain Management
Support for Green Supply Chain Management from mid-level managers
Cross functional cooperation for environmental improvement
Internal
Total quality environmental management
Environmental
Environmental compliance and auditing programs
Management (IEM)
Acquisition of ISO 14001 certification
Existence of environmental management system
Adoption of Life Cycle Assessment technique
Suppliers are selected using environmental criteria
Eco-labeling of purchased products
Green Purchasing
Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives
(GP)
Environmental audit for suppliers' internal management
Suppliers' ISO 14000 certification
Cooperation with customers for environmentally friendly design
Customer Cooperation
Cooperation with customers for cleaner production
(CC)
Cooperation with customers for green packaging
Design of product/ service for reduced consumption of material and/ or energy
Eco-design (ECO) Design of product/ service for reuse, recycle and/or recovery of materials
Design of product/ service to avoid or reduce use of hazardous products
Investment recovery
Investment Recovery
Sale of scrap and used materials
(IR)
Sale of excess capital equipment
Ensures provision of healthcare to company employees
Ensures that company's suppliers provide healthcare to their employees
Ensures no child labour occurs in any of its supply chain partners
Social Supply Chain
Participates in programs that serve the community such as reducing hunger,
Practices (SSC)
disease and poverty or help in education
Trains employees for workplace safety
Engages in fair trade with your company's upstream suppliers
Implements Collaborative, Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) with
your suppliers and/or customers
Collaborates planning with customers to enable visibility of demand
Collaborates planning with suppliers to enable alerts of potential supply
disruptions
Exerts efforts that enable reducing lead time (the time elapsed from when the focal
firm places orders on its first tier suppliers to when it delivers to its customers)
Your company has procedures in place for monitoring and mitigation of risk
Resilient Supply Chain Your company maps the network that connects the company to its downstream
(RSC) customers and upstream suppliers by identifying bottle necks (where there's limited
resources) and critical paths (where there's long lead times or single source of
supply)
Has one single source of supply for an item or service
Uses Supply Chain IT software to provide access and reporting of transaction data
between your company and its supply chain members
Collaborates with suppliers to track the origin of any defective item
Collaborates with customers to provide total supply chain traceability for your
products/services

© 2018 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2018 European Center of Sustainable Development.
122 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

2.3 Performance Measurement

Performance improvement is an important driver for companies to encourage
them to apply sustainable management practices. However, the business case for the
implementation of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) practices has to be
proved and laid down for companies in order to adopt these practices. In this paper, the
researcher will evaluate three company performance measures: environmental, economic
and operational. These are the most cited measures in the related literature adapted from
Zhu et al. (2008) and Azevedo, Carvalho and Machado (2011). Table 2 includes
performance measurement variables used in this research.

Table 2: Performance measurement variables investigated in this research

Performance Variable Measures
Air emission reduction
Water waste reduction
Environmental Performance Solid wastes reduction
(EnvP) Reduction of consumption of hazardous materials
Reduction in frequency of environmental accidents
Improvement of company's environmental situation
Decrease in cost for materials purchasing
Decrease in cost for energy consumption
Economic Performance Decrease in fee for waste treatment
(EconP) Decrease in fee for waste disposal
Decrease in fine for environmental accidents
Increase in revenue from green products/ services
Increase in amount of products/ services delivered on time
Decrease in inventory level
Decrease in scrap rate
Operational Performance Increase in quality of product/ service
(OperP) Increase in product line (a group of related products manufactured
by a single company)
Improvement of capacity utilization
Increase in customer satisfaction

Based on the previous discussion of green, social and resilient supply chain practices in
addition to the company’s performance measures, the following hypotheses can be
proposed for testing:
H1: There is a significant impact of applying Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices on
a company’s performance.
H2: There is a significant impact of applying social resilient supply chain (SRSC) practices on a
company’s performance.
H3: There is a significant impact of applying Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM)) on social
resilient supply chain (SRSC).
H4: Social resilient supply chain (SRSC) mediates the relationship between Green Supply Chain
Management (GSCM) and a company’s performance.
H5: There is a significant impact of applying Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM)
practices on a company’s performance.

