The Supply Chain Position Paradox: Green Practices and Firm Performance

Abstract

Engagement in corporate environmentalism has become increasingly important across all tiers of the supply chain, from upstream raw material suppliers to downstream retailers. However, the contextual role of a firm's supply chain position (SCP) on the adoption of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices and their performance implications has not been empirically explored. We derive a conceptual model combining the contingent natural resource‐based view (NRBV) with stakeholder theory. The resulting hypotheses are tested using cross‐industry data of 284 firms utilizing primary and secondary data. Findings reveal a phenomenon we term the Supply Chain Position Paradox: The closer a company is located toward the end consumer, the higher its GSCM practice levels. Conversely, performance gains decrease with company proximity to the end consumer. This paradox is grounded in a mismatch between the level of five specific GSCM practice categories and their respective performance implications. The introduction of SCP as an overlooked contextual factor adds new insights into the “GSCM practice–performance link” and extends current GSCM research. Moreover, our results yield insights to supply chain management executives in optimizing their GSCM practice portfolios.

Sustainability Tensions in Supply Chains: A Case Study of Paradoxes and Their Management

“…Screening the literature for sustainability tensions and SCs, a range of tensions are discussed either as purely conceptual in SSCM or its functions [29,34], in industry specific case studies [35,36] or in multi-industry studies on an individual level [37,38]. With regard to this study, we see overlaps in the reverse exchange of electronic products [36], the call for a systems perspective [34] and the supply chain position paradox [37].…”

“…With regard to this study, we see overlaps in the reverse exchange of electronic products [36], the call for a systems perspective [34] and the supply chain position paradox [37]. The underlying study design thus takes up the most recent calls and research directions in corporate sustainability tensions research.…”

“…These tensions need to be addressed by the single companies and the total SC [34,37]. That is why SSCM and its practices are elucidated in the following.…”

Can the SDGs Provide a Basis for Supply Chain Decisions in the Construction Sector?

“…Such variation in goal alignment would suggest that the position and role of an organisation within the supply network influences its view of how it can effect change and thus which SDGs are most relevant. This view is supported by Schmidt et al [67] who note that, whilst stakeholders advocate "monolithic" outcomes across the supply chain, very different issues are salient for different companies, which therefore set different goals depending on their position within the supply network [68]. This highlights the difficulty of aligning goals and targets between different parts of the value network, even where strong relationships already exist.…”

Sustainability Impact on Manufacturing Operational Performance: An Empirical Investigation

“…Schmidt et al (2017), Severo et al (2017), Adebanjo et al (2016), Alzboun et al (2016), Jabbour et al (2016), Lu et al (2016aLu et al ( , 2016b, Shin and Thai (2016), Alonso-Almeida et al (2015), Dubey and Gunasekaran (2015), Chin et al (2015), Hami et al (2015), Masoumik et al (2015), Soubihia et al (2015), Lee et al (2014) Thoo et al (2014), Yu et al (2014), Gotschol et al (2014) (2015), Dubey and Gunasekaran (2015), Wagner (2015), Perramon (2014), Yu and Choi (2014), Agan et al(2013), Ehrgott et al(2013), Hsu et al. (2012), Reuter et al (2012), Zailani et al (2012b), Lopez-Gamero et al (2011a, 2010, Ehrgott et al (2011) Social responsibility/ CSR (8 studies) Glavas (2016), Lee and Park (2016), Park et al (2016), Hanzaee and Sadeghian (2014), Lekakos et al (2014), Agan et al(2013), MellatParast (2013), Ali et al (2010) …”