Indian Journal of Economics and Business

Vol. 20 No. 1 (January-June, 2021)

Copyright@ Ashwin Anokha Publications & Distributions
http://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php

GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External

Pressures matter?
Samina Khan, Dr. Urooj Pasha*
1
PhD Scholar, Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (Pak).
Email: [email protected]
*Assistant Professor, Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan Pak).
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received: 18th April, 2021

Revised: 27h May, 2021
Accepted: 29th June, 2021

Abstract: As the ever-increasing concern for the environment is among the world’s most crucial issues, and
organizations must balance their economic, environmental, and social performance. With these increasing
environmental and socio-economic concerns, organizations integrate and implement green practices along
their supply chains and human resource management practices. The current study examines the influence of
green supply chain and human resource management on sustainable performance with the moderating role
of external pressures. The partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analytical tool (Smart
PLS) is used to analyze the data. The findings show that green supply chain management (GSCM)
substantially positively influences sustainable performance (SP). Similarly, green supply chain management
(GSCM) positively impacts green human resource management (GHRM). In the same way, GHRM has a
significantly positive influence on SP. GHRM plays a partial mediating role between GSCM and SP. External
pressures (EP) fully moderate the relationship between GSCM and SP but in a negative manner. This means
that as external forces increase, the effect of GSCM on SP decreases.

Keywords: Green Supply Chain Management, Green Human Resource Management, Sustainable
Performance, Sustainable Development Goals, External Pressures.

1. Introduction
Environmental issues such as pollution, global warming, and rapid depletion of resources are
deteriorating ecological balance. The government, companies, communities, and individuals are
taking precautionary measures for these environmental issues. As a result of pressure from society
and the government, companies must review their production processes and supply chain activities
(Çankaya and Sezen, 2018).Due to the significant necessary investment for technical, the
uncertainty, and the long-term maturity associated with the green investment, environmental
policies are viewed as a threat to business profitability ( Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020).

481
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

The concern for climate change and sustainable production and consumption is also part of the
2030 Agenda of the United Nations (UN). Goals 12 and 13 emphasize the significance of sustainable
production and consumption, as well as climate change. Sustainable consumption and production
aim to achieve greater efficiency while using fewer resources. Economic activities can become more
productive in net welfare gains by reducing resource use, degradation, and pollution along the whole
life cycle. It also increases the quality of life. As a result, 93 percent of the world's top 250 firms aim
to be sustainable. (United Nations, 2015).
As the ever-increasing concern for the environment is among the world's most crucial issues,
organizations are obliged to balance their environmental, economic, and social performance (Zaid
et al., 2018). For achieving these sustainability objectives, organizations need to pay attention to the
external environment.
With these increasing environmental and socio-economic concerns, organizations are integrating
and implementing green practices along their supply chains (Foo et al., 2018). The concept of
integrating green in the supply chains dates back to the 1990s, but it focused on academicians and
practitioners after 2000. According to Sarkis et al. (2011), this concept gained importance in 1960
due to the Environmental Management Movement and is evolving. Green Supply Chain
Management takes the shape of a new discipline after 1990 (Seuring and Muller, 2008). Various
researchers have defined the concept differently as Handfield (1997) described it in applying
environmental management principles across all activities such as designing, procurement, logistics,
and distribution. Sarkis (2012) narrated it as integrating environment in doing actions and inclusion
of ecological concerns in the supply chain and is termed Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM).
The definition of GSCM is widely used, which is given by Srivastava (2007) in the literature.
According to him, it is the incorporation of environmental thinking in supply chain management.
It includes everything from reactive monitoring practices (routine, regular checking, including
inspections from incidents to shed light on our performance) to proactive activities (re-using,
recycling, and reverse logistics). There are different definitions of green supply chain management
discussed in the literature. Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) has some overlapping
definitions with green supply chain management (GSCM), showing that SSCM is the extension of
GSCM (Ahi and Searcy, 2013).
Adopting organizational practices and successfully implementing supply chain management depends
on effective human resource management (Schuler and Jackson, 2014). This relation between
human resource management and supply chain management gained little attention (Lengnick-Hall
et al., 2013). Jabbour (2016) proposed a framework for integrating GSCM and GHRM and
emphasized its importance for researchers and practitioners (Jabbour and Jabbour, 2016). Green
human resource management involves greening all the functions. The activities such as hiring,
training, development, and rewards should be based on green initiatives.
Wehrmeyer (1996) first introduced the concept of integrating "green" in human resource
management. Renwick coined the term Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) in 2008 to
incorporate environmental problems into human resource management processes such as recruiting
and selection, training, development, pay, and incentives. GHRM practices help make the employees
"green" to benefit the natural environment, society, and businesses. It is essential to fulfilling specific
green competencies, green attitudes, and green behavior (Opatha and Arulrajah, 2014).
GHRM refers to incorporating environmental management in the theories and practices of human
resource management (Renwick et al., 2012). All human resource management activities, including

