sustainability

Article
How Corporate Social Responsibility and External Stakeholder
Concerns Affect Green Supply Chain Cooperation among
Manufacturers: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Analysis
Xiangmeng Huang , Shuai Yang * and Xiaolan Shi

Business School, Changshu Institute of Technology, Changshu 215500, China;

[email protected] (X.H.); [email protected] (X.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-0512-5225-1817

Abstract: The past decade saw an increasing development and improvement of green supply chain,
but the environmental performances cannot be achieved by single enterprises. Therefore, it is
necessary to find out the influencing factors that hinder the cooperation of green supply chain,
so as to make full use of these influencing factors to improve environmental performance. In
consultation with supply chain management practitioners and academics, this paper establishes a
set of 19 influencing factors for green supply chain cooperation among Chinese manufacturers The
corporate social responsibility as internal effect and external stakeholder concern as external effect
is considered in this study and the interpreted structural model (ISM) method is used to analyze
the interaction among these influencing factors and its impact on green supply chain cooperation.
This study aims to identify the most significant impacts on environmental issues with supply chain





 partners and to understand how these impacts can help improve the environmental performance
Citation: Huang, X.; Yang, S.; Shi, X.
throughout the supply chain.
How Corporate Social Responsibility
and External Stakeholder Concerns Keywords: green supply chain cooperation; corporate social responsibility; external stakeholders;
Affect Green Supply Chain interpretive structural modeling
Cooperation among Manufacturers:
An Interpretive Structural Modeling
Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052518 1. Introduction
Green supply chain (GSC) has drawn increasing attention among enterprises and
Academic Editor: Sebastian Kot
scholars worldwide over the past few decades with the increased environmental conscious-
ness. For example, 74 cities of China reported that the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
Received: 4 February 2021
exceeded the WHO air quality guideline for PM2.5 over the past 5 years. Air quality in
Accepted: 23 February 2021
217 cities failed to meet environmental air quality standards, accounting for 64.2% of the to-
Published: 26 February 2021
tal monitored cities in 2018 [1]. Manufacturing industry has been claimed to be responsible
much for the environmental issues of global warming, desertification, acid rain pollution,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and so on. With the multiple purposes of achieving cost reduction, economic growth and
published maps and institutional affil-
environmental friendship, a number of manufacturing enterprises have been pressured to
iations.
establish networks of their suppliers to increase their environmental performance [2,3].
Supply chain plays an important role in greening manufacturers for two reasons.
Firstly, supply chain has a strong relationship with the natural environment as it deals with
the required resources for the manufacturing production [4]. According to Srivastava [5],
supply chain is believed to have a deep impact on the exploitation of resources both
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
renewable and nonrenewable. The close link to resources and environment illustrates the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
importance of incorporating green supply chain into internal feasibility. Secondly, the
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
environmental perception and ability of the manufacturing suppliers can be influenced
conditions of the Creative Commons
through the purchasing practices of the supply chain. It is believed that large manufacturers
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// could use their purchasing power to help implant environmental responsibility and green
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ actions in those small and medium-sized businesses across the supply chain [2,6]. The
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052518 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 2 of 16

ineluctable association proposes the importance of integrating green supply chain in

external necessity.
Previous research on green supply chain extensively discusses how the manufactur-
ing sector has embraced green efforts in business operations [7–9]. It is proposed that
greening of the supply chain is one of the most valued aspects that is fast gaining attention
among manufacturers to develop their environmental performance [10]. Furthermore,
those effective green supply chain implementations can help enhance their competitive
advantage [11,12]. However, enterprises cannot overcome environmental challenges on
their own and concerted efforts are needed to integrate environmental considerations into
their business decisions [13]. Existing studies point out that cooperation plays a critical
role for businesses in greening their supply chains and achieving their targeted enterprise
objectives, which would bring positive outcomes such as building a stronger and more
sustainability oriented manufacturer [14,15]; planning coordination of green product de-
sign [16,17]; recycling used products [18]; reducing CO2 emissions throughout the business
operations like production and logistics [19]; marketing greener products [20,21]; gaining
customer satisfaction and trust [22]; as well as maximizing the chain-wide profit [23,24].
However, there is little research in the existing literature on how green supply chain
cooperation affects environmental operations in the manufacturing industry.
Thus, considering both the internal and external necessity, this study is intended to
address this gap. With an extensive literature review of green supply chain, the authors
identified 19 influencing factors in terms of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as internal
effects and external stakeholder concerns as external effects on cooperating with upstream
and downstream suppliers to be environmentally friendly throughout the supply chain;
meanwhile, 17 manufacturers were chosen in China to use the interpreted structural model
(ISM) technique through experts’ judgments. The remainder of this paper is organized
as follows: in Section 2, a literature review presents the green supply chain development
and identifies the internal and external effects for cooperation in manufacturing industry.
Section 3 introduces the ISM methodology and explains how it is used in this study. In
Section 4, this paper summarizes the findings of the study and presents a discussion of the
research results. Conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Going Green in Supply Chain
The term of supply chain was first introduced by Oliver and Webber in the early
1980s which has traditionally been regarded as the process of converting raw materials
into final products which will then be transferred to the end users [25]. In addition
to tangible product flow, some researchers have also stressed the intangible value of
the information flow through the supply chain, which includes an emphasis on market
needs exchange, trust building, product development, supplier base reduction, strategic
positioning leverage, and operating efficiency improvement. Information cooperation
between supply chain partners makes supply chain structure more complex and more
efficient [26]. Furthermore, Welford [27] proposed that the supply chain relationship has
definitely become more critical in today’s globalized world, in light of the growing notion
of environmental responsibility around the world. Actually, it is important to note that
we are entering into an era where green issues have become an important element in
business practices.
Empirical evidence also shows that customers as one of the external stakeholders
are increasingly eager to understand the conditions where products have been manufac-
tured [28,29]. Moreover, they are increasingly inclined to consume desirable products that
are produced in an environmentally sustainable way [30]. Therefore, the manufacturers
make great efforts to provide green products by investing and developing green technology
to produce and transfer green products and determining the greenness of the products as
well as to fulfill their CSR in terms of environmental responsibility [31].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 3 of 16

As a result, greening the supply chain would involve the philosophy and practices
throughout the whole manufacturing flow in consideration of both internal CSR and ex-
ternal stakeholders. It includes the inbound processes like cultivating and encouraging
suppliers to share environmental difficulties and know-how with each other, acquainting
suppliers with the benefits of cleaner production, stressing the importance of green actions
to suppliers and selecting suppliers based on environmental criteria; the processive pro-
duction such as environmentally friendly materials use, green design considerations, waste
reduction, cleaner technology adoption, and internal materials recycling; the outbound
processes like waste management, green packaging improvement, eco-labeling, product
recovery, and so on [32]. In addition, Hoek and Remko [33] also emphasize that it is
significant for the manufacturers to green the supply chain by promoting synergy with
their partners.

