the role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the
TRANSCRIPT
The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the
implementation of environmental logistics practices*
Javier GONZÁLEZ-BENITO **
Dpto. Administración y Economía de la Empresa Universidad de Salamanca
Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Edificio FES 37007 Salamanca (Spain) Tel: 34-23-294400 ext. 3502
Fax: 34-23-294715 [email protected]
Óscar GONZÁLEZ-BENITO
Dpto. Administración y Economía de la Empresa Universidad de Salamanca
Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Edificio FES 37007 Salamanca (Spain) Tel: 34-23-294400 ext. 3508
Fax: 34-23-294715 [email protected]
* The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Research Projects SEC 2001-1756 and SEJ 2004-03888/ECON). ** Corresponding author
Dr. J. González-Benito has a degree in Mathematics (1995) and a PhD in Economics and Management Sciences (1999) from the University of Salamanca, where he joined as an Assistant Professor of Management after taking the MPhil degree in Management Studies of the University of Cambridge (UK) (1997) and the MSc degree in Operations Management of UMIST (UK) (1998). He has published articles in journals such as: International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, OMEGA, Industrial Marketing Management and British Journal of Management.
Dr. O. González-Benito has a degree in Mathematics from the University of Salamanca (1995), a MSc degree in Marketing at UMIST (UK) (1997), and a PhD degree in Economics and Management Sciences from the University of Salamanca (1999). He is currently Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Salamanca. In addition to several published papers in some of the most recognized Spanish marketing and management academic journals, he has published articles in international journals such as Journal of Retailing, International Journal of Market Research, Journal of Business Research, OMEGA, Industrial Marketing Management, British Journal of Management and Small Business Economics
1
The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the
implementation of environmental logistics practices
Abstract
Many of the management practices that contribute to improving a firm’s environmental
performance are developed in the area of logistics management. The aim of this work is to
contribute to identifying the factors determining the implementation of these practices by studying
two variables: the environmental pressure of the stakeholders as perceived by the firm and the
values and beliefs of its managers. The analysis of data provided by 186 industrial firms reveals
that two dimensions of pressure can be distinguished, governmental and non-governmental, and
that only the latter is able to explain the implementation of environmental practices in logistics.
The empirical results also confirm the effect of management’s values and reveal that part of this
effect is channelled through the influence of these values in the perception of environmental
pressure.
Key words: logistics, environmental management, stakeholders, managerial values
1. INTRODUCTION
The preservation of the environment has become an unavoidable variable in industrial activity.
While some firms have adopted a reactive strategy, limiting themselves to the prevailing
legislation, others have chosen more proactive strategies, introducing voluntarily practices
focused on reducing their environmental impact. In particular, many of these practices are carried
out in the area of logistics, where there is great potential for contributing to the environmental
performance of firms (Wu and Dunn, 1995). It is therefore interesting to know which
2
contingencies lead firms to develop proactive environmental initiatives in this area of activity, i.e.
what circumstances favour the implementation of environmental practices in logistics.
This paper is intended to contribute to answering this question by studying the role played by
stakeholder pressure and managerial values and beliefs in the implementation of these
environmental logistics practices. Specifically, this paper (1) analyses the effect of the perceived
stakeholder environmental pressure and the environmental awareness of managers and (2)
explores the extent to which the interaction between these two variables exists and is relevant. In
this second respect, this paper expressly analyses the extent to which the environmental
awareness of managers moderates the relationship between the perceived pressure and the
implementation of environmental logistics practices and the extent to which this pressure
mediates the relationship between managerial values and the implementation of environmental
logistics practices.
The interest of this work lies in the following aspects:
- Although the effect of stakeholder environmental pressure and managerial values on the
environmental proactivity of a company has often been approached in the literature, most
of these papers consider corporate practices focused on environmental planning and
organization activities (e.g. Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Bansal and Roth, 2000).
Some evidence exists about the relevance of these variables in environmental
purchasing and green supply chain management (Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter and
Jennings, 2004; Zhu et al., 2005), but none of these papers has focused on logistics.
- The effect of these two variables on the environmental behaviour of companies has been
studied separately but no attention has been paid to their joint effect. The way in which
perceived pressures and managerial values interact and how this interaction affects
environmental proactivity is still unexplored.
3
- This paper provides evidence about the implementation patterns of environmental
logistics practices and the nature of stakeholder environmental pressure in Spanish
industry, a geographical area where little research on green logistics and supply chain
has been reported.
The article is divided into six sections. In section 2, the literature on environmental logistics
practices is reviewed and those practices considered on the empirical level are introduced. In
section 3, the role of the two determining variables that are the object of study are analyzed and
the working hypotheses are developed. Section 4 is devoted to explaining the methodology
followed for contrasting the hypotheses, whereas in section 5 we present and discuss the results
obtained. The main conclusions are summarized in section 6.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL LOGISTICS PRACTICES
Different authors have pointed out that the environmental proactivity of firms is manifested not
only through the transformation of their internal activities (product design and production
processes) but also through the introduction of new practices in the logistics of supply and
distribution that link them to other participants (suppliers and customers) in the value chain
(González-Benito and González-Benito, 2005b). A series of environmental practices has been
identified or suggested for the management of physical flows that enter and leave an industrial
organization, not only in the literature focused specifically on logistics (Murphy et al., 1994, 1995;
Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Wu and Dunn, 1995), but also from the perspective of purchasing
management (Bowen et al., 2001; Green et al., 1998; Min and Galle, 2001; Zsidisin and Hendrick,
1998; Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001) or from the more generic and integrating perspective of the
supply chain (Handfield et al., 1997; Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Sarkis, 1998; Zhu and
Sarkis, 2004; Rao and Holt, 2005).
4
As regards the entry of materials, the most common measures consist of prioritizing the
purchasing of products that are shown to have been developed and manufactured in accordance
with ecological criteria, and related to this, selecting suppliers with the best environmental
performance. In this sense, works such as that of Handfield et al. (2002) or Enarsson (1996)
provide tools and outlines for facilitating the environmental evaluation of suppliers, pointing out
that a firm committed to the environment should demand a similar commitment from the firms
they work with.
Transportation is another aspect of logistics with considerable environmental impact (Woensel et
al., 2001). One of the easiest measures to improve environmental performance in this area
consists of prioritizing shipment consolidation in the planning and programming of flows (Wu and
Dunn, 1995). This allows the capacity of the vehicles used to be maximized and the emission of
contaminating gases reduced. Another, more strategic measure, although more difficult to
implement (Byrne and Polonsky, 2001), would consist of choosing less polluting forms of
transportation or those logistic operators more committed in this sense. The use of motors run on
natural gas, or the hiring of rail transport instead of road transport are some examples of
environmental actions in this sense.
