CHAPTER -2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The accelerating growth of human society, industries and the businesses around the world has

leads to many environmental problems like depletion of natural resources, depletion of the ozone

layer, global warming, deforestation, erosions, biological imbalance etc. One of the most

prominent risks faced by the organizations in the present scenario is sustainability risk.

Sustainability risk refers to increasing vulnerability across the chain due to the negative impacts

of global sourcing on economic, social and environmental sustainability. The pollution caused by

the organizations’ supply chains have become the main cause behind these serious environmental

problems. Ineffective reverse logistics practices, under-utilized transportation, waste generation,

long distances between suppliers and manufacturers are a few of the reasons which increase the

negative impacts of sourcing activities on the environment, and can lead to pollution and

emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 etc. (Christopher, Mena, Khan & Oznur Yurt,

2010).This calls for the integrating environment management practices into supply-chain

management as well as SCM research.

In early days of environmental management systems the role of operating managers was limited

to some specific activities. Individual functional Managers had responsibility for ensuring

environmental excellence in product development, process design, operations, logistics,

marketing, regulatory compliance and waste management etc. Today, this has changed; it has

become clear that the best practices call for integration of environmental management with

ongoing operations. Day by day the number of Organizations contemplating the integration of

environmental practices into their strategies and operations is continuously increasing .Thus

taking account of ecological and social aspects, the Supply Chain Management (SCM) is

transforming into Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). The Green supply chain

Management is also being refereed as Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Green Supply

Chain Management (GSCM) is the term that refers to the way in which organizational

innovations and policies in supply chain management respond to the need for a more sustainable

environment (Srivastava, 2007).

The new concept of green supply chain management has added an environmentally conscious

mindset to supply chain management and has been introduced into many final manufacturing

processes (Hervani, Helms & Sarkis, 2005). The emphasis of GSCM research could be on

comparing waste management approaches by supply chain members, evaluating supply chain

green practices from a customer satisfaction perspective, and identifying the

resources/capabilities required in developing an integrated environmentally-friendly supply chain

strategy (Srivastava, 2007; Darnall et al., 2008). Within the sphere of external regulatory

environment, green standards can be further explored, as new standards have emerged during

recent years, with an increasing number of firms adopting them. Specifically, some areas that

could be explored include: identification of strategic motivations for the adoption of green

standards, exploration of consumer attitudes towards certified versus non-certified products, and

environmental or financial performance comparisons (Bansal and Hunter, 2003).

The development of green supply chain management originated from that of supply chain

management. Since proposed in the late 1980s of supply chain management, the relevant

academic researches about it focused on how to optimize and coordinate the whole supply chain,

and maximize the potential performance of supply chain. But it ignores the negative effects to

the environment during the process of implementing, such as resource exhaustion, ecological

destruction and environmental degradation and a series of problems, which exactly restrict the

further rational development of supply chain management. Developing green supply chain

management is the key to solve this problem, namely, increase the consideration of environment

factors in supply chain management. The green supply chain management was first

systematically put forwarded by the manufacturing research association (MRC) of Michigan

State University. This association engaged in a research of “Environmental Responsible for

Manufacturing (ERM)” and proposed the concept of green supply chain management in 1996,

which was defined as a “based on green manufacturing theory and supply chain management

technology, involving suppliers, manufacturers, distributors and consumers, to minimize the

impact to environment and maximize the resource efficiency during the whole process of

product’s material acquisition, processing, packing, transportation, use and scrap. Adding the

‘green’ concept to the ‘supply chain’ concept adds a new paradigm where the supply chain will

have a direct relation to the environment (Srivastava, 2007).

Green supply chain management (GSCM) has become an important research focus. It is owing to

the growing pressure from governments, institutions, and consumers. In recent years the topic of

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has received growing attention and has become an

increasingly popular research area. Interdisciplinary research has integrated the efforts of

management, engineering and social sciences to investigate and research the issues relevant to

this topic. Previous researchers have approached GSCM from diverse disciplinary and

theoretically different angles. These include such diverse areas as re-engineering, management,

logistics, network analysis, human resources, and GSCM performance measurement (Sarkis,

2003). These approaches have a different view on the field of GSCM and therefore define it in

different ways. Since the field still in its emergent stage, an extensive literature review was done

on the discipline and underlying topics that are nurturing this emerging academic and practice

field (e.g., supply chain management, sustainability and environmental operational initiatives,

green designing, green manufacturing, reverse logistics, etc.). There are many corporate and

industrial environmental philosophies and practices that are closely linked to and support green

supply chain management that have also been a focus of significant research, practice, and

application. Some of these practices and research has been discussed here in brief in reference to

relate the GSCM Research with the other environmental management philosophies developed.

Literature review methods have two special functions: First, it facilitates the generation of ideas

for research and summarizing existing research by indicating patterns, themes and issues.

Therefore, literature review method offers a starting point for research [M. Easterby-Smith, R.

Thorpe, A. Lowe, Management Research – An Introduction, Sage Publications, London, 2002].

Second, literature review can be deemed as an important part for thought organization of

conceptual and empirical works [Brewerton, L. Millward, Organisational Research Methods,

Sage, London, 2001]. In order to implement GSCM practices successfully, a company needs to

know exactly what GSCM is. Thus, the literature review starts with a GSCM Concepts and

practices deduced from the vast literature. Then it reviews why it is important for companies to

introduce GSCM, followed by a description of current GSCM practices in manufacturing

industries and GSCM implementation in Indian industries.

As for the green supply chain management, according to the results of the traditional literature

review method, the contents of green supply chain management related papers include the

following parts 1)Case-based and conceptual-based papers are mostly published, but are lack of

the theoretical application in wider literature on supply chain management. (2)Environmental

aspects are dominant issues in these papers. Social issues and integrative debates of sustainable

aspects are neglected, while these papers emphasize technical issues of solving specific

environmental problems such as introducing greener or cleaner production and related

managerial systems or measures. Other issues, such as environmental management systems,

especially ISO 14001, also play a major role in some papers. Green supply chinas (Zhu and

Sarkis, 2006), environmental supply chain management (Lee, 2008), green supply chain

management (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Srivastava, 2007), and sustainable supply chain

management (Vasileiou and Morris, 2006; Svensson, 2007) have sought to address this issue and

captured increased interest among researchers and practitioners.A few review papers (e.g.

Srivastava, 2007; Seuring, 2004) and some books (e.g.Zhu & Sarkis, 2006) have commented on

the growth in the field of Green supply chains. A number of special issues have also appeared

showing wider acceptance of Green supply chain research. In this paper, greening a supply chain

mainly focuses on the integration of environmental issues into supply chain management while

other wider aspects such as social issues, that can be important future research directions, are

excluded. Motivations for greening a supply chain, supplier management for risks and

performance, and supply chain management for green products can be identified as three major

research directions in Green Supply Chains (Seuring, 2004). External pressures and internal

incentives can trigger focal companies to implement Green Supply chain management practices.

(Zhu and Sarkis, 2007).

Several concrete approaches used in implementing GSCM initiatives are introduced. The

literature review here focuses upon books, edited volumes and journal articles only. The research

has been traced out from 1990 from when the beginning of the Green Supply Chain Management

research is ascertained. Library databases were used where a keyword search using some most

important keywords such as ‘green supply chain management’, ‘remanufacturing’, ‘green

designing’, ‘green procurement’, ‘Reverse Logistics’, ‘Eco design’, ‘waste management’, ‘Green

Management’ , ‘sustainable supply chain management were conducted. We had used the

published literature from 1990 onwards to go back to other papers by cross referencing. As the

published literature is interlinked to a considerable degree, one paper leads to others. The

research material is then analyzed according to the classification context. This helps in

identification of relevant issues and the interpretations of the results. In order to develop

greening approaches as a competitive initiative, various elements have been suggested, including

sets of actions for various players along the chain, as well as, measures of success. Much

research still has to be done to support the evolution in business practice towards greening along

the entire supply chain (Remko I. van Hoek, 1999). While the cost of revisiting programs from

an environmental and focused rules perspective can initially be cumbersome, the longer term

benefits have the potential to enable organizations to contribute to broader global environmental

concerns, develop sustainable green commitments and support the new and emerging era of

environmental stewardship, which will protect the environment, while also mitigating costs from

both bottom line and human needs.

Literature review on GSCM reveals that there are several researches that involved green,

environmental or sustainable concepts to traditional supply chain management, and extended

GSCM issues included GSCM practices, definitions and decision framework (e.g. Sarkis, 2003;

Zhu & Sarkis, 2004; Hervani, Helm and Sarkis, 2005). However, most above studies emphasized

reduction, remanufacturing, recycling in product design, process design, green manufacturing

practices, and green procurement. Few studies emphasized how to develop GSCM strategies

from overall organizational perspective. This Literature review is different parts. The Initial part

of the review contains the basics fundamental and review of research on Green Supply Chain

Management. The understanding and definitions of Supply Chain Management and evolution of

Green Supply Chain Management and GSCM practices is discussed. The next part of Literature

discusses the various drivers and motivational factors effecting organizations to adopt green

Supply Chain Management Practices. Following part of the review includes the various GSCM

practice. The Literature then discusses the various broad parameters of Green Supply Chain

Performance and its relation with Competitive Advantage. The chapter will then conclude that

there is a gap in the literature in terms of application of green supply chain management (GSCM)

in some specific industries.

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Stevens (1989) has defined supply chain management as the integration of business functions

involving the flow of materials and information from inbound to outbound ends of the business.

Supply chain management has traditionally been viewed as a process wherein raw materials are

converted into final products, then delivered to the end-consumer (Beamon, 1999).The Council

of Logistics Management (CLM) defines Supply Chain Management as the strategic

coordination of the core functions and tactics across these functions within a specific

organization and across its partners within the supply chain for the purposes of improving the

long-term performance of the individual organizations and the supply chain as a whole.