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
 O. M. M. Hamdy, K. K. Elsayed, B. Elahmady 123

3. Methodology

3.1 Sample and Data Collection

The survey instrument is administered using convenience sampling. The
researcher limited the study population to the managerial levels and employees in the
supply chain and operations management functions in the Egyptian companies listed on
S&P/ EGX & ESG Index and expanded the sample to their market peer companies
listed in EGX100. The companies on the ESG Index are selected because they are
distinguished by their application of sustainable practices that have made them eligible to
have ranks on that index; in addition to that, they belong to different sectors. Moreover,
the market peers were specifically selected based on the industry and the market capital
of the companies. The survey consisted of three sections that include (1) company and
respondent description, (2) application level of Sustainable Supply Chain Management
practices and (3) company’s performance measures results.
That yielded a total of 72 companies. The questionnaires were filled out online via a
Survey Monkey link sent to the respondents either through e-mail or through LinkedIn.
Other questionnaires were filled out manually by respondents upon visits to their
companies. The total number of correct filled out questionnaires by the companies’
respondents is 204, where 115 responses are from respondents working in companies
listed on the ESG Index and 89 responses are from respondents working in companies
not listed on the ESG Index.

3.2 Variables and Measurement

In this paper, SSCM practices are categorized into two separate independent
variables: GSCM (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) and SRSC (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Their effect
on the company’s performance is tested. GSCM is the overall mean of internal
environmental management, green purchasing, environmental customer cooperation,
eco-design and investment recovery. Moreover, the SRSC is the overall mean of the
social and the resilient supply chain practices. And finally the performance dependent
variable is the overall mean of environmental, economic and operational variables.
GSCM, in addition to SRSC, represent SSCM. The reliability (Cronbach alpha) for the
three variables has been calculated: GSCM (0.906), SRSC (0.804) and the company’s
performance (0.901).
Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the SSCM practices were
implemented in their companies based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not
considering it) to 5 (applying it successfully). As for the company’s performance,
respondents were asked to describe the performance results on a scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 5 (significant). The measures are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

3.3 Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model

Partial least squares (PLS) path modeling is a variance-based structural equation
modeling (SEM) technique that is widely used in business and social sciences. PLS is
preferred because it achieves increased levels of statistical power with small sample sizes
and because it does not make distributional assumptions (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins and
Kuppelwieser, 2014). PLS path models are defined by two sets of linear equations: the

© 2018 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2018 European Center of Sustainable Development.
124 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

measurement model and the structural model. The measurement model specifies the
relationships between a latent variable and its observed indicators, whereas the structural
model specifies the relationships between the latent variables (Henseler, Hubona & Ray,
2016). The PLS path model is assessed in three steps (Henseler et al. 2016): first, the
evaluation of the overall model, second, the evaluation of the measurement model and
third, the evaluation of the structural model.

3.3.1 Overall Model

First, a structural equation model was built to investigate the existence of a
direct relationship between SSCM practices and a company’s performance; however, the
goodness-of-fit indices of this model indicated a bad model fit. Another model was built
that categorised SSCM practices into two separate latent variables, GSCM (Zhu and
Sarkis, 2004) and SRSC (Ahi and Searcy, 2013), and tested their relationships with the
company’s performance (Figure 1). The model shows the overall explanatory power: the
entire specified paths and their coefficients together with the R2 values. It displays three
main paths: the relationship between GSCM and Performance and SRSC and
performance, in addition to GSCM and SRSC. The hypotheses relationships that are
tested are labeled in the figure. The SmartPLS report yielded an SRMR equal to 0.075
which is below 0.08 (the cut-off value for the goodness of fit); this proves that the
proposed model is a good fit to the observed data, which allows to proceed to the
evaluation of the measurement model.

Figure 1: Measurement and structural models demonstrate the relationship between SSCM (GSCM + SRSC)
and a company’s performance - the proposed framework
Source: SmartPLS output report

3.3.2 Measurement Model

The evaluation of the measurement model is conducted through examining a
confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity.