In the logistics of storage, manipulation and distribution, the aspects related to the packing,
packaging and bottling of products are the ones with the most impact on the natural environment.
Thus we must distinguish between primary, secondary and transport packaging (Livingstone and
Sparks, 1994). The first refers to the direct packaging of the product, which the consumer uses
until the product is consumed. The second refers to any additional packaging (boxes, bags…)
used frequently with promotional aims or to facilitate the combined purchase of several units of
5
the same product. Transportation packaging refers to the packaging used to facilitate the moving
and storage of products (containers, boxes, pallets…). Primary and secondary packaging is what
most directly affects the consumers’ intention of purchase, and therefore its modification
responds more to commercial criteria than to logistic criteria. Efforts in this sense are usually
focused on reducing the packaging and using recyclable materials or containers. With respect to
transportation packaging, the restriction is not usually determined by consumer perception, but by
aspects relating to operation costs. In this case as well the effort made focuses on replacing
throw-away packaging with reusable containers or in facilitating the recycling of packaging.
Although traditional logistics mainly considers the physical flows of products from the
manufacturer to the consumer, the recycling and re-use of materials and components has given
rise to new physical flows from the consumer to the manufacturer, which is now known as
“reverse logistics” (Andel, 1997; Giuntini and Andel, 1995; Jonhson, 1998; Rogers and Tibben-
Lembke, 2001; González-Torre et al, 2004). These new flows propitiate the appearance of new
centres for the treatment and disassembly of products and to new businesses focused on
recycling. Although this reverse logistics is becoming more and more an activity carried out by
independent operators, one characteristic of an environmentally proactive firm would be its
involvement in the development and operating of systems for the recycling, re-use and recovery
of products. This implies an overall view of the value chain and a feeling of responsibility for the
products made throughout their useful life.
Although not intended to be comprehensive, but rather representative, Figure 1 shows 8 practices
through which logistics can contribute to the preservation of the environment. In this work these
practices come under the heading of “environmental logistics practices”, and in the subsequent
6
empirical development it is assumed that these practices constitute an indicator of environmental
commitment on the part of the firm as regards logistics.
It is worth mentioning that this paper adopts a logistics focus, that is, it considers only the tactical
elements of green supply chain management, which according to Sarkis (2003) can be grouped
into five major categories: procurement, distribution, packaging, reverse logistics and production.
In particular, this paper is centred on the inbound and outbound flows of materials and,
consequently, only practices within the first four of these categories are considered. Therefore,
strategic elements of green supply chain management such as the establishment of cooperative
relationships with suppliers and customers for better undertaking joint environmental initiatives
(see, for example, Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Klassen and Vachon, 2003; Walton et al., 1998;
Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) are not considered. Nonetheless, since the practices chosen for this
research are often integrated in studies with a broader view of supply chain management, the
main findings and conclusions of this literature must be taken into account.
--- FIGURE 1---
3. THE ROLE OF STAKEHOLDER PRESSURE AND MANAGERIAL VALUES: RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
In this section we analyze the role of stakeholder pressure and managerial motivation in the
implementation of environmental logistics practices. Four research hypotheses are presented and
appear in outline form in Figure 2. The assumption underlying the reasoning of these hypotheses
is that the adoption of green supply chain management entails improvements in environmental
performance. This assumption, which turns out to be quite evident for the tactical practices
considered in this analysis, has received empirical support for the case of more strategic
7
practices such as the integration of suppliers and customers (Rao, 2002; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
It implies that those contingencies that stimulate companies to reduce their environmental impact
can also induce the adoption of environmental practices in logistics.
--- FIGURE 2 ---
3.1. Stakeholder Environmental Pressure
Stakeholders are individuals and groups which can affect the company’s performance or who are
affected by a firm’s actions (Freeman, 1984). Clarkson (1995) distinguishes between primary
stakeholders, those without whose participation and support the organization cannot survive (e.g.
customers, suppliers, governments), and secondary stakeholders, which affect and are affected
by the organization but are not engaged in transactions with it and are not essential for its survival
(e.g. media, non-governmental organizations). In line with the proposals of Freeman and Liedtka
(1991), this author considers that an organization is a system of primary stakeholder groups and
its survival and success depends on the capacity to create value for these stakeholders by
satisfying their demands and expectations. An organization can behave either in a more proactive
or more reactive manner to face such demands.
As regards corporate social responsibility and, in particular, environmental responsibility,
stakeholders demand integrity, respect, standards, transparency and accountability (Waddock et
al., 2002). In fact, the environmental commitment of a firm implies harmonizing environmental
performance with stakeholders’ expectations (Gupta, 1994). Thus, the company acts conditioned
by the pressures that it receives and perceives from its stakeholders. Several authors point out
the importance of this pressure for the development of environmental strategies (Berry and
Rondinelly, 1998; Fineman and Clarke, 1996; Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995; Maxwell et al.
1997; Winsemius and Guntram, 1992).
8
There is certain empirical evidence to this respect. Although with some nuances, the results of
Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) support the idea that environmental proactivity is associated with
higher pressures from organizational stakeholders (e.g. customers, suppliers, employees,
shareholders) and community stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, social groups),
whereas environmental reactivity is associated with higher pressures from regulatory
stakeholders (e.g. governments, trade associations) and the media. Buysse and Verbeke (2003)
introduced the distinction between internal primary stakeholders (employees, shareholders and
financial institutions) and external primary stakeholders (customers and suppliers) and observed
that only the former group motivates environmental proactivity. This result was explained by
arguing that the sample studied consisted of producers of intermediate products and had scarce
consumer contact. Alvarez et al. (2001) also observed that the implementation of environmental
practices in the hotel industry responds to a higher stakeholder pressure. The study of Klassen
and Whybark (1999) included external stakeholder influence as a contextual variable which was
measured by two constructs: public interaction, which assessed to what extent managers gather
opinions from and provide environmental information to the public; and awareness of
environmental regulation, which assessed to what extent plant personnel are informed regarding
environmental regulation and evaluated on regulatory compliance. Both constructs showed
positive effects on the degree of environmental proactivity.