2.2. Green Supply Chain Cooperation

There is an increasing awareness among businesses that it is not adequate to achieve
green supply chain objectives by working alone [34]. Walton et al. [35] verified that it
is beneficial for the manufacturers to influence their suppliers by putting effects in the
purchasing process. Barratt [36] and Danese [37] believed that a number of businesses
worldwide have benefited from supply chain cooperation to reduce cost and increase
environmental performances. Subramanian et al. [16] pointed out that manufacturers
would have different choices for product design as they have different levels of cooperation
with their downstream partners. These studies reveal that environmental improvement is
achievable through the cooperation with suppliers in the chain.
However, recent research proposes the idea that difficulty is arising in the supply
chain in terms of cooperation because of the increasing complexity within the supply chain
network [20]. Moreover, the increased sophistication of the supply chain has given rise
to several tools for supply chain cooperation, but few of them have taken reduction of
carbon or greenness of production into consideration [38]. It is also notable that different
participants in the supply chain have different interest demands for the level and content of
cooperation. For example, some supply chain partners seek a high level of cooperation with
the exchange of transparent information between each other while others may prefer a low
level of cooperation in product design and development; thus, different interest demands
of cooperation involving green issues will emerge for different supply chain partners [39].
Therefore, it is necessary to figure out what are the decisive factors of suppliers to work or
cooperate together for a green supply chain.

2.3. Influencing Factors for Green Supply Chain Cooperation: CSR and External Stakeholders
Literature survey has thrown light on some of the motivations which drive businesses
for green supply chain cooperation, but little carefully designed research has explained
the system. In this study this research gap is identified and a set of 19 influencing factors
for the cooperation of green supply chain in 17 manufacturing enterprises in China are
considered. Those factors can be categorized into two groups in terms of the feasibility and
necessity of green supply chain and they are CSR and external stakeholders’ concerns.
CSR is regarded as the internal effects which are related to the voluntary proactive
strategies to gain a competitive advantage as well as stronger purchasing power, improve
corporate image and brand, fulfill the anticipated social responsibility, and draw atten-
tion from environmentally conscious customers; to share environmental management
information, know-how and technologies with supply chain partners; to cope with produc-
tion through energy-saving and emission-reduction. These influencing factors could be
generally explained using Resource Based View (RBV) [40,41].
External stakeholders’ concerns derive from end-users who are interested in envi-
ronmentally friendly products. Supply chain partners who are more concerned with
environmental management, government, community, and other stakeholders with stricter
legal demands and requirements in line with the growing concerns for environmental
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 4 of 16

protection and resource utilization have all exerted a variety of pressures. The inclusion
of such effects is mainly explained through an institutional theory which identifies three
types of institutional pressures, including normative, mimetic, and coercive ones.
In total, 19 factors including both CSR and external stakeholders’ concerns are de-
scribed in Table 1 based on literature and discussions with industrial experts and academi-
cians, from which influencing factors 1–12 are based on CSR concerns and factors 13–19 are
with regard to external stakeholders’ concerns.

Table 1. Description of influencing factors for green supply chain cooperation.

Influencing Factors Description Source

Information sharing through the communication systems
along the supply chain can be seen as the enabling
Information sharing and resources for the development of green capacities within Hervani et al., 2005; Melville, 2010;
1
transparency the enterprise as well as across the partners with Fawcett et al., 2011; Cai et al., 2016 [42–45]
information exchange and transparency and the
cooperation up and down the supply chain.
The purchasing strategy of environmental issues’
Purchasing power Handfield et al., 2010; Large and Thomsen,
2 involvement enables the enterprises to define an action
enhancement 2011; Walker and Jones, 2012 [46–48]
plan towards suppliers for green purchases.
The commitment from the top management of an Bowen et al., 2001; Pujari et al., 2004;
Top management
3 enterprise allows for the devotion of the necessary Pagell and Wu, 2009; Hofer et al., 2012;
commitment
resources for green cooperation through the supply chain. Rehman et al., 2016 [49–53]
Knowledge management encourages learning, sharing and
Knowledge management Zhu et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2008; Gmelin
4 spreading environmental knowledge and technical green
and sharing and Seuring, 2014; Lee, 2015 [54–57]
initials between enterprises across the chain.
Technological integration with primary suppliers and
Green technology Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Gmelin and
5 major customers is believed to be positively linked to
integration Seuring, 2014 [34,56]
environmental performance and cooperation.
Trust is vital in the cooperation between supply chain
partners and the trustful suppliers will enhance their Zhu and Sakis, 2004; Cheng et al., 2008;
Trustful suppliers’
6 commitment and investment for environmental issues, Hoejmose et al., 2012; Hartmann and
selection
which is the major consideration for enterprises to select Germain, 2015 [11,55,58,59]
their suppliers.
Evaluating and monitoring the performance of suppliers
Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Cheng et al., 2008;
Monitoring supplier on the basis of environmental criteria is positively linked
7 Walker and Jones, 2012, Hartmann and
performance with the participation of suppliers in during the
Germain, 2015 [11,48,55,59]
cooperation across the chain.
Social awareness suggests that an enterprise is willing not
Increased social to take simple compliance but also take the public and Sharma, 2000; Seuring, 2004; Mudgal et al.,
8
awareness partners into consideration in terms of 2010 [60–62]
environmental issues.
Green image of an enterprises is believed as a driver for
Claver et al., 2007; Shang et al., 2010;
9 Maintaining green image implementation and cooperation of green supply
Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012 [63–65]
chain practices.
Reduction in wastes and Wastes and emissions reduction will be directly achieved Tseng and Chiu, 2013; Scur and Barbosa,
10
emissions through green supply chain cooperation. 2017 [66,67]
Effective and optimized Improved energy and resources efficiency measures across
Figge and Hahn, 2012; Thollander et al.,
11 utilization of resources the supply chain can lead to reduction of
2013; Liu et al., 2017 [68–70]
and energy environmental impacts.
Green supply chain cooperation should help enterprises to
Gaining green Mittal et al., 2012; Henriques and Catarino,
12 enhance their competitive advantages with pollution
competitiveness 2016 [71,72]
reduction, cost saving and productivity increase.
Financial incentives from Financial incentives are the important drivers for
13 government or enterprises to apply green supply chain practices as well as Parker et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2017 [70,73]
community cooperate with their supply chain partners.
Pressures and impetus from stakeholders about
Stakeholders’ green Claver et al., 2007; Zhu and Geng, 2013;
14 environmental issues help enhance the implementation of
concerns Lee et al., 2015 [7,63,74]
green supply chain practices and cooperation.
Establishing long-term
Effective green supply chain cooperation can be achieved Mentzer et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2008; Lee,
15 relationship with supply
through long-term relationship with supply chain partners. 2015 [4,57,75]
chain partners
Implementation of legal mechanisms like regulations,
Pressures of
legislations and laws are effective to prevent polluting Govindan et al., 2015; Zheng and Shi, 2017
16 environmental regulation
industries from relocation and promote cooperation with [76,77]
and legislation
supply chain partners.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 5 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Influencing Factors Description Source

