The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

IMDS
118,1 Sustainable supply chain
management practices and
performance
2 Jing Wang
School of Business, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China, and
Received 17 December 2016
Revised 22 February 2017 Jun Dai
2 May 2017
Accepted 6 May 2017 College of Applied Science, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute significantly to the empirical investigations related to
the impact of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices on performance in Chinese firms.
The paper also aims to theorize and empirically assess a comprehensive SSCM practices and performance
model. The model incorporates two aspects of SSCM practices: internal and external management, and
analyses the impact on corporate sustainability performance from all dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper develops a conceptual model to investigate the impact of
SSCM practices on the firm performance. Based on the data of 172 Chinese firms, this paper analyzes the
impact of SSCM practices on firm economic performance, environmental performance, and social performance
for each dimension by using PLS structural equation methods.
Findings – The results show that firm’s internal SSCM practices have a positive impact on firm’s
environmental performance and social performance. Moreover, environmental performance and social
performance are positively related to economic performance.
Originality/value – A comprehensive SSCM practices performance model is proposed and empirically
assessed for Chinese firms. The results of this investigation support the hypotheses that SSCM practices are
environmentally and socially necessary and are favorable for business. A series of approach and implications
of SSCM practices is recommended.
Keywords China, Emerging economies, Firm performance, Sustainable supply chain management,
Sustainable operations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The most widely known definition of sustainable development is “development necessary to
meet the needs of contemporary people, they cannot destroy the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs” by the World Environment and Development Organization.
Sustainability is becoming a key topic in companies’ strategic agendas. Corporates often
operate under the triple bottom line theory given by Elkington (1998), who proposed the
concept to balance economic, environmental, and social issues from a micro perspective.
In recent years, firms have had a growing concern with the social parties for sustainable
development and have paid more attention to social responsibility and environmental
practices, while timely releasing corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and
environmental reports (Wan Nurul Karimah et al., 2016). Firms implemented sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM) through environmental programs (such as design recycle
product, environmental certification) and social practices (such as programs aimed to
improve employees’ working conditions or support the community activities).

Industrial Management & Data

Systems This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund (16CGL033), Fundamental Research
Vol. 118 No. 1, 2018
pp. 2-21 Funds of Beijing University of Technology, Open Project Program of The Capital Circulation Industry
© Emerald Publishing Limited Research Center ( JD-KFKT-2016-06) and Support Project of High-level Teachers in Beijing Municipal
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/IMDS-12-2016-0540 Universities in the Period of 13th Five-year Plan (CIT&TCD201704033).
 With the concept of sustainable development and improved awareness of environmental Sustainable
protection and social responsibility, SSCM has rooted in individuals and organizations. supply chain
Managers need to consider the public environmental and social responsibility attitudes and management
values. SSCM can be seen as part of the corporate innovation processes in dynamic business
development which is imperative for the survival and development of corporate (Gosling et al.,
2017). Typically, the supply chain firms take responsibility for the negative effects of all
members among the supply chain (Rao and Holt, 2005; Kovacs, 2008). Core enterprises need to 3
be more responsible for environmental performance and social performance for the entire
supply chain. Therefore, firms implement the SSCM process not only for the sustainable
management of their own, but also for the management of all the supply chain members.
Supply chain core enterprises should improve environmental and social performance by
internal as well as external SSCM management to avoid and minimize the negative impact of
the supply chain members in environmental and social responsibility.
This study examines the deployment of SSCM for internal and external practices for
Chinese firms, analyzes their impact on economic, environmental and social performance,
and the impact of environmental and social performance on economic performance.
This study makes a significant contribution to the on-going research that relates the
sustainable practices on performance outcomes in a new framework. Furthermore, data
are collected from China, a developing country with an increasing global business
presence, but of which very little SSCM research has been carried out. A series of
approach and implications of SSCM practices is recommended for Chinese firms and other
emerging economy.

2. Literature review
2.1 Adoption of SSCM
The term sustainability integrates social, environmental, and economic responsibilities.
Kleindorfer et al. used the term to illustrate environmental management, closed-loop
supply chains, and thought that it integrated profit, people, and the planet into corporate
culture, strategy, and operations from a broad perspective under triple bottom line. SSCM
is defined as the set of skills and leverages that allow a company to structure its business
processes to achieve sustainable performance (Eduardo Ortas and Moneva, 2014).
SSCM refers to a firm’s plans and activities that integrate environmental and social issues
into supply chain management in order to improve the company’s environmental and social
performance and that of its suppliers and customers without compromising its economic
performance (Pagell and Gobeli, 2009). This definition implies that firms adopt programs
to improve the environmental and social impacts on their internal processes (e.g. the
production processes within their plants) and initiatives to improve the impact on their
suppliers’ and customers’ processes (Elcio and Wong, 2014).
Despite the history of sustainability, its application to the supply chain has only
emerged since the end of the 1980s. Most SSCM research addressed issues such as the
environment protection or social responsibility separately without considering the potential
interrelationships amongst these and other aspects of social responsibility (Carter and
Jennings, 2002).
The sustainability movement began with a focus on environmental issues. And there
were many research literature concerning the green supply chain management (GSCM).
Gilbert defined GSCM as the integration of environmental thinking into supply chain
management (SCM). Srivastava defined GSCM as adding “green” component to SCM.
Zhu and Sarkis defined that GSCM covers all phases of a product’s life cycle, that is, from
design, production, and distribution to the use of products by the end users and its disposal
at the end. Wantao argued that SSCM integrates GSCM and CSR into SCM to maximize the
performance from all dimensions.
IMDS In recent years with the emerging economies, more developing countries have realized
118,1 the importance of environment protection meanwhile CSR and there were more research on
sustainable and green supply chain in BRICs countries in different industries, such as India
(Raut et al., 2017), Brazil and China (Flynn et al., 2017).