Another justification of the importance of stakeholders as motivators of the environmental
strategies of firms is that among the benefits attributed to environmental proactivity there is
precisely improvement in the relationship with the different stakeholders and even the possibility
of influencing some of them (Russo and Fouts, 1998; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998;
Shrivastava, 1995).
9
As specifically regards the environmental practices in the area of logistics it can be said that not
only are they a possible response to the pressures received but they also involve and directly
affect different groups of external stakeholders. They can thus be easier to implement when these
same stakeholders demand a greater environmental commitment. Empirical research in this
respect is scarce and focuses on closely related concepts such as supply chain management and
purchasing management rather than on logistics. From an exhaustive analysis of five companies,
Handfield et al. (1997) observed that companies receive diverse pressures from different
stakeholders as regards environmental issues and that some green value chain practices are
potentially able to satisfy all of them. These authors therefore provided preliminary evidence
about the potential of supply chain management to satisfy environmental demands from
stakeholders. Carter and Carter (1998) found that environmental purchasing responds to the
pressures of distributors, retailers and customers and that other stakeholders such as regulators,
competitors or suppliers had scarce importance. Zhu et al. (2005) identified different types of
pressure received by Chinese enterprises to adopt green supply management practices. In the
light of these considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The greater the stakeholder pressure perceived by the firm, the greater the
implementation of environmental logistics practices.
3.2. Managerial Values: Environmental Awareness of Managers
Several papers point out the importance of the support and commitment of top management for
the development of proactive environmental strategies (Hunt and Auster, 1990; Berry and
Rondinelli, 1998; Quazi et al., 2001; Del Brio et al., 2001). Other authors consider that the key
question is not simply the existence of top management support for environmental initiatives.
10
Rather, they propose that, depending on the managers’ beliefs, expectations, perceptions and
opinions, the company will become inclined to implement a certain set of environmental practices
(Bansal and Roth, 2000; Banerjee, 2001; Cordano and Frieze, 2000; Fineman and Clarke, 1996;
Flannery and May, 2000; Vastag et al., 1996). Thus, the environmental awareness of managers,
understood as the degree to which they consider imperative the active participation of industry in
achieving sustainable development, might influence the environmental behaviour of a firm.
In the case of logistics, the implementation of environmental practices requires additional effort
since, as mentioned earlier, in many cases it requires not only an internal effort but also the
collaboration of other agents participating in the value chain. Success does not depend only on
the organization itself and putting these practices into effect often requires great effort at
negotiation. It is perhaps in these types of practices that a high environmental awareness on the
part of management can be a determining factor in encouraging others to begin to change.
Previous empirical evidence in this respect has not been found in the literature on logistics,
although, in the related fields of corporate social responsibility and purchasing management,
Carter and Jennings (2004) found evidence of a positive relationship between the individual
values of purchasing employees and purchasing social responsibility. Since one dimension of
corporate social responsibility is environmental commitment, this result is consistent with the idea
that the values and beliefs of people within the organization affect the development of
environmental initiatives in purchasing. According to these observations the following hypothesis
is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The greater the environmental awareness of the firm’s management, the
greater the implementation of environmental logistics practices
11
3.3. Mediating Role of the Perceived Stakeholder Pressure
Some authors (Del Brio and Junquera, 2003; Sharma et al., 1999; Sharma, 2000) consider that
the implementation of certain environmental practices and strategies depends on whether the
management perceives environmental pressure and topics as opportunities or as threats. That is,
these works suggest that the same environmental pressure or problems can be perceived
differently and give rise to different responses according to how they are interpreted. In light of
these considerations, it makes sense to ask ourselves what variables affect two fundamental
questions: (1) the perception of pressure and (2) the response to these perceptions. Below we
argue that the beliefs and values of the management (their level of environmental awareness, in
particular) can affect environmental management in both aspects.
As refers to the first question, the perception of pressure, it could be thought that the values and
beliefs of the management affect the effort made to perceive the opinions and demands of the
milieu, i.e., the capability of perceiving signs in environmental matters affecting the firm). In
particular, managers who are more environmentally aware will be more open and receptive to
environmental demands and will be more concerned with sounding out the stakeholders in this
sense. They will make a greater effort to perceive the environmental demands of the
stakeholders, which means that the same level of demands will be perceived more intensely and
the firm will interpret that it is subjected to greater pressure.
These arguments lead us to think that there is a direct effect of the managerial motivations on the
perception of environmental pressure. That is, the effect of the motivations on implementation
would be due, in part, to the mediation of perceived pressure. This reasoning led us to propose
the following hypothesis:
12
Hypothesis 3: The greater the environmental awareness of the firm’s managers, the
greater the environmental pressure perceived and part of the effect of the environmental
awareness of managers on the implementation of environmental logistics practices is
channelled through this relationship.
3.4. Moderating Role of Managerial Values
As regards the second question, the response given to perceived pressure, it might be thought
that the most environmentally aware managers would be more likely to introduce environmental
practices in the face of greater demand from the milieu. Those least environmentally aware will
resist the pressure of the stakeholders, will look for alternatives to distract them and delay any
type of environmental changes, or will simply not consider these kinds of actions as a priority.
This argumentation, which is in agreement with the literature suggesting that the beliefs and
cognitive characteristics of the managers have important effects on their strategic decisions and
the organizational processes established (D’Aveni and MacMillan, 1990; Priem, 1994; Thomas et
al, 1993), led us to posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The greater the environmental awareness of the managers, the greater the
effect of stakeholder pressure perceived by the firm on the implementation of
environmental logistics practices (i.e. managerial values moderate the relation between
the stakeholder pressure perceived and the implementation of environmental logistics
practices).
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1. Data
13
The approached population consisted of medium and large Spanish companies in three industrial
sectors: chemical products (except pharmaceutical companies), electronic and electrical
equipment, and furniture and fixtures. The purpose was to choose sectors subjected to different
environmental problems and pressures, and companies large enough to assure that the
implementation of the diverse practices considered in the analysis makes sense. All the entries
with more than 100 employees in each of the selected industrial sectors were extracted from the
Dun & Bradstreet census of the 50,000 largest Spanish companies. Thus, the target population
finally consisted of 428 companies, 156 of which were in the chemical sector, 211 in the
electronic and electric equipment sector, and 61 in the furniture sector.
After a pre-test on 9 companies, an extensive postal questionnaire covering different aspects of
environmental management was addressed to the production and operations manager of each
company. In all the cases, the questionnaire was preceded by a phone call to identify the
appropriate addressee, to announce the sending of the questionnaire and to ask for collaboration.