Severe penalties are putting pressures on enterprises for
Penalties for the Tseng and Chiu, 2013; Neto et al., 2016
17 not performing green and to seek help and cooperation
noncompliance [66,78]
with their supply chain partners.
Customers’
The increasing green awareness of customers is valued by Zhang et al., 2013; Hong and Guo, 2018
18 environmental concern
the supplier chain partners and promotes their cooperation. [21,31]
increase
Acquiring and applying the environmental qualifications
Handfield et al., 2010; Darnall et al., 2008;
Global quality such as ISO 9001 and ISO 140,001 is believed to facilitate
19 de Sousa et al., 2014; Dubey et al., 2015
qualification acquisition the extension of green actions to other supply
[46,79–81]
chain partners.

3. Research Methodology
It is observed that few studies have discussed the influencing factors for green supply
chain cooperation and for manufacturing industry. This study examines and prioritizes
green supply chain cooperation influencing factors using the interpretive structural model-
ing approach which was developed as a communication tool for complex situations.

3.1. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

ISM is a learning method developed to reckon with a set of elements and their interac-
tions that influence a complex phenomenon. It is interactive because it uses the experience,
knowledge and judgment of experts for structuring whether and how the variables are
related. Besides, it is structured because the diverse variables and their relationships are
imposed with order and direction, leading to a better understanding of the complex phe-
nomenon as a whole system. It is also interpretive as it is well designed to be represented
in a graphical model with implying words [82–84]. The ISM method is generally applied
through the steps as follows [85]:
Step 1. Variables (factors, elements or criteria) of the system under consideration are listed.
Step 2. A contextual relationship is established with the variables identified in the first
step to determine which pairs of variables should be examined.
Step 3. A structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) is constructed, indicating pairwise
relationships among variables of the system under consideration.
Step 4. A reachability matrix (RM) is developed from the SSIM to be checked for transitiv-
ity. The transitivity is a basic assumption declaring that if a variable A is related
to B and B is related to C, then A is necessarily related to C.
Step 5. The RM developed in the previous step is partitioned into different levels.
Step 6. A direct graph is drawn based on the relationships given in the RM and the
transitive links are removed.
Step 7. The resultant digraph is converted into an ISM with the replacement of variable
nodes with statements.
Step 8. The ISM model is then checked for conceptual inconsistency and necessary modi-
fications as well as commentary is made.

3.2. Data Collection

The influencing factors through the literature review were discussed with 17 supply
chain management practitioners of middle-level management in different manufacturing
enterprises in the southeast coastal area of China and it is the most prosperous manu-
facturing area in China. In addition, there were also discussions with five academicians
and experts of supply chain management or environmental management from Chinese
universities. The middle-level executives were selected because they are believed to be
knowledgeable and progressive, and would be willing to facilitate adoptions of technology
innovations or environmental management practices like greening the supply chain in
which they are involved [86,87]. The industrial participants include three auto manufac-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 6 of 16

turers, four textiles manufacturers, three mechanical manufacturers, one paper mill, four
pharmaceutical and two furniture producers.
The professional executives received the influencing factor list through direct visit or e-
mail and they firstly confirmed the 19 influencing factors with the interpretation identified
in the literature review and then determined whether two of them were independent
or interrelated in the application of the ISM protocol. All individual responses from the
industry were collected and sent to the academic experts for discussions; one final response
was consolidated and taken based on the sufficient discussions. Then the conclusion of the
discussion results was consigned in the structural self-interaction matrix SSIM.

3.3. Building Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)

With a “lead to” contextual relationship for each variable, the existence of a relation
between any two influencing factors and the associated direction of the relation were used
to construct the SSIM, shown in Table 2. Letters V, A, X, and O are used to denote the
nature of the relationship between the factors (i and j):
V: Factor i will help achieve factor j;
A: Factor j will help achieve factor i;
X: Factors i and j will help achieve each other; and
O: Factors i and j are independent.

Table 2. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).

Influencing
19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Factors
1 V V O A A A A A X O X A O A X X A O X
2 O O O O O O O A O O A O A O O O O X
3 V V O A V A A V V V V X O O V V X
4 V V O A X A A V V V X X V A X X
5 V V O A V A A V V V V X A X X
6 V V O A X A A V V V V V V X
7 V V O A V A A V V V V V V
8 X V O A O A A V X V V X
9 X V O A O A A V A A X
10 V V O A O A A V A X
11 V V O A X A A V X
12 X V O A V A A X
13 V O O O O V X
14 V O O A O X
15 X O O A X
16 V V O X
17 O O X
18 A X
19 X

3.4. Building the Reachability Matrix (RM)

Following the ISM analysis procedure, an initial reachability matrix was developed
from the SSIM above and the information of each cell of SSIM was converted into binary
digits, 1 or 0. The transformation was done with the following rules:
(1) The cell (i, j) of the SSIM containing a “V” should be filled with 1 and the correspond-
ing cell (j, i) should be filled with 0.
(2) The cell (i, j) of the SSIM containing a “A” should be filled with 0 and the correspond-
ing cell (j, i) should be filled with 1.
(3) The cell (i, j) of the SSIM containing a “X” should be filled with 1 and the correspond-
ing cell (j, i) should be filled with 1.
(4) The cell (i, j) of the SSIM containing a “O” should be filled with 0 and the correspond-
ing cell (j, i) should be filled with 0.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 7 of 16

The initial reachability matrix is given in Table 3.