2.2 SSCM practices

4 The definition of SSCM reveals that the firms improve their internal processes through
environmental and social practices ( for example, the production process), as well as improve
the supplier processes.
Nathalie et al. (2014) pointed out that environmental considerations have to be integrated
into corporate culture and business planning at all stages through design, manufacturing,
distribution, and disposal. In the literature, numerous articles examine the individual stage
impact (design, manufacturing, distribution and recycling) on environmental performance. For
example, Azzone and Noci developed an approach to evaluate the environmental performance
of new products. With respect to manufacturing processes, Rothenberg et al. and King and
Lenox studied the interaction between lean initiatives and environmental performance.
Regarding logistics, Quariguasi Frota Neto et al. developed a framework for the design and
evaluation of sustainable logistics networks in which profitability and environmental impacts
are balanced. Other authors have analyzed the economic impact of recycling programmers.
Increasing consumer awareness of products and manufacturing conditions compels
enterprises to adopt sustainable practices. Social sustainability in the supply chain has
received growing attention in the recent years due to growing awareness on equity, health
and safety, education, and bonded labor and ethical practices in corporate (David and
Svensson, 2015). Social sustainability practices in the supply chain have primarily
emphasized legislative and health and safety issues rather than cultural and ethical issues.
The social sustainability of the supply chain depends on individual companies, and a supply
chain often has many partner members, including manufactures and suppliers. Social
sustainability will help a firm to achieve a high level of benefits; otherwise may be adversely
affected by poor social responsibility management (David and Svensson, 2015).
SSCM is facing significant challenges because each separate individual among the supply
chain can affect the performance of other supply chain members. Supplier is the most
important external member which will affect the supply chain performance (Christian Busse
et al., 2016) and supplier’s environmental and social crisis has a profound impact on the
performance and reputation for the core enterprise. Core enterprise should extend the
management boundaries from internal to the vendor partner. The supplier monitor and
assessments system is particularly important. Firms have gradually realized that the firm
development strategy should extend from the traditional corporate management to
management for supply chain partners (Kytle and Ruggie, 2005). Research on the role of
environmental collaboration has mainly focused on its antecedents and performance
implications. Collaborative planning, forecasting, and replenishment systems help
organizations to easily overcome financial barriers, which lead to the successful
achievement of sustainability initiatives in supply chain.

2.3 Performance measures in implementing SSCM practices

The triple bottom line concept suggests that firms not only need to engage in supply chain
performance evaluation, but also in social- and environmental-related behaviors. SSCM
looks to improve environmental and social performance of companies in the supply chains.
Teuteberg and Wittstruck identified three dimensions of performance – environmental,
operational, and social – for SSCM (Zhu et al., 2005). Estimating economic performance can
be a more comprehensive index to evaluate the firms’ economic status in the industry.
Therefore, different from other studies focusing on SSCM for one or two of the operational,
environmental, and social performance practices, this paper aims to study a variety of Sustainable
environmental and CSR practices including internal and external management and their supply chain
impact on all dimensions of corporate sustainability performance. management
A recent review of literature on SSCM (Elcio and Wong, 2014) showed that few papers
consider all dimensions of sustainability simultaneously (economic, environmental and
social). However, there are relatively few research on the impact of external management on
firm economic, environmental, and social performance. Also, compared with the study in 5
Brazilian companies (Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2016) and Indian companies (Gawankar et al.,
2017), there is little research that specifies Chinese firms for empirical study.

3. Research framework and hypotheses

For the measurement of firms’ sustainable management practices, this paper illustrates the
internal management and external management and all dimensions of SSCM performance
analysis. Below are the hypotheses and research framework.

3.1 Internal management and firm performance

3.1.1 Internal environmental management practices and firm performance. Resource-based
view (RBV ) connects environmental practices and environmental performance. Empirical
studies such as Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Zhu et al. (2005), Beske and Seuring (2014) have
pointed out that the implementation of environmental practices (e.g. waste management,
environmental management systems, quality management, product design) could lead to
better environmental performance. Therefore, we assume that:
H1EE. Internal environmental management practices have a positive impact on firm
environmental performance.
Social sustainability focused on internal and external parts. Environmental management
practices could be expected to have a positive impact on both parts. For example, a clean
production line can decrease pollution emissions as well as change the working conditions
of employees and the community environment, and furthermore improve the firm social
reputation. Therefore, we assume that:
H1ES. Internal environmental management practices have a positive impact on firm
social performance.
Kassinis noted that the high investment of environmental protection activities will result in
poor economic performance. However, the literature of strategic research emphasizes
corporates and integrate environmental responsibility with the economic strategy, and thus
can reduce the use of resources and improve stakeholder relations and brand image which
can increase revenue. Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Zhu et al. (2005), and Rao and Holt (2005)
supported that environmental management practices positively impact economic
performance. At the firm level, the use of more environmentally friendly materials and
processes could improve production efficiency and reduce the use of resources, and
ultimately reduce production costs. Therefore, we assume that:
H1EF. Internal environmental management practices have a positive impact on firm
economic performance.
3.1.2 Internal social responsible management and firm performance. By CSR management,
employee involvement and training positively relate to environmental improvement
(Florida, 1996). Kolk (2016) argued that more CSR management involvement such as
internal staff and external communities can improve the public environment protection
awareness and firm environment performance. Based on the findings of Florida (1996) and
IMDS Marshall et al. (2005), we expect that the environmental performance driven by firm social
118,1 responsibility practices has been improved. Therefore, we assume that:
H1SE. Internal social responsible management practices have a positive impact on firm
environmental performance.
CSR management practices include two parts (internal staff and external communities). Both
6 internal ( for employee safety, working conditions) and external ( for community or the customer)
practices can improve firm social reputation and social performance. Therefore, we assume that:
H1SS. Internal social responsible management practices have a positive impact on firm
social performance.
Helen Walker (2012) argued that firms improve employee safety and working conditions
which can improve employee satisfaction and avoid accidents, and ultimately increase
productivity and reduce loss. Therefore, we expect firms implement social responsible
management to increase production efficiency. Therefore, we assume that:
H1SF. Internal social responsible management practices have a positive impact on firm
economic performance.