A presentation letter was attached to each questionnaire and, some days after the mailing, a
second phone call was made to all the companies that had not replied. This procedure yielded a
total of 186 valid responses which represent a global response rate of 43.38%, which in turn
corresponds to rates of 40.38%, 45.50% and 44.26% for the chemical, electronic equipment and
furniture industries, respectively.
4.2. Measures
a) Environmental Logistics Practices: Each company was asked to score the degree of
implementation of each environmental logistics practice included in Figure 1 according to a six-
point scale (1 “not at all; only what regulation requires” – 6 “to a great extent; it has been a priority
for our company”). The eight measures were reduced to a single scale through principal
14
components analysis. Only one factor resulted with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The indicators
of reliability (Cronbach’s α) and validity (factor loadings) were appropriate (Table 1).
--- TABLE 1 ---
b) Perceived Stakeholder Environmental Pressure: Each manager was asked to score the
environmental pressure exerted by the stakeholder groups included in Table 2 from 1 (not
important – no pressure) to 6 (very important – great pressure). Principal components analysis
was applied to the 10 items and two factors turned out to have eigenvalues higher than one,
together accounting for 57.20% of the variance. Table 2 shows the structure matrix. All the items
except governments and regulatory agents load on the first factor. Therefore, factors were
labelled as governmental pressure and non-governmental pressure, respectively. This result
indicates that those companies in the sample that perceive high pressure from any non-
governmental stakeholder tend to perceive high pressure as well from the other non-
governmental stakeholders. In other words, all the non-governmental stakeholders tend to be
perceived as a homogeneous group.
--- TABLE 2 ---
c) Managerial Environmental Awareness: To measure environmental awareness, operations
managers were asked to mark their degree of agreement or disagreement with 3 statements on a
six-point Likert scale. These statements consisted of assertions about the need for higher
voluntary and unselfish implication of companies for the achievement of sustainable development
(see Table 3). The 3 items were reduced to a single measure through principal components
analysis. Construct validity (factor loadings) and reliability (Cronbach’s α) were acceptable.
15
--- TABLE 3 ---
4.3. Analysis
To contrast the first two hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was posed, considering the
implementation of environmental logistics practices as the dependent variable and the measures
of perceived pressure and environmental awareness as independent variables. In order to isolate
this relationship, four control variables were also included in the analysis:
(1) Company size, measured as hundreds of employees. This variable was included to
control the effect of scale economies on the implementation of environmental practices
and the advantages derived from the superior availability of resources in large
companies. Several papers reveal the relevance of this variable in explaining
environmental proactivity (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2001; Aragón-Correa, 1998; Min and Galle,
2001). ,
(2) Internationalization, formalized as a binary variable that differentiates firms integrated
in international business groups. This variable was included to control the effect of
corporate size as well as the effect of knowledge transfer between different divisions and
plants. This transfer facilitates the joint adoption of new practices and the quick imitation
of the most environmentally advanced subsidiaries. Papers such as those of Christmann
and Taylor (2001) and Kennelly and Lewis (2002) confirm the relevance of this variable.
(3) The industrial sector, which required the introduction of two binary variables
distinguishing the chemical and electronic and electrical equipment sectors, respectively.
These variables were included to control the effects of industry concentration (Arora and
Cason, 1996) and the divergences between industries as regards environmental
16
pressures, potential environmental damage and perception of environmental issues
(Banerjee, 2002).
(4) The use of advanced production and operations management (POM). This variable
was built through principal components analysis from the degree of implementation rated
on a six-point Likert scale of five advanced production and operations management
practices: Total Quality Management, advanced manufacturing technologies, Just-in-
Time, information-technology-based integrated management systems such as ERPs, and
collaboration with suppliers (see Table 4). This variable reflects the proactivity of the
company’s manufacturing strategy and, to some extent, the strategic importance the
company gives to the production and operations function, which is often responsible for
many of the environmental practices implemented by companies (Gupta, 1994; Inman,
1999; Angell and Klassen, 1999). Thus, this variable has been included to control the
effect of the capabilities derived from the implementation of advanced manufacturing
practices, which can facilitate the environmental transformation of companies. Several
authors have provided evidence of the importance of the implementation of advanced
manufacturing practices to explain environmental issues (Florida and Davison, 2001;
Klassen, 2000; King and Lenox, 2001; Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2005a)
and there is also some evidence in the particular case of green supply chain
management (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
--- TABLE 4 ---
Table 5 shows the relationships by pairs of all the variables considered as a function of the
numeric properties of the measurement scale. The relationships are statistically significant in
several cases. Because of this, and to avoid possible problems of interpretation derived from the
17
collinearlity between the different independent variables, 4 explanatory models were considered.
In the first model, only the explanatory role of the control variables was considered. In the second
and third models the two dimensions of perceived environmental pressure on one hand and the
measure for environmental awareness on the other hand were incorporated separately, while in
the fourth model the three variables were introduced at the same time. The results can be seen
in Table 6.
--- TABLE 5 ---
--- TABLE 6 ---
Hypothesis 3 poses the existence of a relationship between environmental awareness and the
environmental pressure perceived by the firm. Aside from the results of the Pearson test for the
correlation offered in Table 5, two new regressions were posed with both dimensions of perceived
stakeholder pressure as dependent variables, respectively, and environmental awareness
together with the control variables as independent variables. To isolate the effects of collinearity,
two models were again differentiated for each dependent variable, one with the control variables
and another incorporating environmental awareness as an explanatory variable. The results are
shown in Table 7. The examination of this Table along with Table 6 provides information about
the extent to which governmental and non-governmental pressures mediate the relationship
between environmental awareness and the implementation of environmental logistics practices
(Baron and Kenny, 1986).
--- TABLE 7 ---
18
To test hypothesis 4, which suggests a moderating relationship between environmental
awareness and the influence of perceived environmental pressure in the implementation of
environmental logistics practices, we again performed the regression structure posed in Table 6
but incorporating two interaction terms in a fifth model. These interaction terms were respectively
formed by the product of environmental awareness and each dimension of perceived pressure.
This is a usual analytic procedure for studying relationships of moderation (Venkatraman, 1989).
