Maritime Policy & Management

The flagship journal of international shipping and port research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpm20

Green supply chain management strategy and

financial performance in the shipping industry

Stelios E. Alexandrou , Photis M. Panayides , Dimitris A. Tsouknidis & Andria

E. Alexandrou

To cite this article: Stelios E. Alexandrou , Photis M. Panayides , Dimitris A. Tsouknidis & Andria
E. Alexandrou (2021): Green supply chain management strategy and financial performance in the
shipping industry, Maritime Policy & Management, DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2021.1883141

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1883141

Published online: 07 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 134

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmpm20
MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1883141

Green supply chain management strategy and financial

performance in the shipping industry
Stelios E. Alexandroua, Photis M. Panayidesa, Dimitris A. Tsouknidisb
and Andria E. Alexandrouc
a
Department of Commerce, Finance, and Shipping, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus;
b
Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece; cSchool of Law, Queen Mary University of
London, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study empirically examines the relationship between green supply Green supply chain
chain management (GSCM) strategy and financial performance for shipping management; proactive
firms. We collect global data from 289 shipping firms and apply cluster green strategy;
environmental management
analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the research hypotheses.
strategy; green shipping
We cluster shipping firms according to their level of GSCM strategy adop­ management practices;
tion, which ranges from reactive to proactive. We find that shipping firms financial performance;
with a proactive GSCM strategy perform better financially. The findings of shipping
this study can contribute to shipping firms’ environmental management
strategy decisions and help tackle environmental problems while improv­
ing their financial outcome. This paper provides a discussion of managerial
and theoretical implications and recommends future research directions.

1. Introduction
Shipping is a dominant mode of transport, as well as one of the most important pillars of
globalisation and global development facilitating international trading. Seaborne trade accounts
for more than 80% of the global trade volume (UNCTAD, 2017), creating increasing demand for
shipping services. Due to increased trade volume and firms’ desire to benefit from economies of
scale, it has resulted in an increasing world fleet which intensifies concerns in relation to the
harmful effects that come hand-in-hand with ship operations, such as GHG emissions, waste, noise
pollution, and toxic materials. The resulting expansion of the global fleet has led to concerns about
the environmental impact of shipping operations such as GHG emissions, waste, noise pollution,
and toxic materials (Gavronski et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2013), and has highlighted the need for
environmental protection to be addressed by the shipping industry (Lun et al. 2014).
Due to stakeholder pressures, many firms have introduced environmental management practices
in their sustainability strategies. Shipping companies are part of global supply chains and manage
the interaction between their supply chains and the environment. Green supply chain management
(GSCM) is defined as the integration of environmental thinking into supply chain management
(Mentzer et al. 2001; Srivastava 2007), and has become increasingly important in shipping company
strategic thinking (Yang et al. 2013).
While several GSCM studies have been carried out over the years, especially in the manufactur­
ing sector in Asia, there is a dearth of studies that relate to GSCM practices and financial
performance in specialised sectors (Lai et al. 2011), such as the shipping industry. This study

CONTACT Photis M. Panayides [email protected] Department of Commerce, Finance and Shipping, Cyprus
University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

addresses this literature gap and extends the rationale further by focusing on the interrelation
between GSCM practices and financial performance. It is conceptualised that due to the unique
characteristics of the shipping industry (Andreou, Louca, and Panayides 2014), proactive GSCM
strategy provides the opportunity for shipping firms to differentiate their services whilst improving
bottom-line performance through high quality environmental maritime transport services.
This study aims to provide an empirical investigation of (i) the extent to which GSCM strategy
has been adopted by shipping firms, and (ii) the effects of such adoption on their financial
performance.
The growing attention paid to GSCM and its importance are evidenced by the increasing number
of publications in relation to this concept in leading management journals (see, among others, Liu
2020; Rao and Holt 2005; Rao 2002; Xue, Huo, and Zou 2019; Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Zhu, Sarkis, and
Lai 2007, 2008a). These studies have nevertheless left many empirical questions unanswered,
especially when it comes to the relationship between green strategy and financial performance.
The present study contributes to the GSCM literature in several ways. First, to the best of our
knowledge, this is the first study to use a global sample to test the extent to which shipping firms
integrate green practices in their supply chains and the implications thereof on financial
performance.
Second, we introduce a new variable of proactive GSCM strategy, namely, internal environ­
mental proactivity (IEP), which is part of internal green practices and integration.
Third, there is no consensus in the general environmental management literature on the
relationship between proactive environmental strategy and financial performance. While most
environmental management studies agree that firms with robust environmental strategies experi­
ence improved performance (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Menguc, Auh, and Ozanne 2010; Russo
and Fouts 1997), others report mixed evidence (Christmann 2000; Liu 2020; Salzmann, Ionescu-
Somers, and Steger 2005; Walker and Wan 2012). The results of prior studies may have varied due
to the omission of important elements, for example, due to the data chosen to be analysed
(Schaltegger and Synnestvedt 2002), which may have been collected from too small a sample
(Zhu and Sarkis 2004). This paper aims to address this gap.
Fourth, there is no consensus about the positive effects of green supply chain collaboration and
firm performance. Some studies assert that firms must focus on supplier collaboration, over customer
collaboration, in order to achieve better performance (Huber 2008; Sarkis, Zhu, and Lai 2011); others
find that collaboration across the supply chain is a requisite for performance improvements and
competitiveness (Yang et al. 2013). Therefore, one of the goals of this study is to provide evidence of
the impact of collaboration across the supply chain on the performance of shipping firms.
Fifth, our study contributes to the GSCM literature by focusing on a global sample of shipping firms,
which is a larger sample than those of prior studies. Additionally, this study considers a larger number
of green practices, which are key to the mechanism between environmental management strategy and
financial performance. Overall, this study considers different variables than those of prior studies.1
The study consists of the following sections: The introductory section is followed by section two,
which provides a detailed review of prior studies on proactive environmental and green supply
chain management strategies. Section three provides the development of the research hypotheses.
Section four discusses the methodology, including the survey development, sample characteristics,
and the data analysis methods. Section five discusses the results of the empirical analysis. Section six
concludes by discussing the implications drawn from the empirical findings and also provides
suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review
The literature review applies a structured approach by reviewing first papers relating to the impact
and consequences of GSCM, followed by papers that focus on key determinants of GSCM. Finally,
papers on GSCM in shipping are also reviewed to identify the relevant gaps in the literature.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 3

