Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16022-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Factors affecting managers’ intention to adopt green supply chain

management practices: evidence from manufacturing firms in Jordan
Luay Jum’a 1 & Muhammad Ikram 2 & Ziad Alkalha 3 & Maher Alaraj 4

Received: 19 May 2021 / Accepted: 14 August 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Global sustainability movement encourages companies to adopt and implement green supply chain management (GSCM)
practices across the organization. Moreover, the integration of green practices into traditional supply chain is still to be a difficult
task in manufacturing sector. However, empirical studies regarding the identification of influential factors affecting GSCM
adoption among supply chain managers in manufacturing sector are under researched. This study assesses the factors affecting
GSCM adoption in Jordan manufacturing firms. A well-structured questionnaire was administered for data collection. A valid
376 responses were collected from different manufacturing firms in Jordan. The data were analyzed, and the proposed model was
validated using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Results reveal that four factors, namely, supplier, environ-
mental, customer, and cost factors significantly influence the intention to adopt GSCM among managers. The firm size had
significantly moderated the relationship between market/financial and GSCM adoption, internal factor and GSCM adoption. The
study will help the policymakers to understand the drivers of GSCM adoption among managers and assist them in implementing
GSCM practices according to the size of the firm. This study is first of its kind to analyze the role of firm size as a moderator on
the relationship between market/financial, supplier, governmental, environmental, internal, customers, cost factors, and GSCM in
the context of Jordon.

Keywords Green supply chain management . Managers intentions . Sustainable development . Manufacturing firms . Jordan

Introduction 2019; Lin et al. 2020). The developed nations, which provided
an environment for the movement of their high polluting in-
Global industrialization has expanded energy and material dustries to developing countries, is to be blamed for these
consumption resulting in a variety of environmental issues environmental effects of the developing nations. In the mean-
such as high carbon emissions, toxic pollution, hazardous time, recent increases in production and consumption have
waste disposals, waste water, and other land contaminants, boosted supply chain operations, and as a result, environmen-
which have the most detrimental health effects (Ikram et al. tal degradation has also been accelerated (Muduli et al. 2013).
Government laws are being implemented, and nations all over
Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan the world are implementing and promoting environmental
policies to reduce emissions by enhancing environmental per-
* Muhammad Ikram formance and effectiveness (Jum’a et al. 2021; Wang et al.
[email protected] 2016). These rules apply to all sectors, including both
manufacturing and service sectors. Following increased pub-
1
Logistic Sciences Department, School of Management and Logistic lic concern for the environment around the world, businesses
Sciences, German Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan have been under increasing pressure to employ eco-friendly
2
School of Business Administration, Al Akhawayn University in processes to produce eco-friendly goods (Govindan et al.
Ifrane, Avenue Hassan II, P.O. Box 104, 53000 Ifrane, Morocco 2016). In response to these pressures, a management approach
3
Department of Business Management, School of Business, The called green supply chain management (GSCM) has arisen
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (Zhu et al. 2008). Companies in a variety of sectors around
4
Department of Information Systems, College of Technological the world are becoming more concerned about environmental
Innovation, Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates degradation, since companies recognized that adoption of
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

green technology has a positive effect on operations, e.g., and consequently causes degradation of the air quality in
reducing energy-related costs and also has a great impact on many areas and harmfully impacts the public health
suppliers and customers’ relationships within company (European Environment Agency 2014). As per authors’ best
(Ikram et al. 2021; Lin et al. 2020). knowledge, this study is first of its kind to investigate factors
Most businesses have adopted the GSCM practices and affecting the firm’s intentions to adopt GSCM practices in
integrated in their business processes as long-term environ- context of Jordan manufacturing firms. Moreover, recent stud-
mental responsibility (Masudin 2019). GSCM strikes a bal- ies have shown increasing interest in investigating the role of
ance between negative environmental effects, social advan- firm size in adopting GSCM practices. It has been revealed
tages, and profit-generating operations that foster value along that GSCM practices is lagging for organizations of all sizes
the so-called triple bottom line, which gives adopting busi- and that there are differences in the level of GSCM adoption
nesses a competitive advantage (Tyagi et al. 2015). GSCM based on the firm size (Balasubramanian et al. 2020; Mitra and
is an environmentally friendly principle that aims to increase Datta 2014; Vijayvargy et al. 2017). Therefore, this study
environmental performance (Diabat and Govindan 2011). seeks to investigate whether there is a link between firm size
According to Zhu et al. (2008), GSCM emerged as a way to and intentions to adopt GSCM practices. Consequently, the
connect aspects of supply chain management (SCM) and en- study intends to compare the results with the conclusions
vironmental management. Companies with a sustainable sup- drawn by prior studies, and to provide implications for man-
ply chain and activities are better positioned in the market ufacturers on the steps needed to be taken to facilitate the
(Jum’a et al. 2021; Saade et al. 2019). Thus, green technology adoption of GSCM practices among Jordan firms to a greater
adoption in business operations has been recognized as having extent. So, this study will fill the gap and will help to define
higher advantages, as well as affecting supplier and customer the factors which influence the intention of the managers to
relationships within companies (Lin et al. 2020). Researchers adopt GSCM in their companies.
and practitioners have focused heavily on GSCM adoption This study contributes in various ways. First, this study fills
issues since GSCM adoption has a profound effect on an the literature gap by developing the comprehensive framework
organization’s environmental, social, and financial perfor- to investigate the influencing factors that affect the adoption
mance (Masudin 2019). The increasing value of GSCM as a intention of GSCM practices among supply chain managers.
result of depleting raw material supplies, overflowing waste As per the authors’ best of knowledge, this study is first of kind
sites, and emission levels (Ikram et al. 2019; Mathiyazhagan to analyze the role of firm size as a moderator on the relation-
et al. 2013), has gained attention to several researchers to ship between market/financial, supplier, governmental, envi-
investigate the factors that influence GSCM implementation. ronmental, internal, customers, cost factors, and GSCM in the
Many factors such as include legal pressure, consumer context of Jordon. Further, this study uses the application of
awareness, human resource, support from senior executive structural equation modeling to check the relationship between
and inter-operational companies which influence the transi- construct and latent variables. Finally, this study proses policy
tion from conventional SCM to GSCM (Choudhary and guidelines for decision makers and managers to focus on the
Sangwan 2019; Mitra and Datta 2014). According to the study most important issues that assist them in implementing GSCM
of de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2013), analyzing the positive rela- practices according to the size of the firm.
tionship of the firm’s size, the effective implementation of The rest of paper is organized as follows. First, a review of
environmental management systems (EMS) such as ISO related literature is undertaken, followed by the development
14001, and the harmful substances have a positive relationship of theories and a conceptual model. Following that, research
with the adoption of GSCM procedures. Prior studies investi- methods are described, including sampling, data collection,
gate the pressures, techniques, and performance measurement study measurement, and data analysis plans. The study’s find-
of GSCM (Bai et al. 2012; Choudhary and Sangwan 2019; ings and interpretations are then summarized. The study’s
Ferreira et al. 2016; Mathivathanan et al. 2018; Sarkis et al. next section is discussion, which gives a clear explanation of
2010; Shibin et al. 2016). Although GSCM has been studied current findings and how they relate to previous studies. At the
for developed and developing countries, there is gap in litera- end of the segment, a conclusion is drawn after discussing the
ture about the adoption of GSCM practices in developing study’s limitations.
countries such as Jordan (Balasubramanian et al. 2020;
Mitra and Datta 2014). The emissions of air pollutants from
manufacturing activities in hot spot areas such as free indus- Literature review
trial sites are the main source of air pollution in Jordan
(European Environment Agency 2014). In addition, Jordan Green supply chain management (GSCM)
has large industries that generate pollution and may cause
heavy air pollution if their emissions are not controlled prop- In this section, the prior studies in the fields of adoption of
erly. This leads to an increase in pollutant levels in ambient air GSCM and so on are reviewed. Zhu et al. (2008) observed
Environ Sci Pollut Res