Supply chain management (SCM) is the integrated planning, co-ordination and control of all

business processes and activities in the supply chain to deliver superior consumer value at

minimum cost to the end-consumer while satisfying requirements of other stakeholders (Vander

Vorst and Beulens, 2002). Supply chain management is a continually evolving field, relying on

breaking down internal and external organizational barriers to gain efficiencies and improve end-

to-end customer support. An emerging area in supply chain practice is green supply chain

management, which integrates Environmental management with traditional supply chain

management. The increasing importance of environmental management issues in business

requires operations and supply chain managers to reevaluate their actions because of the link

between supply chain activities and a company’s total environmental impact (Handfield, Walton,

Seegers, Melnyk, 1997).Therefore, in order to meet the challenges of energy conservation,

pollution abatement, waste reduction, etc., firms should also consider their supplier’s

environmental performance. Consequently, in order to reduce the environmental risks passed on

through suppliers (Handfield Stroufe,Walton, 2005), firms are trying to green their supply

management activities which ultimately enable them to purchase environmentally superior

products as well as build common approaches to waste reduction and operational efficiencies.

Thus GSCM is becoming an integral part of an environmentally conscious firm (Bowen et al.,

2001). Green supply chain management (GSCM) has emerged as a key strategy and approach for

enterprises obtaining international competitive power and realizing sustainable development.

(Fenyun Zheng, 2010) GSCM combines supplier, manufacturer, seller and user together to

realize green design, green purchase, green manufacturing, green logistics and green

consumption.

What exactly is Green Supply-Chain Management?

A supply chain is a global network of organizations that cooperate to improve the flows of

material and information between suppliers and customers. As a consequence of the growing

interest in the environment, many firms established integrated relationships with their suppliers

and customers to design “green” products (Richards, 1994). Green supply chain (GSC) is a

method to design and/or redesign the supply chain that incorporates recycling and

remanufacturing into the production process. This involves in minimization of firm’s total

environmental impact from start to finish of the supply chain and also from beginning to end of

the product life cycle (Beamon, 1999). The method considers both strategic and operational

issues, including inventory control and purchasing policies due to the uncertain timing, quality

and quantity of recyclable material ,disassembly planning for material recovery (Gupta, Brennan

and Taleb, 1994), and the number and location of collection facilities, collection procedures and

customer incentives (Beamon, 1999).

GSCM is one of the more popular emerging corporate environmental management topics that

have arisen over the past decade. There are a number of researchers studying GSCM. Adding the

‘green’ component to supply-chain management involves relationships between supply-chain

management and the natural environment. The beginning of GSCM in literature can extend back

to the early 1990’s with the advent of environmentally conscious manufacturing strategy,

corporate environmental management, and supply chain management literature. The first in

depth study on green supply chain was in late 1990’s.Handfeild & Nichols (1999) studied the

definition and connotation of green supply chain, Min & Galle (1997) studied the motives and

decision—making mechanism of green purchasing, Sarkis (1998) studied indicators system of

green supply chain. Among the above scholars, Sarkis (1998), Bermen (1999), Handfeild &

Nichols (1999) studied green supply chain as a whole; they promoted maturity of green supply

chain management theory. In India, the research of green supply chain has just began, research

results are mainly focused on concept and content of green supply chain management, general

pattern of green supply chain managementand basic principles of green supply chain

management(Wang Yingluo & Wang Nengmin,2003). Green supply chain management is

aiming at promoting the sustainable development of society and the enterprise, and achieving

optimization of system environment through collaboration between enterprises. Therefore, the

enterprise must pay attention to the source of supply chain, emphasizes on the green strategy

collaboration with the partner, fully implement the green purchasing (Dan， Songzheng, &

Weiyang, 2009).A range of aspects on GSCM studies have been covered, including drivers

and/or pressures for GSCM. The literature has ranged from empirical studies to modeling the

behavior of GSCM including such topics as green purchasing, eco-design, remanufacturing,

disassembly, product stewardship, and reverse logistics. The definition and scope of GSCM in

the literature has ranged from green purchasing to integrated green supply chains from supplier

to manufacturer to customer, and even Reverse Logistics (Zhu and Sarkis 2004). Most

acceptable and popular definition of Green supply Chain management GSCM is ‘integrating

environmental thinking into supply-chain management, including product design, material

sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery of the final product to the consumers

as well as end-of-life management of the product after its useful life. The concept of green

supply chain management has added an environmentally conscious mindset to supply chain

management and has been introduced into many final manufacturing Processes (Aref A. Hervani

et al., 2005). However, GSCM practices also extend to the entire value chain (from supplier to

consumer) when organizations inform buyers of ways to reduce their impacts to the natural

environment (Handfield, Robert, Gary, Kenneth, & Monczka, et al, 2004). Researchers integrate

the environmental management and the supply chain management to meet the business needs

more efficient and more environmentally-friendly. Green Supply Chain Management should

consider the 3-effective reunifications of cost-effective, environmental protection and resource

conservation. The issues involved in the green supply chain management include three parts:

supply chain management, environmental protection and resource optimization problem. Green

supply chain is a modem management model. It integrates consideration of environmental

impacts and resource efficiency, and is based on green manufacturing theory and supply chain

management technology, involves suppliers, manufacturers, vendors and users in the whole

supply chain (Baoqin Yu, 2008). The GSCM as a strategic and decision-making perspective

improve firm’s present performance. Evaluating the environment-friendly conditions of green

supply chain management in manufacturing is the effective means to achieve economic and

social benefits, to achieve circular economy and sustainable development for an enterprise, it’s

also a critical and difficult issue of supply chain transformation and implement. Through

evaluation the environment-friendly conditions of supply chain, it can find the key point of the

impact about supply chain environmental efficiency, it also can provide an important basis for

reducing the cost of supply chain management, maximizing resource utilization , reducing

resource consumption, reducing the negative impact of the environment and enhancing customer

value. Haiying CAO, 2011 suggest selection criteria are mainly concentrated in four aspects, the

development environment, innovation ability, the green production ability and the environmental

management in production process, each aspect has different selection criteria. Anyhow, the

selection of supplier based on the green supply chain management target should take the

environment factors as a major point to suppliers’ investigation. (Shang, Lu, Li, 2010) On the

basis of a factor analysis, six green supply chain management dimensions were identified: green

manufacturing and packaging, environmental participation, green marketing, green suppliers,

green stock, and green eco-design. Based on the resource-based view (RBV), the capability of

the green marketing oriented group was considered to be the deployment of a collection of

resources that enables it to successfully compete against rivals (Darnall, Jason & Handfield,

2008).EMS adopters are more likely to utilize GSCM practices, EMSs have for promoting

environmental sustainability through their networks of suppliers and customers indicating that

EMSs complement GSCM strategies. Beamon,(1999) proposed to redefine the current supply

chain with the environmental constraints through the concept of “Supply integration of Chain

Environmental Management” (SCEM) or “Green Supply Chain”.Companies can increase their

competitiveness by developing more efficient, responsive supply chain processes. Many

companies have begun to realize that it is necessary to achieve long-term sustainability in

business operations .This is needed not only in their own business, but also in the case of value-

adding suppliers and raw materials producers. Green Supply Chain Management is the

organization-wide process of applying innovation to achieve sustainability, waste reduction,

social responsibility, and a competitive advantage via continuous learning and development and

by embracing environmental goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and

strategies of the organization (Haden, Oyler and Humphreys, 2009).

Several studies have been conducted to design a clear definition on what a green supply chain

epitomizes (Narasimhan and Carter, 1998, p. 6; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Fiksel, 1996). However a

general consensus has not been reached and academic authors define green and sustainable

supply chains differently, as this is a new area of study (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). A study,

conducted by Hervani et al. (2005) formulates green supply chain management (GSCM) in the

form of an equation. From their point of view reverse logistics is a major component of GSCM

as it closes the loop of a typical forward supply chain: GSCM ¼ Green purchasing þ Green

manufacturing þ Green distribution þ Reverse logistics In this context the four ‘‘Re’s’’ are

introduced, namely reduction, reuse, remanufacturing and recycling (Hervani et al., 2005).

Although a general agreement about the definition has not been reached, academic authors

however do realize that environmental standards in supply chains are important and greening the

four aspects mentioned above is an absolute necessity to stay competitive. For the purpose of this

paper, environmentally friendly manufacturing was researched, as a knowledge gap was found

between this part of the supply chain and its effect on companies. It is therefore the focus of this

research paper and the subsequent sections.

Green supply chain management (GSCM) has gained increasing attention within both academia

and industry. As the literature grows, finding new directions by critically evaluating the research

and identifying future directions becomes important in advancing knowledge for the field. Using

organizational theories to help categorize the literature provides opportunities to address both the

objectives of understanding where the field currently stands and identifying research

opportunities and directions. After providing a background discussion on GSCM, we categorize

and review recent GSCM literature under nine broad organizational theories, with a special

emphasis on investigation of adoption, diffusion and outcomes of GSCM practices. 1.

Complexity theory.2. Ecological modernization.3. Information theory (information asymmetry

and signaling theory.4. Institutional theory, 5. Resource based 6. Resource dependence theory, 7.

Social network theory, 8.Stakeholder theory,.9. Transaction cost economics Joseph (Sarkis, Zhu,

Lai, 2010.)

Drivers for Environmental Initiatives

Organizations appear to have a variety of drivers and barriers to green supply chain management

practices. GSCM drivers could be both internal and external to the organization. More external

drivers were identified than internal drivers, in both the literature and the empirical research.