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The first explanatory model in Table 6 incorporates only the control variables. The explanatory
power (R2) is significant, which suggests that the inclusion of these variables in the analysis is
correct. The implementation of advanced POM practices stands out as the variable that positively
and significantly affects the implementation of environmental logistics practices. This supports the
idea that environmental management is strongly rooted in the production and operations function
(Gupta,1994; Inman, 1999; Angel and Klassen, 1999) and that the proactivity of this function is
hence determinant for the development of environmental practices in logistics. Furthermore, this
result might indicate that advanced POM practices generate certain capabilities that are useful in
facing environmental challenges in logistics. Although the other control variables do not appear
as significant, according to Table 5, the implementation of advanced POM practices is higher in
large companies integrated into international groups and working in the electrical and electronic
equipment industry. Therefore, the significance of the implementation of advanced POM practices
might be to some extent capturing the importance of company size, internationalization or
industrial sector.
The second model in Table 6 incorporates as independent variables both dimensions of
perceived stakeholder pressure. The explanatory power of this model increases significantly with
19
respect to the first model, indicating that these variables are able to explain a part of the variance
of the dependent variable that the control variables do not explain. However, the coefficients
indicate that only the non-governmental dimension of perceived pressure exerts a significant
influence on the implementation of environmental logistics practices. On the contrary, perceived
governmental pressures appear as non-relevant, perhaps because these pressures focus on the
observation of legislation and not on the development of proactive initiatives such as those
considered in this analysis. Thus, hypothesis 1 is accepted only for the case of non-governmental
pressures. These results are consistent with those of Carter and Carter (1998), who found that
the pressures from regulatory agents do not constitute a driver of environmental purchasing
activities. To some extent, this result extrapolates the conclusions of Henriques and Sadorsky
(1999), who found that regulatory pressures are associated with reactive environmental
strategies, for the specific case of logistics.
The incorporation of the variable measuring the environmental awareness of the management
(see explanatory model 3 in Table 6) gives rise to results similar to those of model 2. Although the
explanatory power is somewhat less than in the cases of the pressure perceived, the results
indicate that the implementation of environmental logistics practices is also in part explained by
the motivations and beliefs of the managers directly responsible for putting them into practice.
The data therefore confirm hypothesis 2.
The correlation between environmental awareness and perceived non-governmental pressure
shown in Table 5 reveals that both variables share a noteworthy percentage of the variance,
which turns out to be statistically significant according to the Pearson test. This correlation
decreases for the case of governmental pressures but it is still significant. Furthermore, the
regression models posed in Table 7 indicate that, even incorporating the control variables,
20
environmental awareness has an additional and significant explanatory power on both
dimensions of perceived environmental pressure. The coefficient of environmental awareness is
positive and significant in both cases, thus improving the fit and the explanatory power of model 2
with respect to model 1 in Table 6 in both cases. The data thus lead us to accept the relationship
proposed in the first part of Hypothesis 3. Nonetheless, significance is higher in the case of non-
governmental pressure, perhaps denoting that governmental pressures use official channels and
become clearer to managers so that their perception is not so influenced by their environmental
awareness.
Returning to Table 6, explanatory model 4, which incorporates the three independent variables
under study together, shows that the coefficient and significance of environmental awareness is
lower than in model 3. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), this indicates that at least a part of
the effect of this variable on the implementation of environmental logistics practices is channelled
through its effect on perceived non-governmental pressures. In other words, the perceived non-
governmental pressure is a mediator in the relationship between the environmental awareness of
managers and the implementation of environmental logistics practices. The second part of
hypothesis 3 is therefore supported. However, the coefficient of environmental awareness is still
significant in model 4, thus indicating that, in spite of its relationship with perceived non-
governmental pressure, both are capable of explaining different portions of the variance of the
dependent variable. This supports the idea that there is also a direct effect of environmental
awareness on the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
To study the possible moderating effect of environmental awareness proposed in hypothesis 4,
two interaction terms formed by the product of environmental awareness with each of the
dimensions of perceived environmental pressure were incorporated in explanatory model 5 in
21
Table 6. It can be seen that the incorporation of these variables does not increase the explained
variance (R2) in a significant way. This indicates, that, although, as proposed in hypothesis 1, the
implementation of environmental logistics practices responds to non-governmental pressures, this
response is not higher in companies with environmentally conscious managers. Thus,
environmental awareness does not moderate the relationship between non-governmental
pressures and environmental logistics practices and hypothesis 4 cannot be accepted.
The final result of the work is outlined in Figure 3, where it can be seen that there are two ways
through which environmental awareness can affect environmental behaviour in logistics. One is
direct, according to the effect proposed in hypothesis 2, and the other is through the effect
considered in hypothesis 3. This result leads us to think that stakeholder pressure is a central
element in the explanation of environmental proactivity, and is relevant in explaining the effect of
other circumstances and contingencies.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work we have empirically studied the role of perceived stakeholder pressure and
managers’ environmental awareness in the implementation of environmental practices in the
management of logistics. The analysis of data provided by medium and large Spanish companies
in three industrial sectors has led to three major findings. Firstly, both studied variables play a
relevant role. The results indicate that companies perceive two different sources of environmental
pressure: governmental and non-governmental. However, only the latter is able to explain the
implementation of environmental logistics practices in a significant way, perhaps because these
practices are proactive and voluntary and governmental pressure focuses on the observance of
regulation. The other variable studied, the environmental awareness of managers, is also able to
explain a significant part of the implementation of environmental logistics practices. Although
22
previous research has already pointed out the importance of managerial values and beliefs in
explaining the environmental behaviour of firms, the analysis in this paper particularly confirms
that the presence of what Bansal and Roth (2000) call ‘ethical motives’ is a driver of
environmental commitment in the area of logistics.
Secondly, the results indicate that the effect of environmental awareness on the implementation
of environmental logistics practices is not only direct but is also channelled through its influence
on the perception of stakeholder pressure. That is, the same pressures are more intensely
perceived by environmentally conscious managers who thus interpret that they are subjected to a
greater pressure and this leads them to undertake environmental initiatives not only as a
consequence of their ethical principles but also because they feel it is a good way of satisfying
stakeholders. Thus, as far as non-governmental stakeholders are concerned, perceived pressure
mediates part of the effects of the environmental awareness of managers on the environmental
transformation of logistics. This relationship of mediation is possibly only one example of the
complementarities and interactions existing between the different determinant factors of green
logistics. In general, this finding suggests that those works focused only on the study of one
determining factor of environmental proactivity without considering additional contingencies might
offer only a partial and limited picture of the problem. The inclusion of a wide range of variables in
these studies and the analysis of the interactions between them would give a more complete view
of the complex mechanism explaining environmental proactivity.