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
 O. M. M. Hamdy, K. K. Elsayed, B. Elahmady 125

A CFA is conducted using SmartPLS 3. The factor loadings of the observed variables to
their respective latent variable, GSCM, range between the lowest 0.745 (IR) to the
highest 0.891 (ECO). Moreover, the standardised loading estimates of the social supply
chain (SSC) and the resilient supply chain (RSC) to their latent variable social resilient
supply chain (SRSC) are 0.924 and 0.940, respectively. And as for performance, the
operational performance had the highest loading (0.911) and the lowest was the
economic performance (0.811). All loadings are higher than 0.7 (Figure 1) which is a
favourable cut-off threshold (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014).
The reliability of the three latent variables (GSCM, SRSC and performance) that build
the model is verified by calculating the Cronbach’s α. The level of internal consistency
for each construct was acceptable, with the value of α ranging from 0.836 to 0.906 which
is above the cut-off level of 0.7. Moreover, the composite reliability was calculated that
yielded values not lower than 0.6 (Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics, 2009). The average
variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.5 that ranged from 0.730
to 0.869, thus, convergent validity is verified (Table 3).

Table 3: Reliability and validity tests

AVE Cronbach‘s alpha Composite Reliability
(GSCM) 0.730 0.906 0.931
(SRSC) 0.869 0.849 0.930
Company Performance 0.752 0.836 0.901
Source: SmartPLS 3 output report

Furthermore, discriminant validity specifies the extent to which a given construct is

different from the rest of the other constructs (Kijsanayotin, Pannarunothai, and Speedie
2009). It is assured when the variables have higher loadings in their original factors than
in the other constructs (Hair et al., 2014). This can be verified by the cross loading
analysis which yielded satisfactory results (Table 4).

Table 4: Cross loading analysis

GSCM SRSC Perf.
IEM 0.860 0.537 0.695
GP 0.888 0.641 0.567
CC 0.880 0.639 0.564
ECO 0.890 0.671 0.608
IR 0.745 0.651 0.635
RSC 0.757 0.940 0.661
SSC 0.683 0.924 0.587
EconP. 0.469 0.495 0.811
EnvP. 0.601 0.592 0.877
OperP. 0.685 0.644 0.911
Source: SmartPLS 3 output report

3.3.3 Structural Model

The inner model is assessed by examining the coefficient of determination (R2)
of the endogenous variables in the model. The fraction of the company’s performance

© 2018 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2018 European Center of Sustainable Development.
126 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

which is explained by GSCM and SRSC (R2) is 0.518. For SRSC, the variance explained
value by GSCM is 60%. That is satisfactory for evaluating the endogenous variables of
the model. R2 values are displayed in Figure 1. Inner model is also evaluated through
checking the size and the sign of the path coefficients, and reviewing the p-value and
confidence interval of these direct effects (Table 5).

Table 5: Significance analysis of the structural model relationships

Relation Sign Path Standard Deviation t-value p-value Sig.
GSCM  Perf. (H1) + 0.411 0.086 4.754 0.000 ***
SRSC  Perf. (H2) + 0.353 0.107 3.289 0.001 ***
GSCM  SRSC (H3) + 0.774 0.032 24.491 0.000 ***
Source: SmartPLS 3 output report

4. Hypotheses Testing

A bootstrap procedure that comprises 500 re-samples as recommended by Chin,

Marcolin and Newsted (2003) was used to calculate the significance of the path
coefficients and the t-values. The bootstrapping procedure generates random samples of
observations from the original data set by using a sampling through replacement
technique. Table 5 shows that the three main relationships tested were found to be
significant at α level of 0.01. GSCM had a significant positive impact on the company’s
performance with a path coefficient; 0.411, t = 4.754 and p = 0.000, thus the first
hypothesis is accepted. It is also found that the SRSC practices had a significant positive
impact on a company’s performance with a path coefficient; 0.353, t = 3.289 and p =
0.001, thus the second hypothesis is accepted. As for the impact of GSCM on SRSC, the
path coefficient was 0.774, t = 24.491 and p = 0.000, which verifies a strong significant
positive impact between these two latent variables. Thereby the third hypothesis is
accepted. This proves that GSCM practices have an essential role in accumulating SRSC
practices, which then impacts the company’s performance. This would then derive us to
test the mediation effect of SRSC.
In the simplest form of mediation, the indirect effect is the product a×b of the two paths
from the GSCM to the mediator construct (SRSC) (path a) and from the mediator
construct (SRSC) to the dependent construct (performance) (path b) (Nitzl, Roldan &
Cepeda, 2016) (Figure 1). In this study, the researcher adopted the procedures of
Preacher and Hayes (2008) in evaluating the mediator (cited in Nitzl et al., 2016). It
comprises two conditions: (1) bootstrap the indirect effects where the relationship
between the independent variable and the dependent variable must be significant and (2)
bootstrap the confidence interval where the upper and lower levels of the interval should
not include a zero. According to the bootstrap report output, a significant indirect
relationship exists between GSCM and performance with p-value = 0.001 and specifically
through SRSC practices (table 6). Moreover, a bootstrap with 95% confidence interval
was calculated for the indirect effect of GSCM practices on the company’s performance
(Table 7). Since zero is not included in the confidence interval, researcher can assume
that there is a significant indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Nitzl, Roldan &
Cepeda, 2016). So both conditions of mediation testing are accomplished. Thus the

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
 O. M. M. Hamdy, K. K. Elsayed, B. Elahmady 127

fourth hypothesis is accepted.