Purchasing managers considering green supply chain management issues may benefit from being

mindful of the external influences of customers, competitors, regulation and society more

broadly. The green supply chain is also called environmentally conscious supply chain or

environmentally supplies chain, which is a type of modern managerial mode that

comprehensively takes environmental influence and resource efficiency into consideration in the

entire supply chain. With the increasing of environmental pressure and resource restriction, many

developed regions or countries such as European, America and Japan have issued some

environmental protection policies, respectively. Over the last decade GSCM has played a key

role in the development of eco-products and in advancing cleaner production in manufacturing

Organization and has been brought about by several motivations (Qinghua Zhu and Joseph

Sarkis, 2004). Through the implementation of GSCM, manufacturers may anticipate benefits

such as improvement of a corporation’s image, reduction of liability and improvement of

business continuity (Sarkis, 2001). GSCM aims to find ways to improve some of the impacts that

a company has on the environment. As important as these changes may be for the environment,

they are often accompanied by cost savings, improved efficiency, and/or profitable customer

awareness (Rao, 2005; Srivastava, 2007). More and more entrepreneurs and managers are

motivated to behave in accordance with their personal or social codes of ethics and want to

protect the environment for coming generations. Still other companies see an opportunity in

these developments and want to build a business that generates a competitive business

advantage. By responding to consumer demand and adhering to their own moral codes, they can

force governments to enact better environmental regulations and can compel competitors to

improve their efficiency (Zhu & Sarkis, 2007). Another driver is the higher awareness of

environmental problems from the consumer perspective, which leads to more demand for

companies to balance business performance with environmental issues (Basu & Wright, 2008).

Hu , Chia-Wei & Hsu, (2010) had discussed the critical factors for GSCM implementation and

extracted it into four dimensions, which denominated supplier management, product recycling,

organization involvement and life cycle management. Internal environmental management,

especially commitment from top-level managers and support from mid-level managers, will be

necessary for development of any Green supply chain management practice (Zhu, Sarkis, Geng,

2004). A firm’s strategic green orientation involves past green practices, implementation of

innovative environment improvement program and future commitment for environmental

practices. This strategic green orientation is supported by a set of inter-organizational innovation

practices such as integrated product development practices, effective coordination of supply

chain network and relevant and measurable performance outcomes (Hong ,Kwon, Jungbae &

Roh ,2009).The researches identify capabilities that enable the creation and establishment of

company driven voluntary sustainability initiatives – namely external stakeholder integration,

cross-functional integration, the management of loosely coupled business units, supply chain

implementation, process improvement and cultural framing ( Volker H.

Hoffmann,2011) .Stevels, (2002) suggest that widening and intensifying green supplier -

producer relationship can be beneficial for the environment but also can contribute to better

management like Product Design (EcoDesign Design for Environment) and to Manufacturing.

Cornerstones underlying the yield of a variety benefits are developing a common understanding

of the drivers and issues, developing common product design roadmaps and programmes and

environmental benchmarking of manufacturing operations.

Some of the key drivers of green supply chain management are Market Demand; Consumer

demand of environment friendly products is increasing. Regulatory pressure: New government

policies are prohibiting products made from environmentally destructive materials and polluting

processes. In this era of globalization, it has become important for the companies to comply with

the regulations of the concerned countries. Economic competitiveness, adoption of green

principles and best practices like recycling, reducing energy consumption etc can significantly

reduce the cost and improve operational efficiency. Rising cost and increasing demand of fuel is

further acting like a stimulus for implementation of green supply chain management. At the

empirical level, several studies identified a wide range of factors that can persuade an

organization to extend environmental management criteria and practices to its supply chain. This

can be stimulated by customers’ requests, induced by the need to guarantee a full compliance

with more stringent environmental regulation, or even prompted by strategic motivations linked

to the opportunity to get a competitive advantage on the market.

The determinants of GSCM adoption can be basically distinguished between: “external factors”,

mostly linked to stakeholders’ pressure; and, “internal factors”, i.e. to a specific business-led

strategic process. In theory, 'green' customer demand forms a major driver for companies to offer

and market greener product. Some big companies have adopted environmentally responsible

programs in their daily business operations.The initial motivation for to adopt green management

was caused by the public pressure and governmental legislation regarding the municipal water

supply of the region to avoid negatively affecting the local environment. In addition, buyers in

national and international markets require proof of internationally acceptable environmental

management systems, such as ISO 14001. Although the top management team had strong

motivation to adopt environmental management in the organizational and production processes,

there was an in-house culture of product quality without concerning green management

commitment, and individual lack of awareness on environmental challenges (Lee, 2009). ISO

14001 may positively affect the environmental performance of suppliers by way of GSCM if

suppliers respond to buyers’ environmental performance assessments and requirements that they

undertake specific environmental measures (Arimura, Darnall, Katayama, 2009).

KEY DRIVERS OR MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS FOR GSCM

Continued pressure over the past 20 years from various stakeholder groups including

government, shareholders, employees, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and local

communities has resulted in a number of laws, regulations and incentives that address

environmental problems and encourage organizations to pay more attention to their

environmental costs. Even investors, through “green” investment funds, are applying pressure to

get corporations to reduce their environmental contingency risk. While this trend is only in its

infancy, it is bound to grow (Lyon and Maxwell, 2006). Recent studies suggest that different

stakeholder groups have an influence on the development of corporate environmental strategy

(Delmas, 2001; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999). Key stakeholders in environmental issues are

not necessarily the legislator, policymaker or NGO anymore, but rather a client, local community

or supplier. Proactive corporations do not wait until policymakers or NGOs act. They engage

clients, local people and suppliers into their stakeholder strategies from the beginning. Moreover,

proactive corporations aim to co-operate with policymakers and NGOs in order to promote their

good environmental management practices and to achieve competitive advantage. Non-

stakeholders and legitimate stakeholders are easily neglected, when stakeholders with direct

power and urgency are dominant in conventional stakeholder strategies.

Regulations or Legislation

The review evidence clearly suggests that indirect legislative impacts will contribute to the

asserts that firms adopt initiatives in order to gain legitimacy. Primary regulatory pressures

partially mediated the relationship between awareness of emergent regulatory policies and

adoption of GSCM practices.Bansal and Roth (2000) and Porter and van del Linde (1995)

hypothesized that institutional forces such as legislation drove a firm’s corporate ecological

responsiveness. Pratima Bansal and Kendall Roth,(2000) suggested three basic motivations for

ecological responsiveness: competitiveness, legitimation, and ecological responsibility. A motive

of legitimation refers to the desire of a firm to improve the appropriateness of its actions within

an established set of regulations, norms, values, or beliefs (Suchman, 1995). Examples of

legitimation as shown by the data included complying with legislation, establishing an

environmental committee or environmental manager position to oversee a firm's ecological

impacts and advise senior management, developing networks or committees with local

community representation, conducting environmental audits, establishing an emergency response

system, and aligning the firm with environmental advocates. The motivation to implement and

develop GSCM is to meet environmental regulatory compliance. Many manufacturers which

utilize environmental regulatory compliance tend to advance GSCM by screening suppliers for

their environmental performance and then by doing business with only those that meet the

environmental regulations (Purba Rao, 2002; Hokey Min and William P. Galle, 2001).

Governmental and state legislation and regulations implicitly favours sustainable business

models (Goran Svensson Beverly Wagner, 2011). Sustainable and green business practices are

often regarded as a statutory expense in order to meet government legalization requirements. If

properly designed, Regulations can be a vehicle for the creation of competitive advantages

because it forces the firms to be innovative (Porter and van der Linde, 1995).

Market Forces

"Competitiveness" is defined as the potential for GSCM to improve long-term profitability.

GSCM Initiatives that improved competitiveness included energy and waste management, source

reductions resulting in a higher output for the same inputs ,eco labeling and green marketing, and

the development of "coproduces." In terms of salient characteristics, interviewees from firms

motivated by competitiveness expected that their ecological responsiveness led to sustained

advantage and hence improved their long-term profitability. Competitively motivated firms

engaged in more visible activities to improve their corporate environmental reputations. These

activities served to enhance the firms' competitive advantage. Competitiveness, in contrast to

other motivations, resulted in greater attention paid to the cost benefit analyses of ecological

responses. The motivation to implement and develop GSCM is to improve the competitiveness

of their firm so that they may take a more superior position in the market. Through the

implementation of GSCM, manufacturers may anticipate benefits such as improvement of a

corporation’s image, reduction of liability and improvement of business continuity (Sarkis,

2001). Competition as a driver driver in the lean/green interface although green, lean, and global

focus on cost-reduction capabilities, green strategies also capitalize on the potential profitability

from gaining new customer market segments ( Mollenkopf, Stolze,. Tate and Ueltschy, 2009

Customers

Understanding consumer needs and listening to the consumer are strong drivers in the

sustainability agenda of businesses. Translating these consumer demands into product

specifications requires close links with suppliers who have the capability and the commitment to

incorporate changes into production processes and sourcing strategies (Goran, Svensson, Beverly

& Wagner, 2011).The literature points to several interesting issues regarding customers as a

driving force for green supply chain management practices. In investigating the role of

purchasing in environmental management, it was found that customer demands that take a long-

term supply chain perspective have a more positive influence on environmental management in

contrast to customer requests which involve an unreasonable timeframe (Carter and Dresner,

2001). The ways in which customers drive green supply chain management projects varies

significantly. In a study of the furniture industry, customers (manufacturers of furniture)

encouraged suppliers to improve their environmental performance (Handfield , 1997). These

customers were in turn driven by end-consumers requesting more green products. Similarly,

vehicle manufacturers encouraged strategic suppliers to obtain accreditation, such as the Eco-

Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (Lamming and Hampson, 1996).

Customers exert pressure on organisations to engage in environmental supply chain practices

(Green et al., 1996; New et al., 2000). Small companies are especially under pressure from their

customers (Hall, 2001). Hall’s research of supermarkets in the UK illustrated that being a large

retailer is a both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, supermarkets are in the position to

influence control over their suppliers. On the other hand, they must take responsibility for their

suppliers’ actions, as they are more likely to draw media attention. Non-organisational

stakeholder groups can and do leverage on this fact by requesting and pressuring supermarkets to

address environmental concerns, rather than going after thousands of independent suppliers

(Hall, 2001, Diane Mollenkopf, Hannah Stolze, Wendy L. Tate and Monique Ueltschy,2009).