3.2 External supplier management and firm performance

For external management, there is a gap between supply chain theory and sustainable
practice (Bowen et al., 2001). With the development, more and more firms found out that
supplier is the most important external member which will affect the supply chain
performance (Christian Busse et al., 2016). In order to strengthen the supply chain
environmental protection and social responsibility values, many firms begin to establish the
supplier assessment system or suppliers partnership development.
3.2.1 Supplier monitor and assessment and firm performance. We will take the
transaction cost theory (TCT) and RBV to analyze the relationship between them.
According to TCT, transaction cost is a vital factor for transaction mode selection between
firms and suppliers. Transaction costs include direct costs from the relationship
management and potential opportunity costs from decisions management.
Some suppliers may exhibit unethical behavior in conducting environmental and social
responsibility or non-compliance with the law. In order to reduce the risk of such acts,
firms need to adopt costly supplier monitor management and assessment mechanisms.
Monitor practice focuses on assessing the actual supplier’s performance and monitors the
supplier potential unreasonable actions. Supplier may be required to report all safety
chemical storage components, or guarantee their operations in line with the SA8000
standard labor rights and so on. Monitor and assessment of a supplier regarding
environmental and social factors are important for supply chain. Gimenez pointed out that
monitor and assessment of a supplier have a positive effect on the environmental
performance. Therefore, we expect that firms use monitor and assessment methods to
reduce supplier risk, thereby improving environmental and social performance.
Therefore, we assume that:
H2ME. Supplier monitor and assessment have a positive impact on firm environmental
performance.
H2MS. Supplier monitor and assessment have a positive impact on firm social
performance.
3.2.2 Suppliers collaboration and firm performance. Suppliers collaboration could include
many levels such as operations, information, strategy, etc. (Lamming and Hampson, 1996).
Collaboration with the supplier stresses the mutual value rather than for a specific short- Sustainable
term task (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). According to RBV, valuable and scarce resources and supply chain
capacity bring competiveness to business which cannot be duplicated and bring intangible management
resources to corporate development (Hart, 1995). Carter and Rogers (2008) pointed out that
intangible resources, such as mutual learning and understanding of the nature and
customer, can promote the environmental performance.
Good supplier relationship will bring benefits to SSCM. Pagell et al. emphasized that 7
partnership will develop trust for each other and they will be more possibly involved in
social issue which brings sustainability. Therefore, we assume that:
H2CE. Suppliers collaboration has a positive impact on firm environmental
performance.
H2CS. Suppliers collaboration has a positive impact on firm social performance.
Gimenez Cristina and Sierra Vicenta (2013) pointed out that supplier assessment and
collaboration have a positive impact on economic performance. Monitor of suppliers and
supplier collaboration can help firms achieve higher production efficiency and lower
emission of waste. The fewer resources consumption may lower the production costs.
Therefore, we assume that:
H2MF. Supplier monitor and assessment have a positive impact on firm economic
performance.
H2CF. Suppliers collaboration has a positive impact on firm economic performance.

3.3 Interaction of firm performance

Firm environmental and social responsible activities are special resources for companies.
Compared with competitors, firms are better able to achieve energy conservation, the
environment protection, accidents avoided, as well as higher reputation status. These are
valuable resources and intangible assets for any organizations. Compared with their
competitors, firms that have a higher level of environmental performance and social
performance will have a higher status in the industry and higher satisfaction and loyalty for
customers and stakeholders, which is more cost-effective. Therefore, we assume that:
HEF. Environmental performance has a positive impact on economic performance.
HSF. Social performance has a positive impact on economic performance.
Based on the literature review and the above hypotheses as stated, Figure 1 outlines the
conceptual framework to be empirically tested in this research.

4. Methodology
4.1 Survey questionnaires and measures
The survey instrument used for this research has been built in accordance to the literature.
The questionnaire included multiple items for each of the employed constructs. Scales were
derived from the literature. They were marginally modified to accommodate environmental
and social aspects and to minimize the number of items belonging to each scale. Table AI
provides an overview of the questions employed by the instrument and the reference from
which measures were derived. Measures are discussed below.
Internal environmental management is a second-order variable, including eco-design
products, sustainable packaging, three sub-dimensions environmental protection
management. Product eco-design has been measured by a seven-item scale, reference
from Carter et al. (2000), Zhu et al. (2005) and Wantao Yu et al. (2014). Sustainable packaging
IMDS Internal Management
118,1
Firm Performance
Environmental
H1EE
Management
Environmental
H1EF H1SE Performance
H1ES

Social Responsible
8 Management H1SF HEF

H1SS
Economic
Performance
H2ME
H2MF

Supplier Monitor HSF

and Assessment H2MS
H2CE
H2CF Social
Performance
H2CS
Supplier
Collaboration
Figure 1.
Theoretical model External Management

products have been measured by a six-item scale, adopted from Dang and Chu (2016)
and Zailani et al. (2012). Environmental protection management has been measured by an
eight-item scale, adopted from Zhu et al. (2005) and Zsidisin and Hendrick (1998).
Internal social responsible management is a second-order variable, including human
rights and philanthropy. Human rights can be measured by a six-item scale, adopted from
Carter and Jennings (2002) and Emmelhainz and Adams (1999). Philanthropy can be
measured by a four-item scale, reference from Carter and Jennings (2002). Safety
management can been measured by a three-item scale, adopted from Carter et al. and
Zhu et al. (2005).
Supplier monitor and assessment is assessed by a nine-item scale measure. Similar metrics
are proposed and validated by literature from Krause et al. (2000) and Carter et al. (2000).
Supplier collaboration is assessed by an eight-item scale measure. Similar metrics are
proposed and validated by literature from Krause et al. (2000), Bowen et al. (2001) and
Claudia et al. (2016).
Firm sustainable performance includes three parts: economic performance,
environmental performance and social performance. Economic performance can be
measured by a six-item scale, adopted from De Giovanni et al. and Green et al.
Environmental performance can been measured by an eight-item scale, adopted from Daily
et al. (2007) and Zhu et al. Social performance can be measured by a six-item scale, adopted
from Kassinis and Soteriou (2003) and Gimenez et al. (2012).