482
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

planning, recruitment and selection, training and development, remuneration, and appraisal, must
be implemented using GHRM. Organizations should focus on social and ecological sustainability
(Saeed et al., 2018). It can only be achieved by linking environmental management with human
resource management, as human resource is the life-blood of an organization and impacts all other
disciplines (Jabbour et al., 2014). For achieving sustainable performance, the greening of behaviors,
commitment from top management, and green practices are necessary (Provasnek et al., 2016). So
greening of human resources enhances environmental performance and increases employee's
awareness and commitment (Tang et al., 2017).
In developing countries like Pakistan, the concept of GSCM is at its developing stage. It is essential
to understand the difficulties in implementing GSCM, which vary in each nation and regional
context (Oliveira et al., 2018). Most of the research on the greening of human resources is found in
western culture and specifically in manufacturing industries (Jabbour and Jabbour, 2016). Silva et
al. (2018) suggested that green supply chain management should be explored in relevance to other
perspectives. Integrating green human resource management and green supply chain management
is an essential consideration as organizational competitiveness is enhanced by effective supply chain
management through human factors (Jurado and Fuentes, 2013). Literature also shows that
empirical research on GHRM and GSCM in developing countries is scarce (Jabbour et al., 2017).
As Geng et al. (2017) also stated that in Asian economies greening is a relatively new concept.
Moreover, quantitative research and some exploratory study are lacking in this domain (Zaid et al.,
2018). There is a lack of research on integrative frameworks for GSCM and GHRM in the
developing world compared to developed economies. Literature indicates that green supply chain
management has confusing and inconsistent results on a firm's performance (Agyabeng-Mensah et
al., 2020).
Based on the research gaps, the following questions are the focus of this research.
(1) Do GSCM and GHRM directly influence SP?
(2) Does GHRM mediate the relationship between GSCM and SP?
(3) Do ExP moderates the relationship between GSCM and SP?
The current study proposes and tests a theoretical model that examines the relationship between
GSCM, GHRM, external pressures, and sustainable performance. Moreover, the study will
contribute substantially to GHRMPS and GSCMPS literature because it is conducted in Pakistan,
with low representation in literature. More so, the study's findings will serve as a blueprint for
adopting GSCMPS and GHRMPS to achieve specific organizational performance goals.
The other sections of the study are organized as follows: the second section describes the literature
review; the third section explains the methodology; the fourth section provides the data analysis and
results, and the fifth section contains the discussion. Section six presents the conclusion.
2. Literature review
2.1. Research Background
2.1.1. Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM)
In this globalized world, corporations worldwide appreciate the value of supply chains and consider
it a source of competitive advantage that can also enhance revenues, customer retention and reduce
cost. With all these advantages, it is crucial to consider these supply chains' impact on the
environment. Organizations are putting efforts into developing policies and practices that can reduce
such effects.

483
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

Environmental and supply chain management are at the heart of green supply chain management.
Incorporating green into supply chain management and environmental management examines the
relationship between the two and explores how they interact. The concept's scope ranges from green
purchasing to customers and the extent of reverse logistics (Zhu et al., 2008). With the increasing
environmental concerns, green supply chain management is becoming a complex challenge for
organizations worldwide (Jabbour et al., 2014).
GSCM is defined as "Incorporating environmental thinking in supply-chain management. It
includes designing products, selecting and sourcing materials, manufacturing processes, delivering
the final product to the consumers, and end-of-life management after the product's useful life".
Srivastava (2007) explains that companies are evolving from reactive to proactive strategies by
changing management practices and establishing these as part of business policies through Rs
(Reducing, Re-using, Rework, Refurbishing) Reclaiming, Recycling, Remanufacturing and Reverse
logistics. Greening of the supply chain is not important only for the environmental concerns but
also impacts corporate performance (Chan et al., 2012).
Recent literature shows that greening the supply chains impacts corporate reputation positively
(Quintana et al., 2019). In the same way, literature reviews published by Srivastava (2007) and
Fahimnia et al. (2015) give a greater understanding of the development of the concept.
The Implementation of GSCM and its performance assessment is essential for surviving in a highly
competitive environment. As in the circular economy context, for improving GSCM, constant
monitoring of performance is crucial (Kazancoglu et al., 2018). Researchers studied green supply
chain management with other variables. Chan et al. (2012) studied the impact of external and
internal environmental orientations, green supply chain management, and corporate performance.
Here competitive intensity moderated this relationship. The concept of sustainability in the supply
chains faces barriers such as less commitment from top management and lack of financial resources
(Luthra et al., 2015).
The primary focus of green supply chain management is currently on natural resource conservation,
waste reduction, and energy consumption reduction. In order to meet the goals of green supply
chain management, a model is proposed that almost eliminates waste while using the least amount
of energy (Iqbal et al., 2019).
2.1.2. Green Human Resource Management (GHRM)
Studies on the greening of organizations by integrating human resource management and
environmental management dates back to the 1990s. Wehrmeyer considers the initial work in 1996
through a book named "Greening people." Green human resource management integrates
environmental management and management practices to strengthen organizational performance
and respond to sustainability challenges. Renwick (2008) proposed this integration and coined the
term green human resource management. Previous literature showed that human resource
management (HRM) is slow in responding to environmental issues (Jackson, 2012). It involves
integrating typical HRM practices with the environmental goals (Jabbour et al., 2014).
GHRM practices act as a strategic tool for organizations, so they must be compatible with their
overall strategy. It can help to stimulate environmentally responsible behavior of employees (Cherian
and Jacob, 2012). Moreover, researchers are considering GHRM from the social and economic
perspectives of employees. It involves all three pillars of sustainability (Yusoff et al., 2015). Green
human resource management helps organizations develop competent employees who are
environmentally conscious and try to minimize carbon footprints by efficient utilization of resources