whether organizations in China vary in adopting GSCM prac- delivery to customers, and product end-of-life management
tices based on the firm’s size. They undertook the comparative (Asif et al. 2020; Srivastava 2007). The green operations are
analysis of five practices of GSCM among small, medium, incorporated into the supply chain’s overall management
and large-sized organizations. The results showed that organi- phase. According to Andiç et al. (2012), the incorporation of
zations vary in adopting GSCM practices where medium and green supply chain necessitates in business processes mini-
large-sized firms were more progressive in the adoption of mizing or attempting to eliminate the supply chain’s negative
some GSCM practices compared to small-sized firms. de environmental effects. GSCM is a complex process, involving
Sousa Jabbour et al. (2013) investigated the impact of the a large number of stakeholders such as vendors, manufac-
factors including firm size, EMS, hazardous materials as in- turers, dealers, retailers, and clients (Saade et al. 2019).
puts, and supply chain structure: bargaining power on GSCM Strategic and operational business policies such as internal
adoption. Moreover, all the elements except the bargaining environmental management, green acquisition, customer rela-
power of a supply chain member were positively associated tionship management, and eco-design should all be part of
with the adoption of GSCM practices. The commitment of top GSCM practices (Sinaga et al. 2019). GSCM has been de-
management, the linkage of performance with reward, effec- scribed as a valuable measure for improving the enterprise’s
tive organizational communication, in-house training on green ecological performance and reducing environmental risk
adoption, employee empowerment, team building, mutual (Abid et al. 2021; Mangla et al. 2014a). The adoption of green
trust and respect, minimizing the barriers to adopt change, practices in SCM also aids in the improvement of business
green motivation, and strategic planning toward green inno- enterprises’ and their partners’ ecological competence (Wang
vation are some of the behavioral factors that were assessed to et al. 2016). Managers of different firms adopt GSCM by
detect their effects on GSCM practices (Muduli et al. 2013). getting influenced by ecological competencies. Also, by in-
After examining several drivers of GSCM practices, corporating GSCM, the managers of the manufacturing firm
Govindan et al. (2016) found that top management commit- would be able to fulfill society’s standards for environmental
ment for green practices and competitiveness were the two conservation during the product lifecycle (Jum’a et al. 2021;
most influential drivers and on the other hand, the least signif- Wu et al. 2011). According to the framework developed in
icant driver was employee pressure. this study, several factors would enable companies to adopt
According to the study of Saade et al. (2019), the adoption GSCM practices as GSCM has become a popular topic of
of GSCM practices help organizations to capture new market interest for researchers and industrial practitioners. The factors
opportunities at national and international level, which in turn include government factor, supplier factor, market factors, en-
motivate the market to go green and an attraction for vironmental factor, customer factor, cost factor, and internal
employees. Moreover, GSCM adoption was impeded by factor (Asif et al. 2020; Diabat and Govindan 2011; Hassan
external stakeholder pressure and a lack of government et al. 2016; Kim and Adilov 2012; Mathivathanan et al. 2018;
support. Lin et al. (2020) assessed the impact of technological Muduli and Barve 2013; Van den Berg et al. 2013).
innovation, organizational, and environmental factors on
GSCM adoption where the results showed that perceived Factors affecting intention to adopt GSCM
relative advantage, perceived cost, top management support,
complexity, compatibility, firm size, customer pressure, Market/financial factor
regulatory pressure, and human resource were significantly
related to GSCM adoption. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2018) iden- GSCM has played an influential role in the development of
tified and prioritized several factors that drive the implemen- sound economic-environmental performance on different
tation of GSCM. The most significant category was found as levels of the industry over the last few years (Centobelli
government, followed by market, supplier, customer, internal et al. 2020; Rao and Holt 2005). In terms of the financial
drivers, and finally environment. Asif et al. (2020) digged out implications, it demonstrates that there is a direct link between
three high priority drivers of GSCM adoption including gov- the adoption of green production and green logistics, all of
ernment regulations, customer demands, and supplier which are GSCM components, and the financial success of
performance. the organization (Tippayawong et al. 2015).GSCM assists the
Researchers have long considered SCM, but it was not companies in portraying itself and its goods as environmen-
until the early 2000s that the emphasis shifted to GSCM. tally conscious in the minds of consumers (Diabat and
GSCM is defined as a set of business practices that continu- Govindan 2011). Government tax credits are available for
ously monitor and improve a supply chain’s environmental green construction, both industrial and residential (Arif et al.
impact (KAFA et al. 2013; Vanalle et al. 2017). It is also 2009). Moreover, with rising energy costs, a green building’s
characterized as incorporating environmental considerations reduced construction and operating costs raise the property
into SCM, which includes product design, material sourcing value. Further, buildings that are energy-efficient use less
and selection, manufacturing procedures, final product electricity from the municipal grid and water supply, allowing
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