Thirdly, those companies with environmentally aware managers are not more reactive to
perceived environmental pressures than other companies. In other words, although, as
commented upon above, these companies perceive a greater pressure, they respond to a given
level of perceived pressure with the same intensity as the other companies. This reveals that the
23
environmental awareness of managers does not moderate the relationship between perceived
environmental stakeholder pressures and the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
The results obtained are of interest not only to academics, but can also be of use in the
development of a public environmental policy. This work reveals that in order to foster the
environmental behaviour of a firm, the coercive method of pressure through legislation is not the
only way; rather, there are other means such as increasing the environmental awareness of
managers.
The work, of course, is not exempt from limitations, the overcoming of which constitutes possible
directions for future research. In the first place, we have only considered the implementation of
environmental practices related to logistics, and it would be of interest to broaden the analysis to
other more strategic components of supply chain management such as cooperation with
suppliers and customers for environmental purposes. Secondly, only the managerial beliefs of the
operations manager were measured and it was implicitly assumed that these are similar to the
beliefs dominant in the organization and to those of other managers involved in environmental
decisions. It would be a good idea to carry out studies that would be able to collect the opinion of
more than one manager in each organization, thus increasing the reliability of the data. In the
third place, we used environmental awareness as the sole indicator of managerial beliefs and
values. The consideration of other indicators and dimensions of managerial beliefs will open
numerous possibilities for future research. Finally, we have studied medium and large companies
in three Spanish industrial sectors. The replication of the analysis in other sectors and
geographical locations would provide new insight into the topic. It would also be interesting to
adapt the methodology for the analysis of small enterprises.
24
REFERENCES Alvarez Gil, M.J., Burgos Jiménez, J. and Céspedes Lorente, J.J. (2001): “An Analysis of Environmental
Management, Organizacional Context and Performance of Spanish Hotels”, Omega, Vol. 29, n. 6, pp. 457-471. Andel, T. (1997): “Reverse Logistics: A Second Chance to Profit”, Transportation and Distribution, Vol. 38, n. 7, pp.
61-64. Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999): “Integrating Environmental Issues into the Mainstream: An Agenda for
Research in Operations Management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, n. 5, pp. 575-598. Aragón-Correa, J.A. (1998): “Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41, n. 5, pp. 556-567. Arora, S. and Cason, T.N. (1996): “Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed Environmental Regulations? Understanding
Participation in EPA’s 33/50 Program”, Land Economics, Vol. 74, n.4, pp. 413-432. Banerjee, S.B. (2001): “Managerial Perceptions of Corporate Environmentalism: Interpretations from Industry and
Strategic Implications for Organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, n.4, pp. 489-513. Banerjee, S.B. (2002): “Corporate Environmentalism: The Construct and Its Measurement”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 55, n.3, pp. 177-191. Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000): “Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, n.4, pp. 717-736. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986): “The mediator-moderator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5, n.6, pp. 1173-1182.
Berry, M.A. and Rondinelli, D.A. (1998): “Proactive Corporate Environmental Management: A New Industrial Revolution”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12, n.2, pp. 38-50-
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001): “The Role of Supply Management Capabilities in Green Supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, n. 2, pp. 174-189.
Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A. (2003): “Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, n. 5, pp. 453-470.
Byrne, M.R. and Polonsky, M.J. (2001): “Impediments to consumer adoption of sustainable transportation: Alternative fuel vehicles”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21, n.12, pp. 1521-1538.
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998): “Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing: Initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29, n.3, pp. 659-684.
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2004): “The role of purchasing in corporate social responsibility: A structural equation analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25, n.1, pp. 145-186.
Clarksson, M.B.E. (1995): “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, n.1, pp. 92-117.
Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2001): “Globalization and the Environment: Determinants of Firm Self-Regulation in China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, n. 3, pp. 439-458.
Cordano, M. and Frieze, I.H. (2000): “Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S. Environmental Managers: Applying Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, n. 4, pp. 627-641.
D’Aveni, R.A. and MacMillan, I.C. (1990): “Crisis and the content of managerial communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, n.4, pp. 634-657.
Del Brio, J.A. and Junquera, B. (2003): “Influence of the Perception of the External Environmental Pressures on Obtaining the ISO14001 Standard in Spanish Industrial Companies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41, n.2, pp. 337-348.
Del Brio, J.A., Fernández, E., Junquera, B. and Vázquez, C.J. (2001): “Environmental Managers and Departments as Driving Forces of TQEM in Spanish Industrial Companies”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18, n.5, pp. 495-511.
Enarsson, L. (1998): “Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 28, n.1, pp. 5-17.
Fineman, S. and Clarke, K. (1996): “Green Stakeholders: Industry Interpretations and Response”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, n.6, pp. 715-730.
Flannery, B.L. and May, D.R. (2000): “Environmental Ethical Decision Making in the U.S. Metal-Finishing Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, n.4, pp. 642-662.
Florida, R. and Davison, D. (2001): “Gaining from Green Management: Environmental Systems Inside and Outside the Factory”, California Management Review, Vol. 43, n. 3, pp. 64-84.
Freeman, R.E. (1984): Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman /Ballinger, Boston. Freeman, R.E. and Liedtka, J. (1991): “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach”, Business Horizons, Vol.
34, n.4, pp. 92-96.
25
Geffen , C.A. and Rothenberg, S. (2000): “Suppliers and environmental innovation: The automotive paint process”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, n.2, pp. 166-186.
Giuntini, R. and Andel, T. (1995): “Advance with Reverse Logistics”, Transportation and Distribution, Vol. 36, n. 2, pp. 73-75.
Gonzalez-Benito, J. and Gonzalez-Benito O. (2005a): “Environmental proactivity and business performance: an empirical analysis”, Omega, Vol. 33, n.1, pp. 1-15.
Gonzalez-Benito J. and González-Benito, O. (2005b): “A study of the motivations for the environmental transformation of companies”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, n.5, pp. 462-475.
Gonzalez-Torre, P.L., Adenso-Diaz, B. and Artiba, H. (2004): “Environmental and reverse logistics policies in European bottling and packaging firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 88, n.1, pp. 95-104.
Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1998): “Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve companies’ environmental performance?”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 3, n.2, pp. 89-95.
Gupta, M.C. (1994): “Environmental Management and Its Impact on the Operations Function”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 15, n. 8, pp. 34-51.
Handfield, R.B., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K. and Melnyk, S.A. (1997): “’Green’ Value Chain Practices in the Furniture Industry”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15, n. 4, pp. 293-315.