4.2 Data collection

In order to ensure that SSCM initiatives had been adopted and implemented at the company
organizations level by respondent organizations, the sampled population was limited to
companies who had received ISO14001 and ISO9001 certification in China. Previous studies
show that experience in implementing ISO14001 and ISO9001scheme leads companies to
implement SSCM initiatives (Zhu et al., 2008; Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2015). Considering
this company focus, data were collected from a sample of operating-level managers working
for Chinese firms organizations. The instrument was pre-tested by experts in the
implementation of SSCM in China.
 Data were collected following a survey approach. We obtained an original sample of 670 Sustainable
firms (mainly manufacture and retail firms) located in Beijing, Tianjin, and the Yangtze supply chain
River Delta region randomly by the form of interviews or e-mail. A total of 172 companies management
provided useful and complete information for this research. The effective response rate was
25.7 percent (Peng and Lai, 2012), which was considered sufficient for studying the research
hypotheses. Characteristics of the distribution of the sample firms are shown in Table I.
In this paper, we use t-test to compare the two survey methods for the collection of 9
samples if there are differences in firm characteristics and the main variables, the results
show that the two methods of questionnaires were homogeneous and had no difference.

4.3 Data analysis

The hypotheses of the conceptual model were tested based on empirical data by means of
structural equation modeling (Peng and Lai, 2012) using partial least squares (Peng and Lai,
2012) with the support of the software Smart-PLS 2.0. Using Smart-PLS 2.0, the research

Characteristics %

Ownership
State owned 39.5
A private sector 26.2
A joint venture 12.8
A foreign direct investment enterprise 21.5
Number of employees
Less than 100 12.8
100-499 23.8
500-999 7.0
1,000-4,999 20.9
Not less than 5,000 35.5
Firm age (years)
Less than 10 18.0
10-19 33.2
20-29 24.4
Not less than 30 24.4
Annual sales volume (in millions, CNY)
Less than 5 5.2
5-9 4.1
10-49 6.4
50-99 11.0
100-299 12.8
Not less than 300 60.5
Industry type
Manufacture 62.8
Retail 25.6
others 11.6
Number of years the firm involved in SSCM initiatives
Not involved 33.7
Involved 66.3
Less than 1 4.7
1-2 9.9
3-4 14.5 Table I.
Not less than 5 37.2 Descriptive statistics
IMDS model was analyzed with partial least square-structural equation modeling approach
118,1 (Ringle et al., 2005).
The reason we choose PLS is because of its minimal demand measurement
scales, distribution assumptions and that it can test complex conceptual frameworks.
Structural equation modeling is a second-generation multivariate statistical analysis
method that has gained attention in the areas of green management and operations
10 management (Peng and Lai, 2012). The test of the conceptual model involves obtaining a
measurement model (outer model) and a structural model (inner model).

5. Research results
5.1 Measurement model
Many criteria were considered to guarantee the reliability and validity of our measures.
Composite reliability (CR) and Conbach’s α analyze the reliability of the measurement
scale. CR values of the variables in this study range from 0.8801 to 0.9678, Conbach’s α
values range from 0.8179 to 0.9649 (see Table II), which must be greater than the threshold
(0.70) recommended in the literature, indicating herein scale has good reliability degree level
(Peng and Lai, 2012).
Measures’ loadings with their respective construct and average variance extracted
(AVE) evaluate the convergent validity. In general, the index of factor loadings greater than
0.70 and significant at the 0.01 level indicates that the measurement has good convergent
validity. As shown in Table II, all indicators of factor loadings are greater than 0.70 and at
0.01 significance level, and AVE values are also higher than the recommended critical value
0.50, indicating that the measurement of this article has a very good convergent validity.
Concerning to discriminate validity, Table III shows that the correlations among the
different constructs in the lower left off-diagonal of the matrix are lower than the square
roots of the average variance extracted values calculated for each of the constructs along the
diagonal (i.e. diagonals elements). This testifies discriminate validity of our measures.

5.2 Structural model

The PLS structural model was assessed by examining the path coefficients and their
statistical significance. Then, bootstrapping was used to test the statistical significance of
model paths. This procedure entails generating 500 sub-samples of cases randomly selected
for replacement from the original data.
Results for tests of the propositions are shown in Figure 2.
The impact of internal environmental management on environmental performance and social
performance is positive and strongly significant, supporting H1EE and H1ES. The impact of
internal social responsible management on environmental performance and social performance
is positive and strongly significant, supporting H1SE and H1SS. The impact of supplier
collaboration on environmental performance is positive and significant, supporting H2CE.
Environmental performance and social performance are positively and significantly
related to economic performance, supporting HEF and HSF.
Table IV provides a synthetic overview of the research hypotheses.