Many studies provide evidence of the importance of GSCM to firms, especially environmental
and economic performance (Rao and Holt 2005; Shang, Lu, and Li 2010; Yang et al. 2013; Zhu and
Sarkis 2004; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2012b). A few studies have considered the relationship between
GSCM and financial performance in the manufacturing industry, with several studies finding
a positive relation (Rao and Holt 2005), while others, none at all (Testa and Iraldo 2010), thus
failing to provide overall strong evidence in relation to the positive financial outcomes of GSCM
implementation.
Several studies have examined GSCM’s effect on environmental and economic performance
focused on the Chinese manufacturing industry (e.g. Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai
2012). For instance, Zhu and Sarkis (2004) examined the extent to which 186 Chinese manufactur­
ing enterprises adopted GSCM and the resulting effect of this adoption on their environmental and
economic performance. Those that had adopted GSCM practices extensively were shown to per­
form better. This is also supported by the study of Wang et al. (2018), which found that manu­
facturing firms that adopt internal and external green practices improve their green performance.
In a related study, Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2012) investigated GSCM adoption by 245 Chinese
manufacturers, examining their environmental, economic and operational performance. They
found three types of adopters: early, followers, and laggards. Early adopters had better environ­
mental, economic and operational performance. However, the results showed that the differences in
performance between the three diffusion clusters are not as large as the differences in the levels of
adoption of GSCM practices.
In another study, Azevedo, Carvalho, and Machado (2011) investigated the influence of GSCM
practices on supply chain performance (environmental, economic, and operational) in the context
of the automotive industry. Using a case study approach, they showed that green practices have
a positive effect on certain supply chain performance indices (quality, customer satisfaction, and
efficiency).
An important question emanating from these studies, however, is the issue of what leads to green
supply chain management with many authors indicating that green supply chain management
requires internal as well as external green integration. This is supported by Rao and Holt (2005),
who found that ‘greening’ different phases of the supply chain lead to an integrated green supply
chain, which ultimately leads to competitiveness and economic performance improvements.
Internal integration of green practices requires the willingness and participation of every
individual in the company and recognizes that different functions within a firm should not act as
functional silos, but instead as part of an integrated process (Yang et al. 2013). An important
ingredient to ensure employee commitment and cross-functional cooperation is knowledge of
proactive environmental management philosophy. This knowledge can be boosted with green
education and training programmes. Such employees can help the company to effectively manage
potential risks, i.e. pollution, collisions, penalties, bad reputation, and image and more. Reducing
risk by adopting proactive GSCM practices, such as green marketing practices, can also result in
a better reputation and image for the company.
Green marketing is probably one of the most important factors of proactive environmental
strategy. According to Baker and Sinkula (2005), the design and implementation of environmental
marketing strategies can lead to a competitive advantage, as well as financial performance improve­
ments (Leonidou et al. 2013). Green process innovation has been found to have a positive impact on
green product innovation, and that both green process innovation and green product innovation
can improve a firm’s financial performance (Xue, Huo, and Zou 2019).
Studies in relation to GSCM in the shipping industry are, scant. Specifically, Lai et al. (2013),
examined 107 Hong Kong shipping firms to examine the effect of a single green shipping practice—
shipping design for compliance (SDC)—on financial and service performance. They also examined
the role of company policy and procedures (CPP) and shipper cooperation (SC) in that relationship.
They found that i) SDC is beneficial to the financial and service performance of shipping firms, ii)
CPP and SC have positive moderating effects on the relationship between SDC and service
4 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

performance, but iii) there are no positive effects observed in the relationship between SDC and
financial performance.
Yang et al. (2013), investigated the effects of internal and external GSCM practices and integra­
tion on environmental and economic green performance and competitiveness in the context of
container shipping in Taiwan. With a sample of 167 firms, they found that internal green practices
and integration and external green collaboration have a positive impact on the firms’ performance
and competitiveness. Yang’s more recent study (2018) provided a conceptual model that examines
institutional pressure as a driver for the adoption of internal and external green management
practices and the effect of GSCM, specifically on the green performance of 129 container shipping
firms in Taiwan. The findings revealed that institutional pressure has a positive influence on the
adoption of internal green practices but not on external green collaborative practices. The findings
also revealed that GSCM practices positively influenced the green performance of the firms. We
note, however, that the study omitted internal factors that were perhaps crucial for the successful
implementation of GSCM strategy, and was narrow in its scope, focusing only on container
shipping firms in Taiwan. Had they investigated GSCM across shipping industry sectors, it would
have enabled us to generalise the results, and map the differences in terms of green strategic choices
over the entire shipping industry.
Green shipping management practices aim to make shipping systems and processes more
environmentally friendly, for example, using environmentally friendly equipment, materials (i.e.
non-toxic paints) and types of fuel (i.e. low sulphur fuels). Green shipping practices are a necessary
pillar to the environmental strategies of shipping firms. With the adoption of green marketing
practices, shipping firms can bolster their reputation, which may in turn enhance future profits
(Roberts and Dowling 2002).In addition, it has become increasingly important for shipping firms to
collaborate and work together towards common environmental goals with their chain members in
order to achieve green supply chain integration (Stank, Keller, and Daugherty 2001).External green
collaboration includes, for example, strategic alliances with supply chain members to develop
environmentally oriented strategies. Alliances are important for the supply chain integration
process, so we are seeing organisations increasingly collaborate through them (Waters 2003).
An important benefit to green supply chain collaboration is the opportunity for firms to
exchange information, ideas, knowledge, experience, and skills which favour the development of
common environmental goals. Such collaboration increases the potential to reduce environmental
risks, cut costs, and prevent pollution, all of which can lead to better performance. The importance
of supply chain collaboration (Cao and Zhang 2011; Stank, Keller, and Daugherty 2001), and green
supply chain collaboration, in particular, is evidenced in the literature, where key studies found that
the latter constitutes an extremely important external factor in green supply chain management
strategy (Vachon and Klassen 2008; Yang et al. 2013; Zhu, Feng, and Choi 2017).
The literature review indicates that there is no consensus with regard to the effects of green
management practices on financial performance in the manufacturing industry, perhaps due to the
diversity of samples examined or the omission of variables important for the mechanism between
GSCM and financial performance, such as green marketing. Testa and Iraldo (2010) were unable to
provide strong support regarding the relationship between GSCM practices and profitability in
countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Conversely, Rao and Holt (2005) found that GSCM practices have a positive influence on the sales
and profitability of manufacturing firms in Asia. These conflicting findings highlight the need to
further examine the impact of GSCM practices on firm performance.
This research examines two important questions which emerged following the review of the
GSCM literature. The first question relates to the differing extent to which shipping firms have
adopted GSCM strategies, and the second question concerns the effects of such adoption on their
financial performance. GSCM strategy in this study includes two main categories extracted from the
literature (Bowen et al. 2001; Lai et al. 2011; Shang, Lu, and Li 2010; Vachon and Klassen 2008; Yang
et al. 2013; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2007), i) internal GSCM practices, constituted by the following
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 5

variables: internal environmental proactivity (IEP), green shipping practices (GSPs), and green
marketing (GM), and ii) external GSCM practices, constituted by the following variables: green
collaboration with suppliers (CS), green collaboration with partners (CP), and green collaboration
with customers (CC).

3. Development of hypotheses
3.1. GSCM strategies in the shipping industry
The review of the extant literature has demonstrated that the extent of the adoption of environ­
mental management practices depends on each company’s strategic planning. Firms that choose to
be proactive in their environmental management strategy tend to implement green practices, such
as innovations aimed at preventing pollution. In contrast, reactive firms tend to comply with
existing regulations, such as standard pollution control measures (Sharma and Vredenburg 1998;
Sharma 2000).
GSCM is a proactive environmental strategy as it focuses on innovative green management
practices aimed at preventing pollution. However, shipping company policies may differ in their
level of adoption of GSCM practices. Some may be more environmentally sensitive, especially with
regards to the overall sustainability strategy. As a result, such firms will be more proactive rather
than reactive in their environmental practices.
Even firms that operate within the same industry and business environment may follow different
strategies based on the strategic environmental philosophy and orientation of their management.
According to Porter (1980), firms within the same industry can thus be clustered into different
strategic categories, and thus the choice of strategy can be viewed as the choice of which strategic
group to compete in.’
Several factors have been proposed in support of the argument that different companies within
the same industry may have different approaches to environmental management and can thus be
grouped together into different clusters. Management plays an important role in deciding whether
a firm’s environmental strategy can be categorised as reactive or proactive (Aragón-Correa 1998;
Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Russo and Fouts 1997). Managerial interpretation of environmental
issues as threats or as opportunities (Sharma 2000) will affect how the firm’s strategy is developed. If
a manager interprets GSCM as an opportunity; then, they will be supportive and committed to its
adoption and vice-versa. Stakeholder pressure constitutes another important factor for the varying
levels of adoption of GSCM strategy. For instance, the ecological regulations and policies enforced
differently, according to flag-state control may lead to varying adoption levels. Size also represents
an important factor in strategic choices. Larger firms experience more pressure to protect the
environment, especially listed companies and shipping firms with a major fleet of different types of
vessels travelling across the globe. As a result, larger shipping companies seem to have higher levels
of adoption of proactive green practices. Zhu and Sarkis (2007) confirm that manufacturers facing
higher regulatory pressure tend to implement more GSCM practices. In examining why leading
companies tend to be better at implementing proactive environmental practices, Zhu and Sarkis
(2006) found that a key factor that emerges is that these larger companies have greater access to
quality resources compared to the smaller firms (Russo and Fouts 1997), both financial and in terms
of personnel. When certain firms fail to implement the same strategies, one reason could be that
they do not have the same strategic resources as larger firms (Barney 1991).
However, while larger firms are more likely to adopt proactive environmental practices
(Aragón-Correa 1998; Russo and Fouts 1997; Sharma 2000), this does not preclude SMEs from
doing so as well. According to Aragón-Correa et al. (2008), SMEs with specific characteristics can
create organisational capabilities which may favour the adoption of proactive environmental
strategy.
Based on the arguments presented above, we propose that:
6 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

H1: There are various Green Supply Chain Management adoption clusters among shipping
firms.