Table 3. Initial reachability matrix.

Influencing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Factors
1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
4 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
5 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
6 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
7 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
9 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
13 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
14 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
15 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
16 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

According to the ISM methodology, the final reachability matrix of the influencing
factors is obtained by incorporating the transitivities from the enumeration of Table 3 and
shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Final reachability matrix.

Influencing Driving
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Factors Power
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 17
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 16
15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 17
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15
Dependent
16 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1 3 16 1 1 17 16
power

Table 4 also includes the driving and dependence powers of each factor. The driving
power is the total number of factors (including itself) that a specific factor may help to
achieve; while the dependent power is the total number of factors (including itself) that
may help to achieve the specific factor. With the final reachability matrix, both the driving
and dependence powers are counted. The driving power of a factor is equal to the sum of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 8 of 16

the numbers in the line of the factor and its dependence power is equal to the sum of the
numbers in the column.

3.5. Levels Partitioning and Development of ISM-Based Model

Using the final reachability matrix, the reachability and antecedent set for each factor
is obtained, the intersection of these two sets is derived as well for all the factors. The
factors for which the reachability and the intersection sets are the same occupy the top
level in the ISM hierarchy, which would not help to achieve any other factor above its own
level. After the top-level factors are identified, they are discarded from the other remaining
variables. Then the rest of the factors construct the new reachability and intersection sets
for examination. Influencing factors for which the intersection and the reachability sets
were identical were to be considered as pertaining to level 2 and were then eliminated from
the table. The procedure was repeated until all the factors were categorized in levels. The
reachability, antecedents and intersection sets, along with the calculated level for each one
of the factors are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Level partitioning factors.

Influencing
Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level
Factors
1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
2 2 1,2,3,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 2 1
3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
5 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
8 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
11 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,18,19 13 13 4
14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,18,19 13,14,16 14 3
15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2
16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,18,19 16 16 4
17 17 17 17 1
18 18 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19 18 1
19 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 15,18,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,19 2

Based on the results of level partitioning, the hierarchical structural model is generated.
The relationship between the factors i and j, is represented by an arrow pointing from i
to j. Then the transitivity is removed as described in the ISM methodology and the final
digraph is converted into the ISM-based model as shown in Figure 1.

3.6. MICMAC Analysis

MICMAC referring to Matriced Impacts croises-multipication appliqueand classment
(cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification), is based on multiplication
properties of matrices. The final reachability matrix is also used to conduct a MICMAC
analysis with both the driving and dependence powers, as shown in Table 4. MICMAC
analysis tries to explain the driving power and dependence power of factors and it is
conducted to identify the key factors that drive the system in various categories. Based on
the driving and dependence power, the factors can be classified into four categories, in-
cluding autonomous, dependent, linkage, and independent factors; which are represented
graphically in a two-dimension chart of Figure 2.
Autonomous factors are those that have weak driving power and weak dependence.
They are relatively detached from the system and either strongly enhance or inhibit the
influence of other factors. Additionally, they are situated in the lower-left frame of the
chart of Quadrant I. Out of the 19 identified influencing factors, only factor 17 pertain to
this category.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 13,13,
2021,
2021, 2518 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 9 of
11 of 1916

Sustainability Figure
2021,
Figure 13,1. 1.
x FOR
ISMISM
PEERbased model
REVIEW
based model forfor influencing
influencing factors.
factors. 12 of 19

3.6. MICMAC Analysis

MICMAC referring to Matriced Impacts
Driving Power croises-multipication
and Dependence Power Diagram appliqueand class-
ment (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification), is based on multipli-
18
cation properties of matrices. The final reachability matrix is also used to conduct a MIC-
MAC analysis
16 with
(13,16)
both the driving and dependence powers, as shown in Table 4. MIC-
MAC analysis
14 tries to(14)
explain the driving power and dependence power of factors and it
(1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,1
is conducted
12 to identify the key factors that drive the system in various categories. Based
Driving Power

2,15,19)
on the driving and dependence power, the factors can be classified into four categories,
10
including autonomous, dependent, linkage, and independent factors; which are repre-
8
sented graphically in a two-dimension chart of Figure 2.
Autonomous
6 factors are those that have weak driving power and weak dependence.
They are relatively
4 detached from the system and either strongly enhance or inhibit the
influence 2of other factors. Additionally, they are situated in the lower-left (2,18)
frame of the
chart of Quadrant I. Out of the 19 identified influencing factors, only factor 17 pertain to
(17)
0
this category.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Dependent factors are the ones which have
Dependence weak driving power but strong depend-
Power
ence power and are highly conditioned by the effect of the independent and linkage fac-
tors. The dependent factors are place in Quadrant II which is the lower-right frame of the
chart and two factors in this study pertain to this category; they are factors 2 and 18.
Figure 2. Driving power and dependence power diagram.
Figure 2. Driving power and dependence power diagram.
Linkage factors are the ones located in the upper-right frame of the chart, Quadrant
III. They have both high influence power and high dependent power. The effect or action
of the inflowing factors that pass through the linkage factors will be amplified or ob-
structed depending on the value of those linkage factors. In this model, 12 factors pertain-
ing to this category are factors 1, 3–12, 15, and 19.
Independent factors are represented in Quadrant IV which is the upper-left frame of
the chart. These are the factors of high driving and low dependence power, which are the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 10 of 16

Dependent factors are the ones which have weak driving power but strong depen-
dence power and are highly conditioned by the effect of the independent and linkage
factors. The dependent factors are place in Quadrant II which is the lower-right frame of
the chart and two factors in this study pertain to this category; they are factors 2 and 18.
Linkage factors are the ones located in the upper-right frame of the chart, Quadrant III.
They have both high influence power and high dependent power. The effect or action of
the inflowing factors that pass through the linkage factors will be amplified or obstructed
depending on the value of those linkage factors. In this model, 12 factors pertaining to this
category are factors 1, 3–12, 15, and 19.
Independent factors are represented in Quadrant IV which is the upper-left frame of
the chart. These are the factors of high driving and low dependence power, which are the
key to understanding the attribute of the system as most of the other factors within the
system are depending on them. This category contains three factors in this examination
and they are factors 13, 14, and 16.