local facilities to expand (Mathiyazhagan et al. 2018). Further, companies’ adoption of environmental practices (Delmas
it is related to Phuah and Fernando (2015) report’s, which and Toffel 2004; Vanalle et al. 2017). Government regulations
showed that the main goal of implementing GSCM is to and legislations serve as drivers that enable organizations to
achieve a combination of financial and environmental supply restrict the use of non-renewable energy and to limit green-
chain success. To do so, it based on the above statements, the house gas emissions (Rehman et al. 2021; Balaji et al. 2014).
following hypothesis is concluded: The government not only offers capital for businesses to buy
renewable production equipment but also provides sustainable
H1: Market/financial factor significantly affect intention energy advisory services (Ikram et al. 2020b; Wu et al. 2012).
to adopt GSCM As a result, government intervention will assist businesses in
removing barriers to environmental protection (Darnall and
Edwards Jr 2006; Vanalle et al. 2017). According to the state-
Supplier factor ment of Lee (2008), governments will attract businesses by
providing tax breaks and capital improvements for
Integrating suppliers into EMS is known as GSCM (KAFA environmentally friendly complexes. Delmas (2002) and
et al. 2013; Vanalle et al. 2017). Suppliers and distributors’ Ikram et al. (2020a) also discovered that governments play a
guiding force represents the whole supply chain’s common significant role in a company’s decision to follow ISO 14001
demands for GSCM improvement (Zhu and Xu 2019). standards. Adoption of ISO 14001 standards ensures the com-
Suppliers play a critical role in improving green supply chain pliance of the government rules and regulation regarding the
efficiency (Mangla et al. 2014a). Suppliers may assist in the environment by the companies.
provision of useful ideas that can be used both before and after The legal profession should concentrate on ensuring regu-
the building process (Mathiyazhagan et al. 2014). According latory compliance with government regulations while also
to the study of Mitra and Datta (2014), supplier collaboration emphasizing the importance of environmental concerns across
for environmental protection has a significant effect on envi- the product’s life cycle (Saade et al. 2019). GSCM will be an
ronmentally friendly product design and logistics, which in incentive to maintain constant control and monitoring of the
turn is positively linked to the firm’s productivity and eco- company’s environmental impact, as well as to ensure com-
nomic efficiency (Ikram et al. 2021). Integration and cooper- pliance with rules (Gandhi et al. 2015). Government policies
ation with the designer of products with supply chains aids in and schemes, both at the national and state level, are one of the
the successful handling of environmental problems (Govindan most important factors in encouraging businesses to start
et al. 2014). Vendors in the design process and technology green initiatives (Mangla et al. 2014b). So, based on the above
suppliers are often hesitant to make the transition to GSCM, statements, the following hypothesis is concluded:
this behavior has an impact on the supply chain’s overall
efficiency (Govindan et al. 2014). Zhu and Xu (2019) ob- H3: Governmental factors significantly affect intention to
served that GSCM adoption by suppliers and distributors will adopt GSCM
reduce the risk and complexity of target enterprises’ green
orientation, thus growing their passion for GSCM. A
company’s collaboration with its suppliers to achieve environ- Environmental factor
mental objectives of reducing the environmental footprint of
the supply chain will motivate all parties to follow GSCM Environmental certifications such as ISO 14001, EMAS,
practices (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong 2017). Based on ECO-Label are critical because they serve as the first step
the above statements, the following hypothesis is concluded: toward a green initiative (Diabat and Govindan 2011; Jum’a
et al. 2021). GSCM procedures are activities or actions that
H2: Supplier factor significantly affect intention to adopt would minimize the environmental effects of industrial oper-
GSCM ations while maintaining quality, competitiveness, and oper-
ating costs (Golicic and Smith 2013). Green supply chains
ensure that all of an organization’s usable productive re-
Governmental factor sources are used sustainably (Bhool and Narwal 2013).
Construction and demolition generate a significant amount
According to the research conduction by Mathiyazhagan et al. of toxic waste. In GSCM, as building deconstruction is used
(2013), the two most important drivers for the implementation instead of complete demolition, waste generation is drastically
of GSCM are “central governmental environmental regula- reduced (Ghazilla et al. 2015). Eco-packaging, sustainable
tions” and “regional environmental regulations,” which are distribution, and waste disposal are deemed drivers for busi-
at the bottom of the hierarchical structure. Government enti- nesses to improve their environmental efficiency in the field of
ties are among the most visible stakeholders influencing GSCM (Andalib Ardakani and Soltanmohammadi 2019; Rao
Environ Sci Pollut Res

2002). González et al. (2008), conducting a study of Spanish et al. 2008). So, based on the above statements, the following
car manufacturers, proposed that an environmental manage- hypothesis is concluded:
ment system, particularly ISO 14001 and adequate environ-
mental management practices, are positively correlated. H5: Internal factors significantly affect intention to adopt
Environmental management refers to long-term manage- GSCM
ment techniques that seek to engage in green processes and
procedures to reduce the environmental effects of a
company’s operations (Gotschol et al. 2014). GSCM helps Customer factor
to minimize the environmental impact of production opera-
tions through paradigm shifts and create profits in companies Customers are externally focused drivers of the adoption of
by balancing economic and environmental sustainability (Zhu green supply chain policies (Wang et al. 2018). Customers are
et al. 2007). Darnall et al. (2008) conducted a study and found the most significant variable influencing environmental man-
that the adoption of EMSs assists the organization to incorpo- agement policies (Walker et al. 2008). The demand for green
rate sustainable supply chain practices and procedures, imply- goods has surged as a result of increased consumer awareness
ing that the EMS is a catalyst for GSCM. Moreover, the prior (Jum’a et al. 2021; Rao and Holt 2005). When customers
registration of EMS is more likely to follow GSCM proce- desire and expect an environmentally sustainable product, an
dures (Abid et al. 2021; de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2013). So, organization will go to great lengths to meet those demands
based on the above statements, the following hypothesis is and implement GSCM practices (Luthra et al. 2015). A study
concluded: of Brazilian electrical/electronic businesses conducted by
Govindan et al. (2013), discovered that cooperation with cus-
H4: Environmental factor significantly affect intention to tomers for eco-design practice is the root practice driving oth-
adopt GSCM er green practices. Moreover, customer pressure is the second
most quoted source of pressure to implement an environmen-
tal management plan, trailing only government pressure
(Delmas and Toffel 2004; Vanalle et al. 2017). Customers
Internal factor should also promote environmentally friendly practices by
educating their supply chain partners. The proximity of the
Internal green management practices at the organizational lev- supply chain’s final consumer is an essential factor that influ-
el assess the degree to which businesses are evident in envi- ences an organization’s environmental proactivity (de Sousa
ronmental protection activities that are the responsibility of Jabbour et al. 2013). As customers have the market power to
various stakeholders (Lai and Wong 2012). The internal di- make green practices more widely adopted, they may encour-
mensions of green management also include procedures such age businesses to embrace green policies by putting pressure
as departments’ environmental auditing, environmental mon- on the corporation (Jayaram and Avittathur 2015). So, based
itoring, overall management of environmental quality, com- on the above statements, the following hypothesis is
munication and training, and certification of ISO 14001 concluded:
(Ikram et al. 2019; Shaw et al. 2010). Companies that imple-
ment internal sustainability policies can minimize future envi- H6: Customer related factor significantly affect intention
ronmental emissions by using safe products, recycling to adopt GSCM
discarded components, and properly disposing of exhausted
equipment (Wang et al. 2018). According to Luthra et al.
(2016), personal intention at the top and middle management Cost factor
levels is needed to accelerate the successful application of
GSCM. It is widely assumed that senior management support Combining SCM and green practices offers an excellent op-
is required and, in many cases, a key driver for the effective portunity to minimize costs while also addresses environmen-
adoption and implementation of most inventions, technology, tal problems (Zhu et al. 2012). Green supply chain practices
programs, and activities (Yu and Ramanathan 2015). result in cost cuts and increased profitability for companies
Masa’deh et al. (2017) found that personal intentions and be- rendering them competition in creating long-term strategic
havior at the workplace play a vital role in effectively advantages (Vanalle et al. 2017). Baumann-Pauly et al.
implementing GSCM practices. The successful application (2013) stated that larger businesses have lower overall over-
of GSCM necessitates collaboration across disciplines head costs than small businesses, and the cost savings from
(Masudin et al. 2018). Internal green management is becom- green practices are more relevant for big businesses.
ing more widely regarded as a systemic and comprehensive Companies will be more likely to accept GSCM because it
approach to producing superior environmental results (Zhu would make it easier to take advantage of all available
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