Table 6: Specific indirect relationship in the proposed structural equation model

Standard
Original Sample T Statistics p-
Deviation
Sample (O) Mean (M) (|O/STDEV|) values
(STDEV)
GSCM -> SRSC -> Perf. 0.274 0.281 0.086 3.198 0.001
Source: SmartPLS bootstrap report output

Table 7: Bootstrapped confidence interval for the indirect effect

Direct Effect Direct Effect Indirect.Effect t-value Bootstrapped
SE Indirect
GSCMSRSC SRSCPerf. GSCMPerf. Indirect Confidence Interval
Effect
(path a) (path b) (axb) Effect LL 95% UL 95%
0.774 0.353 0.274 0.086 3.198 0.102 0.446
Source: SmartPLS bootstrap report output

As for the fifth hypothesis, SSCM is an extension to GSCM added to it SRSC (Ahi and
Searcy, 2013), and both GSCM and SRSC have a significant positive impact on the
company’s performance (β = 0.411, β = 0.353, respectively, with p < 0.001). In addition
to that, a significant positive impact exists between GSCM and SRSC (β = 0.774, p =
0.000) and SRSC acts as a partial mediator between GSCM and performance. Therefore,
it can be concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between SSCM and
the company’s performance. Hence, fifth hypothesis is accepted.

5. Research Findings and Discussion

This research aimed to investigate that adopting SSCM practices would improve
the company’s performance. The results clarified that SSCM practices, composed of
GSCM and SRSC practices, have a significant positive impact on a company’s
performance. In addition, SRSC practices play the role of a mediator between GSCM
practices and a company’s performance.
The findings of this research are in line with previous literature. There is abundant
research in support of GSCM practices’ positive impact on a company’s performance
(H1) (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Rao & Holt, 2005; Azevedo et al., 2011; Laosirihongthong,
Adebanjo & Tan, 2013; deSoussa Jabbour, de Oliveira Frascareli & Chiapetta, 2015;
Vanalle Ganga & Filho, 2017). In line with Carvalho, Azevedo and Machado (2012), our
results confirmed the positive relationship between resilient supply chain practices and
company’s performance. They debated that resilient supply chain management practices,
have a positive significant impact on operational performance in terms of delivery
flexibility, product quality and customer service in addition to economic performance in
terms of reduced costs of procurement, inventory and manufacturing. Moreover, Carter
and Jennings (2002) found out that social supply chain practices significantly affect a
company’s operational performance in terms of better quality and shorter lead time.
Social supply chain practices investigated in their study were socially responsible
purchasing, environmental purchasing, human rights (child labour and fair trade),
philanthropy and safety. That supports H2.
As for the H3 and H4, Chu, Yang, Lee and Park (2017) concluded that SRSC practices

© 2018 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2018 European Center of Sustainable Development.
128 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

play a partial mediation role between GSCM practices and a company’s environmental
and operational performance. They argued that the adoption of GSCM practices by the
company accumulates the SRSC practices (collaboration with suppliers which they
consider cognitive social capital), which in turn affects the company’s performance
(environmental and operational). This is attributed to the fact that the application of
green practices, such as green purchasing and eco-design, by the buyer company would
continuously lead to communication and collaboration with the suppliers, which counts
as a resilient supply chain practice, to keep and develop consistent perspective on their
environmental capabilities. This kind of collaboration, in turn, has a positive impact on
the environmental performance of the company. In addition to that, it affects the
operational performance of the company positively in terms of better quality and better
delivery on time.
And finally, with regard to H5, Janssen, Johnson and Schaltegger (2015) reviewed the
academic literature on sustainable performance measurement for SSCM that was
published over 20 past years. They found that economic and environmental measures
dominated the field and lately social performance measures have been investigated.
However the researcher finds that there is a research gap in the resilience measures from
the sustainable perspective of a supply chain.