4. Results and Discussion

Much attention has been paid to the importance of green supply chain development,
which is expected to effectively create a win-win relationship between environmental
performance and economic efficiency throughout the supply chain. Development of green
supply chain management among manufacturers in China is rapid but still some gaps like
green supply chain cooperation affect their performance. Environmental improvements are
essential for Chinese industries as an increasing number of enterprises has been involved
in the global supply chain. The members within the supply chain have worked together to
reduce pollution and other environmental impacts through inter-organizational interac-
tions. Greening the supply chain is not an easy task indeed and it is the cooperation that is
vital for all the partners through the chain to achieve positive environmental performance;
while there exists a number of factors for the manufacturers to cooperate with each other.
This paper extracts the influential factors that promote green supply chain cooperation
from the literature, consults industry experts and scholars, and uses ISM to explain the
interaction between these factors. The analysis on the factors can help the supply chain
partners for better cooperation and further for improved environmental outcomes. The
driving and dependence power diagram obtained from MICMAC analysis provides an
insight into the relative importance and inter-dependencies between these factors. Some of
the important findings of this study will be underlined.
1. There is only one autonomous factor (factor 17). Autonomous factors are weak fac-
tors and weak dependents, thus have little influence on the system. Only one autonomous
factor signifies at least two points; firstly, most of the considered factors in this study play
a significant role and secondly the penalties for the noncompliance has not had much
effect on the process of the green supply chain cooperation among manufacturers in China.
Thus, Chinese manufacturers were not affected by punishment or penalty when they
would like to coordinate with their supply chain partners in terms of green actions or
environmental issues.
2. Dependent factors are Customers’ environmental concern increase (factor 2) and
Purchasing power enhancement (factor 18). They are weak factors but strongly dependent
on one another. Due to the encouragement or pressures from the government in terms of
environmental issues, the manufacturers would like to take actions in their purchasing
strategy towards suppliers for green purchases; thus, this factor also has a weak drive
power (1) and strong dependence power (17). Due to the increasing concern about envi-
ronmental issues among stakeholders which encourages the cooperation between supply
chain partners, consumers become aware of environmental protection and energy saving;
so, it is why customers’ environmental concern increase has a weak drive power (1) and
strong dependence power (17). While the stakeholders’ environmental concern could
rise on account of the rising of government’s environmental responsibility. This reveals
that manufacturers paid little attention to their enhancement of purchasing power when
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 11 of 16

cooperating across the supply chain and the increase of customers’ environmental concern
was not a strong contributor to promote the green supply chain cooperation. Moreover, the
government regulations on environment should be implemented in a stricter manner in
China for reinforcing the green cooperation among manufactures.
3. Thirteen factors fall in the linkage factor in Quadrant III of the diagram which can
be classified into two main categories, that is CSR motivations and external stakeholder
drivers. Such classification is based on the fact that green supply chain cooperation has both
inherent feasibility and external necessity. In CSR category there are 11 factors, including
Information sharing and transparency (factor 1), Top management commitment (factor 3),
Knowledge management and sharing (factor 4), Green technology integration (factor 5),
Trustful suppliers selection (factor 6), Monitoring supplier performance (factor 7), Increased
social responsibility (factor 8), Maintaining green image (factor 9), Reduction in wastes and
emissions (factor 10), Effective and optimized utilization of resources and energy (factor 11),
and Gaining green competitiveness (factor 12); whereas, the external stakeholder concerns
consist of Establishing long-term relationship with supply chain partners (factor 15) and
Global quality qualification acquisition (factor 19). Additionally, all the 13 factors have
driving power of 17 and dependence power of 16. It is in line with Freeman’s point of view,
stakeholders arise from both internal and external sources to the enterprises [88].
CSR refers to internal stakeholders of the enterprise, including owners, employees
and internal customers and suppliers, while external stakeholders refer to governments,
competitors, consumer advocates, environmentalists, special interest groups, media, etc.
They originate from the ambiguous area of “environment” and influence the ability of en-
terprises to respond to internal changes. The motivations from employees and managerial
stakeholders to proactively implement environmental management practices can create
a virtuous cycle which leads to additional influencing factors from internal stakeholders.
According to Reinhardt, if there is a prevalence of environmental concerns throughout an
enterprise, it is more likely to recruit talented applicants who have a strong preference to
work in enterprises with proactive environmental management philosophies [89]. Those
factors from insiders of any partner enterprise across the supply chain would convert into
the motivation of cooperation for greening the supply chain.
External stakeholders of customers and suppliers can affect the implementation of
environmental practices within a manufacturing enterprise; especially those stakeholders
who require their suppliers to adhere to certain practices for the improvement of their
environmental performance [11,90]. For instance, downstream partners tend to ask for their
suppliers to provide documentary evidence of their compliance with all environmental
regulations, such as ISO 14,000 [91]. Factors originate from downwards because they like to
ensure that their purchases meet environmental quality standards and, by doing so, reduce
environmental liabilities associated with final product development [92].
Three factors are the independent factors given in Quadrant IV. They are Stakeholders’
green concerns (factor 14) with a driving power (16) and a dependent power (3), Financial
incentives from government or community (factor 13) and Pressures of environmental
regulation and legislation (factor 16), both of which have a strong driving power of 17
and a very weak dependent power of 1. Thus, they can be viewed as the key factors. As
discussed before, stakeholders’ green concerns have obvious driving power to the internal
and external factors for Chinese manufacturers to cooperate with their suppliers for a green
supply chain. Furthermore, regulatory parties and government are the most significant
external stakeholders when it comes to environmental issues [88,93], and are typically
associated with coercive pressures [94]; thus, they have the most vital driving power in
the factor system. Enterprises must comply with environmental regulations, to enjoy the
encouragement, especially for financial incentives or face the threat of regulators levying
legal action, penalties and fines. Failure to yield to environmental regulatory will damage
the enterprise’s public image and customer relations. Enterprises can conduct organiza-
tional training of proactive environmental practices as one means by which to alleviate
these regulatory threats and risks. In fact, proactive environmental practices can help enter-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 12 of 16

prises form collaborative relationships with government to explore more nonregulatory

approaches, where government can encourage greater environmental improvements [95]
and provide more opportunities to build trust between manufacturers and regulators [96].