High-profile firms are often under considerable pressure from a range of stakeholder groups. The

amount of pressure firms experience on environmental issues can partially be explained by their

environmental visibility (Bowen, 2000). For this relationship to offer competitive advantage and

higher firm performance, the authors contend that it is necessary to better understand how

customer stakeholders perceive firms’ environmental initiatives, and to investigate if the degree

to which a firms’ demand and supply functions are integrated influences these perceptions. Jon

F. Kirchoff, Chris Koch, Bridget Satinover Nichols,2005.In sum, a further external driver is the

customer, influenced in turn by the end-consumer. Small companies are under particular pressure

from their customers.

Competitors

Several authors identified competition as a driver for green supply chain management practices.

Competitors, as potential environmental technology leaders, may be able to set industry norms

and/or legal mandates and thus clearly have the ability to drive environmental innovation

(Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999). A proactive environmental strategy can help a firm to gain

competitive advantage through the development of supply management capabilities (Ferguson

and Toktay, 2006; Sarkis, 2003; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998). A policy of environmental

purchasing may not be undertaken because of a desire to ‘save the world’, but because it reflects

a way to gain competitive advantage, improving the financial performance of the firm

(Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2005; Porter and Van de Linde, 1995; Rao and Holt,

2005). In sum, external competitors can also act as a driver for green supply chain management

projects, for firms seeking competitive advantage and to improve their performance.

Society

Environmental stewardship highlights society’s needs and the impact on changing relationships

between human beings and the natural environment.The deterioration of the environment over

recent decades has drastically increased the public’s awareness of environmental issues. The

public is increasingly influenced by a company’s reputation with respect to the environment

when making purchasing decisions (Drumwright, 1994). They demand more environmentally

friendlyproducts (Handfield et al., 1997) and are more socially conscious, for example the public

now takes into account what firms buy and from who they buy (New et al., 2000). Marketing

pressures have also been found to influence green supply chain management (Zhu et al., 2005).

Public pressure and stakeholders are causing firms to review their environmental supply

practices (Beamon, 1999; Delmas, 2001; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998) and is most visible

from activist campaigners, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or green pressure groups

(Hall, 2001; Trowbridge, 2001). These groups cannot be ignored anymore, as they have the

influence to seriously embarrass organisations (Gabriel et al., 2000). The threat of increased

environmental awareness also creates an opportunity for companies to win new customers by

dealing in an exemplary way with environmental issues. In fact, it can be a way to increase

publicity (Wycherley, 1999). However, such an approach can be risky, as all a company’s

actions and transactions are viewed under a magnifying glass, and the so-called environmentally

friendly policies can easily be misinterpreted as corporate greenwash (Greer and Bruno, 1996) or

simply as paying green lip service. In sum, external societal drivers include increasing public

awareness, consumer demand for environmentally friendly performance, and the influence of

NGOs concerned with corporate greenwash. Supply chains are formed to achieve a sustainable

competitive advantage for all parties involved. The social and political concerns on

environmental issues have encouraged manufacturing firms to “green” their supply chains (Van

Hoek, 1999).

Suppliers

There was a lack of previous research that identified suppliers as a key driver of environmental

supply chain management practices. It has been suggested that suppliers can help to provide

valuable ideas used in the implementation of environmental projects, but they generally do not

act as a direct driving force (Carter and Dresner, 2001). The lack of previous empirical research

may be because this driver has yet to be investigated, or because suppliers simply do not hold

much sway with environmental supply practices. However, whilst suppliers may not be the

drivers, integration and cooperation in supply chains can support more effective management of

environmental issues (Klassen and Vachon, 2003; Theyel, 2001; Vachon and Klassen, 2006). A

collaborative paradigm has been used to explore green supply chain management practices in

manufacturing plants (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). It was found that greater supply chain

integration can benefit environment management in operations. As the supply base was reduced,

the extent of environmental collaboration with primary suppliers increased.

Exports

The motivation to implement and develop GSCM is to comply with the needs of markets and

customers that prefer to purchase eco-products. Some studies argue that environmental

innovation is the result of market pressures that cause firms to become more efficient.Zhu &

Cote suggest that the export of green trade barriers and driving forces from international

downstream customers'as well as consumers' pressures and concerns about environments have

driven manufacturers to fulfill the green supply chain management (GSCM) practice. The

environmental demands on suppliers increase with customer organization size, but the degree of

internationalization, measured by the rates of imports and exports, does not show a significant

relationship to these pressures. P. Gonza´lez, J. Sarkis, B. Adenso-Dı´az,(2008).

Organizational factors

There is a range of different organisation-related green supply chain management drivers.

Personal commitment of individuals (including founder and owner) has been found to be

positively related to green supply chain management (New et al., 2000). Having analysed a

leading organization in the environmental field, Wycherley (1999) found that the environmental

activities undertaken at the site were seen as a ‘way of life’. The personal and ethical values of

the founder of the company filtered through the whole organisation. Interestingly, not top

management but middle management’s support is positively related to environmental purchasing

(Carter et al., 1998). Operational and environmental improvement has been found to be

positively related to employee involvement (Hanna et al., 2000). To successfully drive green

supply chain management practices, personal commitment and impetus have not necessarily

resided at top-management level (Drumwright, 1994). In fact, often the so-called policy

entrepreneurs or value champions were in staff positions. The existence of a single policy

entrepreneur is a necessary but insufficient condition for the deployment of environmentally

friendly practices across a wider range of value chain activities (Handfield et al., 1997). The

personal motivation of skilful policy entrepreneurs ranges from intrinsic reward (Drumwright,

1994) to improving their position within their company (New et al., 2000). The desire to reduce

costs represents a common driving force for environmental supply projects (Carter and Dresner,

2001; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 1997). Throughout a product’s life cycle, pollution

reflects hidden costs in the form of wasted resources and effort (Porter and Van de Linde, 1995).

By embracing the concept of pollution prevention, which uses such methods as material

substitution and closed-loop processes, pollution and thus costs can be prevented. In Handfield et

al.’s (1997) study, the company that excelled in various green supply chain management

activities was driven neither by environmental compliance nor by a policy entrepreneur. The

initiatives were often not even immediately apparent to customers. Instead, these initiatives were

driven by a focus on cost reduction, waste elimination, and quality improvement. Environmental

performance has been found to drive superior quality (Pil and Rothenberg, 2003). An increased

pressure from investors has also been observed in the development of environmental policies

(Green et al., 1996; Trowbridge, 2001). Although investors may not be purely internal to the

firm, they are often not entirely external either, which is why they are discussed here as part of

internal drivers. In sum, an organisation’s internal drivers towards environmental supply chain

management practices include the personal commitment of leaders, middle management, ‘policy

entrepreneurs’, and investors. Internal organisa-tional drivers include focusing on cost reduction

through minimising waste and pollution, often leading to quality improvements.

Ecological Responsibility

Ecological responsibility is viewed as a motivation that stems from the concern that a firm has

for its social obligations and values. Within the data, initiatives motivated by ecological

responsibility included the redevelopment of previously used land to green areas, the provision

of a less profitable green product line, donations to environmental interest groups and other local

community groups, the use of recycled paper, the replacement of retail items or office products

with ones more ecologically benign, and the recycling of office wastes. A salient feature of this

motivation was a concern for the social good. The ethical aspects of ecological phasized, which

clearly differentiated this motivation from the other two. Firms acted out of a sense of obligation,

responsibility, or philanthropy rather than out of self-interest (Bucholz, 1991; L'Etang, 1995).

Top Management Support

Top management commitment refers to the emphasis top-level managers place on the

development of capabilities, i.e., their willingness to prioritize a specified set of resources inside

a manufacturing plant. This commitment is an important aspect of buyer–supplier relationships

(Frazier et al., 1988) that should improve the relation between knowledge transfer and supplier

performance (Modi and Mabert, 2007) and increase the chances that such management programs

(Rodgers et al., 1993) as quality (Ahire and O’Shaughnessy, 1998) and supplier partnerships

(Ragatz et al., 1997) will be successful. Top management commitment is positively related to

better product design processes, work attitudes, workforce management, customer relationships,

customer focus, and supplier relationships (Ahire and Ravichandran, 2001; Flynn et al., 1995).

Finally, top management commitment is a key capability in the development of consistent and

sustainable programs for cultivating relationships with suppliers (Chen and Paulraj, 2004).

Therefore, we can expect that top management commitment is an important resource for the

development of green manufacturing capabilities. The senior leaders of Enterprises, in the

implementation of the green supply chain management, should consider the "green" an

important component part of the enterprise strategy in supply chain. Beyond this, should improve

enterprise system, build green enterprise culture, set up the "green image" of enterprise, establish

performance appraisal system related to the performance of environmental (YIN Xiu-qing,

2010).

Organizational Capability

A study by A.T. Kearney revealed that 60 per cent of companies have adopted sustainable

business operations that strengthen brand names or differentiate their products (Mahler, 2007).