economic saving opportunities, increase the possibility of presented in Fig. 1. According to the discussion, the following
attracting investors, obtain bank loan eligibility, and take ad- hypotheses is formulated:
vantage of grant opportunities. It has been proposed that buy-
ing eco-friendly products will significantly raise costs and H8a: Firm size significantly moderate the relationship
reduce the buying company’s productivity from the viewpoint between market/financial factor and managers’ intention
of purchasing management (Wang et al. 2018). Moreover, to adopt GSCM
overall cost savings across the supply chain may require a H8b: Firm size significantly moderate the relationship
considerable investment needed to launch an environmental between supplier factor and managers’ intention to adopt
program. The high initial cost required to implement various GSCM
green methodologies such as green design, green manufactur- H8c: Firm size significantly moderate the relationship
ing, and green labeling of packaging. Previous studies sug- between governmental factor and managers’ intention
gested that long-term and life-cycle cost analysis would aid in to adopt GSCM
the effective operation of an environmental program. So, H8d: Firm size significantly moderate the relationship
based on the above statements, the following hypothesis is between environmental factor and managers’ intention
concluded: to adopt GSCM
H8e: Firm size will significantly moderate the relation-
H7: Cost factor significantly affect intention to adopt ship between internal factor and managers’ intention to
GSCM adopt GSCM
H8f: Firm size will significantly moderate the relation-
ship between customer factor and managers’ intention to
adopt GSCM
Firm size as a moderator H8g: Firm size will significantly moderate the relation-
ship between cost factor and managers’ intention to
Organizational size has traditionally been used as a control adopt GSCM
variable in studies of organizational size and environmental
relationships (Zhu et al. 2008). According to Zhu et al. (2007),
firm size can influence the majority of the relationships be-
tween GSCM practice and results. The factors that influence
green manufacturing adoption vary depending on the size of Research methodology
the company (Masudin 2019). Small and large businesses, as
anticipated, vary in their perceptions of the impact of cost Sampling and data collection
factors on internal and external green practices (Wang et al.
2018). According to the study of Schrettle et al. (2014), firm The target population for this study was Jordanian
size can also influence the drivers-practices relation. The manufacturing firms. The data of managers from manufactur-
GSCM acceptance rate in firms of various sizes was ing companies located in Amman are included in the sampling
contrasted by Zhu et al. (2008), who found that big companies frame. A detailed breakdown of the respondents’ profiles is
follow GSCM activities more vigorously than small compa- presented in the “Profiles of the respondents” section. The
nies. For controlling their supply chains, larger corporations specific manufacturing firm served as the unit of analysis.
are gradually adopting sustainable policies such as corporate Malhotra (2010) noted that the population parameter can also
social responsibility (Welford and Frost 2006). According to be estimated to some extent by non-probability sampling. A
Vijayvargy et al. (2017), medium-sized companies have im- well administered questionnaires approach was used through
plemented GSCM procedures that are similar to those of large web based online survey for data collection in this study. The
enterprises, with three exceptions such as current environmen- sample size was determined in this study based on the guide-
tal management programs, funding from mid-level and top lines of Hair et al. (2019), which was 200 and above. The
management, and supplier assessment for environmental respondents were reminded softly via telephone and emails.
practice. González et al. (2008) conducted a study on automo- A total of 387 valid responses were received from the partic-
tive companies in Spain and found that as client/buyer com- ipants in the survey.
panies grow in size, so do environmental pressures on sup-
pliers. Small size businesses may continue to follow new en- Profiles of the respondents
vironmental strategies as information, processes, systems, and
rituals in the business-natural environment interface become The participants were from numerous sectors including
more commonly disseminated (Centobelli et al. 2020; Sharma chemicals, construction, food and supply, furniture, garments,
2000). The conceptual model which is utilized in this study is mining and minerals, plastic products, printing and paper, and
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 1 Conceptual framework

therapeutics. Figure 2 shows that the highest participation was important (5) for independent variables and strongly disagree
received from the “Food and supply” sector (n = 73 or 18.9%). (1) to strongly agree (5) for the dependent variable.
On the other hand, the lowest participation was received from
the “Furniture” sector (n = 23 or 5.9%). Plan of data analysis
Moreover, other characteristics of the respondents includ-
ing gender, age, years of experience, education level, position, The data were preliminary analyzed using descriptive statis-
and number of employees or firm size were shown in Table 1. tics and assessment of multicollinearity in SPSS version 25.
After that, SEM was performed using a partial least square
Measurement scale (PLS) approach in SmartPLS version 3. Structural equation
modeling included the assessment of the measurement model
The study adopted measurement items related to the latent var- and the structural model. Finally, the proposed hypotheses
iables from relevant past studies where these items were found were tested with the results of structural model analysis.
to have reliability and validity. The details of construct and
measurement items are presented in Table 2. The first segment
of the questionnaire includes general demographic data from Results
respondents. The second section included measurement items
related to the study variables. Items related to market/financial Descriptive statistics
factor, supplier factor, governmental factor, environmental fac-
tor, internal factor, and customer factor were adopted from Descriptive statistics include determining mean, standard de-
Mathiyazhagan et al. (2018). Besides, items related to cost fac- viation, skewness, and kurtosis values of the latent variables.
tor and intention to adopt GSCM were adopted from Lin et al. Before performing the analysis, single composite scores were
(2020). All the items were measured using a 5-point Likert calculated for each of the latent variables by averaging their
scale ranging from not at all important (1) to extremely associated items. As shown in Table 3, the results showed that

Fig. 2 Type of firms

 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Respondents’
characteristics details Attribute Sub-attribute Frequency (n) Percent (%)

Gender Male 327 84.5

Female 60 15.5
Age 21-30 years 110 28.4
31-40 years 163 42.1
41-50 years 67 17.3
Above 50 year 47 12.1
Years of experience Less than 5 years 119 30.7
5-10 years 174 45.0
More than 10 years 94 24.3
Education level Diploma degree 30 7.8
Bachelor’s degree 284 73.4
Master’s degree and above 73 18.9
Position First-line managers 247 63.8
Middle managers 87 22.5
Top managers 53 13.7
Number of employees/firm size Small (less than 20) 122 31.5
Medium (20-99 employees) 172 44.4
Large (100 employees) and more 93 24.0

the market/financial factor generated the highest mean value variables (Hair et al. 2019). Several numerical values of mea-
(M = 4.1596, SD = 1.05387). On the other hand, the cost factor surement instruments were collected from the study partici-
generated the lowest mean value (M = 2.8605, SD = 1.12441). pants to quantify the latent variables. As a result, the measure-
Skewness and kurtosis analysis used to test normality of the ment items’ reliability and validity must be determined. The
data, where skewness represents distribution symmetry. The proposed model was evaluated with SmartPLS version 3.0
negative value means skewed to the left and positive value using a partial least square structural equation modeling
means skewed to the right. Kurtosis refers to the data that are (PLS-SEM) technique (Ringle et al. 2017).
peaked or flat. A negative value of kurtosis means that the
distribution is flatter than a normal curve with the same mean Convergent validity and reliability
and standard deviation while a positive value of kurtosis indi-
cate that a distribution is peaked and possess a thick tail (Ahad Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) were used to
et al. 2011). Acceptable values of skewness fall between −3 evaluate the reliability of the latent variables. If the value of
and +3, and kurtosis is appropriate from a range of −10 to +10 CR greater than 0.7, which shows the reliability of latent var-
when utilizing SEM (Wood 2008). iables (Hair et al. 2019). Table 5 showed the results of
Cronbach’s alpha and CR values for all latent variables were
Testing of multicollinearity greater than 0.70, indicating that reliability had been ensured.
Following that, convergent validity is assessed by the factor
The path coefficients that are estimated in the statistical anal- loading values greater than 0.70 and average variance extract-
ysis may be affected by high correlations among the indepen- ed (AVE) which value greater than 0.50 (Hair et al. 2019). All
dent variables. To detect multicollinearity, the variance infla- factor loading values were greater than 0.70 and AVE values
tion factor (VIF) and tolerance values were used. As shown in were above 0.50, thus appropriate
Table 4, there was no such multicollinearity since all of the
VIF values are less than 5 (ranging from 1.878 to 1.217) and Discriminant validity
the tolerance is greater than 0.10 (ranging from .822 to .532)
(Hair et al. 2019). Discriminant validity is reached when the square roots of the
AVE are greater than the coefficients of correlation between
Assessment of the measurement model all constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The diagonal values
reflected the AVE’s square root, whereas the off-diagonal
The measurement model analysis defines the relationship be- values represented inter-construct correlations. As shown in
tween observed variables (measurement items) and latent Table 6, all of the square roots of AVE values were greater
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Constructs and measurement items