3.2. Proactive GSCM strategy and financial performance

Although GSCM is a relatively new concept in environmental management, a considerable body of
literature on the topic of GSCM has been produced examining the relationship between the adoption
of GSCM practices and the resulting effect on environmental, operational, and economic performance.
Most studies showed a positive link between green practices and environmental and operational
performance (Papadas et al. 2019; Xue, Huo, and Zou 2019; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2007; Zhu, Sarkis,
and Geng 2005), while some showed mixed results between GSCM and economic performance.
Certain authors suggest that GSCM practices are positively related to economic performance (Rao
and Holt 2005; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2012), while others find no such relationship (Zhu, Sarkis, and
Geng 2005). Liu (2020) found an overall positive relationship between environmental and financial
performance with variations across companies and industries due to the company- and industry-level
heterogeneities. A negative relationship is also identified for some firms in some industry sectors.
In the shipping context, few studies have looked at GSCM and its relationship to performance
(Lai et al. 2013; Lun et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2013). One of the most important challenges that
shipping firms face, is how to make their operations environmentally friendly and at the same time,
sustain their profitability. Financial performance, can therefore be one of the most important
factors motivating firms to implement GSCM strategies (Zhu and Sarkis 2004).
As stated above, evidence is mixed as to the effect of a proactive environmental strategy on
financial performance. While some studies have shown a positive relationship (Aragón-Correa et al.
2008; Menguc, Auh, and Ozanne 2010; Russo and Fouts 1997), others provide contrary empirical
evidence (Christmann 2000).
Proactive GSCM strategies require the adoption of innovative technologies, aimed at energy
efficiency, pollution prevention, waste recycling, and green design (Chen 2008). Key innovative
practices, such as green shipping, help to control and prevent emissions and effluent; they can
include energy savings, shipping equipment reuse, recycling, and recovery in order to reduce the
environmental impact of shipping operations (Lai et al. 2013), while also improving environmental
and financial performance. Firms that are willing to implement proactive green strategies have been
shown to enjoy lower costs and a better reputation (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Sharma 2000), which
can also lead to better financial performance.
GSCM includes all environmental supply chain practices, internal and external that a company
can implement in order to be environmentally conscious and respond to stakeholder concerns.
Environmentally proactive firms adopt the strategies needed to reduce the impact of their opera­
tions, bolstering their image and reputation as good corporate citizens (Menguc, Auh, and Ozanne
2010), which can also lead to improved sales and profits. Studies have shown that proactive green
management practices, such as green marketing, create a reputational advantage that can lead to
financial performance improvements (Miles and Covin 2000).
Walker and Wan (2012) found that green washing has a negative effect on financial performance,
so it is crucial for green actions to be substantive, especially when it comes to the highly competitive
environment in which shipping companies operate.
GSCM practices, such as green marketing, and green collaboration with supply chain members,
provide the opportunity to shipping firms to send signals to their stakeholders about their proactive
environmental programmes and actions, highlighting their commitment to the environment. Thus,
green marketing practices can lead to financial performance improvements. This is supported by
Shang, Lu, and Li (2010), who found that green marketing-oriented manufacturing firms in China
excelled in performance, with increased sales and market share. In another study, Leonidou et al.
(2013) found that environmental marketing strategy leads to a competitive advantage and even­
tually to financial performance improvements for Greek hotels.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 7

Furthermore, due to pressure and scrutiny from stakeholders, managers tend to place an
emphasis on the company’s values and strategies (management support and commitment to
green strategies), which helps to reduce agency costs (Berrone and Gomez-Mejia 2009), and can
lead to improved financial performance (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008).
Several studies have found a positive relationship between proactive green practices and
performance. According to Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2012), firms with higher levels of GSCM
adoption, more proactive firms, attain better performance. Because of the highly competitive
environment in the shipping industry, shipping firms are more sensitive to their image and their
social legitimacy. By implementing proactive green management strategies, shipping firms will be
more innovative and socially conscious, which makes such firms special in the eyes of their
customers (Porter and Van der Linde 1995), leading to financial performance improvements
(Menguc, Auh, and Ozanne 2010).
In another study, Aragón-Correa et al. (2008) show that automotive SMEs in Spain with
a proactive environmental strategy improved their financial performance. In a related study,
Molina-Azorín et al. (2009), empirically examined the relationship between environmental proac­
tivity and firm performance in the context of the Spanish hotel industry and found the same results.
A recent study by Sen, Roy, and Pal (2015) also confirmed the same link, in the context of
manufacturing firms in India and in the UK.
On this basis, in this study we take similar shipping firms that follow different environmental
management strategies, ranging from reactive to proactive, and we show the difference in impact on
their respective financial performance. Firms with a strong environmental leadership philosophy,
i.e. the more environmentally proactive firms, will make more of an effort to respect and safeguard
the environment. Commitment to a strategy such as GSCM will lead to improvements in financial
performance for ‘leaders’ and ‘proactive’ shipping firms.
Thus, the second proposition in this study is that:

H2: Shipping firms that implement more proactive GSCM strategies perform better financially.

4. Methodology
4.1. Survey development
This study adopted the survey method to collect primary data in order to examine the various
hypotheses, since the data needed are not available in any database. In developing the questionnaire,
experts from academia, governmental agencies, and the shipping industry were asked to provide
their feedback. This process ensured the comprehensiveness of the items and thus contributed to
the quality of the questionnaire’s design and content. The items cover the core aspects of GSCM
strategy. The questions were also made as clear as possible to the respondents. Once finalised, the
survey was sent to the sampled shipping companies.

4.2. Data and sample characteristics

For this, we used a global sample of shipping firms, including ship-owning and ship management
companies.
Quantitatively, this study identified key respondents, including presidents/vice presidents,
directors/vice directors, managers/assistant managers who were deemed the most knowledgeable
to answer the questionnaire and to provide valid and reliable data.
The questionnaire was delivered in one of the two ways: it was emailed or dropped off by hand.
The sample was selected randomly from Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence Informa, an online
global maritime directory that categorises maritime firms by industry sector.
8 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

The survey was administered to 570 shipping firms globally, asking those in a managerial position
to answer all the questions. Of the 570 questionnaires, 47 were delivered by hand. The 523 email
questionnaires garnered 217 responses. Four weeks post-dissemination, reminder emails and phone
calls were deployed, resulting in an additional 35 response. Of the 299 responses, 10 were not usable.
Thus, the total number of usable responses was 289, giving an overall response rate of 51%.