484
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

such as less usage of papers, video conferencing and job sharing, etc. It is essential to consider that
green actions are incorporated in every step of HRM practices. These practices help implement and
maintain environmental management systems for better environmental performance (Jabbour and
Jabbour, 2016).
GHRM is a critical component for improving environmental results (Ren et al., 2018). Green
training, according to the AMO principle, equips employees with the necessary information,
attitudes, and abilities (Jabbour et al., 2010). It assists them in identifying environmental concerns
and taking appropriate steps at work to enhance their green performance waste from the system
while utilizing the smallest amount of energy (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012). In the same way, evaluating
green performance helps align behaviors, ensure responsibility, and emphasize environmental
objectives to improve companies' environmental outcomes. (Guerci et al., 2016). Green HRM helps
in spreading green initiatives across organizations (Nejati et al., 2017). Previous literature generally
focused on individual practices of HRM; according to Renwick et al. (2013), Green HRM
approaches can have a more significant influence on organizational performance. According to
Acquah et al. (2020), green human resource management and supply chain management techniques
increase operational and market performance more than environmental performance.
2.1.3. External Pressures (EP)
It is critical to comprehend the elements that influence GSCM adoption. Few drivers include
government restrictions, market drivers (consumers, rivals, investors, and public pressures), and
suppliers. The institutional theory explains that institutions impact the adoption of GSCM (Vanalle
et al., 2017). In the context of the environment, there are specific pressures from the government in
the regulations. The pressure of these regulations forces organizations to comply.
In the same way, there can be specific market pressures from competitors, customers and media, and
other stakeholders. The demands of the customers can be a powerful force, and they can influence
eco-design. Apart from the customers, there are increasing pressures from other stakeholders.
Sometimes firms need to change their practices because their competitors are going green. In the
same way, pressures from suppliers can also force firms to adopt green practices. Suppliers can play
an active role in the management and implementation of green supply chain activities.
Ahmed et al. (2019) researched in an unstable developing country to find the impact of GSCM
practices and institutional pressures on organizations' environmental and economic performance.
The results revealed that institutional pressures and internal green supply chain practices have an
insignificant negative impact on economic performance, whereas these variables contributed
significantly towards improving environmental performance.
2.1.4. Sustainable Performance (SP)
The concept of sustainability is becoming essential in business operations. The World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainable development as "development
which is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987). Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) use a corporate framework to
translate the notion of sustainable development. "Meeting the requirements of a firm's immediate
and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, workers, clients, pressure groups, communities, and
so on) without jeopardizing its ability to fulfill the needs of future stakeholders," A triple bottom
line strategy, which considers economic, environmental, and social factors, is used to achieve
sustainable performance. These three components of the triple bottom line are equally essential and
create value for the firm (Svensson et al., 2018).

485
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

Management of corporate environmental sustainability is complex. It is considered a challenge for

organizations. The capacity of an organization to minimize air emissions, effluent waste, solid wastes,
the consumption of hazardous and toxic goods, and the frequency of environmental mishaps is
referred to as environmental performance. Economic performance is defined as "improvements in
financial and marketing performance as a result of employing GSCM principles that lead to
increasing the firm's competitiveness in comparison to the industry average." The writers established
that costs of raw materials and energy utilized decreased, resulting in financial gains. Costs of waste
disposal and environmental mishaps have both declined (Younis et al., 2016). Wood (1991)
defined social performance as "a business organization's configuration of principles of social
responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs and observable outcomes
as they relate to the firm's societal relationships." (Wood, 2016).
2.2. Hypothesis Development
2.2.1. Green Supply Chain Management and Sustainable Performance
According to Acquah et al. (2020), green supply chain management positively impacts
environmental performance. Longoni et al. (2018) and Zaid et al. (2018) conducted the studies on
manufacturing firms in Italy and Palestine, respectively, and showed consistent results. Their studies
indicated that implementing green supply chain activities helps prevent environmental pollution,
reducing waste and energy consumption.
Sahoo and Vijayvargy (2020) investigated the influence of green supply chain management on
organizational performance in the same way. They examined the influence of five aspects of green
supply chain management on environmental, economic, and operational performance: internal
environmental management, green purchasing, eco-design, customer collaboration, and investment
recovery. The study indicated that all green supply chain management dimensions significantly affect
at least one dimension of performance, either directly or indirectly, except internal environmental
management and green purchasing. Environmental performance is predicted by investment
recovery, whereas operational performance is predicted by eco-design. Green supply chain
management practices do not directly affect economic performance, but these practices can
indirectly affect it.
Green practices act as an opportunity for improving the competitiveness as well as the environmental
performance of firms. An organization's capacity to minimize waste, pollution, environmental
mishaps and the usage of dangerous substances is measured by its environmental performance.
Green supply chain methods attempt to reduce the negative impacts of a company's operations on
the environment, therefore improving environmental performance (Sahoo and Vijayvargy, 2020).
Abdallah and Al-Ghawayeen (2019) researched Jordan to examine the influence of green supply
chain management on economic, environmental, and commercial performance in developing
nations. Green supply chain management is favourably related to environmental and operational
performance, according to their results. Green supply chain management does not directly affect
business performance; it indirectly affects environmental and operational performance.
Organizations adopt several practices for gaining a competitive advantage. These practices may
include greening of supply chains, just in time, and total quality management. These practices also
help in improving operational and business performance. (Mensah et al., 2020).
Similarly, in developing countries, the impact of GSCM on export performance and environmental
performance was studied, and results showed that GSCM has a positive and significant impact on
EP and export performance. Also, the environmental performance has a positive and significant