Today a brand is comprised not just of the product, but includes how it is made, who the

suppliers and producers are and how it is delivered (Mulani, 2009). Reputation and brand value

may be enhanced by investment in people, ecological impact and local communities (Byrne,

2007). As firms face the prospect of adopting green initiatives, they will need structured

approaches that can help them in their decision-making process (Sarkis, 2003). The

implementation of GSC practices might require firms to make changes in their current

capabilities and resources, especally if, as is often the case, deadlines are involved. Ari Paloviita,

Vilma Luoma-aho,2010

Environmental Investments

An environmental investment refers to the share of capital expenditures allocated to improve a

plant’s environmental performance. These investments can be allocated to any or all of the

following: remediation projects, end-of-pipe technologies, pollution prevention technologies

(product or process green design), and environmental management systems (Klassen and

Whybark, 1999a). These investments enable plants to develop complex capabilities (Lucas,

2009), and it has been shown that the share of capital expenditures allocated to environmental

investments is positively related to manufacturing investments (Klassen, 2000), since

organizational slack (Bansal, 2005) can provide more room in budgets and managerial agendas

for the incorporation of such externalities as environmental performance. Environmental

investments and financial performance are positively related (Nehrt, 1996). According to the

RBV, if a resource is to provide superior performance, it must be bound to a plant through

organizational routines (Grant, 1996). Therefore, through GSM managers allocate some

environmental investments to formalize environmental practices.

Organizational learning

Organizational learning as a determinant of GSCM practices. In the resource-based theory of the

firm, in an economic system characterized by market imperfections, the combinations of firm

resources and capabilities, especially those that are valuable, rare, inimitable and hard to

substitute, are seen as key contributors to distinctive competencies and sustainable competitive

advantage vis-à-vis the firm’s rivals. Successful competitive strategies and outcomes (including

those in the environmental area depend on the development, effective deployment and

maintenance of these resources and capabilities over time. Organizational learning systems can

be viewed as an especially important capability within this resource-based framework since,

especially when coupled with an organizational emphasis on continuous improvement.

Classification of GSCM Practices Literature based upon the various Concepts Context

The existing GSCM literature can be classified into three broad categories based on the problem

context in supply chain design: literature highlighting the importance of GSCM; literature on

green design, green operations, reverse logistics, green manufacturing etc. Green design may be

looked into from the viewpoint of environment conscious design taking lifecycle assessment of

the product/process into account. Similarly, green operations involve all operational aspects

related to RL and network design (collection; inspection/sorting; pre-processing; network

design), green manufacturing and remanufacturing (reduce; recycle; production planning and

scheduling; inventory management; remanufacturing: re-use, product and material recovery) and

waste management (source reduction; pollution prevention; disposal).The classification is for the

purpose of easier understanding of different problem contexts of GSCM – their interactions and

relationships – in order to present a well defined and clear picture for further study and research.

It is not rigid, and there may be many overlaps (for example, reduce gets attention not only in

green manufacturing and remanufacturing, but also elsewhere as in reverse logistics and waste

management; green design, too, emphasizes reduced use of virgin material and other resources.

Similarly, green design should take into account the whole product life-cycle cost, including

those during manufacturing and remanufacturing, reverse logistics and disposal.

Green Procurement

Green procurement is the integration of environmental considerations into purchasing policies,

programs and actions—is the means for those with buying clout to use their power to drive,

faster and further, the whole process of producing greener products and services—from

manufacture, through sales and distribution, to final disposal. Green procurement is defined as an

environmental purchasing consisting of involvement in activities that include the reduction, reuse

and recycling of materials in the process of purchasing. Green procurement is the most effective

driving force for businesses to promote the development of environmentally conscious products

and services and to make green supply chain. According to Ofori (2000), the increasing

environmental consciousness and commitment of businesses, governments, and individuals has

inspired the development of procurement and purchasing policies incorporated with

environmental requirements. Hamner and Del Rosario (1998) said, green purchasing is an

increasingly common practice which is effectively greening the supply chain, and is becoming a

key component of SCM. Carter, 2000 suggest green purchasing consists of “purchasing

involvement in activities that include reduction, reuse, and recycling materials”. Also, they find

that many firms are developing and implementing “green” strategies to preserve the

environment, as well as enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Green purchasing is already

happening today; many private and public entities around the globe demand a certain

environmental performance when purchasing their IT products. Hewlett Packard established an

environmentally responsible material program for ensuring the procurement of environmentally

responsible material (Jerrell D. Coggburn, 2004).Green procurement has been viewed more

positively by environmental policy reformers dissatisfied with command-and-control regulation.

(Mohammad Asif Salam, 2008) Purchasers can improve the environmental performance of

products and services by expressing environmental preferences through so called “green

procurement”. Carter, et al. (2000) defined environmental purchasing as consisting of

involvement in activities that include the reduction, reuse and recycling of materials in the

process of purchasing. Procurement or purchasing decisions will have an impact on the green

supply chain through the purchase of materials that are either recyclable or reusable, or have

already been recycled (Sarkis, 2003).

Green Procurement is a solution for environmentally concerned and economically conservative

business. It is a concept of acquiring a selection of products and services that minimizes

environmental impact. It requires a company or organization to carry out an assessment of the

environmental consequences of a product at all the various stages of its lifecycle. This means

considering the costs of securing raw materials, and manufacturing, transporting, storing,

handling, using and disposing of the product. "Green" products reduce waste, improve energy

efficiency, limit toxic by-products, contain recycled content or are reusable. From an

environmental life cycle and quality perspective, it is important to consider the sources of

materials or components from which a product is made (Richards, 1994). Green purchasing (GP)

is concerned with an environmentally-conscious purchasing that reduces sources of waste and

promotes recycling and reclamation of purchased materials without adversely affecting

performance requirements of such materials (Min and Galle, 2001). Manufacturers and service

providers can use their purchasing contracts to influence suppliers’ behaviour by requiring

environmentally preferable practices (Richards, 1994). GP also influences the supplier’s

environmental programme and ability to meet environmental specifications. For instance,

military specifications and standards have an extensive influence on global manufacturing

practices and component selection practices. The integration of environmental and purchasing

concerns can have the effect of reducing life-cycle costs, reducing environmental and health

risks, and thereby liability risks (Zhang, 2009).

Green Designing

Green design is an important sub-topic to Green supply chain management. It is about designing

a product or a service that encourages environmental awareness. Fiksel (1996) argues that

organizations have definite potential to become eco-friendly towards product re-manufacturing.

There are several literatures that relate to Green Design. Johnson (1998) examined the role of

purchasing in reverse logistics system and design. Taleb and Gupta (1997) created applied

algorithms to design a product recovery system. This study shows that ‘core algorithms’ and

‘allocation algorithms’ are the scheduling systems that would help reduce waste.

Life-cycle Analysis

Life-cycle analysis is an important sub-concept to Green Design. Life-cycle analysis was

introduced to measure environmental and resource related products to the production process

(Srivastava, 2007). This measurement involves in stages from extraction of raw materials,

production, distribution, and remanufacturing, recycling and final disposal. Gungor and Gupta

(1999) comments that life cycle analysis “examines and quantifies the energy and materials used

and wasted and assesses the impact of the product on the environment.” Works of Arena et al.

(2003) and Beamon (1999) all discussed life-cycle analysis as a framework. The literature

emphasizes both environmentally conscious design (ECD) and life-cycle analysis (LCA) of the

product. Life-cycle assessment/analysis is described as a process for assessing and evaluating the

environmental, occupational health and resource-related consequences of a product through all

phases of its life, i.e. extracting and processing raw materials, production, transportation and

distribution, use, remanufacturing, recycling and final disposal (Gungor and Gupta 1999).The

aim is to develop an understanding the potential of green design for reducing the lifetime

environment impact of products. Knowing the source and impact information of materials and

processes for an LCA requires knowledge of the supply chain’s materials, products and

processes and vice versa. Many authors have emphasized the importance of the “cradle to grave”

approach of LCA in optimizing closed-loop supply chains, improving product design and

stewardship. LCA is valuable for optimizing closed-loop supply chains, improving eco-design

and product stewardship initiatives which are also linked to green supply chain management

(Hall, 2001).Product design is impacted by a company's other practices and initiatives, and on an

even larger scale by factors beyond the control of an individual manufacturing enterprise. Madu

et al (2002) used the analytic hierarchy procedure (AHP) to develop priority indices for customer

requirements to highlight key features that must be present in the product. Subsequently, the

quality function deployment is used to match design requirements to customer requirements. A

cost-effective design plan is then finally developed. This framework adopts a systemic approach

and ensures that environmentally conscious products are designed and manufactured.

Environment Conscious Design (ECD) and Design for Environment (DFE) are related also to

involvement of suppliers in the designing of the green product designs with the environmentally

friendly inputs and materials from the suppliers. It requires an understanding of the sources,

destinations, capabilities, and characteristics of the product or service. Collaboration and

involvement of suppliers in the eco-design process is an important dimension of a complete DFE

program within organizations (Klassen, R.D. and S. Vachon, 2003).A common approach is to

replace a potentially hazardous material or process by one that appears less problematic. This

seemingly reasonable action can sometimes be undesirable if it results in the rapid depletion of a

potentially scarce resource or increased extraction of other environmentally problematic

materials. Several examples of such equivocal proposals are presented by Graedel (2002).

Azzone and Noci (1996) suggest an integrated approach for measuring the environmental

performance of new products, while Arena et al. (2003) assess the environmental performance of

alternative solid waste management options that could be used. Life-cycle assessment/analysis is

described as a process for assessing and evaluating the environmental, occupational health and

resource-related consequences of a product through all phases of its life, i.e. extracting and

processing raw materials, production, transportation and distribution, use, remanufacturing,

recycling and final disposal (Gungor and Gupta 1999). The scope of LCA involves tracking all

material and energy flows of a product from the retrieval of its raw materials out of the

environment to the disposal of the product back into the environment (Arena et al. 2003). It is

recognized that products have environmental impacts over the course of their entire life cycle,

from extraction and procurement of raw materials through to manufacturing, distribution, use

and disposal. Richards (1994) argues that one of the most far-reaching implications of cleaner

production is to take an environmental life cycle approach to production. Life cycle assessment

(LCA) examine the potential environmental aspects associated with a product or service by

compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs, evaluating the potential environmental

impacts associated with these inputs and outputs, and interpreting the results of the inventory and

impact phases . The core components of LCA include life cycle costing, inventory analysis,

impact analysis, and environmental auditing or improvement analysis. These range from initial

conception, development and manufacture through to customer use and disposal. Awaysheh,

Madrid, Spain, and Robert D. Klassen, 2010 examine the effect of four drivers, namely

regulations (RG), customer pressures (CP), social responsibility (SR), and expected business

benefits (EBB) on green purchasing (GP) in the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Multi-item

scales for each of the four dimensions of supplier socially responsible practices were validated

empirically: supplier human rights; supplier labour practices; supplier codes of conduct; and

supplier social audits. Increased transparency, as reflected in greater product visibility by the

end-consumer was related to increased use of supplier human rights, which in turn can help to

protect a firm’s brands. Organizational distance, as measured by the total length of the supply

chain (number of tiers in the supply chain), was related to increased use of multiple supplier

socially responsible practices. Finally, as the plant was positioned further upstream in the supply

chain managers reported increased use of supplier codes of conduct.