Constructs Measurement items Scale Sources

Market/finance • Establishing firm’s green image locally and globally 5-point Likert scale from “Not at all important” (1) to (Mathiyazhagan
• Tax incentives “extremely important” (5) et al. 2018)
• Increased property values
• Decreased infrastructure strain
Supplier • Firm’s awareness and advances in providing
environment-friendly packages
• Firm’s environmental collaboration with suppliers
• Collaboration between product designer and supplier
Government • Environmental management certification
• Adapting to regulation and reducing risk
• Anticipation of government regulations
• Government rules and legislation
Environment • Sustainable use of natural resources, construction
material, and equipment
• Reusing and recycling construction materials
• Waste reduction
• Emissions reduction
Internal factor • Firm’s environmental mission
• Investors and shareholders’ pressure
• Increased employee/labor productivity
• Support from top managers
Customer • Society or public pressure
• Customer/client awareness and pressure
• Improve the image of the construction industry
Cost • Initial set up cost 5-point Likert scale from “Not at all important” (1) to (Lin et al. 2020)
• Additional staff for adopting GSCM “extremely important” (5)
• Justification of benefits and costs
Intention to • Our company intends to adopt GSCM 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to (Lin et al. 2020)
adopt GSCM • Our company intends to use GSCM regularly in the strongly agree (5)
future
• Our company would highly recommend GSCM for
other companies to adopt

than the correlation coefficients between all of the constructs. model is run (Hair et al. 2019). The structural model analysis
As a result, the discriminating validity of the latent factors was is used to test the hypotheses that were proposed. The struc-
established. tural model results either endorse or reject the formulated hy-
potheses that explain the relationship among variables (Byrne
Assessment of the structural model 2013; Weston and Gore 2006). In this study, a bootstrapping
method with a subsample of 500 was used to estimate the
In order to build robustness for the estimated results, the study structural model (Ringle et al. 2017). Figure 3 depicts an ap-
performed skewness and kurtosis analysis to test the normality proximation of the proposed model.
of data. Robust corrections to standard errors and test statistics Table 7 presented the structural model analysis results, in-
have wide applications in SEM. However, the SEM develop- cluding path coefficients, t statistics, and p values. The results
ment was to account for the effect of non-normality (Tong showed that four out of seven factors had a significant and
et al. 2014). Therefore, acceptable values of skewness and positive impact on the intention to adopt GSCM. Customer
kurtosis were achieved to indicate the normality of the data. and cost factors were significantly related to GSCM adoption
Moreover, multicollinearity test was performed to detect if intention at p < 0.05. Besides, supplier and environmental
path coefficients may be affected by high correlations among factors were significantly related to GSCM adoption intention
the independent variables. Furthermore, the convergent and at p < 0.10. As a result, hypotheses H2, H4, H6, and H7 were
discriminate validity analysis are conducted to make sure that supported. Among all the factors, the customer factor had the
every variable explains the most percentage of variation in the largest effect on intention of GSCM adoption (beta = 0.371)
constructs and degree that every variable is different than oth- indicating that when GSCM adoption intention will be in-
er variable (Hair et al. 2019). After the validity of the complete creased by 0.371, standard deviation unit of customer factor
measurement, the model has been checked, the structural is increased by 1 standard deviation unit.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 Descriptive statistics

Latent variables N Mean Std. deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error

Market/financial factor 387 4.15 1.053 −1.841 .124 2.268 .247

Supplier factor 387 3.53 1.309 −.883 .124 −.531 .247
Governmental factor 387 3.98 .941 −1.902 .124 3.197 .247
Environmental factor 387 4.03 .932 −2.004 .124 3.158 .247
Internal factor 387 3.78 .886 −1.589 .124 2.558 .247
Customer factor 387 3.88 1.045 −1.287 .124 1.122 .247
Cost factor 387 2.86 1.124 −.402 .124 −1.252 .247
Intention to adopt GSCM 387 3.65 1.245 −.913 .124 −.258 .247

R2, f2, and Q2 values can also be used to evaluate the pre- In other words, small firms with a higher score in internal
dictive powers of the factors (Hair et al. 2019). The overall R2 factor tend to adopt GSCM more compared to large firms.
(0.389) value indicated a small to medium effect. The f square
values of cost factor (0.144) and customer factor (0.170) indi-
cated medium effects, and on the other hand, other factors Discussion
showed small effects. The Q2 value of 0.336 showed the pre-
dictive relevance of the exogenous constructs (e.g., all the The study aims at identifying the factors that significantly
seven factors) since it is greater than zero (Hair et al. 2019). affect managerial intention to adopt GSCM in different
The results of the moderation analysis were shown in manufacturing firms in Jordan. The study also targets to in-
Table 8. Firm size significantly moderated the effects of two vestigate the effect of firm size as a moderator in the relation-
factors on the intention to adopt GSCM. The effect of market/ ship between the factors and GSCM adoption intention.
financial factor on intention to adopt GSCM was significantly Studies in the field of adoption of GSCM have been reviewed
moderated by firm size at p < 0.05. Besides, the effect of an (Asif et al. 2020; Choudhary and Sangwan 2019; de Sousa
internal factor on intention to adopt GSCM was significantly Jabbour et al. 2013; Govindan et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2020;
moderated by firm size at p < 0.10. As a result, there was Masudin 2019; Masudin et al. 2018; Mauricio and de
sufficient evidence to support hypotheses H8a and H8e. Jabbour ABL 2017; Saade et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2016;
As shown in Fig. 4, firm size positively moderated the Zhu et al. 2008). The results of the study demonstrate that
relationship between market/financial factor and GSCM in- customer, cost, supplier, and environmental factors signifi-
tention. In other words, large firms with a higher score in cantly influenced managers’ intention to adopt GSCM in their
market/financial factor tend to adopt GSCM more compared organizations. Intention is highly influenced by customer fac-
to small firms. tor (beta = 0.371) followed by cost factor (beta = 0.328),
As shown in Fig. 5, firm size negatively moderated the environmental factor (beta = 0.115), and supplier factor (beta
relationship between the internal factor and GSCM intention. = 0.090). The customer factor involves three important items
such as society or public pressure, customer/client awareness
and pressure and improves the image of the construction in-
Table 4 Collinearity statistics dustry among which customer/client awareness, and pressure
has the highest factor loading (0.982). The cost factor has
Latent variables Intention to adopt GSCM three items including initial set-up cost, additional staff for
adopting GSCM, and justification of benefits and costs where
Tolerance VIF
additional staff for adopting GSCM has the highest factor
Market/financial factor .581 1.721 loading (0.973). Besides, the environmental factor has four
Supplier factor .748 1.338 items including the sustainable use of natural resources, con-
Governmental factor .582 1.719 struction material, and equipment; reusing and recycling con-
Environmental factor .532 1.878 struction materials; waste reduction; and emissions reduction
Internal factor .575 1.739 where sustainable use of natural resources, construction ma-
Customer factor .756 1.322 terial, and equipment has the highest effect (factor loading =
Cost factor .822 1.217 0.935). Finally, the supplier factor has three items such as
firm’s awareness and advances in providing environment-
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 5 Results of measurement model analysis

