Modelling the implications of sustainable supply chain management practises on firm performance: the mediating role of green performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework.

Table 1. Name of constructs, sources and measurement scales.

Constructs	Number of items	Measurement scale	Sources of the instruments
Green purchasing	7 items	5-point Likert-type	Abu Seman et al. (2019)
Reserve logistic	4 items	5-point Likert-type	Abu Seman et al. (2019)
Environmental corporation			Abu Seman et al. (2019)
Internal environmental management	9 items	5-point Likert-type	Abu Seman et al. (2019)
Green performance	6 items	5-point Likert-type	Singh et al. (2023), Muisyo and Qin (2021)
Firm performance	5 items	5-point Likert-type	Wagner et al. (2012), Prayag et al. (2018)

Source: Authors’ Compilation.

Figure 2. Items loading and R-square values.

Table 2. EFA on SSCM practices, green performance and FPs.

	Factor loading	Mean ± SD
Green corporation
ES1	0.904	4.49 ± 0.51
ES2	0.918	4.52 ± 0.51
ES3	0.959	4.55 ± 0.51
Composite score		4.52 ± 0.51
Eigenvalue	7.773
% of variance	86.370
Cronbach’s alpha	0.980
KMO = 0.914; χ^2 = 2514.101; df = 36; p value = 0.000
Reverse logistics
SS1	0.964	4.48 ± 0.52
SS2	0.868	4.50 ± 0.52
SS3	0.855	4.50 ± 0.52
SS4	0.968	4.46 ± 0.52
Composite score		4.48 ± 0.49
Eigenvalue	5.710
% of variance	81.570
Cronbach alpha	0.961
KMO = 0.920; χ^2 = 1507.907; df = 21; p value = 0.000
Environmental corporation
ENS1	0.950	4.32 ± 0.59
ENS2	0.936	4.44 ± 0.61
ENS3	0.906	4.30 ± 0.58
ENS4	0.940	4.38 ± 0.61
Composite score		4.36 ± 0.60
Eigenvalue	3.485
% of variance	87.121
Cronbach alpha	0.951
KMO = 0.749; χ^2= 680.352; df = 6; p value = 0.000
Internal environmental management
IEM1	0.900	4.54 ± 0.51
IEM2	0.916	4.50 ± 0.51
IEM3	0.950	4.58 ± 0.50
IEM4	0.967	4.57 ± 0.50
Composite score		4.54 ± 0.50
Eigenvalue
% of variance
Cronbach alpha
KMO = 845; χ^2=556.226; df=6; p value = 0.000
Firm performance
FP1	0.877	4.64 ± 0.48
FP2	0.901	4.61 ± 0.48
FP3	0.916	4.62 ± 0.48
FP4	0.929	4.58 ± 0.49
FP5	0.854	4.54 ± 0.49
FP6	0.915	4.50 ± 0.51
Composite score		4.58 ± 0.48
Eigenvalue	4.012
% of variance	80.235
Cronbach alpha	0.938
KMO = 0.835; χ^2= 709.668; df = 10; p value = 0.000
Green performance
GP1	0.785	4.58 ± 0.49
GP2	0.957	4.62 ± 0.48
GP3	0.966	4.60 ± 0.49
GP4	0.927	4.63 ± 0.48
GP5	0.900	4.56 ± 0.49
GP6	0.878	4.53 ± 0.50
Composite score		4.59 ± 0.49
Eigenvalue	4.907
% of variance	81.790
Cronbach alpha	0.954
KMO = 0.798; χ^2 = 1374.709; df = 15; p value = 0.000

Table 3. Convergent validity.

	Cronbach’s alpha	rho_A	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
Environmental corporation	0.903	0.904	0.932	0.774
Firm performance	0.946	0.947	0.957	0.788
Green performance	0.937	0.938	0.950	0.761
Green purchasing	0.841	0.845	0.904	0.759
Internal environmental management	0.897	0.909	0.928	0.763
Reserve logistic	0.900	0.901	0.931	0.770

Table 4. Discriminant validity Fornell–Larcker criterion.