6. Discussion
6.1 Internal sustainable management practices and firm performance
Internal environmental management practices have a positive impact on firm environmental
performance. Internal social responsible management practices have a positive influence on firm
environmental performance and social performance. The result shows that conducting internal
sustainable management in firms can effectively enhance firm environmental performance
and social performance. This is consistent with the findings of Teixeira et al. (2016a),
Items Loading t-valuea CR AVE α
Sustainable
supply chain
Eco-design (D1) management
D11 0.845 22.458 0.9493 0.7286 0.9369
D12 0.9145 49.2871
D13 0.89 23.9693
D14 0.9068 36.5778
D15 0.8719 21.361 11
D16 0.7461 9.3687
D17 0.7867 14.6337
Sustainable packaging (D2)
D21 0.8384 18.5315 0.936 0.7094 0.9175
D22 0.8536 20.9528
D23 0.9004 36.0235
D24 0.8423 17.2981
D25 0.8429 23.6541
D26 0.7709 13.121
Environmental protect management (D3)
D31 0.9072 41.9393 0.9597 0.7488 0.9518
D32 0.9049 45.2893
D33 0.8662 21.4662
D34 0.8877 30.2173
D35 0.8577 26.8876
D36 0.7918 16.6436
D37 0.8548 23.4875
D38 0.8469 18.4869
Human rights (D4)
D41 0.6851 8.4047 0.8801 0.6498 0.8179
D42 0.6125 12.1311
D43 0.7557 10.472
D44 0.8807 30.7813
D45 0.8852 34.0211
Philanthropy (D5)
D51 0.8664 18.0319 0.9438 0.8077 0.9201
D52 0.9379 52.417
D53 0.9204 43.1974
D54 0.868 25.319
Safety (D6)
D61 0.9016 28.3053 0.9376 0.8336 0.9002
D62 0.9193 17.6733
D63 0.918 23.8324
Supplier monitor and assessment (E8)
E81 0.8878 31.5104 0.9624 0.7408 0.9555
E82 0.8493 22.0073
E83 0.8944 22.7594
E84 0.9256 56.0978
E85 0.8743 34.125
E86 0.8316 20.6022
E87 0.7061 10.6667
E88 0.889 24.7266
E89 0.8696 23.4068
Table II.
Summary of
(continued ) measurement scales
IMDS Items Loading t-valuea CR AVE α
118,1
Supplier collaboration (E9)
E91 0.8695 25.6988 0.964 0.7701 0.9571
E92 0.8068 16.5679
E93 0.8701 26.3465
12 E94 0.8753 31.1731
E95 0.9067 34.7373
E96 0.8364 18.2737
E97 0.9275 59.9202
E98 0.9212 56.8551
Economic performance (F1)
F11 0.8697 30.1607 0.9459 0.7459 0.93
F12 0.8656 30.4593
F13 0.7041 9.2415
F14 0.891 35.7084
F15 0.9086 50.2129
F16 0.9243 53.7611
Environmental performance (F2)
F21 0.8923 32.7809 0.9597 0.7732 0.9509
F22 0.8625 24.9829
F23 0.8981 38.5215
F24 0.9288 58.0511
F25 0.8552 26.4216
F26 0.8709 27.2988
F28 0.8443 21.2361
Social performance (F3)
F31 0.8602 23.4971 0.9572 0.7886 0.9462
F32 0.8884 34.4632
F33 0.8364 17.6448
F34 0.9179 40.9296
F35 0.9172 43.7189
F36 0.9051 37.1658
Internal environmental managementa
D1 0.9198 49.9889 0.9678 0.5895 0.9649
D2 0.8671 27.6682
D3 0.902 30.9083
Internal social responsible managementa
D4 0.8233 14.6853 0.9183 0.5084 0.9015
D5 0.8558 25.0402
D6 0.7677 14.121
Table II. Note: aSecond-order variable

Zhu et al. (2010) and Shradha Ashok Gawankar et al. (2017). Firms carry out the environmental
management practices to enhance environmental performance and social responsible
management practices to enhance social performance directly. Meanwhile they have a cross
impact through environmental management to improve the working conditions of employees
and to enhance product image and corporate reputation, which promote firm social
performance. And social responsible management enhances corporate responsibility and
awareness of the employee and external communities, which have a positive impact on
environmental aspects in green procurement and product packaging design, which improve the
environmental performance.
 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E8 E9 F1 F2 F3
Sustainable
supply chain
D1 0.8536 management
D2 0.7618 0.8423
D3 0.7228 0.6429 0.8653
D4 0.4786 0.3792 0.4987 0.8061
D5 0.5368 0.4684 0.5717 0.5591 0.8987
D6 0.5133 0.5433 0.5477 0.4936 0.4534 0.9130 13
E8 0.605 0.5951 0.626 0.5469 0.6326 0.4104 0.8607
E9 0.5524 0.5227 0.5706 0.3841 0.5512 0.2931 0.7822 0.8776
F1 0.4769 0.467 0.524 0.3891 0.4715 0.4966 0.4726 0.4591 0.8637
F2 0.593 0.5625 0.656 0.5071 0.5791 0.5392 0.5916 0.5684 0.7138 0.8793
F3 0.5052 0.4889 0.5583 0.4744 0.472 0.5404 0.469 0.4075 0.6721 0.7887 0.8880
Notes: The square root of the AVE is reported on the diagonal. The latent construct correlations are reported Table III.
off-diagonals Constructs validity

Firm Performance

Environmental
Performance
Internal Management External Management
0.333*** 0.003ns
0.381**
Environmental 0.345*** 0.206* Supplier Monitor
Management and Assessment
0.047ns 0.041ns
Economic
Performance 0.093ns
0.084ns
Social Responsible Supplier
Management 0.310** 0.025ns Collaboration
0.383*** 0.267*
0.036ns

Social
Performance
Figure 2.
PLS structural
model results
Notes: **p<0.05; ***p<0.01