486
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

impact on export performance. In the same way, EP has a significant and positive mediating
relationship between green supply chain management and export performance (Al-Ghwayeen and
Abdallah, 2018). Environmental management systems and green purchasing positively impact a
firm's competitive performance; this can be cost, flexibility, and quality (Famiyeh et al., 2017).
Yang et al. (2021) examined the impact of supplier coercion and cognitive pressures on a
manufacturer's green buying decision-making process, as well as the operational and environmental
consequences. According to the findings, a supplier's coercive pressure, environmental awareness,
and social responsibility will lead to more effective green purchasing operations, which will result in
enhanced operational and environmental performance. The outcomes of the study show that the
financial benefits of green purchasing and social and political commitments will drive the adoption
of green purchasing practices (Yang et al., 2021). So based on the above literature, we hypothesize:
H1: There is a positive relationship between GSCM and SP.
2.2.2. Green Supply Chain Management, Green Human Resource Management, and Sustainable
Performance
A recent stream of research has cantered on the role of human resource management practices in
achieving environmental results, offering empirical evidence for the assumption that particular
GHRM practices are favourably correlated with environmental outcomes. The AMO theory has used
a variety of articles, including those by Jabbour et al. (2010), as well as papers presented in a special
issue of Human Resource Management (Vol. 51, No. 6, 2012) to explore the degree to which HRM
activities relate to environmental outcomes of organizations. Environmental outcomes are a firm's
determination to protect the environment and show observable operating metrics under the
specified environmental care parameters. (Paillé et al., 2014) Previous research has looked into the
impact of GHRM practices on organizational environmental outcomes (Zhang et al., 2019), with
several studies looking into topics including the correlations between GHRM practices and green
supply chain management, employee green engagement, and individual green behavior. Literature
reviews on GHRM are used to supplement quantitative research (e.g., Renwick et al., 2013; Ren et
al.,2018). As a result, GHRM may be a crucial factor to consider (Ren et al., 2018). Green training,
according to the AMO theory, equips workers with the necessary expertise, behaviors, and abilities
(Jabbour et al., 2010) to aid them in detecting environmental issues and taking suitable actions at
work to enhance their green results.
Similarly, evaluating workers' sustainability success aligns behaviors, ensures accountability, and
focuses attention on sustainable goals, increasing organizations' environmental outcomes (Guerci et
al., 2016). Organizations that prioritize employee engagement provide resources for workers to
contribute their expertise and skills to sustainability practices, implement green programs at work,
and provide creative waste reduction and resource use efficiency enhancement strategies, which
increase the organization's environmental performance (Pinzone et al., 2016). When properly
applied, GHRM activities can help to increase environmental sustainability.
So we hypothesize that:
H2: GSCM is positively related to GHRM
H3: GHRM is positively associated with SP
H4: GHRM mediates the relationship between GSCM and SP
2.2.3. Green Supply Chain Management External Pressures and Performance
During the last two decades, private and public organizations published different environmental
regulations and standards to promote green practices. ISO 14000, for example, was introduced by

487
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is an environmental management

standard that establishes environmental management, labeling, performance evaluation, and
lifecycle assessment criteria (Karimi et al., 2015). According to Porter and Linde (1995), rigorous
environmental regulations serve as one of the most crucial drivers for supply chain management,
which helps firms to become more innovative and efficient. In the same way, firms adopted
environmental codes in order to reduce political risks (Haufler, 2001). After 1970 as the regulations
became financially significant, upgrading environmental management became the central focus of
firms.
In the context of GSCM, supply chain actors work in a way that meets both customer and regulatory
standards. As a result, government agencies and national and international authorities will pressure
enterprises to adopt environmentally responsible practices. Government laws, consumer needs, and
supplier performance are three high-priority factors, according to Asif et al. (2020). In the same way,
studies found that environmental pressures from rivals and stakeholders help implement green
supply chain management, and top management support plays a mediating role for environmental
initiatives. (Dai et al.,2015). In the same way, stakeholder theory suggests that stakeholder pressure
helps in motivating companies to implement environmental and green supply chain management
practices (Sarkis et al., 2011).
Green management is becoming an important topic now a day. Environmental damages, flooding,
clean water, air pollution, and other such issues attract the community's attention towards the
importance of healthy living. Green management involves converting inputs into outputs by
maintaining the synergy and balance among social, economic, and environmental benefits.
Sarah and Peter (2000) investigated the link between corporate environmental disclosure and
financial performance. The findings show that firms with good financial success have stronger ties
to environmental commitment policies than companies with low financial performance. Similarly,
firms with a middle financial performance have the most corporate environmental policies and/or
explanations of their environmental commitments.
Purnomo and Widianingsih (2012) investigated the link between environmental performance and
the financial success of Indonesian firms. Environmental performance has a beneficial impact on
financial performance, according to the findings. Khan and Dong (2017) conducted an empirical
study on green supply chain management to determine the critical elements. They discovered that
the primary determinants of green supply chain management are governmental authorities and
customers, who pressure businesses to reduce their negative impacts on society and environmental
sustainability. Although certain green practices are not directly linked to financial gains, many
businesses embrace them due to environmental rules and regulations. Environmental practices in
company operations significantly increase firm performance and provide a competitive advantage in
the long term.
So we hypothesize that:
H5: EP moderates the relationship between GSCM and SP.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection and Sample Size
The current study is conducted in different organizations of Pakistan, and these are selected based
on their efforts towards environmental initiatives. These organizations are from the "Annual
Environmental Excellence Awards" awardees by National Forum for Environment and Health
(NFEH, 2018). This award is given to recognize the efforts of organizations making an outstanding