4.3. Measures
An exploratory GSCM research was preliminarily performed, including research papers, books and
case studies related to the topic in order to select the measurement items in this study.
Next, we developed the survey, incorporating suggestions from the abovementioned experts
such as CEOs, managing directors, managers, and ship captains. The above, along with the
literature review, support the content validity of this study. In addition, we performed a number
of tests to verify the construct validity and reliability of the resulting items.
Appendix A shows the measurement items used to construct the variables of interest, as
supported by the literature (Bowen et al. 2001; Judge and Douglas 1998; Lai et al. 2011; Panayides
2003; Rao and Holt 2005; Shang, Lu, and Li 2010; Vachon and Klassen 2008; Yang et al. 2013; Zhu,
Sarkis, and Lai 2007).
Thirty-six items on GSCM and three items on financial performance, as shown in Appendix A,
were extracted mainly from the literature, while others were slightly modified as per the suggestion
of academics and shipping industry practitioners.
Tables 2 and 3 present the final measurement items used for evaluating internal and external
GSCM practices. The measurement items are based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Financial performance measures in this research include the following items: profitability, return
on investment (ROI) and sale growth, all of which have been extracted from prior research (Judge
and Douglas 1998; Panayides 2003).

4.4. Pre-test analysis

We followed the suggestion by Armstrong and Overton (1977) and performed a comparison
of early (first wave) and late (second wave) respondents to test for non-response bias using
t-test analysis. This was to reveal any significant differences in the responses between the two
groups.
First, we divided the 289 survey respondents into two groups, namely, early (n = 207) and late
(n = 82) respondents. We then performed an independent t-test (the most common statistical
method for examining differences between two groups) on the sample in order to examine whether
a non-response bias problem would emerge. At the 5% significance level, there were no significant
differences between the two groups of respondents. Thus, both the t-test analysis and the high
response rate suggest that non-response bias is not a problem in this study.

4.5. Data analysis methods

This study used the IBM’s SPSS version 21 for windows. First, an exploratory factor analysis was
performed to identify and extract the key dimensions (factors) for the variables: internal GSCM
practices, external GSCM practices, and financial performance. Then, a reliability test was employed
to verify the validity and reliability of each construct and item. Finally, a cluster analysis, a One-Way
ANOVA and a Kruskal–Wallis test were employed to check our hypotheses. The results and
a discussion around the empirical analysis are presented in the following sections.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 9

5. Results of empirical analysis

5.1. Demographics
Table 1 presents the characteristics of companies that responded to the questionnaire, as well as
respondent bios. Regarding the companies, more than 30% were firms with more than 100 shore-
based employees, while almost 70% of the firms had more than 100 employees at sea.
More than 32% were firms that had been founded at least 31 years ago, which is a key finding for
the quality and the validity of the survey results.
Regarding respondent bios, results show that CEOs made up 5.5% of the survey respondents,
while 16.6%, and 74% were managing directors, and department managers/department directors,
respectively. Respondents were asked to indicate their industry and managerial experience. Over
83% of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience in shipping, while over 70% of the
respondents had more than 10 years of managerial experience. In sum, Table 1 results reveal that
96% of the questionnaire respondents held the position of department manager/department
director or higher, leading to further confirmation of the validity and reliability of the survey
findings.

Table 1. Demographics.
Characteristics of respondents Frequency %
Company information
Ownership
Local firm 149 51.6
Foreign firm 128 44.3
Others 12 4.1
Numbers of employee (shore based)
1–20 79 27.3
21–50 84 29.1
51–100 36 12.5
>100 90 31.1
Numbers of employee (at sea)
1–20 10 3.5
21–50 25 8.7
51–100 52 18
>100 202 69.9
Establishment (in years)
1–10 29 10
11–20 101 34.9
21–30 65 22.5
>31 94 32.5
Biographical information
Job title
CEO 16 5.5
Managing director 48 16.6
Department manager/director 214 74
Others 11 3.8
Industry Experience (in years)
Under 5 3 1
5–10 18 6.2
11–15 28 9.7
16–20 50 17.3
21–25 65 22.5
Above 25 125 43.3
Managerial Experience (in years)
Under 5 25 8.7
5–10 60 20.8
11–15 71 24.6
16–20 43 14.9
21–25 32 11.1
Above 25 58 20.1
10 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

5.2. Exploratory factor analysis

We performed a factor analysis in order to identify and extract key dimensions for our variables.
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed to identify the key dimen­
sions of 19 internal GSCM practices, and 15 external GSCM practices. The results of the exploratory
factor analysis are indicated in Table 2 and 3.
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) test that arises from the exploratory factor analysis of internal
green practices, external green practices, and financial performance was 0.896, 0.872, and 0.678,
respectively. According to Hair et al. (2006), the KMO measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) must
exceed 0.50. The Bartlett’s sphericity test was also significant. In short, the conclusion was that our
data were appropriate for analysis (Hair et al. 2006).
Factor loadings of 0.50 or greater are considered practically significant (Hair et al. 2006).
Therefore, only variables with a factor loading greater than 0.50 were extracted, a conservative
criterion based on Hair et al. (2006). The two internal green items, X5b and X6b, did not meet this
criterion and were thus eliminated.
Based on the Kaiser’s eigenvalue greater or equal to one criterion, the principal component
analysis yielded a three-factor solution, namely, internal environmental proactivity, green shipping
practices, and green marketing (see Table 2). The cumulative variance of the three factors is
61.322%. The percentage of variance and the cumulative variance for each of the three factors are
shown in Table 2.
The three internal GSCM components (factors), namely, internal environmental proactivity,
green shipping practices, and green marketing are described below (see Table 2):

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of internal GSCM practices.

Internal green practices F1 F2 F3
X1.1. We always attempt to go beyond basic compliance with laws and regulations on 0.887 0.281 0.222
environmental issues.
X1.2. We commit ourselves to support GSCM. 0.710 0.167 0.075
X1.3. In our company cross-functional cooperation effectively supports green operations. 0.642 0.204 0.102
X1.4. We provide green education and training. 0.663 0.240 0.169
X1.5. We are committed and we have obtain the ISO 14,000 certification. 0.681 0.067 0.167
X1.6. We are committed and we have obtain the ISO 50,001 certification. 0.707 0.160 0.174
X1.7. We effectively manage the environmental risks affecting our business. 0.760 0.161 0.059
X1.8. It is a priority that the ships we order/trade/operate are environmentally friendly (e.g. improved 0.714 0.145 0.237
engine design, waste heat recovery systems, double skin and internal oil tank).
X1.9. We mainly use environmental-friendly materials and equipment (e.g. non-toxic paint, electric 0.230 0.290 0.857
deck machine).
X1.10. We mainly use environmental-friendly materials and equipment such as Ballast Water 0.147 0.177 0.675
Handling System.
X1.11. We mainly use clean-burning, low-sulphur fuels for main and auxiliary engines. 0.169 0.137 0.727
X1.12. We adopt optimal vessel speed and routing system. 0.138 0.187 0.732
X1.13. We promote the environmental-friendly recycling of scrap ships. 0.159 0.168 0.744
X1.14. We provide customers with information regarding our environmental-friendly practices 0.262 0.876 0.256
through our website or other means.
X1.15. We intend to increase the budget allocated on green advertising within next year. 0.214 0.700 0.198
X1.16. We adopt the notion of resource and energy conservation in promotion. 0.150 0.717 0.186
X1.17. We use environmentally friendly arguments in our marketing strategy. 0.267 0.712 0.086
X1.18. We regularly update environmental conservation information in our firm’s Website. 0.184 0.737 0.177
X1.19. We often attract customers with green initiatives and eco-service. 0.117 0.719 0.200
Eigenvalues 7.715 2.214 1.722
Percentage variance 40.603 11.654 9.064
Cumulative variance 40.603 52.257 61.322
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 11

(1) The first factor (F1), internal environmental proactivity, consisted of eight items accounting
for 40.603% of the total variance.
(2) The second factor, green marketing, consisted of six items, accounting for 11.654% of the
total variance.
(3) Factor 3, green shipping practices, comprised five items accounting for 9.064% of the total
variance.

Table 3 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on external green practices. The
EFA yielded a three-factor solution based on the eigenvalue greater or equal to 1 criterion. All items
have factor loadings greater than 0.50, specifically greater than 0.65, so they are considered
practically significant (Hair et al. 2006). The cumulative variance of the three factors is 63.583%.
Three external green practices were identified:

(1) The first factor, green collaboration with customers, consisted of five items accounting for
43.002% of the total variance.
(2) Factor 2, namely, green collaboration with suppliers, comprised five items accounting for
10.458% of the total variance.
(3) Factor 3, green collaboration with partners, consisted of five items accounting for 10.122% of
the total variance.