Research hypothesis Description Result

H1EF Internal environmental management – economic performance Not supported

H1EE Internal environmental management – environmental performance Supported
H1ES Internal environmental management – social performance Supported
H1SF Internal social responsible management – economic performance Not supported
H1SE Internal social responsible management – environmental performance Supported
H1SS Internal social responsible management – social performance Supported
H2MF Supplier monitor and assessment – economic performance Not supported
H2ME Supplier monitor and assessment – environmental performance Not supported
H2MS Supplier monitor and assessment – social performance Not supported
H2CF Supplier collaboration – economic performance Not supported
H2CE Supplier collaboration – environmental performance Supported
H2CS Supplier collaboration – social performance Not Supported
HEF Environmental performance – economic performance Supported Table IV.
HSF Social performance – economic performance Supported Research hypotheses

The internal environmental management and social responsible management practice have
no direct effect on firm economic performance. The adoption of sustainable practices
associated with clean energy consumption, waste treatment, waste discharge, employee
training and so on, needs large sum of investment at the first stage so it may have no direct
IMDS impact on firm economic performance which is in line with the result from Brazilian/Indian
118,1 context or other emerging economy (Chiappetta Jabbour, 2015; Gawankar et al., 2017). While
according to RBV, the internal environmental management and social responsible
management practice do goods to the valuable resource acquisition and accumulation for
the corporate. The government can send the subsidies or other economic incentives and
exempt firm from taxes for the promotion of SSCM at the first stage.
14
6.2 Sustainable supplier management practices and firm performance
Supplier collaboration has a positive impact on firm environmental performance.
This suggests that, to some extent, collaboration could improve firm environmental
performance, but it is only a weak support for the result. Through collaboration with
suppliers, firms can reduce transaction costs and gain valuable technical resources to have a
comparative advantage in the performance environment. Supplier collaboration had no
significant direct impact on firm social performance. This may be explained by the current
business development process and status. Compared with social responsibility, firms are
more concerned about environmental collaboration with suppliers for technology and
process improvements.
Supplier monitor and assessment have no significant direct impact on firm performance.
Supplier monitor and assessment can be executed by regular supplier visiting, supplier
assessment, etc. The purpose is to reduce the supplier risk which is good for supplier
development and improvement which will directly affect the supplier behavior and
performance. In other words, firms through monitor and assessment of suppliers directly
have an impact on the supplier performance, but this investment in suppliers not directly
affects their firm performance which has also been discussed in Gimenez. Luthra Sunil
argued that the external Supplier monitor and assessment practices can enhance supplier
performance which, in turn, enhances firm performance. And Christian Busse et al. (2016)
argued that strategic supplier collaboration is acute for the success of SSCM, and is
considered as one of the drivers of SSCM.

6.3 Environmental performance, social performance and economic performance

Both environmental performance and social performance have a positive impact on
economic performance. The conclusion shows that the firms have good environmental and
social performance, which will enable firms to have more economic benefits. Environmental
and social performance level could be regarded as the intangible assets for the firm, which
represents a good sense of behavior standard and reputation in the industry.
These intangible assets will also promote the customers and public satisfaction which
bring the economic benefits to the firm. Based on RBV, the firms’ accumulation of intangible
assets is necessary which enhance the environmental performance and social performance,
while often ignored by the short-sighted firms.
Although the internal environmental management and social responsible management
practices have no direct effect on firm economic performance, they influence environmental
performance and social performance which influence economic performance indirectly.
They enhance environmental performance and social performance, and then enhance the
economic benefits.

7. Conclusions and future work

7.1 Conclusions and managerial implications
This paper aims to study a variety of environmental and CSR practices and the impact on
firms performance from all dimensions.
 Based on RBV and TCT, SSCM practices should contribute to firm performance. Sustainable
Through the survey, we analyze the data from 172 Chinese firms, SSCM practices include supply chain
the four dimensions: internal environmental management practices and social responsibility management
management practices, external supplier monitor and assessment and suppliers
collaboration which have different impacts on the three dimensions of firm performance:
economic performance, environmental performance, and social performance.
By strengthening internal environmental management and social responsibility 15
management, firms can improve environmental performance and social performance;
firms working closely with suppliers can promote corporate environmental performance; the
continuous improvement of environmental performance and social performance will
improve the economic performance ultimately. This paper reveals how SSCM practices
influence firm performance. In the long run, SSCM has an important significance for the
promotion of economic performance, environmental performance and social performance
which constructs the competitive advantages for the firm.
This study has significant managerial implications for Chinese firms and potentially for
other developing countries. First of all, firms need to understand the potential positive
impact that SSCM practices can have on different dimensions of performance consequently
and should be more pro-active in their adoption of such practices. Firms should strengthen
environmental management such as recycle product design, fewer emission, recyclable
packaging materials and the implementation of ISO14001. Also, firms should strengthen
social responsibility management such as the employee right protection, healthy and safe
working environment for employees, more staff career development opportunities, good
social welfare and public welfare, and less or no operations accidents. By these practices,
firms can improve environmental performance and social performance which will further
improve the economic performance.
Second, firms should recognize that enhancing environmental performance and social
performance is a process which takes time to accumulate intangible assets, and should not
be so anxious. Firms cannot pursue the economic interests while ignoring environmental
and social responsibility which will sacrifice its corporate image and reputation. For the
sustainable development, firms should strengthen environmental and social responsibility
management in the long run which is conducive to their own development and to the natural
environment.
Finally, organizations need to be aware that internal SSCM practices and external SSCM
practices are integrated. The external SSCM practices may not have a direct impact on firms
performance but it will improve the supplier performance which, in turn, bring economic
benefits to the firm. Strategic supplier collaboration is acute for the success of SSCM.