Green manufacturing

To create real environmental change, firms must develop innovations that consume fewer

resources, produce less waste, and create less environmental harm (Hervani, Helms and Sarkis,

2005) An environmentally beneficial innovation needs new combinations of knowledge about

product characteristics, process and material characteristics, and technologies. The change must

come from within the firm’s aims. The key to developing innovations that will be beneficial and

profitable is an effective exchange of knowledge between the individual links within the supply

chain. An organization requires structures that enable the firm to critically analyze and review

the changes implemented. There is also a need for the capacity to accept change and modify

operations at various levels when needed. The literature points out a few common methods for

making the manufacturing stage “green”: reusing, remanufacturing, and recycling. The primary

difference between these processes is the extent to which the characteristics of the product are

changed. While the physical characteristics of a material are maintained in reuse,

remanufacturing includes some changing of parts or disassembly. Recycling may change the

characteristics of the material completely including chemical and physical traits. An organization

has to decide which methods to employ depending on the product characteristics (Sarkis, 2003).

Literature present many findings regarding how significant an influence the suppliers could have

on the “greening” of the manufacturing stage in a supply chain. Manufacturers are liable for

purchasing products and services that violate environmental standards, but they may not be

legally responsible for their suppliers’ environmental activities. Currently there are few

incentives for manufacturers to be concerned with the environmental procedures of their

suppliers; moreover, there is new research pertaining to the connection between supplier’s

environmental practices and competitive advantages in the supply chain. Recent environmental

management literature has suggested that an informed relationship between supplier and

manufacturer can lead to innovative and cost effective end-products. A recent study found that

Japanese automakers were operating on productivity twice as that of their American

counterparts. The main difference in productivity was attributed to the Japanese organizations’

lean manufacturing systems, reducing lead-time while at the same time increasing quality

(Lewis, 1999). However, suppliers are generally concerned with cost, quality, and delivery,

while environmental safety has been taken with a lower priority. In contrast, manufacturers may

list environmental safety and improvement as a major priority. Manufacturing firms may need to

consider their own environmental goals, social responsibilities, and reputation to consumers

(Simpson and Power, 2004). For instance, a recent survey of 212 U.S. manufacturing firms

found that over 75% of respondents identified pollution prevention as a key component to their

overall company performance. Over 49% of these firms also reported that suppliers were key

components to the reduction of pollution [Rao and Holt, 2003].

Green Operations

One of the most important and difficult challenge is to integrate the green and environmental

activities within the internal as well as external operational activities. Some of the key challenges

of GSCM such as integrating remanufacturing with internal operations (Ferrer and Whybark

2001), understanding the effects of competition among remanufacturers (Majumder and

Groenevelt 2001), integrating product design, product take-back and supply chain incentives

(Guide and van Wassenhove 2001, 2002), integrating remanufacturing and RL with supply chain

design (Chouinard et al. 2005; Goggin and Browne 2000) are posed in this area.

Green Manufacturing and Remanufacturing

Hoshino et al. (1995) define remanufacturing as recycling-integrated manufacturing. Industries

that apply remanufacturing typically include automobiles, electronics. Product recovery refers to

the broad set of activities designed to reclaim value from a product at the end of its useful life.

Pugh (1993) uses mathematical models in evaluating resource recovery options. Various authors

categorize and classify the recovery process differently. Johnson and Wang (1995) define it as a

combination of remanufacture, re-use and recycle, whereas Thierry et al. (1995) divide recovery

into repair, refurbish, remanufacture, cannibalize and recycle. Melissen and de Ron (1999) define

recovery practices and provide relevant definitions and terminology. A model for evaluating

recovery strategies for the product without violating the physical and economical feasibility

constraints is proposed by Krikke et al. (1998), which has been further modified and updated.

Analysis of remanufacturing facilities for household appliances and automotive parts by Sundin

and Bras (2005) reveals that cleaning and repairing are the most critical steps in the

remanufacturing process. Amini et al. (2005) find that RL operations and the supply chains they

support are significantly more complex than traditional manufacturing supply chains. They

present a case study of a major international medical diagnostics manufacturer to illustrate how a

RL operation for a repair service supply chain was designed for both effectiveness and

profitability by achieving a rapid cycle time goal for repair service, while minimizing total

capital and operational costs. Most remanufacturing literature also deals with repair/refurbish

(Guide and Srivastava 1997c; Gupta 1993; Linton and Johnson 2000; Thierry et al. 1995).

Re-use of products and materials is not a new phenomenon. Thierry et al. (1995) describe four

forms of re-use – direct re-use, repair, recycling, and remanufacturing. Linton and Johnson

(2000) describe a decision support system for re-use and remanufacturing. Traditional production

planning and scheduling methods have limited applicability to remanufacturing systems. Guide

and Srivastava (1997c) list the factors which induce complexity in such systems. Guide et al.

(1999a) carry out a survey and evaluate research in various decision-making areas of production

planning and control for remanufacturing. Fleischmann et al. (1997) give an excellent review of

the re-use of products and materials from an operations research (OR) perspective, whereas

discuss building contingency plans in such scenarios. Guide and Pentico (2003) develop a

hierarchical decision model for remanufacturing and re-use, while a researcher analyse the

performance of static priority rules for a remanufacturing shop that handles two

remanufacturable products. Most inventory models consider three types of stocked items: non-

serviceable items i.e. returned items that are not yet remanufactured, remanufactured items and

manufactured items.

Lean production

Scholars have argued that the adoption of lean production may improve environmental and

economic performance in the supply chain (Hart, 1997; Rao and Holt, 2005). Lean production

relates to technical and human capabilities and to work-place management. In the automobile

industry, lean production has become a popular approach to gain environmental efficiency and

reduce environmental impact through more efficient use of materials and natural resources in

manufacturing ( King & lenox,2001; Rao and Holt, 2005). Proponents of a “lean is green”

approach assert that the adoption of lean production may lead to pollution reduction whereas

critics point out that reducing one factor of production may increase another (Hofer, Christian

Hofer, Eroglu, Waller, 2011). Although the concept of lean production is well established and

widely published in the literature, many firms have found its implementation challenging.

Difficulties arise first and foremost from the need to customize processes to the particular nature

of the business and align these new processes with suppliers and customers. However,

institutional forces will play a role in hindering or sometimes fostering the implementation of a

new (lean production) technology. Lean is also significantly different from its closest relative

TQM, leading to the conclusion that lean is a management concept of its own. Womack et al.

(1990) argue that the lean principles are applicable to any industry. This was pointed out more

than 20 years ago by Keys and Miller (1984), implying that the principles constituting LP have

not received any wide-spread attention outside the auto-industry. Cooney (2002) argues that the

possibility to become “lean” (through JIT in particular) is highly dependent upon business

conditions that are not always met, thus limiting the “universality” of the concept. Changes in the

state of the environment, leading to subsequent public pressure and environmental legislation

have necessitated a fundamental shift in manufacturing business practices. No longer is it

acceptable or cost effective to consider only the local and immediate effects of products and

processes; it is now imperative to analyze the entire lifecycle effects of all products and

processes. Therefore, the traditional structure of the supply chain must be extended to include

mechanisms for product recovery. This extension presents an additional level of complexity to

supply chain design and analysis; more specifically, the addition of the product recovery

mechanism gives rise to numerous issues affecting strategic and operational supply chain

decisions (Benita M. Beamon, 1999).

Reverse Logistics

Green supply chain management includes the use of a reverse logistics system for the recovery

of used materials and products.Reverse Logistics (RL) is the opposite of traditional or forward

logistics (Beamon, 1999). Stefan E. Genchev( 2003) offer an interesting perspective on the role

of RL in the drive toward sustainable development in emerging markets. The possibilities are

enticing and the current research offers the necessary foundational work by detailing what is

involved in RL. Carter and Ellram (1998) define reverse logistics as a process where a

manufacturer accepts previously shipped products from the point for consumption for possible

recycling and re-manufacturing. Beamon (1999) illustrates the fundamentals of reverse logistics.

Thierry, Wassenhove, Van Nunen and Salomon (1995) reports that reverse logistics have been

widely used in automobile industries such as BMW and General Motors. Other companies such

as hp etc. are also using reverse logistics as a supply chain process. Doing this would eventually

help firms become more competitive in their own industry (Srivastava, 2007).Collection is the

first stage in the recovery process. Products are selected, collected and transported to facilities

for remanufacturing (Srivastava, 2007). Used products came from different sources and should

be brought to product recovery facility to begin the converging process (Thierry et al., 1995).

Sorting and Recycling are also an important mechanism when sorting reusable products.

Srivastava (2007) suggest that collection schemes should be classified according to materials

whether separated by the consumer (separation at source) or centralized (mixed waste). The goal

is to sort products that can be reused to reduce costs of making new products. Amini et al. (2005)

find that RL operations and the supply chains they support are significantly more complex than

traditional manufacturing supply chains. They present a case study of a major international

medical diagnostics manufacturer to illustrate how a RL operation for a repair service supply

chain was designed for both effectiveness and profitability by achieving a rapid cycle time goal

for repair service, while minimizing total capital and operational costs.