5. Conclusions
Facing an increasingly competitive market, in order to achieve the balance of cost
reduction, economic growth and environmental friendship, a number of enterprises have
established networks of their suppliers to increase their competitiveness. Manufacturing
enterprises in China play an important role in the provincial economy and are willing to
cooperate with their supply chain partners for the purpose of improving environmental
performance. The influencing factors hindering the cooperation need to be identified
to further arouse the copartnership between Chinese manufacturers to achieve greener
supply chains. Factors that stemmed from CSR and external stakeholders have been
identified and analyzed in terms of the interaction among them by using ISM. With the
feedback from supply chain management practitioners of manufacturers and academicians
of universities in China, a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) was formed as the
basis for the interpretive structural modeling (ISM); these identified influencing factors are
iterated in four levels.
A structural model was formed using ISM, where the Purchasing power enhancement
(factor 2), Penalties for the noncompliance (factor 17) and Customers’ environmental
concern increase (factor 18) occupied the top level. These factors are impacted at the lower
level and they are also those factors that put less effect as compared to the remaining factors.
It indicates that the manufacturers in China feel that the three factors give them the least
driving power to cooperate with their suppliers to achieve a green supply chain. In the
second level, there are 13 factors including Information sharing and transparency (factor 1),
Top management commitment (factor 3), Knowledge management and sharing (factor 4),
Green technology integration (factor 5), Trustful suppliers selection (factor 6), Monitoring
supplier performance (factor 7), Increased social responsibility (factor 8), Maintaining green
image (factor 9), Reduction in wastes and emissions (factor 10), Effective and optimized
utilization of resources and energy (factor 11), Gaining green competitiveness (factor 12),
Establishing long-term relationship with supply chain partners (factor 15), and Global
quality qualification acquisition (factor 19). It shows that these 13 factors could give
equal impact for green supply chain cooperation. The influencing factors from CSR and
external stakeholder concerns should be paid attention to simultaneously to strengthen the
cooperation between suppliers. Only one factor of Stakeholders’ green concerns (factor
14) is placed in level three. Additionally this is a strong motivator that would have an
influence up to the factors in level one and level two, which implies that the increasing
environmental concern from stakeholders of manufacturers in China positively influences
their green supply chain cooperation. Financial incentives from government or community
(factor 13) and Pressures of environmental regulation and legislation (factor 16) occupied
the bottom most level of the system. These two factors act as vital factors for cooperating
with supply chain partners to achieve better environmental performances. They are driving
the remaining factors but are not very dependent on other factors. This finding is also
consistent with many other studies showing that government regulatory pressure and
incentives as drivers of external stakeholders have a positive impact on green supply
chain management in manufacturing industry. Thus, they might be the major factors for
cooperation for greening the supply chain.
With the diagnosis of the major influencing factors of green supply chain cooperation,
it becomes clear how the manufacturers can be motivated to implement environmental
cooperation strategies through their supply chains. It will further lead to the manufac-
turing of eco-friendly products and the ability to sustain in the market is also increased
for the manufacturers. This study suggests that Financial incentives from government
or community and Pressures of environmental regulation and legislation are acting as
the significant factors for the green supply chain cooperation. Regulatory parties need
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 13 of 16

to give attention to both incentive and coercive impetus towards the manufacturers to
drive their cooperation for improved environmental performances. Then the virtuous
circle of cooperation is moving, in that the manufacturers will be very keen in selecting
suppliers with consideration of green concepts and adopting eco-friendly materials from
their suppliers. The overall green perspective will also help to generate environmentally
friendly products in the end and the product image as well as the enterprise image will be
improved in the market and public as an eco-friendly manufacturer. It will also be good to
obtain government rewards or awards for such cooperation.
ISM approach was implied with 19 influencing factors from CSR and external stake-
holder concerns for the green supply chain cooperation only in the manufacturing en-
terprises in China in this study. More factors could have not been considered and not
classified. Future scope of this study should be widened to identify the essential factors
in other Chinese industries for green supply chain cooperation from the perspectives like
multicriteria decision making techniques.

Author Contributions: X.H. and S.Y. conceived and designed the study; X.H. performed the calcula-
tion; X.H. and S.Y. analyzed the data; X.S. contributed analysis tools; X.H., S.Y. and X.S. wrote the
paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No.
71901042]. The research was also funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Research of Jiangsu
Higher Education Institutions of China [Grant No. 2018SJZDI044].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for providing
the valuable comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role
in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the
manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. MEEC (Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China). China’s Ecological and Environmental Statements 2018; MEEC: Beijing,
China, 2019.
2. Ramanathan, U.; Bentley, Y.; Pang, G. The role of collaboration in the UK green supply chains: An exploratory study of the
perspectives of suppliers, logistics and retailers. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 70, 231–241. [CrossRef]
3. Swami, S.; Shah, J. Channel coordination in green supply chain management. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2013, 64, 336–351. [CrossRef]
4. Mentzer, J.T.; Dewitt, W.; Keebler, J.S. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 1–25. [CrossRef]
5. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [CrossRef]
6. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [CrossRef]
7. Zhu, Q.; Geng, Y. Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among
Chinese manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 6–12. [CrossRef]
8. Singh, A.K.; Jha, S.K.; Prakash, A. Green Manufacturing (GM) performance measures: An empirical investigation from Indian
MSMEs. Int. J. Res. Advent Technol. 2014, 2, 51–65.
9. Thurner, T.W.; Roud, V. Greening strategies in Russia’s manufacturing—From compliance to opportunity. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
162, 1607–1616. [CrossRef]
10. Rao, P. Greening of the supply chain: An empirical study for SMEs in the Philippine context. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2007, 1, 55–66.
[CrossRef]
11. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain
management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22, 265–289. [CrossRef]
12. Carroll, A.B.; Shabana, K.M. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. Int.
J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 85–105. [CrossRef]
13. Seuring, S. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1118–1119. [CrossRef]
14. Lozano, R. Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 499–509. [CrossRef]
15. Govindan, K.; Seuring, S.; Zhu, Q.; Garrido, A.S. Accelerating the transition towards sustainability dynamics into supply chain
relationship management and governance structures. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1813–1823. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 14 of 16