7.2 Research limitations and future research

This study has some limitations, which can be improved in future research. First, we studied
the four dimensions of SSCM practices about a direct influence on firm performance in three
dimensions economic, environmental and social performance. The model did no not consider
the moderator variables and control variables. Future studies of the conceptual model will
add new variables into the mechanism of SSCM practices, to further refine the findings.
For example, for different industries (such as the food industry and the automotive
industry), the impact of SSCM practices to business performance may differ; different stages
of development may have different results; Second, SSCM were divided into two aspects
practices: the internal management and external management. The relationship between the
two aspects was not studied. Further analysis of the influences between internal
management and external management will be carried out. Finally, in this paper’s
questionnaire, the collected data only reflected the firms’ current situation. The different
corporate stages for implementation of SSCM process and the respondent’ potential biases
IMDS in SSCM were never considered in the survey. Future research could consider using
118,1 time-series data or panel data to explore dynamic change at different SSCM stages.
Reducing the respondents’ subjective factors and bias and carrying a more comprehensive
survey for wider sample will be a future work.

16
References
Beske, P. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Putting sustainability into supply chain management”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 322-331.
Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Faruk, A. (2001), “The role of supply management capabilities
in green supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 174-189.
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), “Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 145-180.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.
Carter, C.R., Kale, R. and Grimm, C.M. (2000), “Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an
empirical investigation”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. (2015), “Environmental training and environmental management maturity of
Brazilian companies with ISO14001: empirical evidence”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96
No. 1, pp. 331-338.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Jugend, D. and Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. (2015), “Green product
development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and technical
aspects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 442-451.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. and Govindan, K. (2016), “Barriers to the
adoption of green operational practices at Brazilian companies: effects on green and operational
performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 3042-3058.
Christian Busse, M.C., Schleper, M.N. and Stephan, M.W. (2016), “Supplier development for
sustainability: contextual barriers in global supply chains”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 442-468.
Claudia, N., Lasch, R. and Kellner, F. (2016), “Integrating sustainability into strategic supplier portfolio
selection”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 194-221.
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J. and Steiner, R. (2007), “The mediating role of EMS teamwork as it pertains to HR
factors and perceived environmental performance”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 95-109.
Dang, S. and Chu, L. (2016), “Evaluation framework and verification for sustainable container
management as reusable packaging”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1949-1955.
David, E. and Svensson, G. (2015), “Elements affecting social responsibility in supply chains”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 561-566.
Eduardo Ortas, J.M. and Moneva, I.Á. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain and company performance:
a global examination”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 332-350.
Elcio, M.T. and Wong, C.Y. (2014), “Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains:
a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19
Nos 5/6, pp. 643-663.
Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, New Society
Publishers, StoneyCreek, CT.
Emmelhainz, M.A. and Adams, R.J. (1999), “The apparel industry response to ‘sweat-shop’ concerns: a Sustainable
review and analysis of codes of conduct”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, supply chain
pp. 51-57.
management
Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 80-105.
Flynn, A., Chan, K.W. and Zhu, Z.H. (2017), “Sustainability, space and supply chains: the role of
bamboo in anji county, China”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 128-139. 17
Gawankar, S.A., Kamble, S. and Raut, R. (2017), “An investigation of the relationship between supply
chain management practices (SCMP) on supply chain performance measurement (SCPM) of
Indian retail chain using SEM”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 257-295.
Gimenez, C. and Sierra, V. (2013), “Sustainable supply chains: governance mechanisms to greening
suppliers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 189-203.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012), “Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom
line”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 149-159.
Gosling, J., Jia, F. and Gong, Y. (2017), “The role of supply chain leadership in the learning of
sustainable practice: toward an integrated framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140
No. SI, pp. 239-250.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Kassinis, G.I. and Soteriou, A.C. (2003), “Greening the service profit chain: the impact of environmental
management practice”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 386-403.
Kolk, A. (2016), “The social responsibility of international business: from ethics and the environment to
CSR and sustainable development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Kovacs, G. (2008), “Corporate environmental responsibility in the supplychain”, Journal of
CleanerProduction, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1571-1578.
Krause, D., Scannell, T. and Calantone, R. (2000), “A structural analysis of the effectiveness of buying
firms’strategies to improve supplier performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Kytle, B. and Ruggie, J.G. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management, John F.
KennedySchool of Government, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as a supply chain management issue”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. S1, pp. S45-S62.
Marshall, R.S., Cordano, M. and Silverman, M. (2005), “Exploring individual and institutional drivers of
proactive environmentalism”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-109.
Nathalie, F.-C., Roussat, C., Taylor, M. and Taylor, A. (2014), “Sustainable supply chains: a framework
for environmental scanning practices”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 664-694.
Pagell, M. and Gobeli, D. (2009), “How plant managers’experiences and attitudes toward sustainability
relate to operational performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 278-299.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research:
a practical guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 467-480.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,
pp. 898-916.
Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B. and Gardas, B.B. (2017), “To identify the critical success factors of sustainable
supply chain management practices in the context of oil and gas industries: ISM approach”,
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
IMDS Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS, Release 2.0 (beta), SmartPLS, Hamburg,
118,1 available at: www. smartpls.de
Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.
Teixeira, A.A., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. and Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. (2016a), “Green training and
green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
18 Vol. 116 No. 10, pp. 170-176.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of
upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Walker, H. and Jones, N. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Wan Nurul Karimah, W.A., Marisa, P., de Brito, L. and Tavasszy, A. (2016), “Sustainable supply chain
management in the oil and gas industry: a review of corporate sustainability reporting
practices”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1423-1444.
Wantao, Y., Chavez, R., Feng, M. and Wiengarten, F. (2014), “Integrated green supply chain
management and operational performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 683-696.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain
management in Malaysia: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 330-340.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Hendrick, T.E. (1998), “Purchasing’s involvement in environmental issues:
a multi-country perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 98 No. 7, pp. 313-320.