Handfield, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S.A. (2002): “Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 141, n. 1, pp. 70-87.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1999): “The Relationship between Environmental Commitment and Managerial Perceptions of Stakeholder Importance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, n.1, pp. 87-99.
Hunt, C.B. and Auster, E.R. (1990): “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 7-18.
Inman, R.A. (1999): “Environmental Management: New Challenges for Production and Inventory Managers”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 40, n. 3, pp. 46-49.
Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995): “Econologically Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional Approach”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, n.4, pp. 1015-1052.
Johnson, P.F. (1998): “Managing Value in Reverse Logistics Systems”, Transportation Research. Part E, Logistics & Transportation Review, Vol. 34, n.3, pp. 217-227.
Kennelly, J.J. and Lewis, E.E. (2002): “Degree of Internationalization and Corporate Environmental Performance: Is There a Link?”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 19, n.3, pp. 478-489.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001): “Lean and Green? An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Lean Production and Environmental Performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, n.3, pp. 244-256.
Klassen, R.D. (2000): “Just-in-Time Manufacturing and Pollution Prevention. Generate Mutual Benefits in the Furniture Industry”, Interfaces, Vol. 30, n. 3, pp. 95-106.
Klassen, R.D. and Vachon, S. (2003): “Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: The impact on plant-level environmental investment”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12, n.3, pp. 336-352.
Klassen, R.D. and Whybark, D.C. (1999): “Environmental Management in Operations: The Selection of Environmental Technologies”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30, n. 3, pp. 601-631.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996): “The Environment as a Supply Chain Management Issue”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, Special Issue, S45-S62.
Livingstone, S. and Sparks, L. (1994): “The new German packaging laws: Effects on firms exporting to Germany”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24, n.7, pp. 15-25.
Maxwell, J., Rothenberg, S., Briscoe, F. and Marcus, A. (1997): “Green Schemes: Corporate Environmental Strategies and their Implementation”, California Management Review, Vol. 39, n. 3, pp. 118-134.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001): “Green Purchasing Practices of US Firms”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21, n. 9/10, pp. 1222-1238.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F. and Braunschwieg, C.D. (1994): “Management of environmental issues in Logistics: Current status and future potential”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34, n.1, pp. 48-56.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F. and Braunschweig, C.D. (1995): “Role and relevance of logistics to corporate environmentalism: An empirical assessment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25, n.2, pp. 5-19.
Prendergast, G. and Pitt, L. (1996): “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 26, n.6, pp. 60-72.
Priem, R.L. (1994): “Executive judgment, organizational congruence, and firm performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 5, n. 3, pp. 421-437.
Quazi, H.A., Khoo, Y., Tan, C. and Wong, P. (2001): “Motivation for ISO14000 Certification: Development of a Predictive Model”, Omega, Vol. 29, n. 6, pp. 525-542.
Rao, P. (2002): “Greening the supply chain: A new initiative in South East Asia”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22, n.6, pp. 632-655.
26
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005): “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25, n. 9, pp. 898-916.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R. (2001): “An examination of reverse logistics practices”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, n.2, pp. 129-148.
Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A. (1997): “A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, n. 3, 534-559.
Sarkis, J. (1998): “Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 107, n.1, pp. 159-174.
Sarkis, J. (2003): “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11, n.4, pp. 397-409.
Sharma, S. (2000): “Managerial Interpretations and Organizational Context as Predictors of Corporate Choice of Environmental Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, n. 4, pp. 681-697.
Sharma, S., Pablo, A.L. and Vredenburg, H. (1999): “Corporate Environmental Responsiveness Strategies: The Importance of Issue Interpretation and Organizational Context”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 35, n. 1, pp. 87-108.
Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. (1998): “Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, n. 8, pp. 729-753.
Shrivastava, P. (1995): "The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 936-960.
Thomas, J., Clark, S. and Gioia, D. (1993): “Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, n. 2, pp. 239-270.
Vastag, G., Kerekes, S. and Rondinelli, D.A. (1996): “Evaluation of Corporate Environmental Management Approaches: A Framework and Application”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 43, pp. 193-211.
Venkatraman, N. (1989): “The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, n.3, pp. 423-444.
Waddock, S.A., Bodwell, C. and Graves, S.R. (2003): “Responsibility: The New Business Imperative”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, n.2, pp. 132-148.
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998): “The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental management processes”, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 2-11.
Winsemius, P. and Guntram, U. (1992): “Responding to the Environmental Challenge”, Business Horizons, Vol. 35, n.2, pp. 12-20.
Woensel, T.V., Creten, R. and Vandaele, N. (2001): “Managing the environmental externalities of traffic logistics: the issue of emissions”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, n.2, pp. 207-223.
Wu, H. and Dunn, S.C. (1995): “Environmentally Responsible Logistics Systems”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 25, n. 2, pp. 20-38.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004): “Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, n.3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005): “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25, n.5, pp. 449-468.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Hendrick, T.E. (1998): “Purchasing’s involvement in environmental issues: a multi-country perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 98, n.7, pp. 313-320.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001): “Environmental purchasing: A framework for theory development”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7, n.1, pp. 61-73.
27
Table 1. Environmental logistics practices. Principal component analysis
Practices Mean (D.T.) Factor 1
Preference for green products in purchasing 4.70 (1.26) .711
Environmental criteria in supplier selection 3.64 (1.80) .731
Shipments consolidation 3.82 (1.62) .742
Selection of cleaner transportation methods 2.26 (1.31) .679
Recyclable or reusable packaging/containers in logistics 3.97 (1.41) .773
Ecological materials for primary packaging 3.75 (1.45) .833
Recuperation and recycling systems 3.79 (1.59) .649
Responsible disposal of waste and residues (separation and preparation) 5.34 (1.09) .489
Total explained variance: 50.048%; Cronbach’s α: .8530
28
Table 2: Dimensions of stakeholder environmental pressure. Principal Components Analysis
Pressures
Mean (S.D.)
Factor 1 Non-governmental
pressure
Factor 2 Governmental
pressure
Governments and regulatory agents 4.99 (1.26) .357 .774
Customers / Consumers 4.11 (1.56) .623 -.224
Suppliers 2.42 (1.32) .716 -.247
Employees / unions 3.39 (1.45) .740 .197
Shareholders 4.48 (1.67) .630 -.199
Financial institutions 2.55 (1.52) .739 -.247
Communities and social groups 3.34 (1.66) .738 .154
Non-governmental organisations 2.82 (1.37) .694 .331
Competitors 3.34 (1.66) .719 -.322
Media 3.18 (1.54) .748 .121
Total explained variance: 57.20%
29
Table 3: Measure of managerial environmental awareness
Mean (S.D.)