6. Conclusion, Implications and Research Limitations

It could be concluded that SSCM practices have an effect on a company’s

performance. Companies have to explore opportunities in their business operations that
would ensure their continuity and profitability (economic perspective), meanwhile reduce
the environmental risks and ecological scarcities (environmental perspective) while
improving the well-being of people and social equity (social perspective). Table 1 can
serve as a checklist for managers to guide them of what practices they can apply that
have a positive effect on performance. It is recommended that companies report any
sustainable practices they conduct and reveal its impact on the company’s performance,
nevertheless, publishing sustainability reports on an annual basis that cover all aspects of
the triple bottom line.
The government can play a vital role in encouraging companies to adopt sustainability
practices. First, it can launch a sustainable public procurement plan. Since the Egyptian
government spending accounts for a large percentage of the GDP (12% in 2015 as per
the World Bank records), launching such a plan would spread sustainability practices
backward in the supply chain of numerous companies both in the public and the private
sectors. Moreover, companies that conduct sustainability practices and report them have
to be modeled as best practices. Government could motivate them; either through being
ranked on the corporate responsibility index or through financial incentives, as tax
reductions or easier access to loans. Meanwhile, government could have business
contracts with these companies. Furthermore, it could create less red tape in
environmental audits that are conducted by the government representatives.
Future research could test the specific impact of each practice of the GSCM, the resilient
supply chain practices or the social supply chain practices on the company’s
performance. Future research could also consider this effect in specific business sectors.

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
 O. M. M. Hamdy, K. K. Elsayed, B. Elahmady 129

This relationship can be examined also in small and medium sized enterprises, or in
companies not listed on the EGX.

References

Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 329-341.
Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., & Machado, V. C. (2011). The influence of green practices on supply chain
performance: a case study approach. Transportation research part E: logistics and transportation review,
47(6), 850-871.
Beske-Janssen, P., Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (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.
Brundtland Commission. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our common
future.
Carter, C. R., & Jennings, M. M. (2002). Social responsibility and supply chain relationships. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 38(1), 37-52.
Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S. G., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Agile and resilient approaches to supply chain
management: influence on performance and competitiveness. Logistics research, 4(1-2), 49-62.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 189-217.
Chu, S. H., Yang, H., Lee, M., & Park, S. (2017). The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Green Supply
Chain Management and Firm Performance: Top Management Roles and Social Capital.
Sustainability, 9(5), 764.
de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., de Oliveira Frascareli, F. C., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2015). Green supply chain
management and firms’ performance: Understanding potential relationships and the role of green
sourcing and some other green practices. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 366-374.
F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review,
26(2), 106-121.
Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice, &
Policy, 2(2).
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines. Industrial management & data systems, 116(1), 2-20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Kijsanayotin, B., Pannarunothai, S., & Speedie, S. M. (2009). Factors influencing health information
technology adoption in Thailand's community health centers: Applying the UTAUT model.
International journal of medical informatics, 78(6), 404-416.
Klassen, R. D., & Vereecke, A. (2012). Social issues in supply chains: Capabilities link responsibility, risk
(opportunity), and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 103-115.
Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D., & Choon Tan, K. (2013). Green supply chain management practices
and performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(8), 1088-1109.
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling:
Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial management & data systems, 116(9),
1849-1864.
Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The
international journal of logistics management, 20(1), 124-143.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Assessing mediation in communication research. The Sage sourcebook of
advanced data analysis methods for communication research, 13-54.
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?.
International journal of operations & production management, 25(9), 898-916.

© 2018 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2018 European Center of Sustainable Development.
130 European Journal of Sustainable Development (2018), 7, 4, 119-130

Survive. (2017). In Thesaurus. Retrieved from http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/survive (accessed 16 May

2017)
Van Hoek, R. I. (1999). From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 4(3), 129-135.
Vanalle, R. M., Ganga, G. M. D., Godinho Filho, M., & Lucato, W. C. (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.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004, February). Green supply chain management in China. In Photonics Technologies
for Robotics, Automation, and Manufacturing (pp. 147-154). International Society for Optics and
Photonics.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation. International journal of production economics, 111(2), 261-273.

Published by ECSDEV, Via dei Fiori, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org