488
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

contribution to sustainable development. These organizations are from different sectors trying to
achieve economic and social development while reducing the negative impact on the environment.
Three hundred and fifty (350) structured questionnaires along with a letter of permission were
distributed. The data was gathered from human resource and supply chain managers who have some
experience and it shows that the respondents have the requisite skills and experience to participate
in the study to provide in-depth data. All the firms that took part in the study had one human
resource manager and one supply chain manager.
3.2. Description of measurements
Close-ended questionnaires were employed to gather data for this study. The questionnaire
comprises four constructs GSCM, GHRM, EP, and SP. GHRM is measured by the scale adapted
from Jabbour et al. (2010) & (Kaur 2011). GSCM, by the scale adapted from Laosirihongthong et
al. (2013) & Abdullah et al. (2015). EP is measured by the scale adapted from Agarwal et al. (2017),
and similarly, SP, by a scale adapted from Zhu et al. (2013), Abdullah et al. (2015) & Green and
Inman (2005).
A five-point Likert-type scale (from 1= low extent to 5 = great extent) is used to measure GHRM and
GSCM.
3.3. Theoretical Model
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model proposed and tested in this study. The model incorporates
four variables and five hypotheses. GSCM is modeled as an exogenous variable, while GHRM and
sustainable performance are modeled as mediators and endogenous variables, respectively. The
model tests the positive hypothesized relationships among the variables. The model facilitates the
examination of the individual and combined influence of GSCM and GHRM on sustainable
performance.
External Pressures

-0.058

R2=0.77
GSCM
 Eco-design Sustainable
 Internal 0.285 Performance
Environmental  Environmental
Management
RrRrR R2= 0.58 Performance
 Green Purchasing  Economic
 Customer GHRM Performance
Cooperation  Green Hiring
0.761 0.390  Social
 Reverse Logistics  Green Training
 Employee
Perforamce
 Investment
recovery Empowerment
 Green
Compensation and
Rewards Figure 1: Theoretical Model

489
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

4. Data Analysis and Results

The partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analytical tool (SmartPLS)
analyzed the data. PLS-SEM is well suited to predictive analysis and identifying a construct's drivers
(Matthews et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2011). Moreover, PLS-SEM is appropriate for an exploratory study
like this paper. The data analysis involves a two-part process. It entails a review of the measurement
model as well as the structural model. Cronbach's alpha, average variance extracted (AVE),
composite reliability, indicator (factor) loadings, Fornell–Larcker criteria, and heterotrait–monotrait
ratio of correlations are all used to determine the model's validity and reliability (HTMT) (see Hair
et al., 2019). In PLS-SEM, the structural model assessment includes testing hypotheses and
examining the variance explained (R2), effect size (f2), and the predictive relevance (Q2) of the
independent constructs on the dependent constructs and the predictive relevance of the model. The
VIF is also evaluated to determine the endogeneity of this study. The VIF values are less than 3.5,
indicating that the investigation is free from multicollinearity.

4.1. Measurement model

The results obtained for Cronbach's alpha (0.894-0.950) and composite reliability (0.913-0.955)
indicate that the model has achieved internal consistency reliability since the values are more than
0.60. (Henseler, 2017). The AVE values (0.509-0.559) also suggest that the model has achieved
convergent validity and indicator reliability, respectively (Wong, 2016). The values for the Cronbach
alpha, AVE, composite reliability, and indicator (factor) loadings are shown in Table 1. Furthermore,
the Fornell–Larcker criteria are employed to assess the model's discriminant validity. The AVE of a
component should be larger than the total of its squared correlations with all other factors in the
model, according to the Fornell–Larcker (Henseler et al., 2016). The correlation values between
GHRM, GSCM, EP, and SP displayed in Table 2 indicates that the model meets the criteria.
4.2. Structural model
To assess the model's quality, the variance explained (R2), effect size (F2), and predictive relevance
(Q2) are employed. The R2 values suggest that GHRM (58.0%) and SP (40.2%) adequately explain
the model. With the introduction of a moderating variable, i.e., EP, the value of the R2 for SP
increases to 77.7%. In addition, the Q2 values for GHRM (0.303) and SP (0.425) indicate that the
model has good predictive relevance since the Q2 values are more than 0.000 (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 1: Measurement Property of Reflective Constructs

Construct Loadings Items CA AVE CR

Sustainable Performance 0.711 SP1 0.950 0.559 0.955
0.784 SP2
0.724 SP3
0.673 SP4
0.720 SP5