Factor 1 Environmental awareness
It is crucial that companies commit themselves to reducing their impact on the natural environment, even if this entails lower productivity
4.15 (1.39) .802
Companies do not have the right to damage the natural environment just to satisfy their needs
5.24 (1.06) .779
Ensuring environmental protection must be the basis for building the competitive strategy of any company
4.58 (1.19) .782
Total explained variance: 62.06% ; Cronbach’s α: .7886
30
Table 4: Advanced POM practices. Principal Components Analysis
Practices Mean (D.T.) Factor 1
Total Quality Management 4.96 (1.29) .625
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT) 4.45 (1.16) .709
Just-in-Time production 4.02 (1.36) .674
Integrated information systems (ERPs) 4.76 (1.38) .620
Collaboration with suppliers 3.94 (1.18) .760
Total explained variance: 46.187%; Cronbach’s α: .7011
31
Table 5. Relationships between independent variables
Size Internationalization
Chemical sector
Electronic sector
Advanced POM
Non-Gov. Pressure
Gov. Pressure
Internationalization 10.584 3 ***
(+)
Chemical sector 1.111 3 .150 1 **
Electronic sector 6.025 3 **
(+) .103 1 -.739 1 ***
Advanced POM .341 2 *** 27.275 3 ***
(+) 1.009 3
5.003 3 ** (+)
Non-governmental pressure
.121 2 * 5.938 3 **
(+) 3.962 3 **
(+) 1.940 3 .355 2 ***
Governmental pressure
-.031 2 2.555 3 3.103 3 *
(+) 4.827 3 **
(-) .043 2 .000 2
Environmental awareness
.042 2 3.141 3 *
(+) 12.479 3 ***
(+) 5.845 3 **
(-) .282 2 *** .331 2 *** .186 2 **
1 ρ de Spearman 2 Pearson correlation 3 ANOVA F-value (sign of the significant relationships in brackets) *** p < 0.01 ** p< 0.05 * p < 0.10
32
Table 6. Explanatory power of perceived pressure and environmental awareness on the implementation of environmental logistics practices. Multiple regression analysis.
Explanatory Model 1
Explanatory Model 2
Explanatory Model 3
Explanatory Model 4
Explanatory Model 5
Constant -0.226 (0.167)
-0.200 (0.163)
-0.209 (0.165)
-0.183 (0.162)
-0.209 (0.163)
Size .025 ** (0.011)
0.024 ** (0.011)
0.026 ** (0.011)
0.025 ** (0.011)
0.025 ** (0.011)
Internationalization 0.020 (0.145)
-0.026 (0.142)
0.017 (0.143)
-0.031 (0.141)
-0.025 (0.142)
Chemical sector 0.348 * (0.203)
0.318 (0.198)
0.275 (0.203)
0.267 (0.198)
0.255 (0.199)
Electronic sector -0.037 (0.191)
-0.009 (0.186)
-0.029 (0.189)
-0.010 (0.185)
-0.019 (0.186)
Advanced POM 0.507 *** (0.070)
0.442 *** (0.072)
0.464 ** (0.072)
0.418 *** (0.073)
0.406 *** (0.074)
Non-governmental pressure
- 0.214 *** (0.065)
- 0.188 *** (0.066)
0.185 *** (0.066)
Governmental pressure - -0.070 0.061)
- -0.087 (0.061)
-0.088 (0.063)
Environmental awareness - - 0.146 ** (0.066)
0.119 * (0.067)
0.146 ** (0.070)
Non-Governmental pressure x environmental awareness
- - - - 0.089 (0.063)
Governmental pressure x environmental awareness
- - - 0.015 (0.053)
R2 .339 0.383 0.356 0.394 0.401
F 18.117 *** 15.528 *** 16.242 *** 14.147 *** 11.521 ***
∆F 6.329 *** (With respect to model 1)
4.881 ** (With respect to model 1)
3.149 * (With respect to model 2)
1.009 (With respect to
model 4)
Standard error in brackets *** p < 0.01 ** p< 0.05 * p < 0.10
33
Table 7: Explanatory power of environmental awareness on perceived environmental pressures. Multiple regression analysis
Non-Governmental
Pressure Governmental Pressure
Explanatory Model 1
Explanatory Model 2
Explanatory Model 1
Explanatory Model 2
Constant -0.034 (0.188)
-0.013 (0.184)
0.251 (0.200)
0.266 (0.199)
Size 0.003 (0.012)
0.005 (0.012)
-0.002 (0.013)
-0.001 (0.013)
Internationalization 0.90
(0.162) 0.094 (0.159)
-0.339 * (0.173)
-0.336 * (0.171)
Chemical sector 0.211 (0.228)
0.096 (0.227)
0.199 (0.243)
0.119 (0.245)
Electronic sector -0.197 (0.215)
-0.181 (0.211)
-0.184 (0.230)
-0.172 (0.228)
Advanced POM 0.358 *** (0.077)
0.286 *** (0.079)
0.129 (0.082)
0.079 (0.086)
Environmental awareness
- 0.221 *** (0.073)
- 0.155 * (0.079)
R2 0.162 0.203 0.052 0.072
F 6.877 *** 7.523 *** 1.959 * 2.302 **
Standard error in brackets *** p < 0.01 ** p< 0.05 * p < 0.10
34
Fig. 1. Representative environmental logistics practices
• Preference for green products in purchasing
• Environmental criteria in supplier selection
• Shipments consolidation
• Selection of cleaner transportation methods
• Recyclable or reusable packaging/containers in logistics
• Ecological materials for primary packaging
• Recuperation and recycling systems
• Responsible disposal of waste and residues (separation and preparation)
SUPPLY / PURCHASING TRANSPORTATION
WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTION
REVERSE LOGISTICS & WASTE MANAGEMENT
35
Fig. 2. Scheme of proposed hypotheses
H2
H3 H4
H1 Perceived
environmental pressure
Implementation of environmental
logistics practices
Managerial environmental awareness
36
Fig. 3. Effects resulting from the empirical analysis
H2
H3
H1 Perceived non-governmental pressure
Implementation of environmental
logistics practices
Managerial environmental awareness
H2
H3
Perceived governmental pressure
Implementation of environmental
logistics practices
Managerial environmental awareness