Reverse Logistics (RL) is the opposite of traditional or forward logistics (Beamon, 1999). Carter

and Ellram (1998) define reverse logistics as a process where a manufacturer accepts previously

shipped products from the point for consumption for possible recycling and re-manufacturing.

Reverse logistics can be defined as the process of collecting used products and materials from

first customers in order that they may be reused, recycled, or up cycled into other products.

Reverse logistics treats these materials as valuable industrial nutrients rather than trash (Krikke,

1998). In most cases, this includes distribution planning: physical transportation of used products

from first consumer back to a re-producer, inventory management: sorting and management of

used product by re-producer for conversion, and production planning: actual conversion into

marketable products (Carter and Ellram, 1998).This section aims at reviewing existing research

in the subject area of reverse logistics. It also looks at research on the reuse of clothing around

the world. The section concludes with a discussion of research done in India in the areas of

reverse logistics, used clothing, and the identification of a knowledge gap. There have been

many studies on reverse logistics and the motivation behind the reuse of products.

Green Supplier Development

Researchers and practitioners have focused on green supplier management and development

because they realize the importance of greening suppliers in a world where environmental

concerns are also competitive concerns. The existence of models and tools for environmental

consideration in supplier selection research is still emerging, while more general sustainability

issues, incorporating other social sustainability dimensions into supplier selection are quite

scarce (Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008). Increasingly, researchers are addressing supplier

selection issues integrating environmental aspects (Handfield et al., 2002; Humphreys et al.,

2003; Lee et al., 2009; Sarkis, 2006). Broader sustainability (triple-bottom-line) factors may also

be integrated into the selection factors and include economic/business, environmental and social

dimensions. Technological integration with primary suppliers and with major customers was

positively linked to environmental monitoring and environmental collaboration (Vachon,

Klassen, 2006 ). The portal for a supplier into a supply chain is the process of environmental

supplier selection (Choi and Hartley, 1996).

When selecting suppliers strategically, factors beyond price should be considered: a supplier’s

financial performance, strategic alignment, speed of design, ability to design, and production

capacity, among others. (Ellram, 1990; Sarkis and Talluri, 2002). Supplier selection emphasis

has already shifted from price to quality of materials in some markets (Wilson, 1994). If

environmental performance is a competitive dimension of operations and a performance

objective (Jiménez and Lorente, 2001), then environmental performance can be translated into

one criterion for selection of suppliers in addition to the traditional criteria of price, quality,

delivery, and services (Handfield et al., 2005).Because implementing supplier selection policies

on the basis of environmental performance does not involve the current base of suppliers,

policies governing supplier selection are easy to change and require the least commitment of

organizational resources. In some cases, supplier selection is the only point at which

environmental policy is included in the supply process (Gavronski et al., 2006). We have found

no studies in supply management that link green rocess management and supplier selection.

However, some green process management such as EMS based on the ISO 14001 standard

requires that relevant environmental aspects be identified (MacDonald, 2005).

Why Change to Green Supply Chain Management?

The fundamental challenge facing business in the 21st century will be meeting the needs of

consumer and shareholders [. . .[ in a way that balances economic, environmental and social

requirements [. . .] Companies must behave differently in the next century, and will require new

leadership.There are different motivators for companies to switch to ‘green’ in their supply

chain. Although some of the motivators are quite unclear, Wu and Dunn (1995) suggests that

some organizations are simply doing this because it is the right thing to do for the environment.

Perhaps some are more radical to environmental change, but others may not (Wu & Dunn, 1995).

Studies, however, have shown that profitability and cost reduction are some of the main

motivators for businesses to become ‘green’ in the supply chain (Srivastava & Srivastava, 2006;

Srivastava, 2007; Darnall et al., 2008). Johnson (1998) argues that reverse logistics were

motivated primarily by economic factors and not concerns about protecting the eco-system.

Tibben- Lembke (2002) and Van Hock and Erasmus (2000) suggest that reverse logistics can

only bring about profitability, reduction of waste and, advertising. Zhu and Sarkis (2004) took

this idea further and argued that most of the 186 participants in their study all agreed that GSCM

practices are only about ‘win-win relationships on environmental and economic performance’.

Seuring and Müller (2007) focus on the emergence and development of integrated chain

management in Germany. Srivastava (2007) makes a much wider attempt, however, taking

primarily a reverse logistics angle. Seuring and Müller (2008) present a more comprehensive

overview of SSCM literature, comprising 191 papers published from 1994 to 2007. The case

studies as one subset of this literature body serve as the empirical basis for the content analysis

presented in the extant research paper. Most recently, Carter and Rogers (2008) provide a review

of sustainability and logistics literature, intending conceptual theory building by integrating the

concept of sustainability into SCM (Su-Yol Lee, 2008) .GSCM initiatives were known to lead to

operational performance as well as environmental performance of both buying firms and their

supplier. Sarah E.A. Dixon and Anne Clifford, 2006 strong link is identified between

entrepreneurialism and environmentalism. GSCM aims to attain overall customer satisfaction

and value generated by the means of inventory control, purchasing policies on recyclable

material and disassembly planning for material recovery. Both LCA and GSCM share same

focus on materials/waste control that promotes effective selection and utilization materials.

LCA also stresses 3Rs, product and process design and improvement/innovation, whereas GSC

puts more weight on production/operations integration. Kit Fai Pun, 2004“mobilizing

integrators” (firms with high level of external motivation and high level of internal motivation)

have higher perceived benefits. Results are mixed, but most of the studies available in literature

concludes a positive impact of environment on financial performance is obtained are

predominant. Jose´ F. Molina-Azorı´n, Enrique Claver-Corte´s, Maria D. Lo´pez-Gamero and

Juan J. Tarı´,2009. Qinghua Zhu, Yong Geng. Tsuyoshi Fujita and Shizuka Hashimoto,

2010.Japanese large manufacturers actively implement all items within the internal

environmental management practice set. They also implement a number of green purchasing,

eco-design and investment recovery practices. Efforts among Japanese large manufacturers have

brought significant environmental and financial performance improvements. There are several

reasons why GSCM is enduring and not simply the “flavor of the month.” The broad concept of

sustainability, and the key interfaces that sustainability has with supply chain management,

strongly suggests that Sustainability is instead license to do business in the twenty-first century.

And supply chain management is an integral component of this license (Carter, Easton, 2011).

GSCM PERFORMANCE

Recent literature (Florida, 1996; Florida and Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000;

Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 2002; Sarkis, 1995) offers insight on the potential of

developing supply-chain relations for improving environmental performance. GSCM has

emerged as an important new archetype for companies to achieve profit and market share

objectives by lowering their environmental risks and impacts and while raising their ecological

efficiency (Van Hock and Erasmus, 2000). The raison for implementing GSCM practices is that

they will result in better environmental performance besides retaining their suppliers or

customers. The literature supporting this idea is relatively strong. For example, Frosch (1994)

argued that an inter-firm linkage facilitated by proximity could lead to improvement in

environmental performance. Florida (1996) stated that closer bonds between suppliers and

customers, which can facilitate cleaner production, are the trend in manufacturing as leading

enterprises need such close relationships with suppliers to incorporate management strategies

such as just-in-time (JIT), continuous improvement, and total quality management. Geffen and

Rothenberg (2000) suggested that relations with suppliers aid the adoption and development of

innovative environmental technologies. In addition, the interaction between customer and

supplier staff, partnership agreements and joint research and development lead to improvements

in environmental performance. Whether GSCM brings positive or negative economic

performance remains controversial. Gil et al. (2001) indicated that environmental management

such as GSCM has a positive relationship with an organization’s economic performance. It has

been argued that success in addressing environmental issues may provide new opportunities for

competition, and new ways to add value to core business programs (Hansmann and Kroger,

2001). Dodgson (2000), Dyer and Singh (1998), von Hippel (1988) and others argued that inter-

firm relations provide formal and informal mechanisms that promote trust, reduce risk and in

turn increase innovation and profitability. However, Bowen et al. (2001a) suggested economic

benefits are not being reaped through short-term profitability and sales performance. Among

barriers for the implementation of GSCM such as green purchasing, the most critical ones appear

to be economic reasons and issues related to costs(Min and Galle, 1997; Cox et al., 1999).

Restrictions to firms’ behavior such as integrating environmental criteria into supplier selection

may arise from the enactment of internal procedures as well as from conformity with extant

regulations. Further, compliance with internal and external procedures posits considerable

restrictions to opportunistic behavior of firms as well as increased operational costs, which in

turn may have a negative impact on firms’ financial performance (Cordeiro and Sarkis, 1997;

Walley and Whitehead, 1994). Few studies that examine the relationship between

environmental management and operational performance have been completed. The limited

research has indicated a positive relationship. Szwilski (2000) put forward that an environmental

management system is an innovative environmental policy and information management tool for

industry to improve the operational performance of an organization. Using a case study of the

first Japanese integrated pulp and paper mill that gained ISO14001 certification, Tooru (2001)

demonstrated that environmental management systems can improve the operational performance

of a firm. Just as introduced above, the implementation of GSCM can influence a firm’s

performance. Konar and Cohen (2001) found that the relationship between environmental

practice and financial performance varies across industrial sectors, with losses in market value

from higher levels of toxic chemical emissions accruing within traditionally polluting industrial

sectors.Greening the supply chain also has the same potential to lead to competitiveness and

economic performance. From an industry perspective, in particular for this region, firms are

continuously striving to achieve competitiveness in their business activities in both the domestic

and the global arena. These research findings suggest that if they green their supply chains not

only would firms achieve substantial cost savings, but they would also enhance sales, market

share, and exploit new market opportunities to lead to greater profit margins, all of which

contribute to the economic performance of the firm.Environmental management practices have

emerged as a key lever in improving manufacturing performance and subsequent corporate

profitability. When combined with other numerous environmental challenges, such as climate

change, air and water pollution, natural resource management, natural disasters and industrial

accidents, the costs of not responding adequately to these environmental challenges can be

considerable, and in some cases represent a significant drag on a organizations economy.