490
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

0.796 SP6
0.799 SP7
0.793 SP8
0.784 SP9
0.766 SP10
0.743 SP11
0.789 SP12
0.750 SP13
0.771 SP14
0.771 SP15
0.780 SP16
0.503 SP17
EP 0.714 ExP1 0.931 0.550 0.941
0.781 ExP2
0.709 ExP3
0.770 ExP4
0.620 ExP5
0.761 ExP6
0.718 ExP7
0.791 ExP8
0.788 ExP9
0.737 ExP10
0.741 ExP11
0.756 ExP12
0.735 ExP13
GHRM 0.800 GHRM1 0.894 0.545 0.913
0.518 GHRM2
0.565 GHRM3
0.852 GHRM4
0.838 GHRM5
0.857 GHRM6
0.739 GHRM7
0.716 GHRM8
0.678 GHRM9
GSCM 0.639 GSCM1 0.916 0.509 0.929
0.651 GSCM2
0.808 GSCM3

491
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

0.795 GSCM4
0.787 GSCM5
0.810 GSCM6
0.816 GSCM7
0.790 GSCM8
0.818 GSCM9
0.664 GSCM10
0.555 GSCM11
0.526 GSCM12
0.491 GSCM13
4.3. Results

The study explores the influence of GSCM and GHRM on SP. Moreover, the moderating effect of
ExP is also explored. After running the bootstrapping the results indicate that GSCM has a positive
influence on SP (H1, β =0.285, T=3.801, p=0.000) and GHRM (H2, β =0.761, T=22.508, p=0.000)
and in the same way GHRM has a positive influence on SP (H3, β =0.390, T=1.467, p=0.000) as
shown in table 3.

The study further explores the indirect influence of GSCM on SP through GHRM. The findings
indicate that GHRM plays a partial mediating role between GSCM and SP, as shown in table 4.
This relation is examined using VAF method (VAF=0.51, t= 4.663, p=0.000).

The result of moderation shows that EP moderates the relationship between GSCM and SP (β=-
0.058, t=2.030, p=0.043). The negative value of beta indicates that moderation is negative with the
increase in external pressures, the relation between GSCM and SP decreases.

Table 2: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

EP GHRM GSCM SP
ExP 0.741
GHRM 0.599 0.738
GSCM 0.570 0.761 0.714
SP 0.875 0.601 0.579 0.748
5. Discussion
To answer the first question and achieve the objective of our study, the direct relationship between
GSCM and SP is tested. The results show that GSCM has a significant positive influence on SP. it
shows that firms adopting GSCM are likely to improve sustainable performance; Similarly, GSCM
has a positive impact on GHRM. In the same way, GHRM has a significantly positive influence on
SP, similar to the finding of Longoni et al. (2018), which indicates a positive relationship between
GHRMPS and performance among manufacturing firms in Italy.

492
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

Table 3: Direct effect

Path Hypothesis Beta β T Statistics P Values Results

SSCM → SP H1 0.285 3.801 0.000 Supported
SSCM → GHRM H2 0.761 22.508 0.000 Supported
SHRM → SP H3 0.309 1.467 0.000 Supported
The mediating role of GHRM is investigated to answer the study's second question. The findings
indicate that GHRM acts as a partial mediator between GSCM and SP. Previous studies also suggest
that a multidisciplinary approach such as integrating GSCM and GHRM is required (Pagell and
Shevchenko, 2014). There are challenges with the implementation of GSCM, but green hiring, green
training, employee involvement, green rewards, and compensation can help overcome these
challenges (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016).

Table 4: Indirect Effect

Path Hypothesis VAF T Stats P Stats Results
SSCM→ GHRM → H4 0.51 4.663 0.000 Supported
SP
The moderating role of external pressures was tested in order to answer the third question. Results
indicate that external pressures fully moderate the relationship between GSCM and SP but
negatively, which means that as external pressures increase, the effect of GSCM on SP decreases.
According to Ambec and Lanoie (2008) and Ren et al. (2018), green sustainable management
practices (e.g., GHRMPS) serve as a strategic opportunity for firms to avoid regulatory fines and
respond to changing external environment. The finding is consistent with the findings of Ahmed et
al. (2019). They researched an unstable developing country to find the impact of GSCM practices
and institutional pressures on organizations' environmental and economic performance. The results
revealed that institutional pressures and internal green supply chain practices have an insignificant
negative effect on economic performance.

6. Conclusion
6.1. Implication for theory
The current study adds to the literature in several ways. A theoretical framework is tested in which
we examined the combined effect of GSCM and GHRM on SP from the perspective of a developing
country. Moreover, this paper also responds to the literature that calls for exploring the synergy
between GSCM and GHRM. Examining the direct influence of GSCM and GHRM on SP in
Pakistan deepens the understanding of the perspective for achieving sustainability goals in Pakistani
Organizations. Furthermore, the study presents quantitative evidence to substantiate the notion that
incorporating green practices into human resource management and supply chain management
improves performance. The synergy of GSCM and GHRM and examining their combined effect on
all the three dimensions of sustainable performance and the moderating effect of external pressures
are the significant contributions of this study. And these were also missing in the literature.
6.2. Implications for practice
493
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

The study contributes to managers and practitioners in different ways. It could help managers
understand that GSCM and GHRM should be implemented in an organization as these can lead to
sustainable performance. Moreover, the effective implementation of GSCM is possible through the
implementation of green practices in HRM. Surprisingly the study shows the external pressures can
negatively influence this relationship which shows that firms while responding to the external
pressures, may have to incorporate heavy investments, which can negatively impact the sustainable
performance in the short run.
6.3. Limitations and future research directions
We can interpret the findings of this research with the following limitations in mind. These
identified limitations may serve as future study directions. We tested a model to test the combined
effect of GSCM and GHRM on SP. Further studies can use dimensions of SP individually to explain
the moderating impact of External pressures better. In the same way, a mixed-method approach is
also recommended.