16. Subramanian, R.; Gupta, S.; Talbot, B. Product design and supply chain coordination under extended producer responsibility.
Prod. Oper. Manag. 2009, 18, 259–277. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, J.; Chen, Y.; Bai, Q. A two-echelon sustainable supply chain coordination under cap-and-trade regulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
135, 42–56. [CrossRef]
18. Govindan, K.; Popiuc, M.N. Reverse supply chain coordination by revenue sharing contract: A case for the personal computers
industry. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 233, 326–336. [CrossRef]
19. Oglethorpe, D. Optimising economic, environmental, and social objectives: A goal-programming approach in the food sector.
Environ. Plan. A 2010, 42, 1239–1254. [CrossRef]
20. Guo, Y.; Yen, D.A.; Geng, R.; Azar, G. Drivers of green cooperation between Chinese manufacturers and their customers: An
empirical analysis. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2021, 93, 137–146. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, J.; Gou, Q.; Liang, L.; Huang, Z. Supply chain coordination through cooperative advertising with reference price effect.
Omega 2013, 41, 345–353. [CrossRef]
22. Dai, R.; Zhang, J.; Tang, W. Cartelization or cost-sharing? Comparison of cooperation modes in a green supply chain. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 156, 159–173. [CrossRef]
23. Burr, C.; Knauff, M.; Stepanova, A. On the prisoner’s dilemma in R&D with input spillovers and incentives for R&D cooperation.
Math. Soc. Sci. 2013, 66, 254–261.
24. Marini, M.A.; Petit, M.L.; Sestini, R. Strategic timing in R&D agreements. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2014, 23, 274–303.
25. Riedel, R.; Mueller, E. Production management and supply chain management in a global context. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.
2009, 16, 300. [CrossRef]
26. Berry, D.; Towill, D.R.; Wadsley, N. Supply chain management in the electronics products industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 1994, 24, 20–32. [CrossRef]
27. Welford, R. Globalisation, corporate social responsibility and human rights. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2002, 9, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
28. González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, Ó. The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the implementation of
environmental logistics practices. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2006, 44, 1353–1373. [CrossRef]
29. Locke, R.; Romis, M. Improving work conditions in a global supply chain. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2007, 48, 54–62.
30. Collins, C.M.; Steg, L.; Koning, M.A.S. Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and buying behavior.
Psychol. Mark. 2010, 24, 555–577. [CrossRef]
31. Hong, Z.; Guo, X. Green product supply chain contracts considering environmental responsibilities. Omega 2018, 83, 155–166.
[CrossRef]
32. Rao, P.; Holt, D. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 25,
898–916. [CrossRef]
33. Hoek, V.; Remko, I. From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 1999, 4, 129–135. [CrossRef]
34. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Extending green practices across the supply chain: The impact of upstream and downstream integration.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 795–821. [CrossRef]
35. Walton, S.V.; Handfield, R.B.; Melnyk, S.A. The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental management
processes. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2010, 34, 2–11. [CrossRef]
36. Barratt, M. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2004, 9, 30–42. [CrossRef]
37. Danese, P. Designing CPFR collaborations: Insights from seven case studies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 181–204.
[CrossRef]
38. Ramanathan, R.; He, Q.; Black, A.; Ghobadian, A.; Gallear, D. Environmental regulations, innovation and firm performance: A
revisit of the Porter hypothesis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 155, 79–92. [CrossRef]
39. Khan, O.; Christopher, M.; Creazza, A. Aligning product design with the supply chain: A case study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
2012, 17, 323–336. [CrossRef]
40. Hart, S.L.; Dowell, G.I. A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1464–1479.
41. Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.H. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2011, 130, 1–15. [CrossRef]
42. Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2005,
12, 330–353. [CrossRef]
43. Melville, N.P. Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. Mis Q. 2010, 34, 1–21. [CrossRef]
44. Fawcett, S.E.; Wallin, C.; Allred, C.; Fawcett, A.M.; Magnan, G.M. Information technology as an enabler of supply chain
collaboration: A dynamic-capabilities perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2011, 47, 38–59. [CrossRef]
45. Cai, Z.; Huang, Q.; Liu, H.; Liang, L. The moderating role of information technology capability in the relationship between supply
chain collaboration and organizational responsiveness. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 1247–1271. [CrossRef]
46. Handfield, R.; Sroufe, R.; Walton, S. Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ.
2010, 14, 1–19. [CrossRef]
47. Large, R.O.; Thomsen, C.G. Drivers of green supply management performance: Evidence from Germany. J. Purch. Supply Manag.
2011, 17, 176–184. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 15 of 16

