The effect of managerial intention and initiative on green supply chain management adoption in Indonesian manufacturing performance

Figures & data

Figure 2. Final structural model partial least squares (PLS).

Table 1. GrSCM literature using the theory of planned behavior/reasoned action

Discipline	Authors	Research
	Hawkins, Gravier, and Wittmann (2010)	Enhancing reverse auction use theory: an exploratory study
	Cantamessa, Montagna, and Neirotti (2012)	Understanding the organizational impact of PLM systems: evidence from an aerospace company
	Rutner, Aviles, and Cox (2012)	Sustainable logistics evolution: a comparison of military and commercial logistics thought
Sustainable supply chain management	Cordano and Frieze (2000)	Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior
	Montalvo (2003)	Sustainable production and consumption systems—cooperation for change: assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner technologies. The case of the in-bond industry in Northern Mexico
	Sarkar and Young (2009)	Managerial attitudes towards green IT: an explorative study of policy drivers
	Zhang et al. (2013)	Enterprises’ willingness to adopt/develop cleaner production technologies: an empirical study in Changshu, China

Figure 1. Framework and hypotheses.

Table 2. Statistic descriptive

Var	Indicator items	Descriptive statistics
		Sum	N	Mean	Std. dev	St. dev/mean
Initiative (x1)	Rules	2	102	3.82	0.88	23.1%
	Marketing	3	102	3.97	0.80	20.1%
	Supplier	6	102	3.75	0.84	22.51%
	Competitor/society	3	102	3.72	0.95	25.7%
GSCM practice (y2)	Environmental management	7	102	4.04	0.79	19.5%
	Purchasing	5	102	3.71	0.85	22.8%
	Cooperation	4	102	3.68	0.73	19.8%
	Investment return	3	102	3.67	0.86	23.4%
	Eco design	4	102	4.00	0.74	18.4%
Performance (y)	Environmental performance	5	102	4.07	0.74	18.3%
	Operational performance	6	102	3.69	0.93	25.3%
	Financial performance	8	102	3.39	0.95	28.0%
Trust (x5)	Value sharing	3	102	3.35	0.75	22.3%
	Communication	3	102	3.16	0.81	25.6%
	Opportunistic behavior	3	102	2.31	0.70	30.5%
Intention behavior (y1)	Attitude	3	102	4.97	0.92	18.4%
	Subjective norm	4	102	5.00	0.88	17.7%
	Control behavior	7	102	4.84	0.92	19.0%
	Initiative behavior	3	102	4.90	1.02	20.7%

Table 3. Reliability test

Latent variables	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha	Remark
Attitude (x2)	0.951	0.922	Reliable
Subjective norm (x3)	0.936	0.908	Reliable
Behavior control (x4)	0.962	0.954	Reliable
Behavior intention (y1)	0.976	0.963	Reliable
GrSCM application (y2)	0.960	0.954	Reliable
Initiative (x1)	0.957	0.949	Reliable
Trust (x5)	0.934	0.920	Reliable
Performance (y)	0.959	0.955	Reliable
Moderation #1 (initiative—intention)	1.000	1.00	Reliable
Moderation #1 (trust—GrSCM application)	1.000	1.00	Reliable

Table 4. Final outer loading testVariable latent

	Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s alpha	AVE	Remark
Attitude (X2)	0.951	0.922	0.865	Valid and reliable
Subjective norm (X3)	0.936	0.908	0.785	Valid and reliable
Behavior control (X4)	0.962	0.954	0.784	Valid and reliable
Behavior intention (y1)	0.976	0.963	0.931	Valid and reliable
GrSCM application (y2)	0.963	0.959	0.534	Valid and reliable
Initiative (X1)	0.951	0.944	0.587	Valid and reliable
Trust (X5)	0.935	0.92	0.704	Valid and reliable
Performance (Y)	0.955	0.95	0.547	Valid and reliable
Moderation #1 (initiative—intention)	1.000	1.000	1.000	Valid and reliable
Moderation #2 (trust— GrSCM)	1.000	1.000	1.000	Valid and reliable

Table 5. R² value

Latent variables	R^2	T-stat. (IO/STERR)	P-value
Behavior intention (y1)	0.75	14.584	0.00
GrSCM application (y2)	0.529	5.721	0.00
Performance (y)	0.511	6.782	0.00

Table 6. Path coefficient

Variables	Original sample	Standard error	tvalue	p-value
Trust (x5)®performance (y)	0.014	0.088	0.163	0.870
GrSCM application (y2) performance (y)	0.695	0.067	10.393	0.000
Moderation #1 (behavior intention—GrSCM application)	0.050	0.096	0.517	0.605
Moderation #2 (trust—performance)	0.117	0.066	10,769	0.077
Intention (y1)®GrSCM application (y2)	0.134	0.107	1.245	0.213
Initiative (x1)® GrSCM application (y2)	0.659	0.105	6.276	0.000
Behavior control (x4)®intention (y1)	0.576	0.177	3.252	0.001
Subjective norm (x3)®intention (y1)	0.132	0.168	0.785	0.433
Attitude (x2)®intention (y1)	0.209	0.151	1.383	0.167

Hawkins, T. G., Gravier, M. J., & Wittmann, C. M. (2010). Enhancing reverse auction use theory: An exploratory study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15, 21–42. doi:10.1108/13598541011018102

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cantamessa, M., Montagna, F., & Neirotti, P. (2012). Understanding the organizational impact of PLM systems: Evidence from an aerospace company. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 191–215. doi:10.1108/01443571211208623

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rutner, S. M., Aviles, M., & Cox, S. (2012). Logistics evolution: A comparison of military and commercial logistics thought. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 23, 96–118. doi:10.1108/09574091211226948

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 627–641.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Montalvo, C. C. (2003). Sustainable production and consumption systems—Cooperation for change: Assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner technologies. The case of the In-Bond industry in northern Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 411–426. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00063-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkar, P., & Young, L. (2009). Managerial attitudes towards Green IT: An explorative study of policy drivers. PACIS 2009 Proceedings, Hyderabad, India, pp. 95.

 Google Scholar

Zhang, B., Yang, S., & Bi, J. (2013). Enterprises’ willingness to adopt/develop cleaner production technologies: An empirical study in Changshu, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 62–70. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar