Role of green innovation, green internal, and external supply chain management practices: a gateway to environmental sustainability

Figures & data

Figure 1. Framework of the study. Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management. Source: Author’s own.

Table 1. Reliability and validity.

Variables	Cronbach’s alpha	rho_A	Composite reliability	(AVE)
CEC	0.788	0.803	0.861	0.609
ENP	0.801	0.799	0.883	0.717
GIN	0.746	0.724	0.842	0.535
GPR	0.850	0.951	0.893	0.678
IEM	0.859	0.869	0.899	0.641
TQM	0.889	0.906	0.923	0.750

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 2. Fornell-Larcker criterion.

	CEC	ENP	GIN	GPR	IEM	TQM
CEC	0.780
ENP	0.289	0.847
GIN	0.153	0.149	0.731
GPR	−0.165	−0.084	−0.719	0.823
IEM	0.447	0.349	0.292	−0.137	0.801
TQM	0.480	0.269	0.306	−0.172	0.608	0.866

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	CEC	ENP	GIN	GPR	IEM	TQM
CEC	–
ENP	0.348
GIN	0.204	0.176
GPR	0.219	0.093	0.316
IEM	0.526	0.412	0.359	0.195
TQM	0.568	0.309	0.376	0.206	0.693	–

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 2. Measurement model output. Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management, Items entitled GPR5, GPR6, TQM5, ENP4, and ENP5 were deleted because of lower factor loadings. Source: Author’s own.

Table 4. Inner VIF values.

Variables	ENP
CEC	1.400
ENP	–
GIN	2.319
GPR	2.143
IEM	1.726
TQM	1.791

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 5. Direction relationships.

Hypotheses	Directions	Original sample	Standard deviation	T statistics	P-values
H1	CEC -> ENP	0.160	0.055	2.909	0.004
H2	GPR -> ENP	0.260	0.081	3.209	0.000
H3	GIN -> ENP	0.631	0.078	8.089	0.000
H4	TQM -> ENP	0.028	0.055	0.510	0.610
H5	IEM -> ENP	0.245	0.057	4.307	0.000

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 3. Direction relationships between the variables. Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management. Source: Author’s own.

Table 6. Moderating effect of IEM.

Hypotheses	Relationship	Original sample	SD	T statistics	P values
H6	CEC*IEM -> ENP	0.330	0.05	6.6	0.000
H7	GPR*IEM -> ENP	−0.038	0.064	0.59	0.555
H8	GIN*IEM -> ENP	0.007	0.065	0.107	0.915
H9	TQM*IEM -> ENP	0.22	0.063	3.492063	0.000

Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 4. Structural model output. Note: CEC: Cooperation with customers, ENP: environmental performance, GIN: green innovation, GPR: green procurement, IEM: internal environmental management, TQM: total quality management. Source: Author’s own.