The survey was carefully developed and validated. Content validity was supported using relevant
literature as well as expert input. Following data collection, further analysis was performed in order
to confirm the construct validity and reliability. We used principal component analysis with
varimax rotation to further confirm and validate the underlying factors, as our items had been
selected from a variety of sources. The results of the EFA showed that all measurement items had
strong loading on the construct.

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of external GSCM practices.

External green practices F1 F2 F3
X2.1. We achieve common environmental goals collectively with suppliers. 0.256 0.842 0.332
X2.2. We develop a mutual understanding of environmental risk and responsibilities with suppliers. 0.199 0.674 0.205
X2.3. We work together with suppliers to reduce environmental impact from operations. 0.184 0.740 0.154
X2.4. We make plans to resolve GSCM related problems with suppliers. 0.147 0.740 0.104
X2.5. We provide resources, skills, and knowledge to strengthen GSCM along with our suppliers. 0.207 0.718 0.163
X2.6. We achieve common environmental goals collectively with partners. 0.272 0.246 0.861
X2.7. We develop a mutual understanding of environmental risk and responsibilities with partners. 0.168 0.187 0.677
X2.8. We work together with partners to reduce environmental impact from operations. 0.085 0.054 0.763
X2.9. We make plans to resolve GSCM related problems with partners. 0.139 0.228 0.651
X2.10. We provide resources, skills, and knowledge to strengthen GSCM along with our partners. 0.252 0.197 0.652
X2.11. We achieve common environmental goals collectively with customers. 0.857 0.258 0.285
X2.12. We develop a mutual understanding of environmental risk and responsibilities with 0.714 0.240 0.239
customers.
X2.13. We work together with customers to reduce environmental impact from operations. 0.761 0.158 0.154
X2.14. We make plans to resolve GSCM related problems with customers. 0.748 0.231 0.100
X2.15. We provide resources, skills, and knowledge to strengthen GSCM along with our customers. 0.727 0.135 0.172
Eigenvalues 6.450 1.569 1.518
Percentage variance 43.002 10.458 10.122
Cumulative variance 43.002 53.461 63.583
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
12 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

5.3. Reliability test

Reliability analysis is a method used to measure the accuracy, or lack of distortion, of the indicators
(Chiou et al. 2011). A reliability test based on Cronbach’s alpha was performed to ensure the
constructs’ internal consistency and validity. Table 4 shows the results of the reliability test. The
Cronbach’s alpha of all seven factors is well above 0.80, and therefore is well above the limit of 0.70
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). In addition to Cronbach’s alpha, we performed the corrected item-
total correlation (CITC) reliability test (Kerlinger 1986) to further ensure the constructs’ internal
consistency and validity. The lower agreed limit of CITC is 0.30 (Ferketich 1991), whereas Nunnaly
(1978) suggests excluding items with item total correlation values below 0.40. The CITC values of
the seven factors were larger than 0.50 (ranging from 0.539 to 0.931). Based on the Cronbach’s alpha
and CITC values, we were able to confirm the validity and reliability of the constructs.

5.4. Hypotheses testing

First, a K-means cluster analysis was performed to determine whether shipping firms can be
clustered along the lines of their strategic choices. Following the cluster analysis, a One-Way
ANOVA and a Kruskal–Wallis test were used to test differences in financial performance among
the different groups on the basis of Tukey Post-Hoc analysis, and Mann–Whitney tests, respectively.

5.4.1. Cluster analysis

Appendix B shows the final cluster centres, which are computed as the mean for each variable
within each final cluster. The final cluster centres reflect the characteristics of the typical case for
each cluster. Note that cluster 1 has the highest values across all variables, followed by cluster 2 and,
finally, cluster 3.
Table 5 shows the Euclidean distances between the final cluster centres. Note that greater
distances between clusters indicate greater dissimilarities. Moreover, clusters 1 and 3 are most
different, while clusters 2 and 3 are less so. Shipping firms can be placed into three different clusters:
cluster 1 contains the ‘leaders,’ cluster 2, the ‘proactive’ firms and cluster 3 the ‘reactive’ firms.
Shipping firms with reactive strategies aim to merely meet existing environmental regulations, while
firms with a more proactive green philosophy aim to go over and above, by voluntarily adopting
additional proactive green strategies aimed at preventing pollution. Shipping firms with

Table 4. Reliability test.

Measures Items Mean S.D. Cronbach α CITC range
(1) Internal environmental proactivity 8 3.333 1.369 0.892 0.582–0.931
(1) Green shipping practices 5 3.198 1.334 0.845 0.560–0.874
(1) Green marketing 6 3.270 1.370 0.878 0.632–0.916
(1) Collaboration with suppliers 5 3.298 1.371 0.847 0.590–0.881
(1) Collaboration with partners 5 3.316 1.298 0.817 0.539–0.874
(1) Collaboration with customers 5 3.230 1.370 0.867 0.618–0.886
(1) Financial performance 3 3.463 1.275 0.915 0.781–0.912

Table 5. Distances between final cluster centers.

Cluster 1 2 3
1 5.873 9.940
2 5.873 5.487
3 9.940 5.487
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 13

environmental leadership strategies try to redesign their business models to include the proactive
internal and external green supply chain management practices that go beyond the regulatory
requirements.
Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
Table 6 shows the number of cases in each cluster. About half (48.44%) are in cluster 1 (leaders),
21.45% belong to cluster 2 (proactive), while 30.10% belong to cluster 3 (reactive).

5.4.2. One-way analysis of variance

To see whether there are differences in the mean values of the variables ‘Increase of profitability,’
‘Sales growth’ and ‘Increase of ROI’ relative to ‘cluster,’ we use the One-Way ANOVA if the
variables are normally distributed and the variances are homogeneous or the Kruskal–Wallis test
if they are not.
If the significance value of the One-Way ANOVA test is less than 0.05 and homogeneity of
variances occurs, we perform Tukey Post-Hoc Analysis. Post-Hoc tests consist of pairwise compar­
isons that are designed to compare all possible combinations of clusters. Otherwise, if we apply the
Kruskal–Wallis test and the significance value is less than 0.05, we use Mann–Whitney tests, by
applying the Bonferroni correction, in order to identify which of the three pairwise comparisons
(‘leaders’ vs ‘proactive,’ ‘leaders’ vs ‘reactive,’ ‘proactive’ vs ‘reactive’) caused this result.
Based on the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Levene test of homogeneity of
variances, we cannot use One-Way ANOVA for the variables ‘Increase of profitability’ and ‘Increase
of ROI,’ because the significance levels of the former two are all smaller than the cut-off value of 0.05
(see Appendix C and D). Appendix E shows the summary statistics for the variables ‘Increase of
profitability,’ ‘Sales growth’ and ‘Increase of ROI.’
The results of the One-Way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests are shown in Table 7.

(i) Kruskal–Wallis test for ‘Increase of profitability,’ finds a significant difference between the
means of the three clusters (X2(2) = 169.419, p = 0.000 < 0.05). The three Mann–Whitney
tests (‘leaders’ vs ‘proactive,’ ‘leaders’ vs ‘reactive,’ ‘proactive’ vs ‘reactive’), and following
a Bonferroni correction, with p value = 0.05/3 = 0.0167 revealed a significant difference
between clusters 1 and 2 (p = 0.001 < 0.0167), between clusters 1 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167)
and between clusters 2 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167). Note that the highest mean value of this
variable has the ‘leaders’ cluster, while the smallest has the ‘reactive’ cluster.

Table 6. Number of cases in each

cluster.
Cluster Number of cases
Leaders 140
Proactive 62
Reactive 87

Table 7. Results of One-Way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests.