References

Acquah, I. S., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., & Afum, E. (2020). Examining the link among green human resource
managemenet practices, green supply chain management practices and performance. Benchmarking:
An International Journal, 267-290.

Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E. N., & Agnikpe, M. C. (2020). The Intermediary Role of Supply Chain
Capability Between Supply Chain Integration and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain
Management Systems, 32-44.

Ahmad, S., Islam, T., Sadiq, M., & Kaleem, A. (2021). Promoting green behavior through ethical leadership:
a model of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal.

Ahmed, W., Najmi, A., & Khan, F. (2019). Examining the impact of institutional pressures and green supply
chain management practices on firm performance. Management of Environmental Quality An
International Journal.

Al-Ghwayeen, W. S., & Abdallah, A. B. (2018). Green supply chain management and export performance:
The mediating role of environmental performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
1233-1252.

Asif, M. S., Lau, H., Nakandala, D., Fan, Y., & Hurriyet, H. (2020). Adoption of green supply chain
management practices through collaboration approach in developing countries e From literature
review to conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production.

Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The Impact of Human Resource Management on
Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 451-466.

494
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

Sahoo , S., & Vijayvargy, L. (2020). Green supply chain management practices and its impact on
organizational performance: evidence from Indian manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management.

United Nations. (2015). Retrieved from Sustainable Development Goals:

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Abdallah, A. B., & Al-Ghwayeen , W. S. (2019). Green supply chain management and business performance:
The mediating roles of environmental and operational performances. Business Process Management
Journal, 489-512.

Agarwal, A., Yuan, L., & François C, G.-C. (2018). A Mediation Model of Green Supply Chain Management
Adoption: The Role of Internal Impetus. International Journal of Production Economics, 342-358.

Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions of green and sustainable supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 329-341.

Ahmed, W., & Najmi, A. (2018). Developing and analyzing framework for understanding the effects of
GSCM on green and economic performance : Perspective of a developing country. Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, 740-758.

AlNuaimi, B. K., & Khan, M. (2019). Public-sector green procurement in the United Arab Emirates:
Innovation capability and commitment to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 482-489.

Arulrajah, A. A., Opatha, H. H., & Nawaratne, N. N. (2016). Green Human Resource Management Practices:
A Review. Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 1–16.

Çankaya, S. Y., & Sezen, B. (2018). Effects of green supply chain management practices on sustainability
performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.

Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2012). A Study of Green HR Practices and Its Effective Implementation in the
Organization: A Review. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(21).

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 11(2), 130-141.

Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green Supply Chain Management: A Review and
Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162.

Foo, P.-Y., Lee, V.-H., Tan, G. W.-H., & Ooi, K.-B. (2018). A gateway to realising sustainability performance
via green supply chain management practices: A PLS–ANN approach. Expert Systems with Applications.

Geng, R., Mansouri, A., & Aktas, E. (2017). The relationship between green supply chain management and
performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. International
Journal of Production Economies.

495
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

Guerci, M., Longonia , A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental
performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 27(2), 262-289.

Handfield, R. B., Walton, S. V., Seegers, L. K., & Melnyk, S. A. (1997). ‘Green’ value chain practices in the
furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management, 15(4), 293-315.

Haufler, V. (2001). Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self Regulation in a Global Economy.
Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .

Iqbal, M. W., Kang, Y., & Jeon, H. W. (2019). Zero waste strategy for green supply chain management with
minimization of energy consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production.

Jabbour, A. B., Jabbour, C., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Arantes, A. F. (2014). Mixed methodology to
analyze the relationship between maturity of environmental management and the adoption of green
supply chain management in Brazil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 92, 255-267.

Jabbour, A. B., Jabbour, C., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Arantes, A. F. (2014). Mixed methodology to
analyze the relationship between maturity ofenvironmental management and the adoption of green
supply chainmanagement in Brazil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

Jabbour, C. J., & Jabbour, A. B. (2016). Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain
Management: linking two emerging agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 366-377.

Jabbour, C. J., Almada, C. F., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of
environmental management: methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1049-1089.

Jackson, S. E. (2012). Portrait of a slow revolution toward environmental sustainability. In Managing Human
Resources for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 3-20). Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S. E., & Seo, J. (2010). The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Organization Management Journal,
7(4), 278-290.

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An Aspirational Framework for Strategic Human Resource
Management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1).

Jia , F., Gong, Y., & Brown, S. (2019). Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management: The role of supply
chain leadership. International Journal of Production Economics, 44-63.

Jurado, P. J., & Fuentes, J. M. (2013). HR management during lean production adoption. Management
Decision.

Karimi, A., & Abdul Rahim, K. (2015). Classification of external stakeholders pressures in green supply chain
management. Procedia Environmental Sciences , (pp. 27-32).

496
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

Kaur, H. (2011). Impact of human resource factors on perceived environmental performance: an empirical
analysis of a sample of ISO 14001 EMS companies in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development.