	AVEs	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. EC	0.774	0.880	–	–	–	–	–
2. FP	0.788	0.822	0.888	–	–	–	–
3. GP	0.761	0.947	0.819	0.872	–	–	–
4. GP	0.759	0.935	0.805	0.994	0.871	–	–
5. IEM	0.763	0.822	0.792	0.863	0.862	0.874	–
6. RL	0.770	0.936	0.811	0.986	0.976	0.839	0.878

Note: Square root of average variance extraction (AVE) shown on diagonal in italic. EC: environmental Corporation; FP: firm performance; GP: green performance; GP: green purchasing; IEM: internal environmental management; RL: reserve logistic

Table 5. HTMR criterion.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. EC	–	–	–	–	–	–
2. FP	0.788	–	–	–	–	–
3. GP	0.028	0.767	–	–	–	–
4. GP	0.073	0.700	0.119	–	–	–
5. IEM	0.799	0.752	0.625	0.677	–	–
6. RL	0.036	0.776	0.073	0.118	0.619

EC: environmental corporation; FP: firm performance; GP: green performance; GP: green purchasing; IEM: internal environmental management; RL: reserve logistic

Table 6. Multicollinearity assessment using VIF test.

Constructs	Number of items	Composite VIF scores
Social sustainability	7 items	1.03
Environmental sustainability	4 items	3.45
Economic sustainability	9 items	2.51
Green performance	6 items	3.55
Performance	5 items	2.75

Source: Authors’ Compilation.

Table 7. Path coefficients and hypothesis testing.

Hypothesised path	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values	Hypotheses testing
EC -> GP	0.062	0.061	0.018	3.507	0.000	Supported
GP -> FP	0.819	0.819	0.034	24.260	0.000	Supported
GP -> GP	0.586	0.589	0.047	12.447	0.000	Supported
IEM -> GP	0.075	0.074	0.020	3.793	0.000	Supported
RL -> GP	0.288	0.286	0.038	7.589	0.000	Supported
RL -> GP -> FP	0.236	0.235	0.034	6.860	0.000	Supported
IEM -> GP -> FP	0.061	0.061	0.016	3.831	0.000	Supported
GP -> GP -> FP	0.479	0.482	0.041	11.759	0.000	Supported
EC -> GP -> FP	0.051	0.050	0.015	3.395	0.001	Supported

EC: environmental corporation; FP: firm performance; GP: green performance; GP: green purchasing; IEM: internal environmental management; RL: reserve logistic

Table 8. Construct crossvalidated redundancy (Q² (=1-SSE/SSO), R-square (R²) and adjusted R-square.

	SSO	SSE	Q² (=1-SSE/SSO)	R-square (R^2)	R^2 adjusted
Environmental corporation	740.000	740.000
Firm performance	1110.000	533.674	0.519	0.670	0.668
Green performance	1110.000	280.403	0.747	0.994	0.994
Green purchasing	555.000	555.000
Internal environmental management	740.000	740.000
Reserve logistic	740.000	740.000

Figure 3. Path efficients.

Abu Seman, N. A., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zakuan, N., Mat Saman, M. Z., Hooker, R. E., & Ozkul, S. (2019). The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain management and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.211

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singh, A. K., Raza, S. A., Nakonieczny, J., Shahzad, U., & Anu. (2023). Role of financial inclusion, green innovation, and energy efficiency for environmental performance? Evidence from developed and emerging economies in the lens of sustainable development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 64(18), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.12.008

 Google Scholar

Muisyo, P. K., & Qin, S. (2021). Enhancing the FIRM’S green performance through green HRM: The moderating role of green innovation culture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289(2021), Article 125720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125720

 Google Scholar

Wagner, S. M., Grosse-Ruyken, T. P., & Erhun, F. (2012). The link between supply chain fit and financial performance of the firm. Journal of Operations Management, 30(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.01.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prayag, G., Chowdhury, M., Spector, S., & Orchiston, C. (2018). Organizational resilience and financial performance. Annals of Tourism Research, 73, 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.06.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Authors agree to make data and materials supporting the results or analyses presented in their article available upon reasonable request.

Construct crossvalidated redundancy (Q²) and quality criteria (R²).