Financial performance Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis Group Comparisons
‘Leader’ ‘Proactive’ ‘Reactive’ F X 2 (2)
N 140 62 87
Increase of profitability 4.250 3.823 2.115 169.419* 1>2>3
Sales growth 4.079 3.774 2.195 105.019* 1 > 3, 2 > 3
Increase of ROI 4.107 3.742 2.092 123.043* 1>2>3
*p < 0.05.
14 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

(ii) One-Way ANOVA test for ‘Sales growth’ finds a significant difference between the means of
the three clusters (F (2, 286) = 105.019, p = 0.000 < 0.05). The Tukey Post-Hoc analysis
revealed that there is a significant difference between clusters 1 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167)
and between clusters 2 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167), while there is no difference between
clusters 1 and 2 (p = 0.102 > 0.0167). Note that the highest mean value in this variable has
the ‘leaders’ cluster, while the smallest has the ‘reactive’ cluster. The difference in the mean
values between clusters 1 and 2 (leaders vs proactive) is too small.
(iii) Kruskal–Wallis test for ‘Increase of ROI’ finds a significant difference between the means of
the three clusters (X2(2) = 123.043, p = 0.000 < 0.05). Mann–Whitney tests (‘leaders’ vs
‘proactive,’ ‘leaders’ vs ‘reactive,’ ‘proactive’ vs ‘reactive’), following a Bonferroni correction,
with p value = 0.05/3 = 0.0167, revealed that there is a significant difference between clusters
1 and 2 (p = 0.012 < 0.0167), between clusters 1 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167) and between
clusters 2 and 3 (p = 0.000 < 0.0167). Note that the highest mean value in this variable has
the ‘leaders’ cluster, while the smallest has the ‘reactive’ cluster.

Overall, the ‘leader’ firms experience the highest financial performance, followed by the ‘proactive’
group of firms, and finally, the ‘reactive’ firms trail into last place.
Thus, hypothesis 2 is also supported.

6. Conclusion and discussion

Growing awareness of the importance of environmental conservation and the corresponding rise in
environmental management within shipping firms, are the key factors that underpin the value of
this study. This study contributes towards a better understanding of the practices required to
achieve green operations, as well as the impact that such green practices have on firm performance.
This study classifies shipping firms into clusters according to their strategic green options and
provides supporting evidence that proactive strategic green choices lead to superior financial
performance.
This study provides an empirical assessment of the levels of proactive internal and external
GSCM practice adoption in the shipping industry. It examines and analyzes the way that different
adoption levels influence the shipping firms’ financial performance. In doing so, this study provides
evidence to shed light upon the oft-contested relationship between proactive environmental
strategy and financial performance. The statistical analysis supports the hypothesis that shipping
firms may be grouped into different GSCM strategy adoption clusters, and that shipping firms
which implement more proactive GSCM practices attain better financial performance.
Using a survey to collect shipping industry data, we performed a factor analysis in order to
identify the key dimensions of internal green practices, external green practices, and financial
performance. Seven factors emanated from the principal component analysis with varimax rotation.
Namely, internal environmental proactivity, green shipping practices, green marketing, green
collaboration with suppliers, partners, and customers, and finally the financial performance factor.
The findings of the cluster analysis indicate the existence of three groups of shipping firms,
namely, the ‘leaders, ‘proactive’ firms, and ‘reactive’ firms, supporting our first hypothesis. While
most studies in the management literature state that reactive firms outnumber proactive firms and
leaders (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Zhu et al. 2011), especially in the manufacturing sector, this is
not the case in the shipping industry.
Due to the shipping industry’s unique characteristics, namely, intense competition, high capital
investment and highly leveraged assets, freight volatility, uncertainty and risk, as well as strict
environmental regulations and penalties, shipping firms are more likely to adopt proactive green
supply chain management strategies and practices in order to reduce their risks, especially risks
relating to pollution, and to remain competitive and profitable.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 15

The proactive GSCM strategy includes all the innovative internal and external green practices
that a company requires in order to be environmentally conscious, and adequately responds to
stakeholder concerns. The findings of the One-Way Anova and Kruskal–Wallis tests indicate that
shipping firms considered to be ‘leaders’ or ‘proactive,’ outperform the ‘reactive’ group from
a financial perspective. This means that shipping firms who have implemented proactive GSCM
practices to a large extent experience better financial performance.
Comparing the results of this study with prior research, it seems that the results from
studies that examined green strategies in the manufacturing sector, partially apply to the
shipping industry as well, for example, overall findings showed that firms that adopt
proactive environmental strategies, such as GSCM, achieve better performance
(Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Menguc, Auh, and Ozanne 2010; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai
2012). Nevertheless, prior studies did not examine the differences in financial perfor­
mance in the three diffusion clusters of shipping firms (early, followers, and laggards),
nor did they show that these are as large as the differences in levels of adopting GSCM
practices. In this study, we found significant differences in the performance measures
between the leaders, proactive and reactive groups. One explanation could be that, the
studies on manufacturing firms in China included early adopters, who are still at the
consideration stage, and have not yet implemented external GSCM practices. Our study,
in contrast, found that most shipping companies have successfully implemented external
green practices, such as green collaboration with supply chain members, and that leaders
and proactive shipping firms with higher levels of collaborative green supply chain
practices are those that perform better.
Green collaboration with supply chain members constitutes an important modern capability for
shipping firms. As concern, pressure, regulation, risk, and uncertainty grow, shipping must share
resources, skills and knowledge with supply chain members in order to achieve common environ­
mental goals, and to overcome potential environmental obstacles and issues in a more integrated
way. The main objective is to achieve green supply chain integration in order to improve both the
performance and the service value of the overall supply chain.
Another possible explanation for the gap identified in prior studies in finding significant
differences in relation to GSCM adoption and performance improvements, is the omission of
important variables (i.e. green marketing) in the mechanism between GSCM and performance.
The results of this study show that the adoption of proactive GSCM strategies by
shipping firms is a win-win situation. By implementing proactive GSCM practices, such
as green marketing, shipping firms can send signals to stakeholders about their envir­
onmental programmes. These signals contribute to firms’ positive financial outcomes.
Furthermore, by collaborating with their supply chain members, shipping firms’ envir­
onmental performance, productivity, and the quality of their services is improved. This,
in turn, increases the overall supply chain value, which is a key objective in today’s
competitive environment (Song and Panayides 2012), and results in a win-win situation
for both shipping companies and their stakeholders. An integrated green supply chain
not only increases the firm’s service value, it also increases the value of the overall
supply chain, factors that are necessary for improved competitiveness and performance.
By adopting proactive GSCM practices, shipping firms increase their environmental
performance, by making their systems and operations more environmentally friendly,
and at the same time, decrease their green costs. For example, shipping firms which were
awarded ISO 50,001, which is the energy management systems standard, adopt energy
management systems and practices, such as energy-efficient engines, waste heat recovery
systems. By the adoption of green shipping practices, such as energy-efficient engines,
the use of LSFO, shipping firms improve their green performance. With energy-efficient
systems, shipping firms will decrease the fuel consumption, the CO2 emissions, and
eventually their costs (such as fuel costs, fines from pollution such the sulphur cap/IMO
16 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