48. Walker, H.; Jones, N. Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17,
15–28. [CrossRef]
49. Bowen, F.E.; Cousins, P.D.; Lamming, R.C.; Farukt, A.C. The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 2001, 10, 174–189. [CrossRef]
50. Pujari, D.; Peattie, K.; Wright, G. Organizational antecedents of environmental responsiveness in industrial new product
development. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 381–391. [CrossRef]
51. Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 2010, 45, 37–56. [CrossRef]
52. Hofer, C.; Cantor, D.E.; Dai, J. The competitive determinants of a firm’s environmental management activities: Evidence from US
manufacturing industries. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 69–84. [CrossRef]
53. Rehman, M.A.; Seth, D.; Shrivastava, R.L. Impact of green manufacturing practices on organisational performance in Indian
context: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 427–448. [CrossRef]
54. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Geng, Y. Green supply chain management in China: Pressures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 2004, 23, 449–468. [CrossRef]
55. Cheng, J.; Yeh, C.; Tu, C. Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2008, 13, 283–295.
[CrossRef]
56. Gmelin, H.; Seuring, S. Determinants of a sustainable new product development. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 69, 1–9. [CrossRef]
57. Lee, S.Y. The effects of green supply chain management on the supplier’s performance through social capital accumulation.
Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 20, 42–55. [CrossRef]
58. Hoejmose, S.; Brammer, S.; Millington, A. “Green” supply chain management: The role of trust and top management in B2B and
B2C markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 609–620. [CrossRef]
59. Hartmann, J.; Germain, R. Understanding the relationships of integration capabilities, ecological product design, and manufactur-
ing performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 196–205. [CrossRef]
60. Sharma, S. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy.
Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 681–697.
61. Seuring, S. Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative analysis and illustrative cases. J. Clean.
Prod. 2004, 12, 1059–1071. [CrossRef]
62. Mudgal, R.K.; Shankar, R.; Talib, P.; Raj, T. Modelling the barriers of green supply chain practices: An Indian perspective. Int. J.
Logist. Syst. Manag. 2010, 7, 81. [CrossRef]
63. Claver, E.; López, M.D.; Molina, J.F.; Tari, A.A. Environmental management and firm performance: A case study. J. Environ.
Manag. 2007, 84, 606–619. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Shang, K.C.; Lu, C.S.; Li, S.R. A taxonomy of green supply chain management capability among electronics-related manufacturing
firms in Taiwan. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1218–1226. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Gunasekaran, A.; Spalanzani, A. Sustainability of manufacturing and services: Investigations for research and applications. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 35–47. [CrossRef]
66. Tseng, M.L.; Chiu, A.S.F. Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40,
22–31. [CrossRef]
67. Scur, G.; Barbosa, M.E. Green supply chain management practices: Multiple case studies in the Brazilian home appliance industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 1293–1302. [CrossRef]
68. Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between economic and environmental aspects. Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 92–102. [CrossRef]
69. Thollander, P.; Backlund, S.; Trianni, A.; Cagno, E. Beyond barriers—A case study on driving forces for improved energy efficiency
in the foundry industries in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 636–643.
[CrossRef]
70. Liu, P.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, D.K.; Xue, L. Energy Performance Contract models for the diffusion of green-manufacturing technologies
in China: A stakeholder analysis from SMEs’ perspective. Energy Policy 2017, 106, 59–67. [CrossRef]
71. Mittal, V.K.; Sangwan, K.S.; Herrmann, C.; Egede, P.; Wulbusch, C. Drivers and Barriers of Environmentally Conscious Manu-
facturing: A Comparative Study of Indian and German Organizaionts; Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 97–102.
72. Henriques, J.; Catarino, J. Motivating towards energy efficiency in small and medium enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 42–50.
[CrossRef]
73. Parker, C.M.; Redmond, J.; Simpson, M. A review of interventions to encourage SMEs to make environmental improvements.
Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2009, 27, 279–301. [CrossRef]
74. Lee, K.E.; Mokhtar, M.; Goh, C.T.; Singh, H.; Chan, P.W. Initiatives and challenges of a chemical industries council in a developing
country: The case of Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 417–423. [CrossRef]
75. Yang, J.; Wang, J.; Wong, C.W.; Lai, K.H. Relational stability and alliance performance in supply chain. Omega 2008, 36, 600–608.
[CrossRef]
76. Govindan, K.; Diabat, A.; Shankar, K.M. Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
96, 182–193. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2518 16 of 16

77. Zheng, D.; Shi, M. Multiple environmental policies and pollution haven hypothesis: Evidence from China’s polluting industries.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 295–304. [CrossRef]
78. Neto, G.C.O.; Leite, R.R.; Shibao, F.Y.; Lucato, W.C. Framework to overcome barriers in the implementation of cleaner production
in small and medium-sized enterprises: Multiple case studies in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 142, 50–62. [CrossRef]
79. Darnall, N.; Jolley, G.J.; Handfield, R. Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: Complements
for sustainability? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 30–45. [CrossRef]
80. de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Jabbour, C.J.; Latan, H.; Teixeira, A.A.; de Oliveira, J.H. Quality management, environmental management
maturity, green supply chain practices and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certification: Direct and
indirect effects. Transp. Res. Part E 2015, 74, 139–151. [CrossRef]
81. Diabat, A.; Govindan, K. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 659–667. [CrossRef]
82. Farris, D.R.; Sage, A.P. On the use of interpretive structural modeling to obtain models for worth assessment. Comput. Electr. Eng.
1975, 2, 149–174. [CrossRef]
83. Warfield, J.N. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
84. Sage, A. Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large Scale Systems; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
85. Govindan, K.; Pokharel, S.; Kumar, P.S. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics
provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 493–494. [CrossRef]
86. Lai, K.H.; Bao, Y.; Li, X. Channel relationship and business uncertainty: Evidence from the Hong Kong market. Ind. Mark. Manag.
2008, 37, 713–724. [CrossRef]
87. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.H. Green supply chain management innovation diffusion and its relationship to organizational
improvement: An ecological modernization perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 168–185. [CrossRef]
88. Freeman, E.R. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
89. Reinhardt, F.L. Bringing the environment down to earth. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1999, 77, 149–157. [PubMed]
90. Lee, S.Y.; Klassen, R.D. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small- and medium-sized
suppliers in supply chains. Prod. Oper. Manag. Soc. 2008, 17, 573–586. [CrossRef]
91. Delmas, M.A.; Montiel, I. The Adoption of Iso 14001 within the Supply Chain: When Are Customer Pressures Effective? ISBER
Publications, Paper 10; Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2007; Available online:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/isber/publications/10 (accessed on 23 February 2021).
92. Handfield, R.; Walton, S.V.; Seegers, L.K.; Melnyk, S.A. Green value chain practices in the furniture industry. J. Oper. Manag. 1997,
15, 293–315. [CrossRef]
93. Backer, L. Engaging stakeholders in corporate environmental governance. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2007, 112, 29–54. [CrossRef]
94. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 4333–4355. [CrossRef]
95. Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international
setting? J. Int. Manag. 2008, 14, 364–376. [CrossRef]
96. Hoffman, A. Competitive Environmental Strategy: A Guide to the Changing Business Landscape. Island Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 2000.