Integrating the theoretical concepts and strategic purposes that impact relationships among

environmental strategies, environmental performance, and financial performance will allow

future researchers and practitioners to better understand environmental decision-making. A study

by Porter and van der Linde (1995a, 1995b) concluded that firms respond to competitive

conditions and regulatory pressure by developing strategies to maximize resource productivity

through efforts to enhance their "resource productivity," enabling them to simultaneously

improve their industrial and environmental performance (1995a). A statistical study by Hart and

Ahuja (1994) found that efforts to prevent pollution and reduce emissions had a positive effect

on industrial performance. This study also found that the biggest benefits accrued to large

polluters, noting that the closer a firm came to zero emissions the more expensive it was to

further reduce pollution or realize efficiency or performance gains.To improve both economic

and environmental performance simultaneously throughout their supply chains, green

manufacturing firms have created networks of suppliers or subcontractors to purchase

environmentally superior products and to build common practices to waste reduction and

operational efficiencies (Zhu and Cote, 2004). Zhu and Sarkis showed that the adoption of

GSCM practices for Chinese manufacturers have had a significant positive influence on the

environmental, economic and organizational performance of these organizations. Since such

win–win opportunities do exist when these practices are adopted, it is important to study the

determinants of GSCM practice adoption as we do in this paper.

Financial performance

This is one measure of an organization’s overall performance, and from the stakeholder strategic

purpose, it is the purpose of the firm (Friedman, 1970). This construct has been found to be

multi-dimensional (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987) and therefore is commonly

operationalized in empirical studies using more than one measure. In this paper, financial

performance refers to the financial impacts of the application of firm environmental strategies.

Indeed, these costs are significant. This construct is often operationalized in environmental

studies by measuring manager’s perceptions of how the strategy has impacted the firm’s bottom

line (Arago´n-Correa et al., 2008; Judge and Douglas, 1998; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998).

Research has shown that the cost of environmental law compliance over the past 25 years has

exceeded $1 trillion (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998).

Environmental performance

Environmental performance is now a value important to many competitive and successful

companies around the world ( Jcobs and Kleiner, 1995; Sarkis et al., 2006). Environmental

performance is a multidimensional construct with factors including environmental impact on the

biosphere, customers, employees, the local community, and other stakeholders (Christmann,

2000; Lober, 1996; Ilinitch et al., 1998; Sharma, 2000; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998). During

the late 1980s, research first suggested that environmental performance could provide a

competitive advantage (Clemens, 2001). Politicians (Gore, 1992), chief executive officers of

major chemical companies (Reilly, 1990), and prominent scholars (Ahmed et al., 1998; Bragdon

and Marlin, 1972; Cairncross, 1993; Dowell et al., 2000; Farrow et al., 2000; Halvorsen and

Smith, 1991; Stead et al., 1998; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004, 2007) argued that improved

environmental practices do not necessarily detract from a firm’s financial performance. In this

paper, environmental performance refers to the environmental impacts of firm environmental

strategies.

GSCM PRACTICES & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

The relationship among firm environmental strategy, financial performance, and environmental

performance has been a major focus of environmental strategy researchers for more than a

decade (Hart, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Russo, 1997). In the 1990s the Academy of Management

devoted special issues of the Academy of Management Review and the Academy of

Management Journal to environmental management (King, 1995; Starik and Rands, 1994). Since

its humble beginnings, the field has burgeoned and blossomed into one of the fastest growing

areas of scholarly activity. The birth, creation, and development of the Organizations and the

Natural Environment division in the Academy of Management, which also evolved from the

Greening of Industry Network, is testament to that growth. Three of the most studied constructs

are firm environmental strategies, financial performance, and environmental performance. Zhang

Shuhong,2009 Strategic competitive advantage of green supply chain readiness for

manufacturing firms by using the four attributes and dynamic capability mentioned above based

upon RBV as they are Inimitable, Rarity, The Valuable of Resources. Irreplaceable and Dynamic

GSCM Research in Manufacturing Firms

Environmental attitude (EA) is a key predictor of Green Supply Chain Management activity and

those organizations that have a progressive attitude are also operationally very active.

Environmental Attitude shows some relationship to legislative drivers but other factors are also

influential (Diane Holt, Abby Ghobadian, 2009).Large companies can green their supply chain

by establishing win-win relationships with their smaller suppliers and customers, and thus realize

sustainable development for the whole supply chains. It also indicates that appropriate

regulations and policies set by governments can help GSCM diffusion from larger lead emerging

companies to smaller companies (Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Yong Geng, 2005). Qinghua Zhu,

Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai,(2007) GSCM implementation has only slightly improved

environmental and operational performance, and has not resulted in significant economic

performance improvement for Chinese automobiles company.

Supplier management, product recycling, organization involvement and life cycle management

the critical factors for implementing green supply chain management (GSCM) practice in the

Taiwanese electrical and electronics industries (Allen H. Hu, Chia-Wei Hsu, 2010). The analysis

identified that greening the different phases of the supply chain leads to an integrated green

supply chain, which ultimately leads to competitiveness and economic performance (Purba Rao,

Diane Holt, 2005).They presents the first empirical evaluation of the link between green supply

chain management practices and increased competitiveness and improved economic performance

amongst a sample of organizations in South East Asia.

Environmental requirements and support were positively linked to their suppliers' willingness to

participate in green supply chain initiatives. The government can play an important role in

motivating these suppliers (Su-Yol Lee, 2008). Globalization results in both pressure and drivers

for Chinese enterprises to improve their environmental performance. As a developing country,

China has to balance economic and environmental performance. Green supply chain

management (GSCM) is emerging to be an important approach for Chinese enterprises to

improve performance, possibly on both these dimensions (Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, 2004).

Enterprises have experienced high and increasing regulatory and market pressures and at the

same time have strong internal drivers for GSCM practice adoption. However, their GSCM

implementation, especially with consideration of external relationships, is poor. Therefore,

GSCM implementation has only slightly improved environmental and operational performance,

and has not resulted in significant economic performance improvement (Qinghua Zhu, Joseph

Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai, 2007). There are six major green supply chain management dimensions

were identified: green manufacturing and packaging, environmental participation, green

marketing, green suppliers, green stock, and green eco-design (Kuo-Chung Shang, Chin-Shan

Lu, Shaorui Li, 2010).

Different manufacturing industry types display different levels of GSCM implementation and

outcomes. It has been specifically found that the electrical/electronic industry has relatively

higher levels of GSCM implementation and achieves better performance outcomes than the other

three manufacturer types (Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis and Kee-hung Lai, 2006).Different

industries have differing drivers and practices (Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2006). There is a

positive relationship between organizational learning mechanisms, organizational support and

the adoption of GSCM practices, after controlling for a number of other influences including

regulations, marketing, supplier, cost pressures, industry levels of the relevant practice and

organizational size (Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, James J. Cordeiro and Kee-Hung Lai, 2008).

Research of the green supply chain operating in specific industry

The wide diffusion of GSCM practices in the last years, especially in specific industrial sectors

(e.g.: food and beverages, textile, electronics, etc.) encouraged many organizations to follow the

strategy of the first-movers. In order to compensate their competitive disadvantage compared to

the early-adopters of environmental practices in coordination with their suppliers. We can define

this last case as an “imitation-led” approach. Researchers have paid enough attention to practice

of green supply chain management, the focus industry such as food trade; electron trade and

automobile manufacturing industry are paid more attention to. Qinghua Zhu (2004) has studied

the practice of green supply chain management in a sugar refinery of China, Remko (2001)has

studied how to actualize green supply chain management in the automobile industry from two

angles of technology and operation.

GSCM Research in Indian Manufacturing Sector

Globalization results in both pressure and drivers for Indian Industries and other enterprises to

improve their environmental performance. As a developing country, INDIA has to balance

economic and environmental performance. Green supply chain management (GSCM) is

emerging to be an important approach for Indian Industries and enterprises to improve

performance, possibly on both these dimensions. Investigation of GSCM along with social

concerns is rarely done in the Indian context (Shukla, Deshmukh, Kanda, 2009)..The arrival of

global manufacturers has brought about new challenges such as environmental concerns and

sustainability of supply chains. Environmentally and socially responsive supply chains are in the

early adoption stages in India (Rettab,Ben , 2008). Sustainability and need of sustainability

issues are yet to come in widespread manner on the radar screen of Indian industries in general

and chemical industry in particular. Isolated instances are there, but not mainstreamed into the

psyche of the industry sector. Companies have to realize its benefit commercially due to these

new initiatives. We should sell sustainability, since it makes business sense.

Companies studied in the auto cluster are not adequately addressing these measures in supply

chain design and operations; though awareness and inclination to adopt has been on the rise –

actual implementation lacks a holistic approach. Investigation of GSCM along with social

concerns is rarely done in the Indian context (Shukla, Deshmukh,Kanda, 2009). Green Supply

Chain Management (GSCM) is an increasingly widely-diffused practice among companies that

are seeking to improve their environmental performance. The motivation for the introduction of

GSCM may be ethical (e.g., reflecting the values of managers) and/or commercial (Francesco

Testa and Fabio Iraldo, 2010). Apratul Chandra Shukla, S.G. Deshmukh, Arun Kanda,

(2009) ,Environmentally and socially responsive supply chains are in the early adoption stages in

India. Companies studied in the auto cluster are not adequately addressing these measures in

supply chain design and operations; though awareness and inclination to adopt has been on the

rise – actual implementation lacks a holistic approach.