2020, etc.). In addition, shipping firms faced various costs for not implementing GSCM
practices, such as fuel costs, fines from environmental pollution and accidents, increas­
ing insurance costs due to the higher pollution risk, difficult to find a chartering con­
tract, especially tankers due to the stricter requirements introduced by the oil majors
and encapsulated in the TMSA, bad reputation, and image. All these risks and costs
affect the competitiveness and profitability of shipping firms. Thus, firms need to be risk
averse to environmentally related risks and to adopt more proactive GSCM practices,
found to positively influence the performance of shipping firms.
Regarding the theoretical contribution, this study is innovative in the area of GSCM;
it adds to the relevant literature by being the first to examine the range of approaches
that shipping companies deploy in adopting GSCM strategies. It also highlights the
importance of proactively adopting GSCM strategies in order to achieve a key goal:
improved financial performance. As for investors, the results clearly show that envir­
onmentally proactive shipping firms are a good investment, as they offer high-quality
transport services that respect and safeguard the environment, contributing in that way
to their competitiveness and financial performance. Turning to shipping firms, due to
the intense competition characterising the shipping industry, as well as the growing
global concern and attention to environmental conservation, shipping firms’ competi­
tiveness is strongly affected by their commitment to take on green strategies and
practices (Yang et al. 2013). As Rao and Holt (2005) showed, GSCM practices lead to
improvement in both competitiveness and performance; this study supports these argu­
ments by establishing groups of shipping firms with a superior strategic approach
regarding GSCM.
The present study has some limitations that should be taken into account in the future research.
First, the data collected in the present study provide evidence around research hypotheses in
a specific industry, i.e. shipping. As such, studies on GSCM strategy and its effect on financial
performance should also be performed in the context of other service industries with similar
characteristics (e.g. other transport industries or hospitality). Research on GSCM in the service
industry in general remains inadequate. Accordingly, a different or larger sample should be
employed to further verify our findings.
In addition, this study limits the examination of the adoption of GSCM strategy by shipping firms
and its effects on financial performance. Other factors that have different effects can be examined in
the future (e.g. internal factors, such as manager characteristics or managerial interpretations and
preferences towards strategic options, or external factors, such as stakeholder pressure). These might
have moderating effects on the relationship between proactive GSCM strategy and financial perfor­
mance of shipping firms. Accordingly, alternative methodologies should be used in order to examine
various causal relationships between green practices and performance. Structural equation modelling
that estimates the multiple and interrelated dependence in a single analysis, would be an appropriate
method to examine the direct, mediate, and even moderate effects of factors influencing the relation­
ship between GSCM practices and the performance of shipping firms.
Finally, it would be ideal to identify the preferred GSCM strategies in the different—albeit closely
related—sectors within the shipping industry (bulk, liner, specialised) and to examine and illustrate
the effect of those strategic preferences on financial performance.

Note
1. For example, this study considers ISO 50,001, which is the energy management systems standard. This
research also incorporates variables, such as green marketing, which are necessary in explaining the mechan­
ism of proactive GSCM strategy and financial performance.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 17

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Andreou, P. C., C. Louca, and P. M. Panayides. 2014. “Corporate Governance, Financial Management Decisions and
Firm Performance: Evidence from the Maritime Industry.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 63: 59–78. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2014.01.005.
Aragón-Correa, J. A. 1998. “Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment.” Academy of
Management Journal 41 (5): 556–567. doi:10.5465/256942.
Aragón-Correa, J. A., N. Hurtado-Torres, S. Sharma, and V. J. García-Morales. 2008. “Environmental Strategy and
Performance in Small Firms: A Resource-based Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Management 86 (1):
88–103. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.022.
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research 14 (3): 396–402. doi:10.1177/002224377701400320.
Azevedo, S. G., H. Carvalho, and V. C. Machado. 2011. “The Influence of Green Practices on Supply Chain
Performance: A Case Study Approach.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47
(6): 850–871. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.017.
Baker, W. E., and J. M. Sinkula. 2005. “Environmental Marketing Strategy and Firm Performance: Effects on New
Product Performance and Market Share.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (4): 461–475.
doi:10.1177/0092070305276119.
Banerjee, S. B. 2002. “Corporate Environmentalism: The Construct and Its Measurement.” Journal of Business
Research 55 (3): 177–191. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00135-1.
Barney, J. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management 17: 99–120.
Berrone, P., and L. R. Gomez-Mejia. 2009. “Environmental Performance and Executive Compensation: An Integrated
Agency-Institutional Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (1): 103–126. doi:10.5465/
amj.2009.36461950.
Bowen, F. E., P. D. Cousins, R. C. Lamming, and A. C. Farukt. 2001. “The Role of Supply Management Capabilities in
Green Supply.” Production and Operations Management 10 (2): 174–189. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00077.x.
Cao, M., and Q. Zhang. 2011. “Supply Chain Collaboration: Impact on Collaborative Advantage and Firm
Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 29 (3): 163–180. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008.
Chen, Y. S. 2008. “The Driver of Green Innovation and Green Image – Green Core Competence.” Journal of Business
Ethics 81 (3): 531–543. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1.
Chiou, T. Y., H. K. Chan, F. Lettice, and S. H. Chung. 2011. “The Influence of Greening the Suppliers and Green
Innovation on Environmental Performance and Competitive Advantage in Taiwan.” Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (6): 822–836. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.016.
Christmann, P. 2000. “Effects of “Best Practices” of Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of
Complementary Assets.”.” Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 663–680. doi:10.5465/1556360.
Ferketich, S. 1991. “Focus on Psychometrics. Aspects of Item Analysis.” Research in Nursing & Health 14 (2):
165–168. doi:10.1002/nur.4770140211.
Flynn, B. B., B. Huo, and X. Zhao. 2010. “The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on Performance: A Contingency
and Configuration Approach.” Journal of Operations Management 28 (1): 58–71. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001.
Flynn, B. B., S. Sakakibara, R. G. Schroeder, K. A. Bates, and E. J. Flynn. 1990. “Empirical Research Methods in
Operations Management.” Journal of Operations Management 9 (2): 250–284. doi:10.1016/0272-6963(90)90098-X.
Gavronski, I., R. D. Klassen, S. Vachon, and L. M. F. D. Nascimento. 2011. “A Resource-based View of Green Supply
Management.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (6): 872–885. doi:10.1016/j.
tre.2011.05.018.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th. Analysis 4–4.
Hart, S. L. 1995. “A Natural-resource-based View of the Firm.” Academy of Management Review 20 (4): 986–1014.
doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033.
Huber, J. 2008. “Technological Environmental Innovations (Teis) in a Chain-analytical and Life-cycle-analytical
Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (18): 1980–1986. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.014.
Judge, W. Q., and T. J. Douglas. 1998. “Performance Implications of Incorporating Natural Environmental Issues
into the Strategic Planning Process: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Management Studies 35 (2): 241–262.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00092.
Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioural Research. 3rd. Rinehart and Winston New York: Holt.
Lai, K., C. W. Y. Wong, Y. H. V. Lun, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2013. “Shipping Design for Compliance and the
Performance Contingencies for Shipping Firms.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 55: 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.004.
18 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