Further reading
De Oliveira Neto, G.C., Vendrametto, O. and Naas, I.A. (2016), “Environmental impact reduction as a
result of cleaner production implementation: a case study in the truck industry”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 129 No. 8, pp. 681-692.
Sharma, V.K., Chandna, P. and Bhardwaj, A. (2017), “Green supply chain management related
performance indicators in agro industry: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141
No. 10, pp. 1194-1208.
Teixeira, A.A., Chiappetta, J., Charbel, J., Lopes de Sousa, J. and Beatriz, A. (2016b), “Green training and
green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 116 No. 10, pp. 170-176.
Appendix Sustainable
supply chain
management
Construct Variables Items Adapted from

Internal Environmental Eco-design (D1) Carter et al.

management management (D11) Using a life cycle analysis to evaluate the (2000), 19
environmental friendliness of products Zhu et al. (2005),
(D12) Design of products for choosing less impact on the Wantao Yu
environment of raw materials et al. (2014)
(D13) Design of products for reducing the use of raw
materials or energy
(D14) Design of products for reducing emissions of
production processes
(D15) Design of products for recycling or reuse
(D16) Design of products for disassembly
(D17) Establishing the recycle system
of waste products
Sustainable packaging (D2) Dang and Chu
(D21) Materials healthy in all probable end-of-life (2016), Zailani
scenarios et al. (2012)
(D22) Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source
materials
(D23) Using clean production technologies and best
practices
(D24) Packaging meets environmental standards
(D25) Eco-labeling of products packaging
(D26) Minimize the use of packaging materials
Environmental protect management (D3) Zhu et al. (2005),
(D31) Commitment of production from senior managers Zsidisin and
(D32) Support for protection from mid-level managers Hendrick (1998)
(D33) Cross-functional collaboration for environmental
improvement
(D34) Promotion and implementation of environmental
laws and regulations
(D35) Setting environmental protection and
environmental monitoring agencies
(D36) ISO 14001 certification
(D37) Regular inspection and maintenance of
environmental protection facilities and equipment
(D38) Environmental laws and regulations for staff
education and publicity to raise environmental
awareness
Social Human rights (D4) Carter and
responsible (D41) We strictly comply with labor laws, no child labor Jennings (2002),
management (D42) We pay a “living wage” greater than a country’s or Emmelhainz
region’s minimum wage and Adams
(D43) We provide employees with (1999)
the safety and occupational health
working conditions
(D44) We do career planning for staff development
(D45) We provide opportunities for continuing education
for employees
Philanthropy (D5) Carter and
Jennings (2002)
Table AI.
Research constructs
(continued ) and variables
IMDS Construct Variables Items Adapted from
118,1
(D51) We often donate to Philanthropic organizations
(D52) We often volunteer at local charities
(D53) We support the local educational and cultural
development
(D54) We promote corporate social responsibility in the
20 industry
Safety (D6) Carter et al., Zhu
(D61) We provide customers with safe product et al. (2005)
(D62) We ensure the safe, incoming movement of product
to our facilities
(D63) We ensure our locations are operated in a safe
manner
External Supplier (E81) We consider environmental and social responsible Krause et al.
management monitor and aspects in supplier selection (2000), Carter
assessment (E82) We require suppliers to achieve environmental and et al. (2000)
(E8) social responsible certification
(E83) We provide the formal request in environmental and
social responsible aspects to suppliers
(E84) We perform environmental audits for suppliers’
internal management systems
(E85) We visit our suppliers’ plants to ensure that they are
not using sweatshop labor, comply with child labor
laws
(E86) We ask suppliers to pay a “living wage” greater than
a country’s or region’s minimum wage
(E87) We ask suppliers to operate in a safe manner and
provide safe products
(E88) We sent questionnaires of environmental and social
responsible aspects to suppliers to monitor their
compliance
(E89) The environmental and social responsible aspects
relevant assessment results as the basis for rewards
and quality improvement
Supplier (E91) We provide training/education on environmental Krause et al.
collaboration technology, product quality to suppliers’ personnel (2000), Bowen
(E9) (E92) We provide financial support for suppliers update et al. (2001),
environmental equipment and development of new Claudia
technologies Neumüller et al.
(E93) We participate in the design and development of
environmentally friendly products
(E94) We make joint efforts with suppliers to reduce waste
(E95) We provide training/education to suppliers’ personnel
(E96) We make joint efforts with suppliers to enhance
personnel value and confidence
(E97) We make joint efforts with suppliers to participate
philanthropy
(E98) We work together in environmental and social
responsible management field to plan, forecast and
solve problems
Firm Economic (F11) Improvement in market share De Giovanni
performance performance (F12) Improvement in profit and Esposito
(F1) (F13) Reducing environmental damage caused by the Vinzi, Green
accident et al.

Table AI. (continued )

Construct Variables Items Adapted from
Sustainable
supply chain
(F14) Improvement in return on assets management
(F15) Improvement in return on sales
(F16) Improvement in return on investment
Environmental (F21) Reduction in air emission/waste water/solid waste Daily et al.
performance (F22) Decrease in consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic (2007), Zhu et al.
(F2) materials 21
(F23) Reduction in energy consumption
(F24) Decrease in frequency for environmental accidents
(F25) Improvement in the compliance to environmental
standards
(F26) Improvement in the ability of reuse/recycle
(F28) Improve a firm’s environmental situation
Social (F31) Reduction in the impacts and risks to general public Kassinis and
performance (F32) Improvement in occupational health and safety Soteriou (2003),
(F3) of employees Gimenez et al.
(F33) Providing more positions in community (2012)
(F34) Improvement in product image
(F35) Improvement in firm’s image in the eyes of customers
(F36) Improvement in firm’s social reputation Table AI.

Corresponding author
Jing Wang can be contacted at: wangjingjob2010@126.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.