Latent variables Items Factor loadings Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted (AVE)

Market/financial factor M1 0.958 0.958 0.970 0.888

M2 0.929
M3 0.938
M4 0.945
Supplier factor S1 0.973 0.971 0.981 0.946
S2 0.981
S3 0.964
Governmental factor G1 0.929 0.942 0.958 0.851
G2 0.917
G3 0.894
G4 0.949
Environmental factor E1 0.935 0.946 0.961 0.861
E2 0.934
E3 0.924
E4 0.918
Internal factor Intern1 0.920 0.924 0.946 0.816
Intern2 0.946
Intern3 0.937
Intern4 0.802
Customer factor Cus1 0.974 0.976 0.984 0.955
Cus2 0.982
Cus3 0.975
Cost factor Cost1 0.963 0.966 0.978 0.937
Cost2 0.973
Cost3 0.967
Intention to adopt GSCM Inten.1 0.966 0.942 0.963 0.896
Inten.2 0.947
Inten.3 0.927

friendly packages, the firm’s environmental collaboration three significant factors that affect GSCM adoption including
with suppliers, and collaboration between product designer firm size, environmental management system, and hazardous
and supplier where the firm’s environmental collaboration materials as inputs. Govindan et al. (2016) discovered that top
with suppliers has the larger effect (factor loading = 0.981). management engagement and competition were the two most
The results are comparable across previous literature that influential drivers, while employee pressure was the least sig-
are relevant to this study. de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2013) found nificant driver influencing GSCM adoption. Lin et al. (2020)

Table 6 Discriminant validity

(Fornell-Larcker criterion) Latent variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Cost factor 0.968

2. Customer factor 0.200 0.977
3. Environmental factor 0.333 0.109 0.928
4. Governmental factor 0.301 0.217 0.563 0.923
5. Intention to adopt GSCM 0.454 0.489 0.266 0.273 0.947
6. Internal factor 0.289 0.130 0.554 0.541 0.204 0.903
7. Market/financial factor 0.333 0.216 0.547 0.478 0.241 0.530 0.943
8. Supplier factor 0.210 0.465 0.086 0.178 0.338 0.048 0.219 0.973
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 3 Structural model diagram

Table 7 Results of structural model analysis

Paths Path coefficients (β) T statistics P values Results

Market/financial factor -> intention to adopt GSCM −0.047 0.732 0.464 Insignificant
Supplier factor -> intention to adopt GSCM 0.090 1.828 0.068* Significant
Governmental factor -> intention to adopt GSCM 0.036 0.677 0.499 Insignificant
Environmental factor -> intention to adopt GSCM 0.115 1.966 0.050* Significant
Internal factor -> intention to adopt GSCM −0.002 0.034 0.973 Insignificant
Customer factor -> intention to adopt GSCM 0.371 7.540 0.000** Significant
Cost factor -> intention to adopt GSCM 0.328 6.936 0.000** Significant

Note: **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10, based on two-tailed test; t = 1.96
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 8 Results of moderation

analysis Paths Path coefficients (β) T statistics P values Results

Market/financial factor*firm size .115 2.194 .029** Significant

Supplier factor*firm size −.072 −1.531 .127 Insignificant
Governmental factor*firm size −.024 −.448 .654 Insignificant
Environmental factor*firm size .085 1.497 .135 Insignificant
Internal factor*firm size −.100 −1.788 .075* Significant
Customer factor*firm size .037 .775 .439 Insignificant
Cost factor*firm size −.036 −.805 .422 Insignificant

Note: ** p <0.05, *p < 0.10, based on two-tailed test; t = 1.96

found that customer pressure significantly associated to adopt affecting the adoption intention of GSCM practices among
GSCM. Moreover, in this study, the moderating effect of firm supply chain managers. The study concludes that four out of
size was significant on the relationship between market/ seven factors such as supplier’s commitment, environmental
financial factor and GSCM intention, internal factor and sustainability, customer satisfaction, and cost factors are the
GSCM intention. The finding is consistent with Zhu et al. most significant drivers of GSCM adoption among managers.
(2008) who found that firms differed in adopting GSCM prac- In specific, the most significant factors that are related to the
tices based on the size of organizations. The results showed intention of GSCM adoption among supply chain managers.
that large and medium-sized firms are higher in the adoption Second, this study identifies the most influential factors in
of several GSCM practices compared to small firms. Lin et al. which, customer factor has the highest effect followed by
(2020) also found a significant association between organiza- the cost factor, environmental factor, and supplier factor.
tional size and intention to adopt GSCM. This finding will shed the light to decision-making on the
most influential factors and their priorities when they plan
for GSCM.
Conclusion and policy implications Moreover, this study demonstrates the moderating impact
of the company’s size when adapting GSCM. The finding will
This study aims to assess the factors affecting GSCM adoption help decision maker to give more attention to impact of
in Jordan manufacturing firms and to investigate the moder- company’s size in this regard. The result concludes that
ating impact of company’s size of this phenomenon. company’s size positively moderates the relationship between
Consequently, the study made several contributions. For in- market/financial factor and intention to adopt GSCM. In other
stance, the study presents a comprehensive framework to ac- words, large companies with a higher score in market/
ademic and decision makers that highlights the factors financial factor tend to adopt GSCM practices more than small

Fig. 4 Interaction plot for market/

financial factor
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 5 Interaction plot for internal