Khan, S. A., & Qianli, D. (2017). Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms' performance:
an empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(1),
16829-16844.

Khan, S. A., Jian, C., & Zhang, Y. (2018). The Role of Ethical Leadership in Brand Image Building and Cost
Reduction through the Adoption of Green Practices: A Path Analysis Using SEM., 1, pp. 457-462.

Khan, S., & Qianli, D. (2017). Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms' performance:
an empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

Lee, S.-Y. (2008). Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain
initiatives. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 185–198.

Lengnick-Hallv, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Rigsbee, C. M. (2013). Strategic human resource management
and supply chain orientation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 366–377.

Liu, J., Liu, Y., & Yang, L. (2020). Uncovering the influence mechanism between top management support
and green procurement: The effect of green training. Journal of Cleaner Production.

Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2015). An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to
implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources
Policy, 46(1), 37-50.

Mensah, Y. A., Afum, E., Agnikpe, C., Cai, J., Ahenkorah, E., & Dacosta, E. (2020). Exploring the mediating
influences of total quality management and just in time between green supply chain practices and
performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 156-175.

Min, S., & Mentzer, J. T. (2011). Developing and measuring Supply Chain Management concepts. Journal of
Business Logistics, 25(1), 63-99.

Mumtaz, U., Ali, Y., Petrillo, A., & Felice, F. D. (2018). Identifying the critical factors of green supply chain
management: Environmental benefits in Pakistan. Science of the Total Environment, 144-152.

Nejati, M., Rabiei, S., & Jabbour, C. J. (2017). Envisioning the invisible: understanding the synergy between
Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing
Firms in Iran in light of the moderating effect of employees’ resistance to change. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 168, 163-172.

NFEH. (2018). NFEH. Retrieved from http://www.nfeh.org.pk.

Oliveira, U., Espindola, L. S., Silva, I. R., Silva, I., & Rocha, H. M. (2018). A systematic literature review on
green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production.

497
 GSCM, GHRM and Sustainable Performance: Does External Pressures matter?

Opatha, H. H., & Arulrajah, A. A. (2014). Green Human Resource Management: Simplified General
Reflections. International Business Research, 7(8).

Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. (2013). Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have
no Future. Journal of Supply Chain Managemen, 40(1), 44-55.

Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieria, E., & Redma, T. (2016). Progressing in the change journey towards
sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘Green’ HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201-211.

Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. V. (1995). Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness
Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 97-118.

Provasnek, A. K., & Sentic, A. (2016). Integrating Eco-Innovations and Stakeholder Engagement for
Sustainable Development and a Social License to Operate. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 24(6).

Quintana-García, C., Benavides-Chicónb, C. G., & Marchante-Laraa, M. (2019). Does a green supply chain
improve corporate reputation? Empirical evidence from European manufacturing sectors. Industrial
Marketing Management.

Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson , S. E. (2018). Green human resource management research in emergence: A
review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 769-803.

Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2012). Green Human Resource Management: A Review and
Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-15.

Renwick, D., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2008). Green HRM: A review, process model, and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1).

Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2018). Promoting employee's
proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 424-438.

Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain
Management, 17(2), 202-216.

Sarkis, J., & Dijkshoorn, J. (2007). Relationships between solid waste management performance and
environmental practice adoption in Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). International
Journal of Production Research, 45(21), 4989-5015.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-h. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management
literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130, 1-15.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2014). Human resource management and organizational effectiveness:
Yesterday and today. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance, 1(1), 35-55.

498
 Samina Khan & Dr. Urooj Pasha

Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable
Supply Chain Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699-1710.

Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green Supply Chain Management: A State-of-The-Art Literature Review. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 53 - 80.

Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Hogevold, N., Padin, C., Sosa Varela, J. C., & Sarsetedt, M. (2018). Framing the
triple bottom line approach: Direct and mediation effects between economic, social and
environmental elements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(1), 972-991.

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2017). Green human resource management practices:scale
development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 31-55.

Teixeira, A. A., Jabbour, C. J., Jabbour, A. B., & Latan, H. (2016). Green Training and Green Supply Chain
Management: Evidence from Brazilian Firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113(1), 1-7.

Vanalle, R. M., Gangab, G. M., Filho, M. G., & Lucato, W. C. (2017). Green supply chain management: An
investigation of pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain. Journal
of Cleaner Production , 151(10), 250-259.

Vidal-Salazar, M., Cordon Pozo, E., & Ferron-Vilchez, V. (2012). Human Resource Management and
developing proactive environmental strategies: The influence of environmental training and
organizational learning. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 904-934.

Wood, D. J. (2016). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 691-718.

Yang, J., Wang, Y., Gu, Q., & Xie, H. (2021). The antecedents and consequences of green purchasing: an
empirical investigation. Benchmarking: An International Journal.

Younis, H., & Sundarakani, B. (2019). The impact of firm size, firm age and environmental management
certification on the relationship between green supply chain practices and corporate performance.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 319-346.

Younis, H., Sundarakani, B., & Vel, P. (2016). The impact of implementing green supply chain management
practices and corporate performance. Competitiveness Review, 216-245.

Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource management and green
supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 965-979.

Zhang, S., Wang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2019). Effects of proactive environmental strategy on environmental
performance: Mediation and moderation analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1438-1449.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.-h. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 261-273.

499