Lai, K. H., V. Y. H. Lun, C. W. Y. Wong, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2011. “Green Shipping Practices in the Shipping
Industry: Conceptualization, Adoption, and Implications.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (6): 631–638.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.004.
Leonidou, L. C., C. N. Leonidou, T. A. Fotiadis, and A. Zeriti. 2013. “Resources and Capabilities as Drivers of Hotel
Environmental Marketing Strategy: Implications for Competitive Advantage and Performance.” Tourism
Management 35: 94–110. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.003.
Liu, X., J. Yang, S. Qu, L. Wang, T. Shishime, and C. Bao. 2012. “Sustainable Production: Practices and Determinant
Factors of Green Supply Chain Management of Chinese Companies.” Business Strategy and the Environment 21
(1): 1–16. doi:10.1002/bse.705.
Liu, Z. 2020. “Unraveling the Complex Relationship between Environmental and Financial Performance.
A Multilevel Longitudinal Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 219 (January): 328–340.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.005.
Lun, Y. H. V., K. Lai, C. W. Y. Wong, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2014. “Green Shipping Practices and Firm Performance.”
Maritime Policy & Management 41 (2): 134–148. doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.819133.
Menguc, B., S. Auh, and L. Ozanne. 2010. “The Interactive Effect of Internal and External Factors on a Proactive
Environmental Strategy and Its Influence on a Firm’s Performance.” Journal of Business Ethics 94 (2): 279–298.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0264-0.
Mentzer, J. J. T., W. Dewitt, J. J. S. Keebler, S. Min, N. W. Nix, C. D. Smith, and Z. G. Zacharia. 2001. “Defining Supply
Chain Management.” Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2): 1–25. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x.
Miles, M. P., and J. G. Covin. 2000. “Environmental Marketing: A Source of Reputational Competitive and Financial
Advantage.” Journal of Business Ethics 23 (3): 299–311. doi:10.1023/A:1006214509281.
Molina-Azorín, J. F., E. Claver-Cortés, J. Pereira-Moliner, and J. J. Tarí. 2009. “Environmental Practices and Firm
Performance: An Empirical Analysis in the Spanish Hotel Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (5):
516–524. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.09.001.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Panayides, P. M. 2003. “Competitive Strategies and Organizational Performance in Ship Management.” Maritime
Policy & Management 30 (2): 123–140. doi:10.1080/0308883032000084850.
Papadas, -K.-K., G. Avlonitis, M. Carrigan, and P. Lamprini. 2019. “The Interplay of Strategic and Internal Green
Marketing Orientation on Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Business Research 104 (November): 632–643.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.009.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):
879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Porter, M. E., and C. Van der Linde. 1995. “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-competitiveness
Relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4): 97–118. doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.97.
Prakash, A. 2002. “Green Marketing, Public Policy and Managerial Strategies.” Business Strategy and the Environment
11 (5): 285–297. doi:10.1002/bse.338.
Rao, P. 2002. “Greening the Supply Chain: A New Initiative in South East Asia.” International Journal of Operations
and Production Management 22 (6): 632–655. doi:10.1108/01443570210427668.
Rao, P., and D. Holt. 2005. “Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Performance?”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 25 (9): 898–916. doi:10.1108/
01443570510613956.
Roberts, P. W., and G. R. Dowling. 2002. “Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance.”
Strategic Management Journal 23 (12): 1077–1093. doi:10.1002/smj.274.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Russo, M. V., and P. A. Fouts. 1997. “A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance.”
Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 534–559. doi:10.5465/257052.
Salzmann, O., A. M. Ionescu-Somers, and U. Steger. 2005. “The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability:
Literature Review and Research Options.” European Management Journal 23 (1): 27–36. doi:10.1016/j.
emj.2004.12.007.
Sarkis, J., P. Gonzalez-Torre, and B. Adenso-Diaz. 2010. “Stakeholder Pressure and the Adoption of Environmental
Practices: The Mediating Effect of Training.” Journal of Operations Management 28 (2): 163–176. doi:10.1016/j.
jom.2009.10.001.
Sarkis, J., Q. Zhu, and K. H. Lai. 2011. “An Organizational Theoretic Review of Green Supply Chain Management
Literature.” International Journal of Production Economics 130 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010.
Schaltegger, S., and T. Synnestvedt. 2002. “The Link between “Green” and Economic Success: Environmental
Management as the Crucial Trigger between Environmental and Economic Performance.” Journal of
Environmental Management 65 (4): 339–346. doi:10.1006/jema.2002.0555.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 19

Sen, P., M. Roy, and P. Pal. 2015. “Exploring Role of Environmental Proactivity in Financial Performance of
Manufacturing Enterprises: A Structural Modelling Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 108: 583–594.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.076.
Seuring, S., and M. Müller. 2008. “From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply
Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15): 1699–1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
Shang, K. C., C. S. Lu, and S. Li. 2010. “A Taxonomy of Green Supply Chain Management Capability among
Electronics-related Manufacturing Firms in Taiwan.” Journal of Environmental Management 91 (5): 1218–1226.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.016.
Sharma, S. 2000. “Managerial Interpretations and Organizational Context as Predictors of Corporate Choice of
Environmental Strategy.” Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 681–697. doi:10.5465/1556361.
Sharma, S., and H. Vredenburg. 1998. “Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of
Competitively Valuable Organisational Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 19 (8): 729.
Song, D. W., and P. M. Panayides. 2012. Maritime Logistics: A Complete Guide to Effective Shipping and Port
Management. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Srivastava, S. K. 2007. “Green Supply Chain Management: A State-of-the Art Literature Review.” International
Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1): 53–80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x.
Stank, T. P., S. B. Keller, and P. J. Daugherty. 2001. “Supply Chain Collaboration and Logistical Service Performance.”
Journal of Business Logistics 22 (1): 29–48. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00158.x.
Stopford, M. 2009. Maritime Economics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Testa, F., and F. Iraldo. 2010. “Shadows and Lights of GSCM (Green Supply Chain Management): Determinants and
Effects of These Practices Based on a Multi-national Study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10–11): 953–962.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.005.
Vachon, S., and R. D. Klassen. 2008. “Environmental Management and Manufacturing Performance: The Role of
Collaboration in the Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Economics 111 (2): 299–315. doi:10.1016/
j.ijpe.2006.11.030.
Walker, K., and F. Wan. 2012. “The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate Actions and
Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial Implications.” Journal of Business Ethics
109 (2): 227–242. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4.
Wang, Z., Q. Wang, S. Zhang, and X. Zhao. 2018. “Effects of Customer and Cost Drivers on Green Supply Chain
Management Practices and Environmental Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 189: 673–682.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.071.
Waters, D. 2003. Logistics: An Introduction to Supply Chain Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wu, G. C., J. H. Ding, and P. S. Chen. 2012. “The Effects of GSCM Drivers and Institutional Pressures on GSCM
Practices in Taiwan’s Textile and Apparel Industry.” International Journal of Production Economics 135 (2):
618–636. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.023.
Xue, M., J. Huo, and H. Zou. 2019. “Green Process Innovation, Green Product Innovation, and Corporate Financial
Performance: A Content Analysis Method.” Journal of Business Research 101 (August): 697–706. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.01.010.
Yang, C. S. 2018. “An Analysis of Institutional Pressures, Green Supply Chain Management, and Green Performance
in the Container Shipping Context.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 61: 246–260.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.005.
Yang, C. S., C. S. Lu, J. J. Haider, and P. B. Marlow. 2013. “The Effect of Green Supply Chain Management on Green
Performance and Firm Competitiveness in the Context of Container Shipping in Taiwan.” Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 55: 55–73. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.005.
Zhu, Q., Y. Feng, and S. B. Choi. 2017. “The Role of Customer Relational Governance in Environmental and
Economic Performance Improvement through Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production
155: 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.124.
Zhu, Q., Y. Geng, J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2011. “Evaluating Green Supply Chain Management among Chinese
Manufacturers from the Ecological Modernization Perspective.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 47 (6): 808–821. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2010.09.013.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2004. “Relationships between Operational Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of
Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises.” Journal of Operations
Management 22 (3): 265–289. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2006. “An Inter-sectoral Comparison of Green Supply Chain Management in China: Drivers
and Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 472–486. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2007. “The Moderating Effects of Institutional Pressures on Emergent Green Supply Chain
Practices and Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19): 4333–4355. doi:10.1080/
00207540701440345.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and Y. Geng. 2005. “Green Supply Chain Management in China: Pressures, Practices and
Performance.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 25 (5): 449–468. doi:10.1108/
01443570510593148.
20 S. E. ALEXANDROU ET AL.

Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2007. “Initiatives and Outcomes of Green Supply Chain Management Implementation
by Chinese Manufacturers.” Journal of Environmental Management 85 (1): 179–189. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2006.09.003.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2008a. “Confirmation of a Measurement Model for Green Supply Chain Management
Practices Implementation.” International Journal of Production Economics 111 (2): 261–273. doi:10.1016/j.
ijpe.2006.11.029.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2008b. “Green Supply Chain Management Implications for “Closing the Loop.”
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2006.06.003.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2012. “Green Supply Chain Management Innovation Diffusion and Its Relationship to
Organizational Improvement: An Ecological Modernization Perspective.” Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management 29 (1): 168–185. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.09.012.