factor

companies. On the other hand, company’s size negatively Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
moderates the relationship between internal factor and inten-
tion to adopt GSCM. In other words, small companies with a
higher score in internal factor tend to adopt GSCM practices
more than large companies.
References
However, this study has some limitations. First of all, this
Abid N, Ikram M, Wu J, Ferasso M (2021) Towards environmental
study has utilized a convenient sampling approach which sustainability: exploring the nexus among ISO 14001, governance
limits the generalizing capability of the study findings, but indicators and green economy in Pakistan. Sustain Prod Consum 27:
the larger sample size (n = 387) may reduce the limitation to 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.024
Ahad NA, Yin TS, Othman AR, Yaacob CR (2011) Sensitivity of nor-
some extent. Second, this study only considers seven factors
mality tests to non-normal data. Sains Malays 40:637–641
that may influence GSCM adoption; however, incorporating Andalib Ardakani D, Soltanmohammadi A (2019) Investigating and
other factors should also be considered in future studies. analysing the factors affecting the development of sustainable sup-
Finally, this study considered only firm size as a moderator; ply chain model in the industrial sectors. Corp Soc Responsib
Environ Manag 26:199–212
thus, future studies can adopt other social demographic vari-
Andiç E, Yurt Ö, Baltacıoğlu T (2012) Green supply chains: efforts and
ables as moderator to come up with additional findings. potential applications for the Turkish market. Resour Conserv
Recycl 58:50–68
Arif M, Egbu C, Haleem A, Kulonda D, Khalfan M (2009) State of green
Author contributions Conceptualization: Luay Jum’a. Formal analysis: construction in India: drivers and challenges. J Eng Des Technol 7:
Luay Jum’a. Investigation: Luay Jum’a, Muhammad Ikram, Ziad 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530910975005
Alkalha, and Maher Alaraj. Methodology: Luay Jum’a. Project adminis- Asif MS, Lau H, Nakandala D, et al (2020) Adoption of green supply
tration and supervision: Muhammad Ikram. Validation: Luay Jum’a, chain management practices through collaboration approach in de-
Muhammad Ikram, Ziad Alkalha, and Maher Alaraj. Writing—original veloping countries – From literature review to conceptual frame-
draft: Luay Jum’a. Writing—review and editing: Luay Jum’a and work. J Clean Prod 276:124191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
Muhammad Ikram, Ziad Alkalha and Maher Alaraj. 2020.124191
Bai C, Sarkis J, Wei X, Koh L (2012) Evaluating ecological sustainable
Funding The authors received no financial support for the research. performance measures for supply chain management. Supply Chain
Manag Int J 17:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598541211212221
Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are Balaji M, Velmurugan V, Prasath M (2014) Barriers in green supply
included in this published article. chain management: an Indian foundry perspective. Int J Res Eng
Technol 3:423–429
Declarations Balasubramanian S, Shukla V, Chanchaichujit J (2020) Firm size impli-
cations for environmental sustainability of supply chains: evidence
from the UAE. Manag Environ Qual Int J 31:1375–1406. https://
Ethics approval Not applicable
doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2020-0004
Baumann-Pauly D, Wickert C, Spence LJ, Scherer AG (2013)
Consent to participate Not applicable Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms:
size matters. J Bus Ethics 115:693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Consent for publication Not applicable s10551-013-1827-7
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Bhool R, Narwal MS (2013) An analysis of drivers affecting the imple- Govindan K, Muduli K, Devika K, Barve A (2016) Investigation of the
mentation of green supply chain management for the Indian influential strength of factors on adoption of green supply chain
manufacturing industries. Int J Res Eng Technol 2:1163–2319 management practices: an Indian mining scenario. Resour Conserv
Byrne BM (2013) Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic con- Recycl 107:185–194
cepts, applications, and programming, second edition, New York, Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2019) When to use and how to
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534 report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31:2–24. https://doi.
Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Ertz M (2020) Managing supply chain resil- org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
ience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus Strateg Hassan MG, Abidin R, Nordin N, Yusoff RZ (2016) GSCM practices and
Environ 29:1215–1246 sustainable performance: a preliminary insight. J Adv Manag Sci 4:
Choudhary K, Sangwan KS (2019) Adoption of green practices through- 430–434
out the supply chain: an empirical investigation. Benchmark Int J Ikram M, Zhou P, Shah SAAAA, Liu GQQ (2019) Do environmental
26:1650–1675. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0293 management systems help improve corporate sustainable develop-
Darnall N, Edwards D Jr (2006) Predicting the cost of environmental ment? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan. J Clean
management system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources Prod 226:628–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.265
and ownership structure. Strateg Manag J 27:301–320 Ikram M, Sroufe R, Rehman E et al (2020a) Do quality, environmental,
Darnall N, Jolley GJ, Handfield R (2008) Environmental management and social (QES) certifications improve international trade? A com-
systems and green supply chain management: complements for sus- parative grey relation analysis of developing vs. developed coun-
tainability? Bus Strateg Environ 17:30–45 tries. Physica A Stat Mech Appl 545:123486
de Sousa Jabbour ABL, Jabbour CJC, Govindan K, Kannan D, Salgado Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R, Shah SZA (2020b) Towards a sustainable
MH, Zanon CJ (2013) Factors affecting the adoption of green supply environment: the nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy con-
chain management practices in Brazil: empirical evidence. Int J sumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions in
Environ Stud 70:302–315 SAARC countries. Sustain Prod Consum 22:218–230. https://doi.
Delmas MA (2002) The diffusion of environmental management stan- org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.03.011
dards in Europe and in the United States: an institutional perspective. Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R, Ferasso M (2021) Contribution of certifi-
Policy Sci 35:91–119 cation bodies and sustainability standards to sustainable develop-
Delmas M, Toffel MW (2004) Stakeholders and environmental manage- ment goals: an integrated grey systems approach. Sustain Prod
ment practices: an institutional framework. Bus Strateg Environ 13: Consum 28:326–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.019
209–222 Jayaram J, Avittathur B (2015) Green supply chains: a perspective from
Diabat A, Govindan K (2011) An analysis of the drivers affecting the an emerging economy. Int J Prod Econ 164:234–244
implementation of green supply chain management. Resour Jum’a L, Zimon D, Ikram M (2021) A relationship between supply chain
Conserv Recycl 55:659–667 practices, environmental sustainability and financial performance:
European Environment Agency (2014) Horizon 2020 Mediterranean re- evidence from manufacturing companies in Jordan. Sustainability
port. Toward shared environmental information systems. In: EEA - 13:2152
UNEP/MAP Jt. Rep. Kafa N, Hani Y, El Mhamedi A (2013) Sustainability performance mea-
Ferreira LMDF, Silva C, Azevedo SG (2016) An environmental balanced surement for green supply chain management. IFAC Proc 46:71–78.
scorecard for supply chain performance measurement https://doi.org/10.3182/20130911-3-BR-3021.00050
(Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark Int J 23:1398–1422. https://doi. Kim MH, Adilov N (2012) The lesser of two evils: an empirical investi-
org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0087 gation of foreign direct investment-pollution tradeoff. Appl Econ
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with 44:2597–2606
unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–
Lai K, Wong CWY (2012) Green logistics management and perfor-
50
mance: some empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing ex-
Gandhi S, Mangla SK, Kumar P, Kumar D (2015) Evaluating factors in porters. Omega 40:267–282
implementation of successful green supply chain management using
Lee S (2008) Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized
DEMATEL: a case study. Int Strateg Manag Rev 3:96–109
suppliers in green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Manag
Ghazilla RAR, Sakundarini N, Abdul-Rashid SH, Ayub NS, Olugu EU, Int J 13:185–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540810871235
Musa SN (2015) Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufactur-
Lin C-Y, Alam SS, Ho Y-H, al-Shaikh ME, Sultan P (2020) Adoption of
ing practices in Malaysian SMEs: a preliminary findings. Procedia
green supply chain management among SMEs in Malaysia.
Cirp 26:658–663
Sustainability 12:6454
Golicic SL, Smith CD (2013) A meta-analysis of environmentally sus-
Luthra S, Garg D, Haleem A (2015) An analysis of interactions among
tainable supply chain management practices and firm performance. J
critical success factors to implement green supply chain manage-
Supply Chain Manag 49:78–95
ment towards sustainability: an Indian perspective. Res Policy 46:
González P, Sarkis J, Adenso-Díaz B (2008) Environmental management
37–50
system certification and its influence on corporate practices. Int J
Oper Prod Manag 28:1021–1041. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Luthra S, Garg D, Haleem A (2016) The impacts of critical success
01443570810910179 factors for implementing green supply chain management towards
sustainability: an empirical investigation of Indian automobile in-
Gotschol A, De Giovanni P, Vinzi VE (2014) Is environmental manage-
dustry. J Clean Prod 121:142–158
ment an economically sustainable business? J Environ Manag 144:
73–82 Malhotra NK (2010) Marketing research: an applied orientation. 6th glob-
Govindan K, Kannan D, Mathiyazhagan K, Jabbour ABLS, Jabbour CJC al ed. Up Saddle River, NJ, PearsonFor more information please
(2013) Analysing green supply chain management practices in visit this website: https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/
Brazil’s electrical/electronics industry using interpretive structural program/Malhotra-Marketing-Research-An-Applied-Orientation-
modelling. Int J Environ Stud 70:477–493 6th-Edition/PGM201157.html?tab=resources
Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq AN (2014) Barriers analysis for Mangla S, Kumar P, Barua MK (2014a) An evaluation of attribute for
green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries improving the green supply chain performance via DEMATEL
using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 147:555–568 method. Int J Mech Eng Robot Res 1:30–35
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Mangla S, Madaan J, Sarma PRS, Gupta MP (2014b) Multi-objective Shaw S, Grant DB, Mangan J (2010) Developing environmental supply
decision modelling using interpretive structural modelling for green chain performance measures. Benchmark Int J 17:320–339. https://
supply chains. Int J Logist Syst Manag 17:125–142 doi.org/10.1108/14635771011049326
Masa’deh R, Alananzeh O, Algiatheen N et al (2017) The impact of Shibin KT, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R, Singh M,
employee’s perception of implementing green supply chain man- Wamba SF (2016) Enablers and barriers of flexible green supply
agement on hotel’s economic and operational performance. J Hosp chain management: a total interpretive structural modeling ap-
Tour Technol 8:395–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-02-2017- proach. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 17:171–188
0011 Sinaga O, Mulyati Y, Darrini A et al (2019) Green supply chain manage-
Masudin I (2019) A literature review on green supply chain management ment organizational performance. Int J Supply Chain Manag 8:76–
adoption drivers. J Ilm Tek Ind 18:103–115 85
Masudin I, Wastono T, Zulfikarijah F (2018) The effect of managerial Somsuk N, Laosirihongthong T (2017) Prioritization of applicable drivers
intention and initiative on green supply chain management adoption for green supply chain management implementation toward sustain-
in Indonesian manufacturing performance. Cogent Bus Manag 5: ability in Thailand. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 24:175–191
1485212 Srivastava SK (2007) Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art
Mathivathanan D, Kannan D, Haq AN (2018) Sustainable supply chain literature review. Int J Manag Rev 9:53–80
management practices in Indian automotive industry: a multi- Tippayawong KY, Tiwaratreewit T, Sopadang A (2015) Positive influ-
stakeholder view. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:284–305 ence of green supply chain operations on Thai electronic firms’
Mathiyazhagan K, Govindan K, NoorulHaq A, Geng Y (2013) An ISM financial performance. Procedia Eng 118:683–690
approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain Tong X, Zhang Z, Yuan K-H (2014) Evaluation of test statistics for robust
management. J Clean Prod 47:283–297 structural equation modeling with nonnormal missing data. Struct
Mathiyazhagan K, Govindan K, Noorul Haq A (2014) Pressure analysis Equ Model A Multidiscip J 21:553–565
for green supply chain management implementation in Indian in- Tyagi M, Kumar P, Kumar D (2015) Analysis of interactions among the
dustries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Res 52:188–202 drivers of green supply chain management. Int J Bus Perform
Mathiyazhagan K, Datta U, Singla A, Krishnamoorthi S (2018) Supply Chain Model 7:92–108
Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for the green Van den Berg U, Labuschagne J-P, Van den Berg H (2013) The effects of
supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction greening the supplier and innovation on environmental performance
industries. Opsearch 55:202–219 and competitive advantage. J Transp Supply Chain Manag 7:1–7
Mauricio AL, de Jabbour ABL S (2017) Critical success factors for Vanalle RM, Ganga GMD, Godinho Filho M, Lucato WC (2017) Green
GSCM adoption: case studies in the automotive battery industry. supply chain management: an investigation of pressures, practices,
Gestão e Produ 24:78–94 and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain. J
Mitra S, Datta PP (2014) Adoption of green supply chain management Clean Prod 151:250–259
practices and their impact on performance: an exploratory study of Vijayvargy L, Thakkar J, Agarwal G (2017) Green supply chain manage-
Indian manufacturing firms. Int J Prod Res 52:2085–2107 ment practices and performance. J Manuf Technol Manag 28:299–
Muduli K, Barve A (2013) Sustainable development practices in mining 323. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2016-0123
sector: a GSCM approach. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 12:222–243 Walker H, Di Sisto L, McBain D (2008) Drivers and barriers to environ-
Muduli K, Govindan K, Barve A, Kannan D, Geng Y (2013) Role of mental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public
behavioural factors in green supply chain management implemen- and private sectors. J Purch Supply Manag 14:69–85
tation in Indian mining industries. Resour Conserv Recycl 76:50–60 Wang Z, Mathiyazhagan K, Xu L, Diabat A (2016) A decision making
Phuah JS, Fernando Y (2015) Green supply chain integration in automo- trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to
tive industry. In M. Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. (Ed.), encyclopedia of green supply chain management adoption in a food packaging com-
information science and technology, third edition (pp 5056–5064). pany. J Clean Prod 117:19–28
IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch499 Wang Z, Wang Q, Zhang S, Zhao X (2018) Effects of customer and cost
Rao P (2002) Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East drivers on green supply chain management practices and environ-
Asia. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22:632–655. https://doi.org/10.1108/ mental performance. J Clean Prod 189:673–682
01443570210427668 Welford R, Frost S (2006) Corporate social responsibility in Asian supply
Rao P, Holt D (2005) Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and chains. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:166–176
economic performance? Int J Oper Prod Manag 25:898–916. https:// Weston R, Gore PA (2006) A brief guide to structural equation modeling.
doi.org/10.1108/01443570510613956 Co un s P sy c ho l 3 4: 71 9– 75 1. htt ps :// do i.o rg /10 .1 17 7/
Rehman E, Ikram M, Rehman S, Feng MT (2021) Growing green? 0011000006286345
Sectoral-based prediction of GHG emission in Pakistan: a novel Wood P (2008) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Am
NDGM and doubling time model approach. Environ Dev Sustain Stat 62:91–92. https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2008.s98
23:12169–12191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01163-5 Wu K-J, Tseng M-L, Vy T (2011) Evaluation the drivers of green supply
Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M (2017) SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: chain management practices in uncertainty. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
SmartPLS. Retrieved from https://www.smartpls.com 25:384–397
Saade R, Thoumy M, Sakr O (2019) Green supply chain management Wu G-C, Ding J-H, Chen P-S (2012) The effects of GSCM drivers and
adoption in Lebanese manufacturing industries: an exploratory institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan’s textile and
study. Int J Logist Syst Manag 32:520–547 apparel industry. Int J Prod Econ 135:618–636
Sarkis J, Gonzalez-Torre P, Adenso-Diaz B (2010) Stakeholder pressure Yu W, Ramanathan R (2015) An empirical examination of stakeholder
and the adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of pressures, green operations practices and environmental perfor-
training. J Oper Manag 28:163–176 mance. Int J Prod Res 53:6390–6407
Schrettle S, Hinz A, Scherrer-Rathje M, Friedli T (2014) Turning sustain- Zhu J, Xu J (2019) Driving factors of green supply chain management in
ability into action: explaining firms’ sustainability efforts and their building Materials Enterprises. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 295:
impact on firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 147:73–84 012063. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/295/2/012063
Sharma S (2000) Managerial interpretations and organizational context as Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai K (2007) Green supply chain management: pres-
predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad sures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile
Manag J 43:681–697 industry. J Clean Prod 15:1041–1052
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai K, Geng Y (2008) The role of organizational size in improvements. Int J Prod Res 50:1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.
the adoption of green supply chain management practices in China. 1080/00207543.2011.571937
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15:322–337
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH (2012) Examining the effects of green supply Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
chain management practices and their mediations on performance tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.